Yeah, I think the onus should be on the platform to make 'following pubs' a meaningful action that actually informs and engages users. That would be consistent with their (implicit) aim to foster a constellation (check out my management/marketing bullshit language!) of smaller, specialist pubs with a direct relationship with their readers and writers. I feel really bad when a new writer joins my pub, and their first post gets hardly any views, because they have few followers themselves yet (for what that's worth anyway).

They are likely to feel 'this pub's rubbish - I won't post here again'. With a little help from the platform algo/options, they could pick up some views from pub followers who by definition are likely to have an interest in what they have to say. Which would fire their enthusiasm, and build a bond with the pub and its readership. I feel there are underlying mechanics that haven't caught up with the editorial pivot implied by the Boost Pilot roll-out.

And Oscar's piece wasn't picked for a boost? Seriously? I actually sent a query in to Curation via the help form yesterday about drug use content. They are fairly clear about sex, swearing, violence, but I can't find any guidance about drugs, so have asked for clarification, as there's a piece I would like to nom, but which contains a fair amount of spliff-smoking. Would they be scared of boosting that, I wonder? Hopefully they will reply next week, and maybe Terrie could even post a new update on that aspect of content policy.