# Summary

Publishing directly on Medium or within non-boosting publications may increase the chances of a story getting boosted.

# Abstract

The article suggests that authors on Medium who are seeking to have their stories boosted may fare better by self-publishing or placing their work in non-boosting publications. This counterintuitive approach is based on the insight that boost nominators, who are required to meet a certain quota of boosted stories, often look outside their own publications for content. If a story is placed within a boosting publication, it may be overlooked by other nominators under the assumption that the host publication will boost it. Medium's guidelines to nominators to avoid each other's turf further reduce the likelihood of multiple nominations for the same story. The author reflects on their own experience, realizing that submitting to large boosting publications where the work might not be read by nominators could be less effective than self-publishing, which opens the story to a wider audience of potential nominators, including staff.

# Opinions

- The author believes that the current system for story boosts on Medium has design flaws, particularly in the lack of transparency regarding which stories have already been nominated or boosted.
- There is a perception that boost nominators tend to nominate the same successful writers repeatedly, which the author suggests creates an imbalance in the platform's reward system.
- The author argues for a more equitable system where clearer guidelines are provided and all writers have a fair chance of getting their best work boosted.
- The author suggests that writing topical stories, offering unique angles or personal content, and providing valuable takeaways for readers can improve the chances of a story being boosted.

You Might Get More Boosts if You Self-Publish

Here’s why…

If you want a Medium boost, you might do better to ditch the boost publications and focus on those that don’t have boost powers. Or even self-publish your own stories.

This might seem counter-intuitive, and indeed, I thought that too, right up until yesterday morning. I learned something remarkable that day…

A brand new nominator gave me some insight: Any boost nominators who don’t feel able to fulfil their quota of boosted stories from within their own publications, will be looking elsewhere for stories to nominate.

However, if you’ve placed your story within another boosting publication, that theoretically takes your story off the table. They may not nominate it because they’re leaving it for the host publication to boost, should they wish to do so.

Medium has told nominators to “stay off each other’s turf” and refrain from nominating stories placed within other boosting publications. This is to reduce the likelihood of a story being nominated twice (or more).

So, if you’re submitting to a boost publication where you’re pretty confident that the nominator doesn’t read your writing, it might be better to self-publish your piece than to hope for a change in their approach.

Then boost nominators perusing the wider platform won’t pass on your story because it’s in another boost publication. I guess this applies to staff boosters too.

Of my five boosted stories, three were placed in non-boosting publications. But stupidly, I’ve spent the past year sending my best work to large boosting publications where often, the nominators don’t appear to read it.

I was under the impression that my occasional boosts came from Medium staffers. However, I didn’t realise that by publishing within boost publications, I was reducing the likelihood that they’ll boost me again!

So, if publishing within a boost publication means you are limiting your reach, hoping the head of that publication will notice, and they don’t, it might be better to self-publish. Then anyone with nominating powers can try to boost it.

Why can’t Medium just label stories as ‘boosted’ or ‘nominated’, so that nominators can see what’s going on, and avoid duplication? How hard can that be?

I’m feeling there are some serious design flaws in the system. The person who told me this also confirmed that boosters are nominating the same writers over and over again because they’re repeatedly successful in meeting the criteria.

This makes sense and is consistent with what I’ve seen. After all, the nominators need to be successful in order to keep their boosting powers. I’d be tempted to do the same thing if it delivered the results I wanted. But it means the system is skewed towards rewarding the few over the many. Again.

It doesn’t feel like a level playing field. Wouldn’t writing clearer guidelines and giving everyone a chance to nominate their best work help level it out?

I’m starting to get a sense of things that will improve our chances:

Topical stories
Unique angles or unique stories
Some personal content
A valuable takeaway by the reader, whose learnt something new.