Those tips are helpful, but also kind of off-topic for the subject discussed here. They don't change the fact that:
It makes no sense for a "Most Recent" list where entries can jump from not yet being on the list at all to being way down the list, without ever having been at the top. For a "most recent" list, the top entry should be the one that most recently appeared in the list. Anything else doesn't make sense and only points to a mis-match in the metrics used for inclusion and for sorting.
The topic is a question, to which the answer is not officially stated, but most likely: No, there is no visibilty boost by changing release status.
What makes sense or not for a list called "recent" and that is internally called "newest" is a matter of opinion, of which ours do not count. What is the time stamp that would make a game "newer" than another? Your "newest" might qualify for a time stamp as early as 2005.
It is even debateable what is meant with recent. Recently updated? Recently published? Recently changed release status? The last one is the source of this topic. A valid question of course, since it is not clear what is meant with recent, as Itch is a self publishing site. Games here have no release date the same way games on Steam have it, where they clear reviews or whatnot.
What it is, is a list ordered by publishing date or last approved major update. So it is a recently updated/published list. Or short, recent. Most recent actually.
