Edits

[BeauBuchanon]

how can we fix typos?

 

[Katie_Mae]

Assuming you mean in a story: https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/editing-published-work

 

[StillStunned]

Bear in mind that edits have the lowest priority for the site. It will often take up to a month for them to be processed.

 

[AbbeFaria]

Bear in mind that edits have the lowest priority for the site. It will often take up to a month for them to be processed.

Holy crap, no wonder my edit has been sitting for over two weeks. That is incredibly frustrating. Is there a reason why we can't edit our stories ourselves?

 

[PennyThompson]

Is there a reason why we can't edit our stories ourselves?

Probably because some people would try to use unmoderated edits to sneak prohibited content into their stories

 

[ElectricBlue]

Holy crap, no wonder my edit has been sitting for over two weeks. That is incredibly frustrating. Is there a reason why we can't edit our stories ourselves?

Yes. People could add all sorts of new content breaching the policy guidelines, which would not get vetted by the site.

If you've only got a few typos it's really not worth the bother. If your copy is full of errors, edit better. It's in your story's best interest to present the best possible copy you can, first time.

 

[AbbeFaria]

Probably because some people would try to use unmoderated edits to sneak prohibited content into their stories

I submitted my story to both RoyalRoad and Scribblehub and both of those allow writers to edit their own content. Both of them also allow erotic content, although RoyalRoad does have much stricter rules when it comes to sexual content. Scribblehub is much more lax, however. I've also posted on a relatively new site at Wrist.pub and I can edit my own content there, and it is a straight-up erotica sight with everything you can find here and more. If all of these other platforms can do it, then the claim that the site needs this level of moderation seems to ring hallow. I love the fan engagement on this site, a good 2/3rds of my patrons have come over from Lit, but this ancient site architecture and lack of basic features such as editing a story when it needs to be edited rather than waiting a month or longer, are killing me. It's also very difficult to interact with fans. I can't reply directly to comments. I can't tag a commenter in a reply.

If they are going to insist on not letting us edit our work the least they could do is give a quick turn around.

 

[AbbeFaria]

Yes. People could add all sorts of new content breaching the policy guidelines, which would not get vetted by the site.

If you've only got a few typos it's really not worth the bother. If your copy is full of errors, edit better. It's in your story's best interest to present the best possible copy you can, first time.

See my reply to Penny.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If they are going to insist on not letting us edit our work the least they could do is give a quick turn around.

Or, you submit good copy in the first place. Why should the site give priority to fixing content that's not been proofread to a reasonable standard?

 

[AbbeFaria]

Or, you submit good copy in the first place. Why should the site give priority to fixing content that's not been proofread to a reasonable standard?

You're ignoring my point. Other sites that allow the same or similar content allow the authors to edit their work. They don't even have a three-to-five day wait to publish. Stuff is available immediately. So the justification that 'content that violates the rules' would get through is a very weak argument, at best. Editing posted work is standard on every other site I post on. Only this one is the hold out.

 

[ElectricBlue]

You're ignoring my point. Other sites that allow the same or similar content allow the authors to edit their work. They don't even have a three-to-five day weight to publish. Stuff is available immediately. So the justification that 'content that violates the rules' would get through is a very weak argument, at best. Editing posted work is standard on every other site I post on. Only this one is the hold out.

Perhaps this site cares more about content compliance than the other sites do.

Allowing authors to edit brings the risk of non-compliant content, which this site chooses to protect itself from, by having a vetting process.

The edit process on this site caters for people who are lax with providing decent quality copy. If you need to fix typos, that's on you.

 

[Katie_Mae]

You're ignoring my point. Other sites that allow the same or similar content allow the authors to edit their work. They don't even have a three-to-five day weight to publish. Stuff is available immediately. So the justification that 'content that violates the rules' would get through is a very weak argument, at best. Editing posted work is standard on every other site I post on. Only this one is the hold out.

for a story to be available immediately, that suggests no review process prior to approval, so obviously that would be quicker to publish and edit. If you're not screening stories, there's no reason to screen edits.

If by "immediately" you mean "not immediately, but in a short time, no matter the timezone" then that suggests a team of moderators to do the approvals.

Here there's one person. Of course, she could choose to hire other people. I don't know why she doesn’t, but I can't force her to have help. Most people here would love a faster or at least more transparent approval process, but we can't make that happen. It's Laurels site, if she doesn't want help then no one here can actually change that as we don't have the access. There are things I don't like about how she runs things, but also things I do, and the latter outweighs the former for me.

 

[AbbeFaria]

for a story to be available immediately, that suggests no review process prior to approval, so obviously that would be quicker to publish and edit. If you're not screening stories, there's no reason to screen edits.

If by "immediately" you mean "not immediately, but in a short time, no matter the timezone" then that suggests a team of moderators to do the approvals.

Here there's one person. Of course, she could choose to hire other people. I don't know why she doesn’t, but I can't force her to have help. Most people here would love a faster or at least more transparent approval process, but we can't make that happen. It's Laurels site, if she doesn't want help then no one here can actually change that as we don't have the access. There are things I don't like about how she runs things, but also things I do, and the latter outweighs the former for me.

There is no review process for every story on RR. Your first submission will be reviewed and after that, they either have some sort of AI that can search for content violation, they rely on members to report violations or suspected violations, or a mixture of both. But they can and do yank stories all the time, and you can get banned from the platform. And it works. The site is wildly successful. Scribblehub and Wrist.pub also rely on a similar system. Obviously, we can't force the owner to move to a more user-friendly system, but it's painful to watch one of the oldest stay mired in the past with this archaic system. There is such a great community here, and I am glad I reactivated my account, but at the same time, this is the most difficult site to use and provides almost no way for writers to interact with their followers. It would be nice if this site was a leader in features instead of languishing in the past.

 

[AbbeFaria]

Perhaps this site cares more about content compliance than the other sites do.

Allowing authors to edit brings the risk of non-compliant content, which this site chooses to protect itself from, by having a vetting process.

The edit process on this site caters for people who are lax with providing decent quality copy. If you need to fix typos, that's on you.

Other sites have content moderation. It's just more user-friendly than Lit is.

 

[Katie_Mae]

There is no review process for every story on RR. Your first submission will be reviewed and after that, they either have some sort of AI that can search for content violation, they rely on members to report violations or suspected violations, or a mixture of both. But they can and do yank stories all the time, and you can get banned from the platform. And it works. The site is wildly successful. Scribblehub and Wrist.pub also rely on a similar system. Obviously, we can't force the owner to move to a more user-friendly system, but it's painful to watch one of the oldest stay mired in the past with this archaic system. There is such a great community here, and I am glad I reactivated my account, but at the same time, this is the most difficult site to use and provides almost no way for writers to interact with their followers. It would be nice if this site was a leader in features instead of languishing in the past.

If a site isn't pre screening stories, then obviously there's no reason to screen edits. If a site does screen stories, then that's useless unless they also screen edits.

 

[StillStunned]

Other sites have content moderation. It's just more user-friendly than Lit is.

Other sites don't have the volume of material or size of readership that Lit does.

 

[jaF0]

You're ignoring my point.

You're ignoring Blue's point

There is no review process for every story on RR.

Other sites have content moderation. It's just more user-friendly than Lit is.

Then post there.

 

[AbbeFaria]

Other sites don't have the volume of material or size of readership that Lit does.

Which suggests they should have more than one person managing it. As I said, it would be great to see this site leading in features rather than lagging so far behind.

 

[AbbeFaria]

You're ignoring Blue's point



Then post there.

Blue's point was if you don't want to submit something to edit, don't make mistakes that need editing. Which is nonsensical. The best writers in the world still use editors. As far as posting on other sites, I do. This site is by far the most frustrating.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Blue's point was if you don't want to submit something to edit, don't make mistakes that need editing. Which is nonsensical. The best writers in the world still use editors. As far as posting on other sites, I do. This site is by far the most frustrating.

My point was, minor typos and trivial edits (which we all make) aren't worth the bother, and resubmitting is a waste of the site's time.

If, on the other hand, a writer's copy is bad because they're simply too lazy to edit properly (which many people who ask about the edit process freely admit), then that's absolutely on them.

I don't know where you sit with regards to the quality of your copy, but if you've only got a handful of typos, then your copy is probably far better than most, and you're worrying about nothing. If it's shocking copy, then get it the best you can before you submit, not afterwards.

You still don't seem to see the other point, that the site doesn't allow self-edit because it doesn't want to take the risk that people might try to sneak through with non-compliant content. That's the key point here; the quality of your copy is irrelevant. If it's poor, that reflects on you, not the site.

 

[AbbeFaria]

My point was, minor typos and trivial edits (which we all make) aren't worth the bother, and resubmitting is a waste of the site's time.

If, on the other hand, a writer's copy is bad because they're simply too lazy to edit properly (which many people who ask about the edit process freely admit), then that's absolutely on them.

I don't know where you sit with regards to the quality of your copy, but if you've only got a handful of typos, then your copy is probably far better than most, and you're worrying about nothing. If it's shocking copy, then get it the best you can before you submit, not afterwards.

You still don't seem to see the other point, that the site doesn't allow self-edit because it doesn't want to take the risk that people might try to sneak through with non-compliant content. That's the key point here; the quality of your copy is irrelevant. If it's poor, that reflects on you, not the site.

My original story that I wrote 20 years ago when I created the account here is a mess of typos and errors, but I'm not trying to redo that one anytime soon. One chapter is almost entirely in italics because I missed a bit of html code because, even now, you still have to hard code things like italics and bold on this site. Again, something that blows my mind. No other modern site does that. If I copy/paste from Word into Patreon or RoyalRoad, it recognizes the formatting and does the same. Paragraph indents can be a little tricky, but that usually only takes a couple of minutes to sort out. I don't have to type html code into the documents.

My new story is in much better shape and if there's a typo, it's usually a small thing. A problem did arise in how I was titling them, and it's causing a headache with the "new" series feature that, at the rate edits are done here, would take me several years to correct. That's just insane. Is this a huge problem? No, not at all. It's an annoyance. But my position is that it's an annoyance that shouldn't exist. I now have two different series because of the title problem, and I'm not sure if I can merge them. It would probably be easier to delete the entire story and resubmit it from scratch.

With the money this site generates, the only reason they haven't brought this platform into the 20th century is because of laziness. Hell, the main login page is the same as it was in the 90s. I don't know how old you are or when you first found this site, but I was here in the 90s. I didn't generate an account until I wanted to publish my first story, but I was a visitor back then. The messaging system looks like I'm back in college and using Netscape. Your profile still asks for your ICQ and AOL chat ID! While ICQ limped along until just this year, AOL was shut down almost a decade ago. It's madness.

As I said, the community here is outstanding, and I tell other authors in the genre I'm writing in that they should consider publishing here as well as the other spaces. I get more comments and interactions here on one chapter update than on five updates on the other sites. I love it, it's awesome. It's why not being able to actually reply to them is so frustrating. I wish those people behind the scenes cared enough to give their writers better tools to publish and interact with their fans. I'd love to nurture relationships with the people that come back week after week to read my stuff. I love talking about plot points and fan theories, and I would love to thank them in the comments for being fans, favoriting stories, and helping the story get seen. But I can't. The only way I can really do that effectively without sending everyone a DM is push them to join my Patreon. It doesn't have to be this way, it's a choice that they're making.

 

[ElectricBlue]

My original story that I wrote 20 years ago when I created the account here is a mess of typos and errors, but I'm not trying to redo that one anytime soon.

Fair enough. You know better than most then, precisely how this site works, why it does what it does, how slow it is to change.

I guess, when you've got the volume of traffic this site gets compared to any other, and the volume of content here, it's a business model that works. Sure, it could definitely work better, to make it much more interactive for writers and readers, we all want that. But when you're the biggest bear in the forest, you don't really need to change - the other sites aren't even close.

The fundamental reason for not allowing self-edit, though - the risk of compromising content creeping in - you don't think there's merit in that?

As for submitting decent quality copy - that's not hard to do, provided you pay some attention and have some pride in doing a decent job with your writing. Fucking up html, yes, I've done that too, and had to live with the three week wait to fix it. That taught me not to be so clever - but it was still self-inflicted, nothing to do with the site.

 

[AbbeFaria]

The fundamental reason for not allowing self-edit, though - the risk of compromising content creeping in - you don't think there's merit in that?

It has merit, of course. But the risk of that is not so great that it justifies keeping this site and its features nearly three decades in the past. It's a problem that other sites deal with, and it has a solution that's easily scalable. It can be done with an AI and user reporting. And banning a repeat offender is also simple enough. I wasn't ever suggesting there should not be content moderation, I was saying that they way they insist on doing it makes no sense given the tools we have available and which other sites use.