My reply was rather a reply to yours where you seemed to say that the Boost doesn't depend on a subset of humans, when it does since all people involved are humans.

I'm not against having human curation. I agree the human element is important and part of Medium's attractiveness.

What frustrates me about the Boost program is that it has been (almost?) 10 months where 50/100 people have been making $45 a boost when boosted stories don't always earn that much. It's surprising to me that it's not a % with a cap. I think 45 is way too high.

And the testing aspect of the program is way too long. It's killing publications without boosting powers because everybody's going to the pub with boosting powers - logically.

And another thing (corrected) is that they were paying a boost on top of the boost. Look at Zulie's example. 20 times more views and only 2 times more money? That's a joke IMO.

Regarding numbers telling a good story, I know enough about manipulating data (https://medium.com/brain-labs/how-to-manipulate-data-534b50a64c04) to not trust any general number that someone shows me on a slide.

But I agree Medium's team knows better than me because they have access to more data.

We agree on the conclusion anyway. I also want Medium to be a successful platform. :)