Check your ignorance before commenting

[oggbashan]

I have been irritated recently by commentators who criticize my stories for factual errors that don't exist. Apart from the fact that I write FICTION and often start with a 'what if' idea I try to be accurate for a historical setting.

Examples:

Apple Pickers was slammed because 'you don't harvest apples in June'. I had said they were an early variety. I know they exist because I have eaten ripe apples in June from the UK's national apple collection a few miles away. I wasn't impressed by the taste or texture but they are possible. They are an unlikely commercial crop because they are very vulnerable to a late frost and need a mild spring, but if they fruit they are valuable because they are available long before other varieties. An apple farmer could have a few of those varieties because if they crop they would be a very profitable crop.

The story was also criticised because the EU would take a decade, not a couple of years, to approve a dam in Southern Spain. Local authorities in Spain, particularly rural Spain, don't take any notice of the EU, and not much of their national government. There are several law suits a year about local authorities busting 'the rules' so my story timescale is probable.

Walking for Christmas (set in the 1960s) was criticised because I had a 1940s Bedford OB coach needing lubrication every 500 miles. Sorry - it did. The manufacturers insisted on daily checks and produced a comprehensive lubrication schedule including greasing the steering joints every 500 miles. With modern oils and greases that might not be so essential now but it was in the 1960s.

Christmas Rite was criticised because I referred to the Catholic church in the 600s. 'Catholic' as in the sense of world wide was used as far back as AD100 and was in official church use from AD400. 'Roman' as opposed to 'Celtic' also existed at the time. 'Roman Catholic' dates from Luther - much later.

Rural Station was criticised because I referred to a USAAF base in 1948. It had been USAAF during WW2 and changed in July 1947. But local references and the signs probably wouldn't change for some years. Even years after the date of my story local people would still call it the USAAF base.

If people checked their facts before posting a comment? But that assumes them knowing they don't know.

 

[SimonDoom]

If people checked their facts before posting a comment? But that assumes them knowing they don't know.

Well, that's the rub. The true mark of ignorance is not knowing what you don't know.

Those are very picky quibbles, I have to say.

 

[ishtat]

"Beauty of Bath" was an apple which usually ripened in July or August on my Dad's west of England Farm. However, we also had 2 or 3 trees in a walled garden where because the flowers were protected from frost they regularly ripened before late June.

In 2011 after a very mild spring, a lot of apples of all varieties ripened as much as 6 weeks early.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Some people, it's clear, have too much time on their hands.

 

[OneAuthor]

A lot of people think they know everything. Or at least quite a bit more than they actually do. It can be maddening to argue with them when you are armed with facts and they are armed with "that's what I was told!"

 

[oggbashan]

I should have added - When they are right it is even more irritating - but most such comments are wrong.

 

[BiscuitHammer]

Readers (especially anonymous ones) with Dunning-Kreuger Syndrome? I'm shocked. But then, everyone's got a PHD online.

 

[JamesMiehoff]

I just look at comments as additional entertainment value. A recent story got a comment from a user to the effect that he was giving me one star because one of the characters went ass to mouth and that was disgusting. The only thing funnier than that comment was that an hour later it changed from being written by a user to anonymous. Apparently he had second thoughts about commenting as himself.

James

 

[Javahead]

I just look at comments as additional entertainment value. A recent story got a comment from a user to the effect that he was giving me one star because one of the characters went ass to mouth and that was disgusting. The only thing funnier than that comment was that an hour later it changed from being written by a user to anonymous. Apparently he had second thoughts about commenting as himself.

James

It won't prevent one-star reviews, but I've given serious thought to not accepting anonymous comments. Yes, it will limit feedback, but for every anonymous comment that's useful (including negative-but-thoughtful "I didn't like XXX, I think YYY would have been better") I see another of the "this sucks!" genre.

I do think that requiring registration to vote would have an effect - many fewer votes, but - overall - higher ratings for most stories. Plus it would make sweeps even easier for the admins ("We know Joe_Blow_123 always 1 or 2 votes - eliminate all his votes below 3"). I doubt Laurel and Manu will implement that - it would play hob with competition scoring, for one thing - but a man can dream. And I'd be happy with a selectable "no anonymous votes" option.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And then there are the folk who mistakenly "correct" others' spelling.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I do think that requiring registration to vote would have an effect - many fewer votes, but - overall - higher ratings for most stories. Plus it would make sweeps even easier for the admins ("We know Joe_Blow_123 always 1 or 2 votes - eliminate all his votes below 3"). I doubt Laurel and Manu will implement that - it would play hob with competition scoring, for one thing - but a man can dream. And I'd be happy with a selectable "no anonymous votes" option.

Absolutely! Fully agreed. And I seriously doubt that it would mess up competition scoring.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I do think that requiring registration to vote would have an effect - many fewer votes, but - overall - higher ratings for most stories. Plus it would make sweeps even easier for the admins ("We know Joe_Blow_123 always 1 or 2 votes - eliminate all his votes below 3"). I doubt Laurel and Manu will implement that - it would play hob with competition scoring, for one thing - but a man can dream. And I'd be happy with a selectable "no anonymous votes" option.

I say this every time, but: requiring registration to vote on stories would make scoring worse.

My understanding (not confirmed) is that sweeps already look for voters with a pattern of suspicious voting, and that this includes anon voters. Laurel has requested that people not discuss technical details, so I won't, but there are at least three well-known ways to identify anon votes coming from the same person and I'm pretty sure the site is already using at least two of them. So registration isn't necessary for that purpose. Those methods aren't bulletproof, but any troll who knows enough to get round them isn't likely to be stopped by registration.

Registration is likely to vastly reduce the number of votes on each story. This makes each troll vote more powerful, it makes it harder to detect suspect patterns of voting, and even when nobody's trolling it makes the scores more volatile and less informative.

 

[Javahead]

I say this every time, but: requiring registration to vote on stories would make scoring worse.

My understanding (not confirmed) is that sweeps already look for voters with a pattern of suspicious voting, and that this includes anon voters. Laurel has requested that people not discuss technical details, so I won't, but there are at least three well-known ways to identify anon votes coming from the same person and I'm pretty sure the site is already using at least two of them. So registration isn't necessary for that purpose. Those methods aren't bulletproof, but any troll who knows enough to get round them isn't likely to be stopped by registration.

Registration is likely to vastly reduce the number of votes on each story. This makes each troll vote more powerful, it makes it harder to detect suspect patterns of voting, and even when nobody's trolling it makes the scores more volatile and less informative.

You may well be right. Unfortunately, trolls are a fact of Literotica life. And my fantasy of a technology to automatically brick all trolls' computers whenever they attempt to review or comment will remain just that.

 

[KeithD]

There are also those whose English usage education stopped with Strunk and White who call stories on grammatical "errors" that are perfectly acceptable in commercial fiction.

But, like Ogg, I never cease to be amused by readers who say something in one of my stories is implausible when that's about the only element of the story (and, usually, the inspiration for writing the story) that actually happened.

 

[JohnDavidSmith]

I read a story once where a character had a temperature of 40 degrees C. An anon commented that the character would be brain dead at 104 F, and accused the writer of not fact checking.

I suspect the anon converted the C to F, and had a knee jerk reaction based on whatever myth they'd been told. That, or he/she Googled it, saw "Fevers above 104° F (40° C) are dangerous. They can cause brain damage. FACT" in the Google preview, and didn't bother to click the link to see that it was in the context of disproving a myth.

Btw, I didn't just make up the second scenario. I have no idea if that's what the anon did, but if you type "can a temperature of 104 cause brain damage" into google, that exact thing happens.

It could be argued that the characters in the story didn't take the temperature seriously enough (no one called a doctor), but that's a far cry from what the anon was claiming.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I read a story once where a character had a temperature of 40 degrees C. An anon commented that the character would be brain dead at 104 F, and accused the writer of not fact checking.

It's one of the great sayings "a little knowledge can be dangerous".

I remember having a fever of over 106 as a kid (my parents literally put me in an ice bath), and 104+ as a teenager. Now there are some people* who might argue that I'm a little tetched in the head, but I ain't brain dead.

*including most people who know me well...

 

[Erlikkhan]

It won't prevent one-star reviews, but I've given serious thought to not accepting anonymous comments. Yes, it will limit feedback, but for every anonymous comment that's useful (including negative-but-thoughtful "I didn't like XXX, I think YYY would have been better") I see another of the "this sucks!" genre.

I do think that requiring registration to vote would have an effect - many fewer votes, but - overall - higher ratings for most stories. Plus it would make sweeps even easier for the admins ("We know Joe_Blow_123 always 1 or 2 votes - eliminate all his votes below 3"). I doubt Laurel and Manu will implement that - it would play hob with competition scoring, for one thing - but a man can dream. And I'd be happy with a selectable "no anonymous votes" option.

I need the anonymous votes to prop up my stories. I write smut that appeals to the "strum and stroke", "pinch and pull", or "rub and tug" crowd. Those that sign their names can actually read. I'd be in real trouble if my literary talents were being rated.

As far as fact checking, no one can actually prove that all my characters don't have ten inch cocks, 38DD tits, can make cum shoot out of their ears and noses, and have the ability to ejaculate five times an hour. I believe I did get called once on using the term BFF in a 50's story. Apparently that term didn't come into use until much later.

Readers who worry about when apples are picked and how long it takes to get a dam approved have way too much time on their hands...

 

[KeithD]

Readers who worry about when apples are picked and how long it takes to get a dam approved have way too much time on their hands...

Or they wish they had the time and talent to write stories themselves. They know they'd be great at it--greater than what they're reading here (which, ironically, if you read in a lot on the discussion board, is the Number One reason folks here give for starting to write stories for Literotica themselves. )

 

[Javahead]

As far as fact checking, no one can actually prove that all my characters don't have ten inch cocks, 38DD tits, can make cum shoot out of their ears and noses, and have the ability to ejaculate five times an hour.

You mean you don't, and can't?

I'll admit that as I paid-up member of the male half of the species I'm pretty happy with tits of any size, but my own personal female ideal tends more toward "petite, athletic, and slender", all else being equal.

But then again, I think the most important sexual organ is the one between your ears . . . and in a story, convincing the reader that they should care about the characters is the biggest hurdle. So whatever floats the reader's or author's boat, I guess.

 

[KeithD]

I think it's sort of a sad mistake in thinking that all (or even most) readers of erotica/porn want to care about the characters. They do pretty much want what's between their ears to be sexually aroused, though--I'll agree with that. And a bit of over-the-top exaggeration often serves that nicely.

 

[Javahead]

I think it's sort of a sad mistake in thinking that all (or even most) readers of erotica/porn want to care about the characters. They do pretty much want what's between their ears to be sexually aroused, though--I'll agree with that. And a bit of over-the-top exaggeration often serves that nicely.

I - mostly - agree with you. Except that for some (many? most?) of us what arouses us isn't exaggeration, but conformance to our own particular tastes. Which may not necessarily be SCOUS (sexual characteristics of unusual size).

Which may be large, small, or mid-sized breasts, skin colors from pale to dark, male organs from modest to Oh-My-God, etc.

In a shorter story, physical descriptions may be most of what you have to build on. But in a longer story, unless it's a non-stop fuck fest, characterization becomes increasingly important.

On a personal note, I've never been able to get too heavily into master/slave BSDM relationships. As part of play, yes - but the idea of a full time 24/7 partner who's not my equal turns me off, not on. So totally non-consensual stories, and stories with truly submissive characters, need to work extra hard to engage me. While stories with spunky, funny, take-no-crap love interests start with an advantage. To the point that a story with a female main character whose personality fits my tastes but is physically far from my ideal is more engaging than one where she's precisely my physical ideal but is either obnoxious or a doormat.

I'm not saying that you - or anyone else - needs to write to match my tastes. Just that for some of us, once you get beyond a short stroke story, characterization is important.

 

[Jada59]

I have had similar but AFAIK, not here. For instance, foods vary from place to place. To someone in the UK, a black bean is likely to be a soy bean. Here's it's a turtle bean. I also gather that self rising flour is common there. It's not here.

 

[Javahead]

I have had similar but AFAIK, not here. For instance, foods vary from place to place. To someone in the UK, a black bean is likely to be a soy bean. Here's it's a turtle bean. I also gather that self rising flour is common there. It's not here.

I've been lucky enough to travel a fair bit over the years. I'm not the most travelled person here, by far - but not, I think, the least either.

And for me one of things that told me I wasn't as home was the differences in familiar foods - British bacon vs the US variety, the varieties of sausage served for breakfast in British or Japanese hotels, or even the selections on the shelves in a convenience store.

Little things - like the soft-serve ice cream in Hong Kong fast food places is much less sweet than the US variety, as are the pastries in bakeries. While - with a few exceptions - mass market candies in the UK are more to my taste than the US varieties. Or while, in general, the UK value of "spicy", isn't, I've very cautious when trying something labeled as such in Korea or Thailand.

 

[rutger5]

I do think that requiring registration to vote would have an effect - many fewer votes, but - overall - higher ratings for most stories. Plus it would make sweeps even easier for the admins ("We know Joe_Blow_123 always 1 or 2 votes - eliminate all his votes below 3"). I doubt Laurel and Manu will implement that - it would play hob with competition scoring, for one thing - but a man can dream. And I'd be happy with a selectable "no anonymous votes" option.

I say this every time, but: requiring registration to vote on stories would make scoring worse.

My understanding (not confirmed) is that sweeps already look for voters with a pattern of suspicious voting, and that this includes anon voters. Laurel has requested that people not discuss technical details, so I won't, but there are at least three well-known ways to identify anon votes coming from the same person and I'm pretty sure the site is already using at least two of them. So registration isn't necessary for that purpose. Those methods aren't bulletproof, but any troll who knows enough to get round them isn't likely to be stopped by registration.

Registration is likely to vastly reduce the number of votes on each story. This makes each troll vote more powerful, it makes it harder to detect suspect patterns of voting, and even when nobody's trolling it makes the scores more volatile and less informative.

I can't verify anything Bramblethorn says about technical details because such details are beyond my knowledge.But I completely agree it will make voting worse. On another site where I have stories posted they allow (or allowed, not sure if that still holds) a writer to only allow logged in registered members to vote. This was done due to writers complaining about troll votes. So there would be a story with five positive votes topping the charts while a story with five hundred votes (four hundred and fifty positives and fifty negatives) would would be ranked lower. If you don't think that caused friction then you don't know human nature and this in turn led to more alt accounts being used to target stories attempting to balance the scales back in the other direction.

And this leaves out that the vast majority of people coming to places like Lit are here to read stories that tickle their fancy. Make it more difficult to vote and they'll read but forgo voting. I don't want to lose the majority of votes trying to keep out some biased ones. My ego accepts different strokes for different folks and no matter what is done some will always game the system. Even with whatever method is used to disqualify votes it is still apparent that some writers have trolls who target their stories personally and I've read enough about chicanery that happens when someone's story cracks the HOF lists. This despite whatever management may be doing to prevent bad actors (and I don't have nearly the confidence in them that many here display). If one can't bear the thought of receiving less than high scores one can disable voting altogether which is far from satisfactory but we are living in a flawed world.

Also as far as how Joe Blow 123 always gives low scores unless he only targets certain writers then it might be honest, the same way certain critics are very critical or some teachers/professors would rather be whipped than give an A grade.

 

[oggbashan]

I have posted some of my stories on xhamster.

The response on Literotica, including the trolls, is far superior and useful.

A typical xhamster comment is a word or two if there is any response at all.