# Medium's Unequal Expert Landscape: What You Need to Know
Written on
Understanding the Medium Landscape
Medium's CEO has expressed a vision for a platform that elevates experts sharing their insights. His definition of an expert is quite broad: anyone who has firsthand experience in a particular area. For instance, a parent with a one-year-old is considered an expert in parenting for that age group.
These statements initially instilled hope, suggesting a truly democratic writing platform devoid of phony experts looking to profit from their misleading narratives. However, as time has passed, I find myself disillusioned and frustrated.
The Boost System Explained
To incentivize genuine expertise, Medium introduced a feature called Boost. If you’re new to the platform, here’s a brief overview: after submitting an article, a Boost nominator—typically an editor of a publication—can nominate it. Then, a Medium employee, known as a curator, will either accept or reject the nomination.
Articles that receive a Boost enjoy significantly higher visibility and earnings compared to those that do not. Since September 2023, I have actively submitted pieces for Boost consideration. However, the outcomes have been perplexing; it’s nearly impossible to predict which articles will be Boosted.
In an effort to improve my chances, I’ve established connections with a few nominators. This seems to be the smartest strategy for navigating Medium today. Without these relationships, it remains unclear when your articles might be nominated, and nominators can offer valuable feedback on your work.
Unfortunately, despite these collaborations, my Boost odds haven’t improved. Nominators often can’t clarify the reasons behind rejections, which is disheartening. How can one refine their writing without constructive feedback? It raises questions when nominated articles receive fewer than 100 views, while Boosted pieces garner hundreds or even thousands.
A Frustrating Revelation
A recent frustration has emerged: nominators have indicated that it’s particularly challenging to secure Boosts for articles centered on the creator economy. Ironically, this happens to be my area of expertise, as I’ve been creating content across various platforms since 2010.
Initially, I assumed the nominators were misinformed—after all, they are only human. Perhaps they had simply encountered a string of unfortunate nominations related to the creator economy. I continued to invest time and effort into crafting articles aimed at assisting creators, often dedicating over 10 hours to each piece. While nominators approved my submissions, I only received a handful of Boosts.
The return on this investment feels unacceptable. I understand that I shouldn’t rely solely on Medium for income, but without the Boost, my work remains largely unseen.
Exploring Alternatives
I began sharing similar content on Substack and noticed a stark contrast in engagement: the views and comments I received were significantly higher. This led me to question whether I was in the wrong place entirely.
To explore further, I examined publications participating in the Boost program that covered my topics. I hoped their editors might provide more precise feedback. After reviewing a list of over 100 publications multiple times, it became apparent that Medium might not be the right fit for me.
I identified three relevant publications: one focused on marketers, which informed me they do not accept articles for creators (a clear warning sign), another aimed at creator educators where I had already published, and the last one solely for writers, which also wasn’t interested in creator content.
Conversely, numerous publications cover themes like culture, personal growth, tech, and mental health. It seems I’m not just addressing the wrong topics; I’m also targeting the wrong genres. Most publications lean towards personal essays and opinion pieces, while my focus is on practical tutorials.