I agree with Dr Mehmet's observation. I do believe reverting to the old monetization model is the way forward.

I know you think you were rewarding us more with the claps and highlights.

But in the real sense, the monetary allocation from reading time was split to the claps and highlight engagements. So technically there wasn't any additional revenue to engagements as you want us to believe.

Rather the new model opened the doors to spammers and fraudsters to milk the platform resulting to low engagement that kills wrtiers stats.

Writers don't control how readers engage with their stories. I think it's unfair to reduce our quality score when readers engage poorly to our stories.

I noticed that since the 3 free reading sample was removed, external traffic (from Google, especially) to my stories reduce my reading quality.

It seems when people land on my story but don't subscribe to the premium plan it reduces my quality score.

You forget that it's from external traffic that we get new subscribers so why reduce our quality when they don't subscribe?

I have also noticed that a selected number of writers get boosted on almost all their stories. Some of these writers are boost nominators. I suspect a fowl play here. Because dishing out thousands of dollars to specific writers will not help this platform to recover.