Just a bit of my observations on this matter.

I believe that the algorithms were changed in early November. If I take away my viral article, my other articles got about half the traction they usually get.

I was also surprised by my viral article. I anticipated $5 for that one. But I got $64! Why?

Another Medium contributor suggested that my article had the right amount of controversy. For sure, it attracted both supporters and detractors of UH and JW. The algorithms picked up on that controversy, and gave the article a higher frequency in the feeds. Which then fed into the controversy until the "best before" date was reached.

So to test out this hypothesis, I wrote my last article to Politically Speaking with the intention of annoying left-wing contributors. This article is above my usual average, but definitely not viral. $5!

When I thought about your three UH articles in a row, I've been more observant of my feed. I think I am getting more articles from the top writers. The feeds were shifted in their favor--and toward plebe articles that could generate controversy. This means less exposure for the plebe writers. Hence, my usual traction fell.

I'm going to make about $250 this years from MPP. If this unpopular writer can earn several times his subscription fee, I can only come to two conclusions:

1) The top writers are earning a nice middle-class living with their daily, unoriginal rants.

2) Medium is subsidizing the writers as a whole, with the top writers getting most of that subsidy.

I hope this helps in making sense with Medium. It would be nice to know what is going on in the boardrooms. They have to set things up to keep the plebe writers engaged. They seem to have got me addicted.