Submission bots?

[Neverlander]

A question for my fellow authors: Does anyone know whether or not bots are used when new submissions are examined for acceptability? I'm not being ironic or sarcastic in asking the question - more than once I've had a story submission rejected for a stated reason that seems to make little sense. The situation has the earmarks of a piece of simplistically coded software that flags certain conditions or patterns as problematic for reasons that a human reader would instantly realize do not apply, even from a cursory examination.

So, can anyone shed light on this? Inquiring (and frustrated) minds want to know!

 

[rescatooor]

A question for my fellow authors: Does anyone know whether or not bots are used when new submissions are examined for acceptability? I'm not being ironic or sarcastic in asking the question - more than once I've had a story submission rejected for a stated reason that seems to make little sense. The situation has the earmarks of a piece of simplistically coded software that flags certain conditions or patterns as problematic for reasons that a human reader would instantly realize do not apply, even from a cursory examination.

So, can anyone shed light on this? Inquiring (and frustrated) minds want to know!

To answer a very complicated question simply, yes.

Yes, I do think the bots do at the very least the preliminary work.

 

[Neverlander]

An equally simple, "Thank you!"

 

[rescatooor]

An equally simple, "Thank you!"

Also if you have issues, and think it should be accepted, pm Laurel through the forums. This apparently works in some cases

 

[ElectricBlue]

To answer a very complicated question simply, yes.

Yes, I do think the bots do at the very least the preliminary work.

Agree. We've seen enough evidence over the years of simple word search algorithms generating what appear to be automated responses - as well as genuine human eye pushbacks where someone has inadvertently or deliberately found the line and stepped over it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

How do you think that one person publishes a hundred or more stories a day?

She doesn't read everyone of them that's for sure. She has a piece of code or maybe many pieces of code the root out the bad stuff some authors put in their stories. Not pointing fingers.

Unless the software returns an unknown and human eyes have to have a look, they are either published or rejected. Most rejection notices I have seen are pretty specific in nature.

You follow the rules and no rejections. Submission FAQ is here. It will tell you everything you want to know about everything here at Lit.

 

[Neverlander]

How do you think that one person publishes a hundred or more stories a day?

She doesn't read everyone of them that's for sure. She has a piece of code or maybe many pieces of code the root out the bad stuff some authors put in their stories. Not pointing fingers.

Unless the software returns an unknown and human eyes have to have a look, they are either published or rejected. Most rejection notices I have seen are pretty specific in nature.

You follow the rules and no rejections. Submission FAQ is here. It will tell you everything you want to know about everything here at Lit.

Thank you. Yes, I have read the FAQ, and I did follow the rules. In the rejection I received a few days ago my use of quotes in dialogue was cited as the reason (start speech by a different character with a new paragraph, etc.). This was surprising, because the story in fact contained no dialogue! Evidently the screening software assumed that the presence of quotes always meant the presence of dialogue. What was present in the story was the use of quotes to refer to historical phrases, or to emphasize or call attention to specific words, e.g. "voluptuary." A single word hardly constitutes a dialogue, especially since there was only one character in the story!

Certainly, dealing with hundreds of submissions is a daunting task. But to err is human, and one always has opportunities for improvement. So do bots!

 

[TxRad]

Thank you. Yes, I have read the FAQ, and I did follow the rules. In the rejection I received a few days ago my use of quotes in dialogue was cited as the reason (start speech by a different character with a new paragraph, etc.). This was surprising, because the story in fact contained no dialogue! Evidently the screening software assumed that the presence of quotes always meant the presence of dialogue. What was present in the story was the use of quotes to refer to historical phrases, or to emphasize or call attention to specific words, e.g. "voluptuary." A single word hardly constitutes a dialogue, especially since there was only one character in the story!

Certainly, dealing with hundreds of submissions is a daunting task. But to err is human, and one always has opportunities for improvement. So do bots!

Replace the " with ' and resubmit. Problem should be solved.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Thank you. Yes, I have read the FAQ, and I did follow the rules. In the rejection I received a few days ago my use of quotes in dialogue was cited as the reason (start speech by a different character with a new paragraph, etc.). This was surprising, because the story in fact contained no dialogue! Evidently the screening software assumed that the presence of quotes always meant the presence of dialogue. What was present in the story was the use of quotes to refer to historical phrases, or to emphasize or call attention to specific words, e.g. "voluptuary." A single word hardly constitutes a dialogue, especially since there was only one character in the story!

Certainly, dealing with hundreds of submissions is a daunting task. But to err is human, and one always has opportunities for improvement. So do bots!

This is an American site, so the use of " is assumed to start dialog which would require the started of a new paragraph.

Do as Txrad suggested and things should work just fine.

 

[Neverlander]

Yeah, I thought about using single quotes, but why the hell should I have to resort to tricks like that (bogus British) just to get a silly story posted more quickly, because of faulty screening software? And how would the bot respond to a ridiculously awkward (though correct) passage like this:

"Actually, 'You will always be "ma petite fleur!" - you know that!' is what he said," she responded.

Poor bot would have a conniption fit! To deal with such perversion ya gotta have recursion, and I bet the bot don't.

While we're on the subject (of things that piss me off), here's another one that got me foaming at the mouth a while ago! Unless it's been fixed recently, it would seem that it's a no-no to include stanzas of poetry in a prose story. I tried that last year in a short story submission that ended with a limerick. At first it was rejected, with an explanation complaining about embedded newlines or some such thing (don't really remember). I don't recall what was done - maybe a human intervened - but it was finally accepted. However, even though it looked perfectly fine in the submission text box and in the preview display, when it appeared as published the entire 5-line poem was compressed into a single line! Grrr! C'mon, Literotica! It's not that hard - end of line means end of line. What's so hard about that?

End of rant.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Yeah, I thought about using single quotes, but why the hell should I have to resort to tricks like that (bogus British) just to get a silly story posted more quickly, because of faulty screening software? And how would the bot respond to a ridiculously awkward (though correct) passage like this:

"Actually, 'You will always be "ma petite fleur!" - you know that!' is what he said," she responded.

Poor bot would have a conniption fit! To deal with such perversion ya gotta have recursion, and I bet the bot don't.

Don't compromise. Put in a Note to the Editor that you're using UK publication style, so Laurel (the human eyes) is made aware of that.

Obviously, your UK style punctuation then needs to be correct - we often get UK writers saying the same thing and complaining, and it usually turns out their punctuation is incorrect in any version of English.

 

[Emirus]

Don't compromise. Put in a Note to the Editor that you're using UK publication style, so Laurel (the human eyes) is made aware of that.

Obviously, your UK style punctuation then needs to be correct

I’m English and I’ve never had a problem when submitting because I use correct (lol) English. I don’t write “energize”when the word is actually “energise.” Nor do I write “gotten.” I appreciate that writers in the American colonies have to work harder than thows ov us huw no how to rite propa.

To add, sensibly I hope, to EB’s comment I don’t think it’s necessary to put a message with your submission telling Laurel you are writing UK english and not US english. There’s not many differences and certainly not enough to bother about.

Write a good story and put the commas and full stops in the right places. Spell words correctly, whether UK or US. Make it easy for the reader to be able to read your story. If you’re unsure about anything, whether it be spelling, fact or use of a word, then check. I’ve done it many times (and still sometimes got it wrong.)

Just do your best and don’t blame anyone else when things don’t go as you wish because you’re not doing yourself any favours. Or is it favors?

 

[ian370]

I suppose my mind is really on a whole new level today.

My initial thought was that the title of this meant robots who are programmed to submit.

Kind of gives a whole new premise to, 'it does what it's told'.

Somehow, that doesn't seem to work for me.

Alas, I see now that this thread is about something completely different.

We now return you to your regular programming.

 

[Neverlander]

I'm happy to report that my saga has a happy ending! I resubmitted the offering in question with a note-to-the-mistress pointing out that rejection on the basis of dialogue usage was unreasonable since the story in fact contained no dialogue; et voilà! - the piece has been published.

Note to ian370 - now that is funny!

 

[ian370]

I'm happy to report that my saga has a happy ending! I resubmitted the offering in question with a note-to-the-mistress pointing out that rejection on the basis of dialogue usage was unreasonable since the story in fact contained no dialogue; et voilà! - the piece has been published.

Note to ian370 - now that is funny!

Say it, don't spray it!

I suppose this could be good propaganda for these days and times.

Better yet. Stop the spread!

Well, sort of, I mean.

Glad all seems to have turned out well.

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to happy ending.

Laughter is important these days.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yeah, I thought about using single quotes, but why the hell should I have to resort to tricks like that (bogus British) just to get a silly story posted more quickly, because of faulty screening software? And how would the bot respond to a ridiculously awkward (though correct) passage like this:

"Actually, 'You will always be "ma petite fleur!" - you know that!' is what he said," she responded.

Poor bot would have a conniption fit! To deal with such perversion ya gotta have recursion, and I bet the bot don't.

...

End of rant.

Actually, that would be just fine and the bot wouldn't have any trouble with it as it begins with a " and ends with ," with a dialog tag.

Or it would be flagged and displayed in a list of errors found and Laurel would take a look at it and mark it okay.