Always be Editing

[Thatawfulwowporno]

So, I'm told, repeatedly, that we should always be editing, and revising, and redoing...

How often do you just call something done and just... leave it?

I re-read my story a lot, because it makes me happy to know I have done something so awesome (to me) and I'm constantly retweaking it. Little things mostly...

But I wonder, if I make some little changes, should I reload it? (If I even can submit a re-write)

Like, say I mention a person's name once, as an aside and then later mention the same person but as a different name... should I go back and reload that change?

Prime example from my story... I had a character say "oh I almost married X" and then ohhh 100 or so chapters later I posted "when I almost married Y" and then I realized, oops screwed up my own continuity. Then As I wrote the story for my spin-off, I rewrote the entire exchange as it felt more natural, and now I can't decide if I should go back and ask to reload that whole segment of "when I almost married Z".

If I do reload it, does it get put back up as a fresh story? (random thought)

Because if it is possible to re-submit, retweak, or other wise "clean up", some of my previous work, I might actually do so.

I don't necessarily think I should reload a story chapter for a single typo, but I've made a bunch of changes to some of my earlier work (not changing the whole thing, just some "minor" things) and wonder if that's part of the editing process.



Is there a magical edit number? I highly doubt it, but I figure why not ask.

 

[KeithD]

To keep in mind: Each time you submit an edit, you are using a chunk of the sole Web site editor's time that can't be given to someone else's story who isn't tinkering with an already submitted story with a primary life of about two weeks in front of the readers' faces. Consider just how important the need is for tinkering with a story submitted to a free-read site.

Thinking about that, I've never submitted a correction/rewrite to a story on this site. If I screw something up to begin with, I just swallow the responsibility and move on, keeping in mind to get it as right as it needs to be for a free-read Web site on the first go.

 

[HeyAll]

Ive edited yhis pist ironically.

Yes, i edit a lot, thanks to using grammarly i can spot errors in old stories.

Some of my old stories i had even taken down so i could revise it. The more recent ones, i dont go back and dwell on them.

I always try to look ahead but the fear of lingering typos brings me back. Lol

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I only submit edits for glaring mistake that are brought to my attention. Or a mass of errors that somehow got by the eyes that looked at it before submission. Simple wrongs, stay. Some I never fix for one reason or another. Life is simpler that way.

 

[SimonDoom]

I edit as I go, jumping around in the story to write or rewrite passages as seems appropriate. I try to write a fairly clean rough draft and correct mistakes as I go.

When the first draft is fully done I go back and do a major edit, rewriting sections as necessary and trying to get the spelling and grammar and word choice right.

I do at least one more proofread. I try to be careful but I sometimes make mistakes. Then I submit.


I have made a change to a story that was published only once. It was in response to a reader catching a significant error -- inserting the wrong name for a major character one time. I flagged the specific error for the site when I submitted the correction so it could be made easily. That's the only time I've done that. I find errors in my published stories from time to time but I just let them go and move on.

 

[Areala-chan]

There's nothing wrong with editing and submitting a correction if you or someone else catches a major issue, but bear in mind you're ALWAYS going to see problems with the finished work no matter how careful you are in the pre-submission edit. I had two different beta readers along with me read through my longest piece here, and all three of us missed some very minor spelling gaffes as well as the occasional missing word.

It'll be fairly obvious to your audience that you know what you're doing as long as the mistakes are few and far between. Devote that energy to creating something new rather than dwelling on the past. Editing after the fact is the Dark Side of writing, seductively whispering in your ear that it's much easier to tweak something you already finished than to stare at the blank canvass and begin creating anew. There's nothing wrong with it as an exercise, but you're nearly always going to be better off starting a new story than tinkering with an old one.

 

[KeithD]

I do think there's something wrong--or at least insensitive and a little selfish--about submitting edits for anything but the very significant corrections. You are impinging on the submissions time and attention to other authors who aren't being as nitpicky. You are taking a double and sometimes triple cut at the submissions editor's time and attention. It takes just as long, if not longer, for her to process any form of edit as it does to clear a new submission by another author waiting for his/her turn at a first posting of their story. This isn't the New Yorker for true-name recognition and money.

 

[yukonnights]

Yes, edits are possible. Yes, you should edit if you feel it is important. It will take longer for the edit to take place than a new story submission, but your original is still up. All your previous votes and comments transfer to the edited version. All of the other opinions above are equally valid, but it's really up to you.

To submit an edit; The steps are like a new submission, with a couple of important requirements; In the story title field it's important to put in the exact original title followed by the word EDIT. Upload your complete edited story just as you would a new submission. In the notes field say something like, 'This is an edit due to typos'.

I don't know for certain on this part, but it is my understanding that it's not an editor picking through your story for highlighted errors, but more of a dump and replace in total. The only one I've done took the full two weeks as some had mentioned it would. The whole thing taught me a good lesson about letting a story sit for several days before attempting the final proof/edit

 

[SimonDoom]

It takes just as long, if not longer, for her to process any form of edit as it does to clear a new submission by another author waiting for his/her turn at a first posting of their story.

But is this true if the edit is brief and if in the comments submitted you indicate exactly where it is? I would think it would be easy for Laurel to see that and approve it quickly.

 

[yukonnights]

But is this true if the edit is brief and if in the comments submitted you indicate exactly where it is? I would think it would be easy for Laurel to see that and approve it quickly.

It would be virtually impossible for one person to go through and find/replace edits unless they were highlighted. But, the fact that it is required to resubmit the entire story implies a dump/replace to me. It's really the only thing that makes any sense.

Also, I keep reading that is is only Laurel who scans/proofs every story...be it a new submission or an edit. I recall reading... (in a Sticky I think)...that there are "site editors" (I've tried to find it again, but haven't been able to...I don't think I dreamed it up though) It seems improbable to me that one person would actually do all of the proofs. I can see her making a final judgement on any questionable issues brought to light by another 'site editor'...but to even scan all of the submissions seems more of a prison sentence than a job anyone would want

Can someone point me to a specific Sticky or something to verify this one way or another?

 

[KeithD]

But is this true if the edit is brief and if in the comments submitted you indicate exactly where it is? I would think it would be easy for Laurel to see that and approve it quickly.

No, I don't think that's true. Edits are unique enough, I think, to take more time and effort from the editor than passing a newly arrived story file through. I think unless the correction needed is really significant, the author should just accept the mistake (there will still be plenty of mistakes in this and every story) and not muscle in front of first submissions and fellow authors. The story isn't a flesh and blood baby, this isn't the New Yorker, these stories are not building a true-name reputation, and money isn't on the line.

 

[KeithD]

It would be virtually impossible for one person to go through and find/replace edits unless they were highlighted. But, the fact that it is required to resubmit the entire story implies a dump/replace to me. It's really the only thing that makes any sense.

Also, I keep reading that is is only Laurel who scans/proofs every story...be it a new submission or an edit. I recall reading... (in a Sticky I think)...that there are "site editors" (I've tried to find it again, but haven't been able to...I don't think I dreamed it up though) It seems improbable to me that one person would actually do all of the proofs. I can see her making a final judgement on any questionable issues brought to light by another 'site editor'...but to even scan all of the submissions seems more of a prison sentence than a job anyone would want

Can someone point me to a specific Sticky or something to verify this one way or another?

I think the story side of this site definitely is a mom (Laurel) and Pop (Manu, probably working another job too) operation.

And I do believe that each edit transaction takes her longer than passing a new story into the list (I don't think she spends much time on doing that on individual submissions at all), and I think users here should keep that and her and other authors in mind in the quest to have their little darlings perfect (at least in their minds).

 

[yukonnights]

I think the story side of this site definitely is a mom (Laurel) and Pop (Manu, probably working another job too) operation.

And I do believe that each edit transaction takes her longer than passing a new story into the list (I don't think she spends much time on doing that on individual submissions at all), and I think users here should keep that and her and other authors in mind in the quest to have their little darlings perfect (at least in their minds).

Well, that's still just an assumption in regard to how many helpers the owners have. I'll have to see if I can find the post/sticky I read that implied "editors". It would be as simple as having something similar to the forum moderators, just trusted folks to scan the submission and post the clean ones, etc. I'm still thinking that if the edits of existing stories are such an imposition, the owners wouldn't have a mechanism for doing them.

 

[NotWise]

Well, that's still just an assumption in regard to how many helpers the owners have. I'll have to see if I can find the post/sticky I read that implied "editors".

Laurel told me early this year that they have a small staff working on the technical side. I've not heard that anyone other than Laurel reviews/approves new submissions or edits. Lit really is a couple banging out a livelihood on the internet.

 

[SimonDoom]

Well, that's still just an assumption in regard to how many helpers the owners have. I'll have to see if I can find the post/sticky I read that implied "editors". It would be as simple as having something similar to the forum moderators, just trusted folks to scan the submission and post the clean ones, etc. I'm still thinking that if the edits of existing stories are such an imposition, the owners wouldn't have a mechanism for doing them.

I think that's right. KeithD makes a fair point, as a matter of basic courtesy. Anyone who has been writing here for any length of time knows this is a mom and pop operation, and we should all take that into account in how we handle submissions. But the fact of the matter is that the site owners do allow edits and revisions to published stories, so authors shouldn't feel they can never submit edits. It's a matter of exercising judgment and courtesy and being mindful of the impacts one's actions have on other authors and their submissions, and upon the work they're imposing on Laurel and Manu. I personally cannot fathom how the two of them manage this site. I don't get how it's possible, so I think about that when I submit stories.

 

[KeithD]

I think that's right. KeithD makes a fair point, as a matter of basic courtesy. Anyone who has been writing here for any length of time knows this is a mom and pop operation, and we should all take that into account in how we handle submissions. But the fact of the matter is that the site owners do allow edits and revisions to published stories, so authors shouldn't feel they can never submit edits. It's a matter of exercising judgment and courtesy and being mindful of the impacts one's actions have on other authors and their submissions, and upon the work they're imposing on Laurel and Manu. I personally cannot fathom how the two of them manage this site. I don't get how it's possible, so I think about that when I submit stories.

Which is just other words for what I posted.

 

[yukonnights]

In looking for what I've yet to find again, I did find this posted by Laurel in the Rejected Story part of FAQ
______
Also - if you believe your story was rejected in error, please open the submission, respond to the rejection in the NOTES field of the submission, and hit SUBMIT. Please do not add the word EDITED to the title, as that denotes someone editing an already approved story. Since we process all edits after the new stories are posted, adding the word EDITED to a title will cause a delay in the posting of your new story. If you are submitting an edit of a rejected story, simply open the rejected form, make the changes in that form, and hit SUBMIT. Do not start a new submission.

And feel free to PM me any time with questions!
______

The bold part would indicate that there is no infringement on anyone posting a new story because of an edit submission.

 

[NotWise]

The bold part would indicate that there is no infringement on anyone posting a new story because of an edit submission.

Lit does not prevent you from editing your already-published story, and I don't think that KeithD implied that there was a site policy to that effect. I thought his point was that edits impose an unnecessary burden on the site.

Given that most published stories see most of the traffic they will ever get in the first few days, edits are usually for the vanity of the author, not for the readers. I've done it. I might do it again, but right now I'm kindof banking changes for the event that I might want to use the story somewhere else at some other time.

 

[yukonnights]

Okay, here's the Sticky that references Site Editors. Since it is in a Sticky, I assume it is correct (I only copied the relevant portion). It sounds pretty clear to me that there are more than one lone Site Editor. I may be wrong, but if I am then this Sticky is also wrong... I suppose technically; Laurel + Manu = Site Editors...could be grammatically correct, but I'm not convinced If in fact that is the case, it would have been just as easy to say so in the Sticky. The fact that both Site Editors and Site Administrators were referenced implies a difference. (just to add; If Laurel is the lone Site Editor, I applaud her perseverance )
*****

Site Editors vs Volunteer Editors
Literotica has Site Editors and Site Administrators who review stories which authors submit to Literotica for posting. Site Editors determine whether or not those stories meet Literotica’s requirements and either accept or reject stories on that basis.

Volunteer Editors volunteer their time and skills helping authors with editing issues which may include spelling, grammar, word usage, character development, plot development and the like. Volunteer editing normally occurs before an author submits a new story to be posted on the site, but also may occur when an author re-works a story which has already been approved and posted, but which the author wishes to improve.

Volunteer Editors are not Site Editors and have no control over whether or not Literotica accepts a story for posting.

The Editor's Forum serves three functions.

It is a place where an author can request that a Volunteer Editor review a story.

It is a place where a Volunteer Editor can look for and respond to such author requests as the Volunteer Editor’s time, workload and interest allows.

It is a place where Volunteer Editors and authors can speak with each other about editing issues common to both of them.



Whoever you need to contact about a story, please remember that Literotica is not a pay site and the Volunteer Editors program is ... voluntary. Being polite and asking questions tends to get you further than ranting and demanding action.




How to Contact Site Editors
If you are having problems or have questions about a submitted story, you can contact Laurel by Private Message. Please keep in mind that Laurel is one of the site owners and administrators and her volume of PMs and emails is probably high.

 

[yukonnights]

No, I don't think that's true. Edits are unique enough, I think, to take more time and effort from the editor than passing a newly arrived story file through. I think unless the correction needed is really significant, the author should just accept the mistake (there will still be plenty of mistakes in this and every story) and not muscle in front of first submissions and fellow authors. The story isn't a flesh and blood baby, this isn't the New Yorker, these stories are not building a true-name reputation, and money isn't on the line.

Lit does not prevent you from editing your already-published story, and I don't think that KeithD implied that there was a site policy to that effect. I thought his point was that edits impose an unnecessary burden on the site.

Given that most published stories see most of the traffic they will ever get in the first few days, edits are usually for the vanity of the author, not for the readers. I've done it. I might do it again, but right now I'm kindof banking changes for the event that I might want to use the story somewhere else at some other time.

Actually it was both...they muscle in front of first submissions and impose extra work on the site. I just happen to disagree with both arguments. I think I've shown they're not 100% valid in the bolded sections in the last couple of posts. It's not a big deal, and certainly not worth any more time...just saying.

 

[NotWise]

I think this tells you what you need to know.

How to Contact Site Editors
If you are having problems or have questions about a submitted story, you can contact Laurel by Private Message. Please keep in mind that Laurel is one of the site owners and administrators and her volume of PMs and emails is probably high.

"Site Editors" is Laurel.

Does Laurel have anonymous readers working behind her? I've never heard anything from an authoritative source (Laurel and Manu being the only authoritative sources) that suggested that is true.

 

[KeithD]

I think the term "site editors," like so many other functions set forth on this Web site, is wishful PR for something that doesn't exist.

In the dozen years I've been here with various accounts, I haven't seen so much as a hint or a whisper that anyone more than Laurel is working or ever has worked on submissions and the story file content. You can dream about there being more, if you like. If you do so to support the need to constantly gussy up your precious stories by tossing in a lot of edits of previously submitted work, it doesn't change my view that this is insensitive to both Laurel in her trying to keep up with the work and other authors hoping for earliest posting of their submissions.

But then I have noticed "memememe" and "babysit me" tendencies in recent generations of writers (and readers). I'll just continue to take my lumps and swallow the responsibility for my errors in the work I submit here and just go on to the next one.

 

[TxRad]

I think this tells you what you need to know.



"Site Editors" is Laurel.

Does Laurel have anonymous readers working behind her? I've never heard anything from an authoritative source (Laurel and Manu being the only authoritative sources) that suggested that is true.

In the past, Laurel has stated in several different threads that she is the only one who vets stories and that she has tried in the past to find someone to help but hasn't found anyone to meet her standards.

 

[yukonnights]

In the past, Laurel has stated in several different threads that she is the only one who vets stories and that she has tried in the past to find someone to help but hasn't found anyone to meet her standards.

Thanks Tx, That's first hand info and if you've read it I believe you. I still disagree with those who have some made up notions about how terrible edits are. If they're so terrible, I guess Lit should pass out tokens or get rid of edits all together. As it stands, I think so long as the option is available it's intended for use. I've only needed it one time, but I'm glad it's there. I have new readers commenting on stories I put up a decade ago, so it's worth offering the reader the best I can do IMO...if that calls for an edit, so be it. I'd much rather avoid it though

 

[KeithD]

A. No one has said no editing should be done. The issue is gratuitous edits, with there obviously being a difference of opinion in what is gratuitous. (In my case, most of my stories have already been edited by someone else and posted to the marketplace, so any mistakes still in them when they are posted here are sort of "well, just too bad.")
B. Disappointed you won't even make a bow to sensitivity to either Laurel's workload or to other authors trying to get their stories posted for the first time within her workload day.
C. Amused you'd take TxRad's word for it and not mine, with just as long a history here and much, much more experience in passing stories (because there have been many more of them). Not that TxRad isn't a good source for what is what at Literotica.