The I’m not giving up ‘but’ thread

[nice90sguy]

I'm probably whitelisted, if such a thing exists, after 23 years of posting stories here. My last story was submitted and accepted on the same day, and visible the next.
It's unlikely that Laurel had the time to read Emily's entire novel (but it would be cool to think she speed reads), so there's obviously some criterion based on who is submitting that affects how fast the story is published.

But long delays in getting your story out are NOTHING compared with the frustration of spending many months on creating the images for an illustrated story, getting it accepted, and then seeing most of the images redacted. In my case it's probably my favourite of my stories (not because of the illustrations), but now looks ridiculous.

Seeing that really tempted me to pull all my stories from the site (for the second time).

 

[Dark_Logan_]

If you’re assumption is true @AwkwardlySet then I’m on a grey list by recent evidence

Where 40% of recent submission have flowed through whilst the other 60% are stuck

The assumption being that they can be seen at Lits end.

 

[jsmiam]

Time to stop being Lit apologistas?

To a degree, a large number of us regulars do the following on a regular basis:

Someone asks why story approvals take so long. Or why their story was rejected. (For the moment I will dwell on these frequent question rather than the other frequent questions on underage and AI accusations, since (compared to story approval) there’s some semblance of clear rules published by lit on those other topics).

And with varying forms of enthusiasm, we parrot “there’s only one person approving stories”, some defending it, some criticizing it, and (I realize this is debatable), most trying to say “that’s just the way it is.”

But why?

Is it unreasonable to say @Laurel herself should post a sticky thread on the posting bottleneck in her own words? Not just the recent worsened state of affairs, but the whole thing. In her words.

And point number two: this is a writing site ran / ruled (allegedly) by a site operator who shares many traits with a schoolteacher: The writing skills within the rejection notices are also indefensible. If she’s such a great gatekeeper, why are the rejection notices so ridiculously cryptic? Where’s the Oxford comma, that single-handedly would transform the rejection note (one of them anyway) into being meaningful? (I can’t find a direct quote at the moment, but the one about ‘find an editor or edit your story’ where it sounds like she’s saying find an editor except she gives herself an out.

As an online forum, people can still choose to reply. It’s not uncommon for an online community to help clarify rules.

But this isn’t clarifying rules. “We” are the only source, when it comes to the “one person alone approves stories” topic. That’s a step too far.

Why isn’t there a post by Laurel herself that we can link to? Why the silence? Why only the occasional whispers to her few “chosen ones?” Why not speak for herself?

I personally am of the “eye roll” variety of apologists, and if I do post an “apology” or perhaps a “Litsplaining”, I try to be sure to include a criticism of the way it is. My specialty is comparing the programming here to a high school student’s level of skill.

Some of the decisions on how this site is run are hard to defend. I’d much rather say “here’s the policy in the (alleged) site owners own words” and be able toblink to a sticky from the site itself.

The apologist role stinks. I partly wrote this because some here are reverting to their apologist personas. We should all stop.

Things are a little different now with the multiple threads helping people with pending hell help. Nowadays, more people than before explain how the state of affairs is bad. But some still can’t or won’t abandon their habitual “full apologist” role.

There. Perhaps this’ll see light of day for a while.

My next topic: (Seinfeld questioning voice): “And what’s the deal with all the stuff we repeat regarding what we know or think we know about Laurel and Manu. Is it Fact or fiction? Most of us are repeating things that have been said by others. How do we know any of it is true? Still true? “

And finally, since I’m in full rant mode, there’s this thread: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/can-anybody-tell-me-where-to-report-bugs-in-new-system.1643333/ 75 minutes later, frikkin @Manu responds. Clearly he’s just the submissive tech support here who isn’t allowed to address the story posting issues. Chloe tried asking in that thread. Manu completely ignored, stuck with just “new site features” as his acknowledged topics he’s allowed to address. Where the fuck is @Laurel? It’s time to say something.

Again, credit to those who have been calling for this. The rest of ya, quit defending.

 

[nice90sguy]

I've had similar and worse experiences on other story sites regarding posting delays. And plenty of unanswered complaints too.
One site I remember, an "elite" site, simply rejected my story because it wasn't considered of a sufficiently high standard. Very galling.

At least here, any old crap I write will usually get published, sooner or later.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

One site I remember, an "elite" site

Do share.

 

[nice90sguy]

Do share.

It was "Playboy". Punching slightly above my weight

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Time to stop being Lit apologistas?

To a degree, a large number of us regulars do the following on a regular basis:

Someone asks why story approvals take so long. Or why their story was rejected. (For the moment I will dwell on these frequent question rather than the other frequent questions on underage and AI accusations, since (compared to story approval) there’s some semblance of clear rules published by lit on those other topics).

And with varying forms of enthusiasm, we parrot “there’s only one person approving stories”, some defending it, some criticizing it, and (I realize this is debatable), most trying to say “that’s just the way it is.”

But why?

Is it unreasonable to say @Laurel herself should post a sticky thread on the posting bottleneck in her own words? Not just the recent worsened state of affairs, but the whole thing. In her words.

And point number two: this is a writing site ran / ruled (allegedly) by a site operator who shares many traits with a schoolteacher: The writing skills within the rejection notices are also indefensible. If she’s such a great gatekeeper, why are the rejection notices so ridiculously cryptic? Where’s the Oxford comma, that single-handedly would transform the rejection note (one of them anyway) into being meaningful? (I can’t find a direct quote at the moment, but the one about ‘find an editor or edit your story’ where it sounds like she’s saying find an editor except she gives herself an out.

As an online forum, people can still choose to reply. It’s not uncommon for an online community to help clarify rules.

But this isn’t clarifying rules. “We” are the only source, when it comes to the “one person alone approves stories” topic. That’s a step too far.

Why isn’t there a post by Laurel herself that we can link to? Why the silence? Why only the occasional whispers to her few “chosen ones?” Why not speak for herself?

I personally am of the “eye roll” variety of apologists, and if I do post an “apology” or perhaps a “Litsplaining”, I try to be sure to include a criticism of the way it is. My specialty is comparing the programming here to a high school student’s level of skill.

Some of the decisions on how this site is run are hard to defend. I’d much rather say “here’s the policy in the (alleged) site owners own words” and be able toblink to a sticky from the site itself.

The apologist role stinks. I partly wrote this because some here are reverting to their apologist personas. We should all stop.

Things are a little different now with the multiple threads helping people with pending hell help. Nowadays, more people than before explain how the state of affairs is bad. But some still can’t or won’t abandon their habitual “full apologist” role.

There. Perhaps this’ll see light of day for a while.

My next topic: (Seinfeld questioning voice): “And what’s the deal with all the stuff we repeat regarding what we know or think we know about Laurel and Manu. Is it Fact or fiction? Most of us are repeating things that have been said by others. How do we know any of it is true? Still true? “

And finally, since I’m in full rant mode, there’s this thread: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/can-anybody-tell-me-where-to-report-bugs-in-new-system.1643333/ 75 minutes later, frikkin @Manu responds. Clearly he’s just the submissive tech support here who isn’t allowed to address the story posting issues. Chloe tried asking in that thread. Manu completely ignored, stuck with just “new site features” as his acknowledged topics he’s allowed to address. Where the fuck is @Laurel? It’s time to say something.

Again, credit to those who have been calling for this. The rest of ya, quit defending.

I largely agree with you. I'd like to point out that even Manu only replies when it suits him/her; when it's a subject he started or when he's searching for bugs. He leaves many, many questions unanswered. Still better than Laurel's utter silence, of course.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I don't think anyone is defending the odd silence from @Laurel. A simple site blog, where Laurel and Manu alternate short (1 page) updates on the site, say every couple of weeks would be enormously appreciated by everyone, in my opinion. It wouldn't be a big workload, either.

It's not that we're apologistas so much as we have no control of the situation.

--Annie

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't think anyone is defending the odd silence from @Laurel. A simple site blog, where Laurel and Manu alternate short (1 page) updates on the site, say every couple of weeks would be enormously appreciated by everyone, in my opinion. It wouldn't be a big workload, either.

It's not that we're apologistas so much as we have no control of the situation.

--Annie

I can't say whether you're one, but there are apologists here aplenty, don't worry.

 

[MelissaBaby]

So let me get this straight.

Author A has been a member for ten years, has submitted over 100 stories, all of which were completely compliant with site policy. They have entered many competitions and placed in the money a couple of times.

Author B registered last month and has made three or four submissions.

They click submit on their new stories simultaneously.

Author A's story gets posted quickly after submission. Author B's story doesn't show up for several more days.

Some people need a conspiracy theory to explain this?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

So let me get this straight.

Author A has been a member for ten years, has submitted over 100 stories, all of which were completely compliant with site policy. They have entered many competitions and placed in the money a couple of times.

Author B registered last month and has made three or four submissions.

They click submit on their new stories simultaneously.

Author A's story gets posted quickly after submission. Author B's story doesn't show up for several more days.

Some people need a conspiracy theory to explain this?

You should send this post to the universities. It would be a shame for such an obvious strawman argument not to be fully utilized in education.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Again, credit to those who have been calling for this. The rest of ya, quit defending.

My inclination is to give plenty of slack when there is a problem. If something is wrong with the system, or the site is overwhelmed, or if Laurel and/or Manu have a personal issue that has affected their ability to perform their functions, I can be very understanding and forgiving while those issues are worked out.

The lack of information provided the membership is another matter. There is no excuse to leave the authors, and ultimately the readers, in the dark about obvious problems.

 

[iwatchus]

I can definitely be a cheerleader.

Somewhat I feel a responsibility to not let the writers on here, especially the new ones, become disillusioned. Writing will beat you up enough on its own.

If the site had had some of these problems 8 months when I published my first story, I may never have written a second one. There are days I do worry that this place is circling around the drain. But for all the problems and all the warts of this site, lots of stories are still getting published. And read.

This has been an amazing nursery for growing many new writers and I do not think there is another place quite like it. If it fails, it will be a shame. I still have a long way to go as a writer. But I'm pleased with my progress thus far. But I credit this site for a big part of my growth. I would like to see others have that opportunity.

So I will whistle and rearrange deck chairs here, hoping for the best. You may think that's absurdly stupid, but it makes a whole lot more sense to me than hanging around here just to piss on things.

 

[jsmiam]

My inclination is to give plenty of slack when there is a problem. If something is wrong with the system, or the site is overwhelmed, or if Laurel and/or Muna have a personal issue that has affected their ability to perform their functions, I can be very understanding and forgiving while those issues are worked out.

The lack of information provided the membership is another matter. There is no excuse to leave the authors, and ultimately the readers, in the dark about obvious problems.

Agreed on both fronts.

If lit had real and skilled programmers (or contractors) who know what they’re doing… (and honest ones are hard to find once you’re in the seedy underbelly parts of the internet) the site would be laden with popups, interweaved, before, and back-key interstitial ads that include your shopping and browsing history, and fake “your computer is infected” messages where clicking on them guarantees your computer will be infected.

So while I vote we all stop short of apologizing for it, I'm ok with being somewhat forgiving of the flaws. But only the acknowledged flaws that they provide explanations for.

The unapologetic unexplained silence however: that deserves unforgiving criticism.

 

[SimonDoom]

The unapologetic unexplained silence however: that deserves unforgiving criticism.

I strongly disagree with that.

I neither defend nor criticize what motivates Laurel and Manu to do what they do, because for me, as I think for everybody else here, this site's operations are a Black Box. I just don't know. I have little inklings based on what they post and based on the occasional exchanges I've had with them in direct messages, which have generally been pleasant and reasonable and helpful.

But if you've had any experience running an organization, you know that more information isn't necessarily better information. Sometimes there are reasons to be discreet. Literotica doesn't reveal the inner workings of the sweep system, for example, and that's probably a good thing, although we constantly have new authors asking what sweeps are.

Like everybody else, I'd like to see more communication. But I don't at all believe that the appropriate response to not getting the level of communication I want is "unforgiving criticism." That's excessive. It also seems to me that taking an attitude of "unforgiving criticism" is an unproductive waste of my time and energy. I don't want to go through life like that. I try to reserve my energy for the things in life that are really worth criticizing, and Literotica isn't one of them.

 

[jsmiam]

I strongly disagree with that.

I neither defend nor criticize what motivates Laurel and Manu to do what they do, because for me, as I think for everybody else here, this site's operations are a Black Box. I just don't know. I have little inklings based on what they post and based on the occasional exchanges I've had with them in direct messages, which have generally been pleasant and reasonable and helpful.

But if you've had any experience running an organization, you know that more information isn't necessarily better information. Sometimes there are reasons to be discreet. Literotica doesn't reveal the inner workings of the sweep system, for example, and that's probably a good thing, although we constantly have new authors asking what sweeps are.

Like everybody else, I'd like to see more communication. But I don't at all believe that the appropriate response to not getting the level of communication I want is "unforgiving criticism." That's excessive. It also seems to me that taking an attitude of "unforgiving criticism" is an unproductive waste of my time and energy. I don't want to go through life like that. I try to reserve my energy for the things in life that are really worth criticizing, and Literotica isn't one of them.

If this isnt defending, I don’t know what is.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I am not defending @EmilyMiller because she does not need any defending. As you can see, she can take care of herself.

Assuming that the accusation of favoritism is true (which is not). So what?

If I were running this site and had to decide between publishing a great writer with a proven track record of writing great stuff and the kind of stuff I write, I would go with the great writer. Your argument make no sense.

I have had stories stuck in pending. It sucks. It blows. However, I did not ever resent the people that were getting published even if I found their stuff awful.

If you story is stuck, delete and resubmit. It works the majority of the time.

If it is too frustrating, post on another site. This one is free to all (writer and reader). It will be buggy by definition.

Going "Poor me" and insulting a great popular author is not the way to solve the issue. Delete your story and republish it an fucking move on!

Dude, relax, she's not going to sleep with you.

 

[StillStunned]

This thread looks like it's on the verge of getting nasty. If someone doesn't agree with you, repeating your arguments isn't going to convince them: it will only lead to frustration on both sides.

By all means clarify a misunderstanding, but know when to move on.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

A few things worth considering in this conversation is that the AH is not representative of the authors contributing to this site. I would appreciate more communication from Laurel much like the rest of you. That said, the reality is if every AH Regular picked up their laptop and went home. We all found some new site and never contributed to Lit again, the site would go on. Your average reader wouldn't even notice. With that in mind, should Laurel's priority be keeping this small minority happy or all the other things necessary to keep this site up and running?
The AH is obviously super important to some people here, but that doesn't mean Laurel or Manu give a tinker's damn about it. There is zero reason or evidence to believe that the goings on in the AH have any bearing on their decision making about anything. If they cared about what the people in the AH think this site would look VERY different.


I subscribe to the theory that there is some sort of whitelist. With the caveat that nobody really knows what's going on behind the curtain, based on Occam's Razor and the observable data, a whitelist likely exists. That said, if it does exist it's ludicrous to think it's all in Laurel's head. Unless you think she's a real life mentat, it's simply too much to keep track of. I started experiencing approval times consistent with being on a whitelist after my 4th or 5th submission. Based on the volume of submissions here and the huge number of authors the idea that Laurel just remembers the hundreds of authors who meet that criteria is absurd.


In simple terms:

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I can definitely be a cheerleader.

Somewhat I feel a responsibility to not let the writers on here, especially the new ones, become disillusioned. Writing will beat you up enough on its own.

If the site had had some of these problems 8 months when I published my first story, I may never have written a second one. There are days I do worry that this place is circling around the drain. But for all the problems and all the warts of this site, lots of stories are still getting published. And read.

This has been an amazing nursery for growing many new writers and I do not think there is another place quite like it. If it fails, it will be a shame. I still have a long way to go as a writer. But I'm pleased with my progress thus far. But I credit this site for a big part of my growth. I would like to see others have that opportunity.

So I will whistle and rearrange deck chairs here, hoping for the best. You may think that's absurdly stupid, but it makes a whole lot more sense to me than hanging around here just to piss on things.

You make some good and positive points. I can't dispute much of what you said, except for the last part.
People who are criticizing aren't "pissing" on Lit. No one, and I repeat, no one, is criticizing Lit in bad faith. I've said many positive things about the website, but I've criticized a lot as well. I say what I see, nothing else.

But all that aside, you'll notice that the people who are vehemently defending, putting up strawman arguments, and such, are those same people for whom Lit is working as intended, most of the time.
I'll emphasize once again: I've no problem that some people have it better than others. It's not their fault. What IS their fault is these attempts to placate everyone who's posting valid criticism, often arguing against what those who are having serious problems on the website.

There certainly is a number of people who are acting like the apologists of Lit whenever someone dares to criticize. From them, I've seen many empty words of "compassion" offered to those who are having problems, followed quickly by explanations of how Laurel is doing her best, but alas, reasons.

The funny part is that they can get quite vocal when THEY have a problem with the website.

 

[DEFCOM5]

Dude, relax, she's not going to sleep with you.

What the fuck?

There is a 90s moving made about you. It has Alicia Silverstone in it. Take place in LA.

 

[AwkwardMD]

A few things worth considering in this conversation is that the AH is not representative of the authors contributing to this site. I would appreciate more communication from Laurel much like the rest of you. That said, the reality is if every AH Regular picked up their laptop and went home. We all found some new site and never contributed to Lit again, the site would go on. Your average reader wouldn't even notice. With that in mind, should Laurel's priority be keeping this small minority happy or all the other things necessary to keep this site up and running?
The AH is obviously super important to some people here, but that doesn't mean Laurel or Manu give a tinker's damn about it. There is zero reason or evidence to believe that the goings on in the AH have any bearing on their decision making about anything. If they cared about what the people in the AH think this site would look VERY different.


I subscribe to the theory that there is some sort of whitelist. With the caveat that nobody really knows what's going on behind the curtain, based on Occam's Razor and the observable data, a whitelist likely exists. That said, if it does exist it's ludicrous to think it's all in Laurel's head. Unless you think she's a real life mentat, it's simply too much to keep track of. I started experiencing approval times consistent with being on a whitelist after my 4th or 5th submission. Based on the volume of submissions here and the huge number of authors the idea that Laurel just remembers the hundreds of authors who meet that criteria is absurd.


In simple terms:
View attachment 2574882

I think what @SamanthaBehgs and @onehitwanda were suggesting when they were talking about a manual whitelist is a list she has to personally add the names to, as opposed to (like with comment moderation) having a script that checks a database for at least X total comments and less than Y spam comments (If I misunderstood I hope they'll correct me).

Otherwise, though, I agree with all of this.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that the comment moderation whitelist is just "post 100 comments," which is exactly the kind of job that scripts are great at doing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To clarify, the only whitelist I know of is in Laurel’s head and I’ve had occasions where I have had to jog her memory. I’m not suggesting there’s an automated whitelitst with members persisted to a table.

I think what @SamanthaBehgs and @onehitwanda were suggesting when they were talking about a manual whitelist is a list she has to personally add the names to, as opposed to (like with comment moderation) having a script that checks a database for at least X total comments and less than Y spam comments (If I misunderstood I hope they'll correct me).

Otherwise, though, I agree with all of this.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that the comment moderation whitelist is just "post 100 comments," which is exactly the kind of job that scripts are great at doing.

 

[AwkwardMD]

You make some good and positive points. I can't dispute much of what you said, except for the last part.
People who are criticizing aren't "pissing" on Lit. No one, and I repeat, no one, is criticizing Lit in bad faith. I've said many positive things about the website, but I've criticized a lot as well. I say what I see, nothing else.

But all that aside, you'll notice that the people who are vehemently defending, putting up strawman arguments, and such, are those same people for whom Lit is working as intended, most of the time.
I'll emphasize once again: I've no problem that some people have it better than others. It's not their fault. What IS their fault is these attempts to placate everyone who's posting valid criticism, often arguing against what those who are having serious problems on the website.

There certainly is a number of people who are acting like the apologists of Lit whenever someone dares to criticize. From them, I've seen many empty words of "compassion" offered to those who are having problems, followed quickly by explanations of how Laurel is doing her best, but alas, reasons.

The funny part is that they can get quite vocal when THEY have a problem with the website.

I wish you would use more names and fewer pronouns. Some of this applies to me, but not all of it, and so it is impossible to respond to.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

I think what @SamanthaBehgs and @onehitwanda were suggesting when they were talking about a manual whitelist is a list she has to personally add the names to, as opposed to (like with comment moderation) having a script that checks a database for at least X total comments and less than Y spam comments (If I misunderstood I hope they'll correct me).

Otherwise, though, I agree with all of this.

When I was replying to the comment about coding to add a whitelist, I was definitely distinguishing between the two as you mention. There seemed to be some implying that maybe (not certainly, just conjecture) some of the glitches could be explained by going from that manual whitelist (personally adding names to something and then watching for those names) to an automated one (like you describe for comments) where the system does that without any human involvement.

I disagree that it is unrealistic for it to be entirely in someone's head, however. You'd be amazed how well someone good at remembering and recognizing names can do that sort of thing. I suck at it, and I still can manage to remember and write personalized recommendation letters for students I haven't seen in half a decade or more. Like, for real, I've been tested, I suck at names. If I can still do that, I presume someone who is good at them (no clue where Laurel stands) probably could do it. That being said, a manual white list could also be in an excel document that you check against. it's not automated, but you've offloaded the memory requirements as well.

I have no idea if either exist, but my comments on whether I care if they do have been moved to the controversial opinions thread.

So for here, you don't need correcting - you've characterized what I said perfectly.