New Lit Story Page Preview

[ElectricBlue]

I read a story. Average time shown up front 88 minutes. My mind went whoa! Do I have 88 minutes? It was only a 5 pager and I read those all the time. But that made me hesitate.

I'm not so sure that's a good feature now.

Surely you'll be able to calibrate your own reading time against a notional time given by a computer?

 

[ElectricBlue]

The Literotica total gives me a good idea of the upper bound of what it might take to read, including coffee refill breaks.

I thought your mom brought up the coffee .

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

Surely you'll be able to calibrate your own reading time against a notional time given by a computer?

I'm not sure how many readers would actually use this, but maybe add an additional setting in the control panel where you can set your own average words per minute that it uses for the calculation of reading time? Like, it defaults to 200 or whatever it is using now, but you can override that if you wish. With a tooltip or little info icon next to the the amount of minutes to point people to the setting, it might be something people would actually use.

It's just an idea though. It would require database changes for the new setting, and there's so many users reading without being logged in that I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Just realized a possible solution though: add the words per minute used for the calculation as a hover or in parenthesis after the minute count, so people know what it's based on. That way it's easy to tell how much faster or slower you are than the average. (assuming people actually know how fast they read, I personally have no idea what my average words per minute are)

 

[gordo12]

You'll probably mentally adjust to it soon. If it's based on a roughly 200 words per minute pace and you read faster than that, it's not hard to calculate the adjustment. 200 words per minute means over 18 minutes per Literotica page, which is far slower than I read. The Literotica total gives me a good idea of the upper bound of what it might take to read, including coffee refill breaks.

The Average Reader is 200-250. It appears to be rounded up to the next minute.

While that's slow for me, we have to consider the trolls that need to look up any words with more than four letters.

Maybe the 88 minutes is a fuse timer. 88 minutes till they give up on the first paragraph and explode with a 1 vote.

 

[SimonDoom]

Surely you'll be able to calibrate your own reading time against a notional time given by a computer?

Another feature the Site could consider offering -- estimated reading time based upon one's estimated reading pace, something one could input on the My Options or similar page.

 

[KeithD]

I think it's a bit silly, to try to be too accurate about reading time; my latest story is said to take 644 minutes; ten hours and 45 minutes would be good enough for me. Just round off at quarters of an hour.

Perhaps there should be room for the writers to tell how long it took to write the story ; possibly 10.45 months for the same story...

It's sort of like trying to narrow down to the universal reader. Why would anyone think every reader reads at the same rate--or even close to the same rate?

I think these are silly bells and whistles to go after.

 

[gordo12]

The Average Reader is 200-250. It appears to be rounded up to the next minute.

While that's slow for me, we have to consider the trolls that need to look up any words with more than four letters.

Maybe the 88 minutes is a fuse timer. 88 minutes till they give up on the first paragraph and explode with a 1 vote.

In a moment of inspiration it struck me that this feature could be turned into a 1 vote timer. 18 minutes per page until the 1 vote option becomes available. It would save admin time from the sweeps and slow down the trolling crowd. They'd have to be dedicated to wait around that long.

Just a thought.

 

[Javahead]

In a moment of inspiration it struck me that this feature could be turned into a 1 vote timer. 18 minutes per page until the 1 vote option becomes available. It would save admin time from the sweeps and slow down the trolling crowd. They'd have to be dedicated to wait around that long.

Just a thought.

Not a bad idea. Even if they were determined to 1-vote, it would really slow them down. Not stop them, but make them work harder for their trollishness.

 

[SimonDoom]

In a moment of inspiration it struck me that this feature could be turned into a 1 vote timer. 18 minutes per page until the 1 vote option becomes available. It would save admin time from the sweeps and slow down the trolling crowd. They'd have to be dedicated to wait around that long.

Just a thought.

So what do readers who finish stories in less than half that time do? Sit and wait? They won't do that. They will bail. They won't vote. Then only the slow readers will vote. Do you want that?

I've taken this position before, and the longer I've been on here the more staunchly I believe: nothing at all should be done that makes it harder for readers to participate in or interact with this site, and that includes voting and commenting. This site should be as easy as humanly possible for readers. No restrictions. Anything that might have a tendency to reduce reader participation would be foolish. From the Site's standpoint, it makes much more sense to expect authors to buck up and deal with the bad eggs in the readership than to adopt restrictions that may toss out some good eggs with the bad.

 

[JohnDavidSmith]

Having the bookmark feature available to everyone should eventually cut down on favorite listings being used for that purpose.

It should cut it down quite a bit, but the Android App poses a hurdle to that, as favorites remains the only feasible way to bookmark in the App. How much of a hurdle depends on what percentage of Lit readers use the App for most or all of their reading.

 

[Javahead]

So what do readers who finish stories in less than half that time do? Sit and wait? They won't do that. They will bail. They won't vote. Then only the slow readers will vote. Do you want that?

I've taken this position before, and the longer I've been on here the more staunchly I believe: nothing at all should be done that makes it harder for readers to participate in or interact with this site, and that includes voting and commenting. This site should be as easy as humanly possible for readers. No restrictions. Anything that might have a tendency to reduce reader participation would be foolish. From the Site's standpoint, it makes much more sense to expect authors to buck up and deal with the bad eggs in the readership than to adopt restrictions that may toss out some good eggs with the bad.

I believe the proposal was specifically to require a "reasonable" per-page reading time to, specifically, enter a valid "1" vote.

If you view a "1" vote as something only the worst of stories in both construction and content deserve, this seems like a fairly reasonable limitation. Basically, it requires the voter to have actually *read* the story before giving the lowest possible vote.

Then again - I don't believe everyone is entitled to a vote. I believe that everyone is entitled to an *informed* vote - take the time to read the story, then vote on it.

I'll freely admit that in the non-digital world, I've advocated raising the miminum voting age from the current US standard of 18 years to 25 or so. And adding an additional requirement of "minimum of three years out of full-time schooling, and must have been self-supporting during the previous year". Because I'm a crusty old misantropist.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

It's sort of like trying to narrow down to the universal reader. Why would anyone think every reader reads at the same rate--or even close to the same rate?

I think these are silly bells and whistles to go after.

Since the number of pages in a story is not at the top, giving an estimated reading time is good info. I may know that I read faster than the average person, but it's still useful (to me) to know if something is expected to take 39 min or 88 min. Like Simon wrote, we'll soon recalibrate our expectations.

 

[gordo12]

So what do readers who finish stories in less than half that time do? Sit and wait? They won't do that. They will bail. They won't vote. Then only the slow readers will vote. Do you want that?

Yes, as Java said, only for the one vote. The rest would be available when they finish.

 

[KeithD]

Since the number of pages in a story is not at the top, giving an estimated reading time is good info. I may know that I read faster than the average person, but it's still useful (to me) to know if something is expected to take 39 min or 88 min. Like Simon wrote, we'll soon recalibrate our expectations.

Then I'd put a wordage figure in rather than a read time figure. How lazy do you have to be not to be able to gauge your one read time by wordage over time if you're into that, your read time not being the same as a whole lot of other folks?

 

[JPGmvny]

Then I'd put a wordage figure in rather than a read time figure. How lazy do you have to be not to be able to gauge your one read time by wordage over time if you're into that, your read time not being the same as a whole lot of other folks?

Only when I started write was I aware of word-count. I didn't before. I think over time the reader will get their sense of story length and view the "time to read" as a guide, however imperfect.

 

[KeithD]

Only when I started write was I aware of word-count. I didn't before. I think over time the reader will get their sense of story length and view the "time to read" as a guide, however imperfect.

I would find the word count very useful for multiple author reasons (posting stories here isn't necessarily the last time I plan on lifting them to post somewhere else). Reading time? not really; it varies too much from reader to reader. I just think that younger folks are too needy on services provided--especially in needing stats based on the "unknowable" and/or more effort-consuming to obtain then their usefulness to have.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Then I'd put a wordage figure in rather than a read time figure. How lazy do you have to be not to be able to gauge your one read time by wordage over time if you're into that, your read time not being the same as a whole lot of other folks?

I, honestly, can't even figure out what part of my comment you're trying to insult. So, I'll give it another go.

The average time to read gives me a sense of how long it will take me to read the story, even if my actual reading time is less than the average.
To use Gordo's example - a 5 page story may be listed at 88 minutes, but maybe it takes me 40 minutes to read 5 Lit pages. So, from now on, when I see the average time to read of 88 minutes, I know it'll take me about 40. Rather than having to scroll all the way down to find out how many pages it is.

I can glance at that metric, and if it says 644 minutes, save it for another day if I want, even if it would really take me half that time. Rather that reading the first 3750 words of it only to find out that there are 29 more pages to go.

See, useful?
But, I thought you never read here anymore, so what does it matter to you?

 

[SimonDoom]

Then I'd put a wordage figure in rather than a read time figure. How lazy do you have to be not to be able to gauge your one read time by wordage over time if you're into that, your read time not being the same as a whole lot of other folks?

Even if you're just a little bit lazy, it's a useful feature. Many, many people, including Literotica readers and authors, are more than a little bit lazy.

If you want to provide people a service, and to be successful at it, you don't ask whether their needs and wishes are reasonable. You don't judge them. You take them as they are and do your best to provide them the services they want. The customer is always right. I think the Site is smart to provide more bells and whistles for readers and authors, even if I might not value every single one of them.

 

[KeithD]

I, honestly, can't even figure out what part of my comment you're trying to insult. So, I'll give it another go.

The average time to read gives me a sense of how long it will take me to read the story, even if my actual reading time is less than the average.
To use Gordo's example - a 5 page story may be listed at 88 minutes, but maybe it takes me 40 minutes to read 5 Lit pages. So, from now on, when I see the average time to read of 88 minutes, I know it'll take me about 40. Rather than having to scroll all the way down to find out how many pages it is.

I can glance at that metric, and if it says 644 minutes, save it for another day if I want, even if it would really take me half that time. Rather that reading the first 3750 words of it only to find out that there are 29 more pages to go.

See, useful?
But, I thought you never read here anymore, so what does it matter to you?

Why do you need to think I'm insulting you at all in any way? Isn't your last question an attempt to insult me? I'll leave you to it then. I would think that the number of stories I've contributed to this site over several accounts would permit me to have an opinion and express it. Apparently not.

 

[JPGmvny]

I would find the word count very useful for multiple author reasons (posting stories here isn't necessarily the last time I plan on lifting them to post somewhere else). Reading time? not really; it varies too much from reader to reader. I just think that younger folks are too needy on services provided--especially in needing stats based on the "unknowable" and/or more effort-consuming to obtain then their usefulness to have.

I agree. Now that I write, I understand word count. I was referring to non-wriiters among us.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Thank you, we are working on updating the Series dates. It was an oversight where they were supposed to be variables and we somehow left them as static text. It's an easy fix.

It would be nice if it also indicated whether or not a series was complete.

 

[SimonDoom]

It would be nice if it also indicated whether or not a series was complete.

How would the Site know that?

Sometimes authors aren't aware whether their series are done. I don't think the Site would ever know this.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I think it looks fine. I don't find it too bright on my laptop, I haven't looked on mobile yet.

I don't like the reading time feature. I think some readers will just skip past stories they think will take too much time to read. It don't necessarily expect readers to always finish every story in one sitting.

 

[MelissaBaby]

How would the Site know that?

Sometimes authors aren't aware whether their series are done. I don't think the Site would ever know this.

There ought to be a way to allow authors to mark the series as finished, other than editing it into the story description.

 

[KeithD]

It would be nice if it also indicated whether or not a series was complete.

Yes, it would, but that would have to come from the author, wouldn't it? (I declare off the top how many chapters there are and put "-FINI-" at the bottom of the last one.) Laurel/Manu aren't going to be able to determine when a series is finished when we have writers not marking them finished and sometimes coming back years later to add to them.

And on the crack by another poster (not MelissaB) that I don't read many of the stories, therefore I shouldn't care about the "reading time" feature, I've invested well over a thousand stories here to connect with readers and I care about my readers--and what they think they're getting in bells and whistles when it may not be what they think they're getting. I think wordage is a lot more useful to everyone involved than some hocus-pocus reading time stat.