Why does Lit keep rejecting my story?

[MsPeachPit]

Several months ago I published a story on Lit with no problem whatsoever. I took it down six weeks ago to remove a few paragraphs that I didn't like and then tried to republish the story. Lit returned it, claiming that there was evidence of AI used in the writing. The fact is that I wrote this story on Word 7 and didn't even use grammar check on it. No other programs were involved at all.So I reworked a few things in the story and resubmitted it with a note that I was using only Word 7. Well, a month later the story was again returned with the same reason for rejection.

Anyone have any idea of what might be going on here? It's very frustrating. BTW, I published two other stories around the same time written on the same Word 7 program and had no problem.

 

[Actingup]

Taking it down was your first mistake!

It must be falling foul of a false positive from AI checkers. I support LitErotica's efforts to keep AI off the site, but it's frustrating to be rejected on that account.

Suggestions:
- search the many AI-related threads on this site for clues.
- put the story through some AI-checkers and see if you can spot anything that they're flagging - rework the story further to ensure that it's in your distinctive author's voice
- give it up as a bad job and write some more stories.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Taking it down was your first mistake!

It must be falling foul of a false positive from AI checkers. I support LitErotica's efforts to keep AI off the site, but it's frustrating to be rejected on that account.

Suggestions:
- search the many AI-related threads on this site for clues.
- put the story through some AI-checkers and see if you can spot anything that they're flagging - rework the story further to ensure that it's in your distinctive author's voice
- give it up as a bad job and write some more stories.

Write some more stories regardless...

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Several months ago I published a story on Lit with no problem whatsoever. I took it down six weeks ago to remove a few paragraphs that I didn't like and then tried to republish the story. Lit returned it, claiming that there was evidence of AI used in the writing. The fact is that I wrote this story on Word 7 and didn't even use grammar check on it. No other programs were involved at all.So I reworked a few things in the story and resubmitted it with a note that I was using only Word 7. Well, a month later the story was again returned with the same reason for rejection.

Anyone have any idea of what might be going on here? It's very frustrating. BTW, I published two other stories around the same time written on the same Word 7 program and had no problem.

Is English your first language? The one you grew up and use all the time?



The bot checker can fart on stuff written by people who learned English in school later in life.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Is English your first language? The one you grew up and use all the time?



The bot checker can fart on stuff written by people who learned English in school later in life.

I would like it on the record that I do not think this to be true. Lit's AI Detector is looking for specific things, and I don’t think this is one of them.

That being said, I also  believe that some or all flagged stories then get a cursory lookover from the site moderator, and it is entirely possible that a non-native writing would be more likely to fail the eye test. In other words, it's not what got you flagged in the first place, but the chances that it hurts you if you get to this step are non-zero.

(For the purposes of this post, I am drawing a distinction between think and believe where think means something I am like 90% sure of and believe is closer to 50%)

 

[Bamagan]

Several months ago I published a story on Lit with no problem whatsoever. I took it down six weeks ago to remove a few paragraphs that I didn't like and then tried to republish the story. Lit returned it, claiming that there was evidence of AI used in the writing. The fact is that I wrote this story on Word 7 and didn't even use grammar check on it. No other programs were involved at all.So I reworked a few things in the story and resubmitted it with a note that I was using only Word 7. Well, a month later the story was again returned with the same reason for rejection.

Anyone have any idea of what might be going on here? It's very frustrating. BTW, I published two other stories around the same time written on the same Word 7 program and had no problem.

Maybe yes, but only an idea. Whatever Lit is using as a detector, all it can probably be doing is looking at sentences and paragraphs and comparing them to the 'ideal' output of one or more LLMs. There are a number of features that are suggestive of a formulaic approach to writing, such as the neutral or generic tone it usually adopts (unless prompted to mock some famous writer's style), and either overreliance on or conspicuous avoidance of certain words and phrases. The presence of such constructions in human writing is unavoidable, so I presume the site is either looking at the prevalence/ratio of suspicious content, and/or looking for sections that display significant differences in style from each other, which may indicate copying from an AI (or perhaps direct plagiarism).
Since your second revision was pending for a month and still rejected, that may be the end of the road, at least for your current version. It suggests (to me) that it was sitting on a to-do pile until Laurel had the time to actually read at least a few paragraphs or sections instead of skimming them.
One piece of advice I think is bad to follow is the suggestion that you need to add errors to avoid rejection. For one thing, while LLMs don't usually make spelling errors, they are still prone to other kinds of mistake, such as confusing homonyms despite clear context clues. Including grammatical constructions that would be considered incorrect (or at least inappropriate) in business or academic writing is probably a good idea, though. The modern LLMs incorporate basically the same 'grammar matrix' that has been available for years somewhere under the hood, so following the advice of even older versions of Word too closely can result in sentences that read or feel basically the same as what a modern bot would construct, given the right prompts.
Good luck.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Send a note to Laurel explaining what happened.
It's frustrating, and there are certainly some challenges with the AI detection, but at this point some form of anti- AI is a necessary evil.
Don't give up!

 

[MsPeachPit]

Maybe yes, but only an idea. Whatever Lit is using as a detector, all it can probably be doing is looking at sentences and paragraphs and comparing them to the 'ideal' output of one or more LLMs. There are a number of features that are suggestive of a formulaic approach to writing, such as the neutral or generic tone it usually adopts (unless prompted to mock some famous writer's style), and either overreliance on or conspicuous avoidance of certain words and phrases. The presence of such constructions in human writing is unavoidable, so I presume the site is either looking at the prevalence/ratio of suspicious content, and/or looking for sections that display significant differences in style from each other, which may indicate copying from an AI (or perhaps direct plagiarism).
Since your second revision was pending for a month and still rejected, that may be the end of the road, at least for your current version. It suggests (to me) that it was sitting on a to-do pile until Laurel had the time to actually read at least a few paragraphs or sections instead of skimming them.
One piece of advice I think is bad to follow is the suggestion that you need to add errors to avoid rejection. For one thing, while LLMs don't usually make spelling errors, they are still prone to other kinds of mistake, such as confusing homonyms despite clear context clues. Including grammatical constructions that would be considered incorrect (or at least inappropriate) in business or academic writing is probably a good idea, though. The modern LLMs incorporate basically the same 'grammar matrix' that has been available for years somewhere under the hood, so following the advice of even older versions of Word too closely can result in sentences that read or feel basically the same as what a modern bot would construct, given the right prompts.
Good luck.

Thank you for this. It was very informative and I really appreciate your taking the time to share this.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I'd have left it alone.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I would like it on the record that I do not think this to be true. Lit's AI Detector is looking for specific things, and I don’t think this is one of them.

I took @Five Inch Nails comment to imply that maybe there was some application translating the story from some other language to English that could be getting it flagged as AI.

I could be wrong

 

[AwkwardMD]

I took @Five Inch Nails comment to imply that maybe there was some application translating the story from some other language to English that could be getting it flagged as AI.

I could be wrong

Translation apps are, for Literotica's purposes, generative, and would likely trigger a red flag.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I took @Five Inch Nails comment to imply that maybe there was some application translating the story from some other language to English that could be getting it flagged as AI.

I could be wrong

A little of both.

I've seen ESL writers use stiffly structured wording and formatting that native speakers and writers do not. Paragraphs can be complicated and difficult to read at a normal conversational pace. It isn't even always in stories. I've seen it in forum posts where you have to read things several times to understand what they're trying to say.

Quite believable that a bot detector might be triggered by that kind of writing.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Because "belief" isn't based on evidence so much as feelings or faith. And faith is the ability to believe in something without proof.

(For the purposes of this post, I am drawing a distinction between think and believe where think means something I am like 90% sure of and believe is closer to 50%)