An Honest Conversation about Medium's Boost

Two differing perspectives that will help you develop your own strategy for the platform

Hello Everyone,

I find it very useful to field questions from readers about writing, Medium, and the Boost program. Readers often formulate their questions in a way that provides a lot of insight into how the writing community perceives things.

Today, I’ll be having a “digital conversation” with

Alberto Cabas Vidani

. We left questions on a shared Google doc and took turns answering to create this article. Alberto is active and successful on both Medium and Substack. I’ve given him feedback on a couple of articles, and I know he’s received several Boosts.

Above all, if you’re going to be successful as a writer, I believe it’s important to develop good working relationships with other writers. Sometimes a new perspective helps give you the insight you need that will make all the difference in your work.

In this article, Alberto will offer his observations on Boost and I’ll provide feedback based on my experience. I’ve placed Alberto’s thoughts in block quotes except for the bullet point lists which won’t take the block quotes format. I’ve introduced my responses with a header.

Let’s have Alberto introduce himself.

Meet Alberto Cabas Vidani

I live in a tiny town in North-Eastern Italy, close to the Slovenian border. And before you get jealous, no, it’s not the typical postcard location. There are no architectural marvels or sinuous hills in sight.

In my early twenties, I dreamed of becoming a computer science researcher and university professor. Then I got my PhD. It showed me I didn’t fit in the academic environment. I didn’t fit under a boss for starters. 

So, in October 2010 I launched my photography blog. I’ve been running content-based online businesses since then. 

In 2022 I started publishing in English on Medium. Few of my articles talk about self-improvement, but most of them draw from my long experience creating content and running online businesses. 

Since the launch of Boost, I studied every best practice and talked to authors and editors about what makes an article Boost-worthy. Here are the major tips I received and how they worked.

Alberto says, “Get to know nominators”

Initially, I was submitting my drafts to the largest publications fitting the topic. I just hoped some nominator noticed my masterpieces. 😉

But it was an obscure process. I was informed only when an article got Boosted. No one recommended possible fixes to improve my writing. No one told me when an article got nominated.

Then, thanks to Walter’s advice, I looked for nominators who were also editors of smaller publications. It’s been extremely hard to find someone covering my topics. In 2024, I finally started working with two of them. They reviewed 8 articles in total, if I remember correctly.

The experience with the two editors was totally different. One nominated all the articles I sent without changes. The other asked for very time-consuming edits (like looking for reputable sources, adding quotes, finding personal photos from my past…)

The results were mixed. Here are the pros:

• I knew when an article got nominated,

• I learned new criteria that can make an article more Boost-worthy,

• I learned the behind the scenes of the editing process.

The cons:

• Only 2 articles were Boosted, one per nominator, basically the same success rate I had working by myself,

• I still don’t know why articles get rejected, because the nominators don’t know either,

• all the additional work required by one of the nominators didn’t bring results.

Response from Walter Rhein

Getting to know the nominators is critical. Off the top of my head, I can think of about 10 nominators that I work with regularly. The thing you have to remember is that most nominators also work another job, and if they’re swamped by work in any given month, they might not be as available as normal.

I love that you pointed out that some nominators ask for changes and others publish articles as they are. There’s no “right” way to do it. Also, there are times when a nominator has rejected one of my stories not because of the quality, but because it didn’t fit in with the theme of the publication. Often, those articles have gone on to be Boosted elsewhere.

The more you can take guesswork out of the equation, the better. I prefer when nominators tell me when an article has been nominated, and whether it’s rejected. If I get the “Congratulations!” email, then there’s no mystery. But if I don’t, I’m left with the question of whether the article was even nominated.

I think the items in your “cons” list are worth further consideration. 

• This is an ongoing process. Your success rate should continue to increase as you stick to your plan

• Unfortunately, the curators don’t provide feedback on rejections, we’re all working on our best guess there

• The extra work you get from one of the nominators is a good thing. That’s the closest thing you’ll get to feedback.

Alberto says, “With the Boost, quality wins over quantity”

Boost enthusiasts constantly celebrate the fact that with the Boost quality wins over quantity. I disagree.

First, I talked with several authors who received dozens of Boosts. They agree it’s almost impossible to predict when a nomination will be accepted. And even when an article gets Boosted, high views and earnings aren’t guaranteed. This randomness forces them to publish multiple times per week. 

It’s been my experience, too. I bet on quality with a few articles, spending over 10 hours on each one. Only a couple got Boosted and received decent views and earnings. The others remained almost invisible.

Second, if you don’t keep a tight publication cadence, the algorithm “forgets” about you. So, all the non-Boosted articles are just wasted. Even the ones that got nominated and rejected.

Response from Walter Rhein

I think the “quality over quantity” observation has its merits. Since Boost has been implemented, I’ve gone from 30+ articles a month to usually 20 or fewer. If you publish 4 Boosted articles, you’re likely to make more than if you publish 10 articles that don’t get a boost.

I do find that I go through what I call “slow patches” every month. There are always a few stories I submit which don’t get a Boost. Perhaps the “random” element is really just the difference of opinion you find in human curators.

I’m looking at Medium from the perspective of a person who publishes 20 articles a month. Perhaps the system “appears” more random to somebody who only publishes 5. I would think that the more shots you take, the more often you hit the target (assuming you maintain good practices).

I don’t know what the “ideal” number of submissions per month would be. 20 works well for me. I think that if you get under 10, every decision of every nominator and curator becomes more critical.

Alberto says, “Expertise is rewarded”

Five questions guide the nomination process. One of them is: Does the author speak from relevant knowledge and experience?

Medium’s CEO mentioned on multiple occasions that Medium rewards any expertise. Even a parent of a one-year-old is an expert in “parenting one-year-olds”. This has not been my experience. 

Both nominators I worked with told me they noticed a prejudice of the curators against topics around the creator economy (the curators are the Medium employees responsible for accepting or rejecting nominations). Unfortunately, this is exactly my expertise, and the topic I want to build an audience around. 

The multiple rejections my articles received seem to confirm this suspect. Now, the nominators aren’t skeptical of every draft I send them about that topic. So, in my experience, only some expertise is rewarded. Even when you follow all the guidelines to a T.

Response from Walter Rhein

This is an interesting observation. I still feel that there is a place for “growth” type articles, and general writing advice. I think the critical thing is understanding the expectations of the platform.

Once an article starts to sound too much like a generic “how I made a bazillion dollars” article, Medium loses interest. When you manage to take the seed of an idea and you turn it into a thoughtful narrative, you greatly increase your chances of getting Boosted.

I guess I’m not sure what you mean about “creators” here. This might be an opportunity to create your own publication and grow a niche. You might consider making it an objective to become a Boost nominator and pursuing a strategy that will take you there.

Alberto says, “Headlines remain important”

I heard (in disbelief, I must say) a nominator say she loved to nominate strong articles with weak headlines. She wanted to give a chance to writers who didn’t prioritize marketing. 

I’ve actually seen many Boosted articles with weak, generic headlines. It seems curators don’t give much importance to this aspect.

But without a good headline, you probably waste the Boost bonus. Why?

The Boost tells Medium’s algorithm to amplify the initial reach of an article. But with a weak headline, the article gets fewer clicks. So, the algorithm stops promoting it early.

Response from Walter Rhein

Yes, I don’t think a bad headline by itself will disqualify your story from getting Boosted. But you have to keep in mind that Boost is not the ultimate objective. Boost is just an advantage on the way to achieving success.

A story that gets a Boost and that also has a great headline will do better than a story with just a good headline or just a Boost. There are many things you have to consider to get the most out of your work.

Alberto says, “Always include personal stories and expertise”

Personal stories win on every platform nowadays. Boost nominators and curators especially love them. 

Basically, an article without at least a tiny personal anecdote won’t ever get Boosted. Even if it’s a writing tutorial.

But remember that you may need just that: one or more tiny anecdotes that prove your expertise, show your authenticity and engage the readers. You don’t need a spectacular “how I beat cancer with lucid dreaming” story.

Response from Walter Rhein

Stories about failure are excellent if you learn a valuable lesson from them. The “personal narrative” element of Medium’s expectations is where your storytelling ability needs to shine.

You need to employ basic narrative strategies. Make people NEED to read your work.

Alberto says, “Smaller publications have advantages”

Since the introduction of publications on Medium, the optimal strategy for any author has been to submit their articles to the largest publication possible, to reach the largest audience available. The Boost changed this. 

There are large Boost-enabled publications. But they usually receive at least dozens of submissions per week. As a consequence, editors don’t have the time to give accurate feedback. And the review process can take more than a week. 

Response from Walter Rhein

Medium supports smaller, niche-based publications. If you find the ones that best suit you, you can collaborate with their editors to improve your articles. 

There’s a lot of different niches on Medium. Find the one that works the best for you! I love the diversity of the platform

Alberto says, “Should you write for the Boost?”

I keep thinking about the best strategy for Medium. From what I see, if you want views and earnings, you have two choices:

• ignore the Boost, spend a couple hours at most on each article, focus on one of the most popular topics and publish almost daily,

• write for the Boost, publish at least twice per week, spend 3+ hours on each article.

I don’t have the bandwidth for the former, so I chose the latter. But for now results have been too random. 

My main mistake has been to spend too long on every article, thus publishing too few articles. The size of my sample is too small. 

So, if I want to continue publishing and hoping to grow my readership, I’ll have to limit the number of hours spent on every article. I think I also have to tweak the topics a little. If I want to stay within my area of expertise, I may have to talk more about writers, instead of creators, and/or in general about the craft instead of the platforms.

Response from Walter Rhein

I think chasing the Boost requires a fluid perspective. This is a creative pursuit, it’s not science. That being said, there are good practices you can employ to improve your chances.

I’m just like anyone else, I get annoyed if something of mine isn’t Boosted. But once my emotional response wears off I’m able to see it with greater reason. It’s not realistic to expect a 100% Boost rate. 

There is a bit of randomness, but I don’t think randomness “rules.” The differences of opinion settle out when you achieve a certain minimal level of monthly submissions.

I’d say you need a “personal element” but the article still has to contain a good lesson or takeaway in order to be Boosted, and it has to follow the appropriate format in order to succeed.

The topics question is also a bit confusing. I think there are a few topics that are tired from overexposure, but they’re not disqualifying.  You just have to figure out a way to approach those topics in a way that’s new and insightful.

My takeaway from this conversation is that it’s important to be consistent on Medium and submit enough articles to counteract the “randomness” factor of Boost.

Here’s a link to Alberto’s Substack.

My CoSchedule referral link

Here’s my referral link to my preferred headline analyzer tool. If you sign up through this, it’s another way to support this newsletter (thank you).