I feel like this thread has naturally divided into two kinds of users here, which is interesting.
Users like me, who want Tapas to primarily act like a platform and to just allow content that performs well to be seen organically through algorithms.
Then another set of users who want Tapas to act like a publisher and to directly intervene and to either tell them straight up: "we don't think you're a good fit, you're wasting your time on this platform, go to Webtoons or whatever" or to say "We think your work deserves boosting and we're going to directly intervene to make it more visible."
Let me explain why I don't like the idea of Tapas deciding what people should read instead of letting high-performing content rise to visibility naturally:
Here's what the top row of Free to Read Action comics looks like this morning:
Oh hey, it's me!
My comic is punching above its weight. It has pretty damn good engagement for its number of bookmarks 
. So for me, the ideal system is one where that natural performance is rewarded. "People who like action comics are reading this and it's generating buzz, you might like it too."
Wheras, if the publisher decides what Action comics people should see.... well, did you see Errant, which looking at the stats is one of the most popular Action comics with a Fantasy setting, featured for Action Fantasy month? (It wasn't. I'm still salty. I am so salty if you threw a live salmon at me it'd instantly turn into gravadlax 
). And if you open the Action page on the default "All" rather than deliberately tabbing over to "Free to Read", I'm several rows down, mostly buried under newly licensed series that were bought in and heavily promoted on the front page. So even though I'm performing well, my growth is poorer than it was this time last year when I had what like 20% of the subs I have now, even though I've upped my marketing game, improved my rate of output and really should be performing better. I am now reliant on Tapas directly featuring me for visibility because it's the only way to compete in a system where by far the greatest visibility goes to whatever the platform has chosen to feature.
So you can hopefully already see the obvious downside here. If the publisher chooses what should be popular rather than the algorithms boosting whatever is trending and generating buzz, yes, sure maybe there are some comics which are actually very good but for whatever reason, users just aren't finding it (usually because the user doesn't market much or doesn't have an effective cover or blurb in most cases), but if they have the power to do that, they also have the power to look at a comic that's getting readers and to go "Ohhhh no, no no, the readers are wrong to be reading this, we don't want them to be interested in this. This is getting hidden away in the 'Baby comics not very good' rank so it doesn't outperform the things we want them to read." Which unless the work is like... I dunno, racist or something, is a terrible state of affairs. Yes, it can feel bad when somebody makes something really trashy and it does well, and there's an instinct to be like "UGH! Stop reading that rubbish! Read this good thing instead!" but... there's a limit to how much power a platform should have over what people choose to read, and stepping in to prescribe the content to ensure people read the "right" thing has a knock-on effect that often harms actually good works by maginalised independent creators.
Earlier, Skicoak used my comic, Errant, as an example of a comic that could hypothetically be boosted if Tapas deliberately hand-ranked every comic on the site... but this misses the potential reverse scenario: What if Tapas decided that they don't like Errant and decided that in spite of its very active userbase and growing readership, they were going to put it into a low category to deliberately stop it from succeeding? Because that is also a thing that could happen in a system where visibility is based on what the publisher wants people to read, not on what people pick to read. What if there was backlash from homophobic investors who didn't like how the content that gets popular organically tends to skew queer and the platform decided to put all the LGBTQ+ content into a lower rank while boosting heterosexual works to combat this? Or what if the staff decided they don't like me criticising the platform on the forums and blacklist me from getting featured? You'd end up with a scenario where succeeding on the platform would depend on your ability to make something that appealed to the taste of whoever chooses what to boost, or the company's mandate, and then never giving any kind of negative feedback for fear of them stripping away your livelihood. It would be awful!
I'd much prefer a system where if my work is performing, it maybe gets a little boost, or an offer to be made premium, but largely the performance is in my hands. If I'm not catching reader attention with a webcomic, it ought to be my own fault for not doing effective research, not presenting or marketing well etc.
For boosting those creators whose works are good, but are struggling to get visibility because... say their concept isn't the sort of "high concept explained in the first episode" that catches attention on Tapas, or their cover is a bit subdued or it's a bit niche, but it's genuinely high quality, curated lists made by creators and users are my preference. It would reward community engagement without being a burden on the staff as well as the risks of visibility being impacted by one or two people's preference, and allow creators to recommend works that'd appeal to their readers or to people who like certain themes.
