I think the content organisation and distribution model that Medium is pursuing for now is twofold:

1) Only Boosted stories will receive prominence, as the Pilot programme is further expanded, the Boosted will crowd out all else in the algorithm, if that hasn't already happened. Only if people use the 'Following' feed tab rather than 'For you' will their follows - of individuals and publications - make sense and have any influence on what they see.

'For you' = 'Boosted in a topic potentially of relevance to you'.

2) They want to see smaller, specialist publications with a closer editor-reader relationship. Awkward behemoths are out; agile bees are in.

I'm fine with (2) - small is beautiful in my book.

(1) is more problematic, given the inevitable inconsistencies and gaps in the nomination and approval process. The general distribution algorithm needs serious improvement. There have been some signs recently that it is getting better at keeping stories alive and getting them to the people that have shown they may have an interest, having engaged with the writer's stories or comments recently.

If that is true, and further refinements lie in wait, I'm fairly happy with the approach.

I would suggest - to you, Mike, and anyone - to set up a pub in a specific area of interest/expertise/experience, invite relevant writers you appreciate and admire to get on board, and apply for Boost Pilot membership.

That's what I did when feeling disillusioned, and it has worked out very well. I have 60 or so writers registered on my publication launched in February, about 90 stories published, and 20 or so boosted.

It feels good. I feel I have a relationship with the writers, and a focused sense of nascent community on the publication.

Rather than editing for someone else's large-scale, high-volume pub - with 80k followers who actually, as you say, mean almost nothing when it comes to distribution - I would suggest going it alone and pursuing your own passion, as writer and editor.

Good luck with it all!