Which is, as you say, a nice thing to do.

But is a totally perverse side-effect of Medium's cack-handed attempts to paramaterise what 'engagement' means.

For one thing we have other writers' random highlights, by which we now game the system on each other's behalf (although I have always tended to highlight something in articles I enjoyed even in part, since by definition there must be some point or turn of phrase that chimes with you if you enjoyed the piece, and that is always worth pointing out).

And presumably they will now have to change their ill-conceived algorithm to account for that exploit, once they have their Homeric 'D'oh!' moment.

But then, if a reader highlights a sentence and comments 'This is complete crap - the worst article I've ever read'. Or simply 'Bollocks!', that will count as having been more engaging than if someone reads it, finds it indifferent or moderately OK, and says nothing. They might even say nothing even if they loved it, simply because they choose not to interact with online articles that way, or are unaccustomed to the practice.

The outcome of all this doesn't strike me as particularly logical or fair.