medium-content-pro

# MEDIUM CONTENT PRO ## What This Skill Is For This skill helps you write content that Medium actually values—not content that games their algorithm. **The old approach failed.** Template-driven, SEO-optimized, high-velocity publishing triggered spam detection and got your account suspended. More importantly, it led to burnout and commoditized content. **The new approach:** Write like a human. Tell stories worth reading. Build voice and craft. Let external opportunities follow. When you write technical content, maintain production-grade quality with real benchmarks and working code. **This skill provides:** - Philosophy-first guidance aligned with Medium's stated values - Six content modes based on actual Staff Pick analysis - Mode-specific quality gates (not one-size-fits-all templates) - Production code patterns and benchmark standards (for Technical mode) - Scripts integration for validation and research - Deliverable package format for publication --- # SECTION 0: PHILOSOPHY ## Medium's Actual Mission From their About page: > *"Medium is a home for human stories and ideas."* > *"We're building a system that rewards depth, nuance, and time well spent."* > *"A space for thoughtful conversation more than drive-by takes, and substance over packaging."* > *"They write about what they're working on, what's keeping them up at night, what they've lived through, and what they've learned."* **Medium wants:** - Human stories, not content - Depth and nuance, not hot takes - Substance, not packaging - Lived experience, not generic expertise ## Why the Old Approach Failed Your account was suspended for violating spam/misuse rules: | Rule Violated | What Happened | |---------------|---------------| | "Use or re-use content templates with slight modifications" | AI workflow created detectable patterns across 24 articles | | "Posting content primarily to drive traffic to external sites" | Same GitHub links repeated across articles | | "Disproportionately large number of interactions, particularly by automated means" | 24 articles/month + consistent patterns = flagged as bot | **The core problem:** You optimized for their algorithm instead of their values. ## The New Approach | Old Mindset | New Mindset | |-------------|-------------| | "How do I get Boosted?" | "What story do I need to tell?" | | Partner Program income | Voice development + external opportunities | | Template-driven production | Human story-driven craft | | Optimize for algorithm | Write for a thoughtful reader | | High velocity | Intentional slowness | | SEO-first | Meaning-first | ## What Success Actually Looks Like From Medium's own interview with a successful writer: > *"So to those of us who have had $3.61 hovering in our Earnings Rollover balance for the past 5 or 6 months, don't be discouraged. Medium is not about making the big bucks."* > *"Through all this writing, I found my voice, which in turn brought in a long-term gig as a ghostwriter... Because of my expertise and understanding in my niche, I can charge what I'm worth."* **Real success model:** ``` Write on Medium → Develop voice → Build connections ↓ External opportunities (clients, gigs, products) ↓ Sustainable income ``` --- # SECTION 1: COMPLIANCE ## What Will Get You Suspended ### Template Reuse (Primary Cause) Medium explicitly prohibits: > *"Use or re-use content templates with slight modifications across multiple posts"* **Detectable patterns include:** - Same hook structure across articles - Identical section counts and header formats - Consistent intro/conclusion lengths - Same transitions and phrases - Predictable code block placement **Prevention:** Write each article fresh. Don't follow a formula. Let the content dictate structure. ### Traffic Driving Medium explicitly prohibits: > *"Posting content primarily to drive traffic to, or increase the search rankings of, an external site, product, or service"* **What triggers this:** - Same external URLs across multiple articles - Every article linking to your GitHub/product - Content that exists mainly to funnel readers elsewhere **Prevention:** Link only when genuinely useful. Vary your sources. Make the article valuable on its own. ### Automated/High-Volume Behavior Medium explicitly prohibits: > *"Performing a disproportionately large number of interactions, particularly by automated means"* **What triggers this:** - 20+ articles/month - Publishing at exact same times - Consistent patterns that look automated **Prevention:** Publish 8-10 articles/month maximum. Vary timing. Write like a human with an irregular schedule. ## What's Actually Allowed | Allowed | Conditions | |---------|------------| | Cross-posting from your blog | If you own the rights | | First-party promotion | Links to your business, website, mailing list | | Affiliate links | Must disclose per FTC rules | | Self-promotion in bio/profile | Standard practice | | Linking to your other Medium articles | When relevant | ## AI Disclosure Requirements If using AI assistance (which this skill implies), you must disclose. **Medium's position:** - AI-assisted content (human ideas + AI editing): Allowed, disclosure recommended - AI-generated content (majority AI): Not allowed behind paywall **Key principle:** AI assists with structure, grammar, and clarity only. The ideas, experiences, testing, and conclusions are YOUR work. **Required disclosure:** Within first two paragraphs. Example: ``` "Note: AI tools assisted with editing this piece. The experiences, testing, and opinions are entirely my own." ``` **Important:** Rotate your disclosure format between articles to avoid pattern detection. **See `references/ai-disclosure-templates.md` for 10 variations to rotate.** --- # SECTION 2: SIX CONTENT MODES Based on analysis of Medium Staff Picks, there are six distinct modes that Medium rewards. Each has different structure, voice, and purpose. ## Mode 1: Personal Essay **What it is:** Narrative exploration of personal experience and meaning-making. **When to use:** - Processing life changes - Exploring identity questions - Sharing vulnerable experiences - Building emotional connection with readers **Structure:** - maximum of 4 headers when needed (flows as narrative) - Short paragraphs (1-4 sentences in random lenght) - Scene-based storytelling, no fluff - Unresolved or open ending - ~2,000-2,500 words **Voice characteristics:** - Vulnerable and searching - Short punchy sentences mixed with longer reflective ones - Specific sensory details ("big hazel eyes," "barstool to cook dinner") - Direct admissions of uncertainty ("Still figuring out...") - No expert positioning—you're a fellow human, not an authority **Opening approach:** ``` Start with a scene or dialogue, not a thesis. Example: "'Please make sure to throw out your badge.' It was Thanksgiving week, our almost 7-month-old son was in my arms, and my boss had just said goodbye." NOT: "In this article, I'll share my journey of leaving corporate America..." ``` **Ending approach:** ``` Don't resolve everything. Leave questions open. Example: "I'm not sure where the trail through the trees will take me. But I enjoy the paths that allow me to drop off and pick up my son from school." NOT: "Here are the 5 lessons I learned from this experience..." ``` **What to avoid:** - Headers and sections - Bullet points and lists - "Tips" or "lessons learned" - Expert positioning - Neat resolutions - Self-promotion **Staff pick example:** "4 Years Ago, I Entered the Wilderness" — a narrative about leaving Wall Street with no headers, no tips, just honest exploration. **Evidence requirements:** - At least 2 fully-rendered scenes with sensory details (sights, sounds, physical sensations) - Actual dialogue (exact words spoken, not paraphrased) - Specific physical setting described (room, weather, what you were wearing) - Emotional state in the moment captured (not retrospective interpretation) - Timestamps or timeframes that ground the narrative ("Thursday morning", "three weeks later") - At least one moment of uncertainty or confusion shown, not just told --- ## Mode 2: Investigative **What it is:** Deep research and evidence-based argument on a contested topic. **When to use:** - Debunking misinformation - Challenging mainstream narratives - Presenting original research - Defending a position with evidence **Structure:** - Clear section headers - Extensive citations and links - Organized by argument, not chronology - Evidence compilation sections - ~4,000-6,000+ words **Voice characteristics:** - Authoritative but not arrogant - Combative when needed ("Sorry, you can't have it both ways!") - Direct engagement with opposition - Specific naming of people, organizations, studies - Clear thesis stated and defended **Opening approach:** ``` News hook + credibility assessment of source being challenged. Example: "A couple weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed entitled [X]. The author has been affiliated with not one, but two [problematic organizations]..." ``` **Evidence presentation:** ``` Don't just list studies—contextualize each one. "By my count, at least 8 studies to date have shown that contemporary trans youth typically become aware of their transness many months or even years before they eventually come out to others." Then: summarize each study's findings and relevance. ``` **Ending approach:** ``` Comprehensive evidence compilation, organized by sub-claim. "I have organized these studies into four subsections: 1) studies showing that rates of detransition have not gone up... 2) studies showing that trans youths' gender identities are not any less stable..." ``` **What to avoid:** - Both-sides-ing when one side is wrong - Hedging on your thesis - Surface-level research - Claiming expertise you don't have **Staff pick example:** "Lies, Damned Lies, and Transgender Statistics" — comprehensive debunking with 20+ academic citations. **Evidence requirements:** - Minimum 10 credible citations (academic papers, official reports, named experts) - Named sources—not "studies show" but "Dr. Sarah Chen's 2024 Stanford study found..." - Specific data points with methodology context (sample size, timeframe, methodology) - Direct quotes from opposition sources (not strawmen) - Your qualification to analyze this topic stated clearly - Timeline of events or research if relevant --- ## Mode 3: Advocacy **What it is:** Clear position on an issue with specific recommendations for change. **When to use:** - Calling for policy changes - Demanding industry accountability - Proposing solutions to systemic problems - Taking a stand on an issue you care about **Structure:** - Problem sections (specific harms with evidence) - Analysis section (why current responses fail) - Solutions section (numbered, specific recommendations) - Call to action closing - ~3,000-4,000 words **Voice characteristics:** - Controlled anger ("I've had my fill of...") - Urgent but not hysterical - Expert-with-stakes positioning - Preemptive defense against dismissal ("I'm not a Luddite...") - Direct address to those with power to change things **Opening approach:** ``` Reframe hook—flip conventional wisdom. Example: "They say AI is the future. For Indigenous peoples, it's starting to look a lot like the past, except with better cameras and faster code." ``` **Solutions format:** ``` Numbered, specific, actionable by identified actors. "Some recommendations include: 1. Publish a public register of all surveillance systems... 2. Require a pre-deployment assessment... 3. Prohibit high-risk biometric uses..." ``` **Ending approach:** ``` Collective call to action. "AI has changed everything, and it's up to all of us to think about the current and future impacts on society, lest AI decide for us." ``` **What to avoid:** - Complaining without solutions - Vague recommendations - Preaching without evidence - Alienating potential allies **Staff pick example:** "AI's Colonial Code" — systematic analysis of AI harm to Indigenous peoples with 13 specific policy recommendations. **Evidence requirements:** - Named systems, policies, or organizations criticized (not "tech companies" but "Meta's content moderation policy") - Specific incidents with dates and affected parties documented - Concrete recommendations with identified actors (WHO should do WHAT by WHEN) - Your stake in the issue made clear (why you care, what you've experienced) - At least one documented harm with specific details (names, numbers, outcomes) - Evidence that current responses are inadequate (what's been tried, why it failed) --- ## Mode 4: Reflective Analysis **What it is:** Personal lens on systemic observation—noticing patterns and questioning them. **When to use:** - Questioning systems you're part of - Connecting personal experience to broader trends - Exploring how technology/culture shapes behavior - Raising questions more than providing answers **Structure:** - Organic chapter-like sections (not rigid) - Personal memories as evidence - Historical comparisons - Open questions rather than prescriptions - ~2,500-3,500 words **Voice characteristics:** - Thoughtful, unhurried - Self-aware ("sounds a bit dramatic, I know, but hear me out") - Hedged authority ("I don't think there's one standard approach") - Nostalgia as analytical tool, not just sentiment - Meta-commentary on own argument **Opening approach:** ``` Current event anchor → personal connection → reframe. Example: "Last week, I was reading one of the many articles about AI's impact on thinking... it made me realise something that's bothered me for years: we've been losing our capacity for deep thought long before AI showed up." ``` **Evidence approach:** ``` Use memories and screenshots as exhibits in an argument. "When the web felt like a place, it borrowed the affordances of places as well: doors, rooms, corners, and edges. We went there, opened a door, entered a room to research..." [Screenshot of 2006 Blogger interface] "What most of these spaces had in common was the way they were designed: no character limits, no infinite feed..." ``` **Ending approach:** ``` Soft close with invitation to continue thinking. "I spent way too much time writing this so if you've read this far (thank you!) I would love to know your thoughts and where you stand regarding this topic!" ``` **What to avoid:** - Definitive hot takes - Pretending you have all the answers - Ignoring counterarguments - Being preachy **Staff pick example:** "The Design of Shallow Thinking" — personal tech history used to analyze how interface design shapes cognition. **Evidence requirements:** - Specific memories with timestamps ("In 2006, when I first used Blogger...") - Artifacts referenced (screenshots, old emails, saved files) even if not shown - Dated observations, not timeless claims ("Last week I noticed..." not "People often...") - Your personal lens stated explicitly (your profession, history, stake) - At least one moment of self-aware meta-commentary ("This might sound nostalgic, but...") - Specific examples of the pattern you're analyzing (not abstract, but concrete instances) --- ## Mode 5: Practitioner Experiment **What it is:** Senior professional documents trying something new, shares honest assessment. **When to use:** - Testing new tools or methods - Documenting your actual process - Sharing balanced assessment (not cheerleading) - Reflecting on craft and practice **Structure:** - Process documentation (planning visible) - Meta-commentary on own approach - Balanced pros/cons assessment - Philosophical reflection on craft - Nuanced conclusion (refuses hot take) - ~2,500-3,500 words **Voice characteristics:** - Casual authority ("Pshaw.") - Self-deprecating humor - Footnotes for asides and nuance - Self-interrupting meta-commentary ("Uh, where's the vibe designing part?") - Honest about limitations ("His specific meaning was, if I'm honest, a bit beyond me") **Opening approach:** ``` Workplace scene + "I'll do it myself" setup. Example: "I've had this idea for a component for our product... When told by one of my leads that none of our designers had time to help, I said I'd just prototype it myself. 'You?' 'Yes, me! Also, what the hell?'" ``` **Process documentation:** ``` Show the planning, not just results. "But first, a bit of strategy..." "...then a quick sketch..." "...and, finally, a brief" Make the thinking visible. ``` **Assessment approach:** ``` Balanced—not cheerleading, not doom-saying. Positive: "It's so liberating to be working with 'moments' rather than wrestling with a tool." Negative: "Adding too many instructions per prompt resulted in more misinterpretations and hallucinations." ``` **Ending approach:** ``` Nuanced take—refuse the hot take. "Ah, the obligatory hot take, right? Not so much... There's a time for rapid execution of complex ideas, and there's a time for more thoughtful and controlled development. It's not one or the other, but an intermingling of the two." ``` **What to avoid:**