Is it the Algorithm or Readers' Tastes?
But, really, to Hell with the Algorithm
The internet, in this case, Substack, is a funny place. As a writer, there are moments when you write a piece, and you think you’ve knocked it out of the park. With a few pieces I’ve recently written, I felt that way (see here and here)—but that’s naïve thinking (more on that in a moment). But then [insert long sigh here] they do okay or just “meh.” It doesn’t matter the quality of writing, how it’s meticulously organized, or the beautiful nuances that you’ve included, not to mention all the research and time before drafting said piece; it still does just okay or even worse, “meh.”
Then other pieces absolutely explode, things I’ve written that I thought would do decently, but in fact are knocked way out of the park, like by thousands of miles (see here and here). I dunno, perhaps people like my analysis on Trump, but I think it’s more than that.
And that’s when I realize the algorithm is at work, and I face my naïveté, something which is never all that enjoyable, especially as we age. I recently read a piece confirming my suspicions that Substack changed its algorithm model in mid-November. The writer of the piece claims that the new algorithm is based upon the question: “What would be the natural next step for this reader in this moment?” This model sounds a lot like Netflix, at least how it was when I used to subscribe to it, and how it captures what you’ve watched and then populates recommendations for you like it in the future. The claim from this writer, who was somehow enthusiastic about this change, is that this model builds on “reader trust,” purportedly knowing what you liked reading by X-cool-smart-amazing writer, and becoming more committed as a result. But it sounds to me like, as a writer, you have to keep writing basically the same pieces, with some variations; i.e., the spices will be slightly different in the writing, but the overall sauce base stays the same, so it winds up being pretty bland for the brain. So, yeah, in a nutshell (or—since I’m on this theme of food—in a noodle?), that’s how you hit that sweet spot with the algorithm, and gain more readers, plus current reader commitment.
Does that appeal to you as a reader? Do you want bland, same-old sauce with a bit of herbal variation when you read? I assume the answer is a resounding “no.”
That doesn’t mean I want to write about miniature ponies one day (although they are amazing little cutie-pies), punk rock bands the next (yet I do love real punk bands like the Sex Pistols), the theory of mermaids on another (don’t worry; I don’t think they’re real), and then share my thoughts on, say, Marxism, my political insights, or offer up historical interrogations the next by writing my usual pieces. Nevertheless, when it comes to topics of interest, I write with some dissimilitude. As my Substack states, I cover philosophy (usually Marxist philosophy, but not always), history (after all, I was a Ph.D. student in the discipline), current events (I have a pretty good knack for reading the changing tides and sensing trends), and occasionally personal essays (like this one, pictured below, called “Hurt Girl of the ‘80s,” which was extremely popular).
One thing is sure on my Substack: you’re not going to get bland, regurgitated posts that might seem different, but after reading one, you’ve basically read them all. Instead, I offer deep variety, cutting edge political analysis, philsophical insights, historical reads, great interviews with brilliant scholars, and profoundly personal essays (that one above, “Hurt Girl of the ’80s,” was really personal, and as it progressed while I wrote it, I didn’t realize how much I was going to share about myself as a little, confused, sad girl, but I did anyway and it was rewarding as hell to do so).
I guess in a long, drawn-out way, I’m saying: to hell with the algorithm. I won’t feed it what it wants. It seems to be serving me well, anyway: my Substack started this summer with only 67 whopping subscribers, and now I have over 1,400 folks who have taken an interest in the various things I write about.
So, here’s to variety, right? It seems to be doing the trick, despite what the damned algorithm is up to.
As usual, I’d love to hear your thoughts and hope I’m on the right track. And if you would like to see me write more on a particular topic or something I haven’t covered yet, I am all ears.
I enjoy the variety! This is a part of life.
Please keep doing what you're doing and to hell with the algorithm. Your writing always shines through.