I have no clue what the term actionable response means. As a lawyer, it is ambiguous--yet I know from the context it does not mean a response that could get me sued, but it is still too ambiguous for me to know what it means. That is the point of one of the stories that I linked, ("Out of Context") which makes the case that every good writer and good story will be improved by a good editor. I do not see the need to waste my and the readers' time saying that here and then have each of our times wasted by them reading in the link that which I wasted time paraphrasing in the response.

"Cross-pollination among like-minded publications

As I have written about in a few stories lately, there are many truly spiritual publications here on Medium, and the lack of cross-pollination disturbs me. It used to upset me when a spiritual story of mine would not be read by the followers of one spiritual publication when I publish in another, all the more so baffling to me when such a non-reader follows me.

I recently had a change of perspective on that. I presently follow 68 writers and 21 publications. This is what I see on my feed right at this moment:

writer’s screenshot

Clearly, this does not begin to alert me as to stories available from those I follow. I stopped being upset when I realized what a daunting task it is to engage with all of the writers that I follow, particularly if I rely on stupid AI algorithms to expose me to important stories.

The paradigm of meaningful engagement

So I changed my paradigm. This weekend I started writing less and engaging more.

I ignore the advice of writers who say it is bad form to link to my own work in responses to others’ stories. As long as my previous story is entirely contextual with the response, I believe it is appropriate engagement and not shilling for MPP bucks," which is not why am here on Medium anyway.