Another Vivid Example of the Nonboost Penalty

The growing disparity on this platform

I won’t need to make much commentary on this follow-up to my earlier article about the nonboost penalty. The dates and numbers in the above screenshot speaks for itself about what has changed since the 1 August 2023 beginning of the current boost regime.

The top item is an article published this month. It was not boosted.

The second item is an article published before the implementation of the current regime. It was not boosted.

The third item is an article published after the implementation of the current regime. It was boosted.

In short, this month’s nonboosted article, despite over 11,000 member reads, 600 clappers, and 118 responses earned barely more money than the pre-regime article with fewer than half the member reads, one-third the number of clappers, and one fifth the number of responders.

If everything were fair and sensible, that article first on the list above would be the highest earning of the three, and by a large amount.

The problem isn’t just that an article not allowed to be boosted will make significantly less money than a boosted article. The problem is that an article not allowed to be boosted will make significantly less money than any article prior to the new boost regime. It’s the nonboost penalty that is shortchanging all writers and harming the future of this platform.

I think it’s wrong.