There is a big problem with this, though: no matter how well you write, how many boost hoops you jump through, you still stand a good chance of being overlooked. Even if it's a pub that's boosted you before, and the article has a similar structure, the same tone, and a related (not not repeated) theme.

I've given up doing that. Stuff I felt was nailed on got disregarded and ended up with a couple of dozen reads; weaker stuff unexpectedly got the nod and racked up several hundred (reads, not dollars).

These days I just write what I feel like (and started my own pub as a sideline to keep my interest up). Follower growth (for what it's worth, which ain't all that much) is helped by boosts, but also seems fairly organic. Subscribers are worth more, and a boosted piece often picks up one or two of those, but the gains are marginal.

The earnings multiplier is the big factor - especially if an FoM reads and engages with a boosted article, and follows you as a result - I've seen that rack up $5 or $6 for a single read, though that was in the early days of FoM when they still had their sums screwed up.

But none of my boostees has really taken off - they've got their 500 views, sometimes nearly 1000, and generated 40-90 bucks each. Though the last two fell flat and barely made 20.

Is this diminishing returns as more pieces get thrown in the mix? Have they further nerfed the multiplier after the initial adjustment(s)?

Will they completely change the formula again in 2024, and maybe even abandon the Boost Pilot as they realise the numbers (and negative PR impact) just don't work out?

All this and more will be revealed in the next thrilling episode of Medium Weird!

Thanks as ever for the deep dive and research on this Robin - it's always hugely valuable to be able to compare personal experience against other writers' feelings and numbers.