Awaiting Approval timeline

[woodcotton]

Hey LE peeps,
joined the site about 5 days ago and submitted my first story 2 days ago ( 7,000 words) . It is yet to be approved and while that honestly isn't an issue a rough estimate would be nice. I totally understand if that's not manageable but I'm desperate to share. Been visiting this site for years and the idea of giving back gives me such a buzz.
Take care
WC

 

[RedMonkeyButt]

I think the wait right now is about 5-7 days. Someone might pop in with a more accurate timeline. My last story took about 5 days to post, but it's been about a month since I posted it so that could have changed.

 

[sr71plt]

It's taken mine four days to post since shortly before last Christmas (before that it consistently was three).

 

[woodcotton]

Thx for such a quick answer

Will stop me bumbling about, repeatedly checking.
WC

 

[HeyAll]

I know the feeling, you've worked hard on a story and you keep checking back to see if it's up yet. At least that's what I do.

The best way to get your mind off it is to start working on another story already.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

Oh how I miss MathGirl!

To quote some of her more famous responses to this question:
"Usually three to five days. Up to a week if the editor's bleeding piles are acting up."
"Usually three to five days. May take up to a week if the story contains sex with sheep or renting of pigs."
" Usually three to five days. Sometimes as long as a week if the editor is out chasing cats again."
"Usually three to five days. Sometimes up to a week if the editor has committed ritual sepuku."

And to show she won't mind:
" I would be SO pleased if someone liked my stuff enough to steal it."

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Oh how I miss MathGirl!

To quote some of her more famous responses to this question:
"Usually three to five days. Up to a week if the editor's bleeding piles are acting up."
"Usually three to five days. May take up to a week if the story contains sex with sheep or renting of pigs."
" Usually three to five days. Sometimes as long as a week if the editor is out chasing cats again."
"Usually three to five days. Sometimes up to a week if the editor has committed ritual sepuku."

And to show she won't mind:
" I would be SO pleased if someone liked my stuff enough to steal it."

I remember seeing the handle "MathGirl" but nothing else. I take it she no longer posts here.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

I remember seeing the handle "MathGirl" but nothing else. I take it she no longer posts here.

Not since 4th July 2004 see http://forum.literotica.com/member.php?u=139439.

 

[cocput]

Oh how I miss MathGirl!

To quote some of her more famous responses to this question:
"Usually three to five days. Up to a week if the editor's bleeding piles are acting up."
"Usually three to five days. May take up to a week if the story contains sex with sheep or renting of pigs."
" Usually three to five days. Sometimes as long as a week if the editor is out chasing cats again."
"Usually three to five days. Sometimes up to a week if the editor has committed ritual sepuku."

And to show she won't mind:
" I would be SO pleased if someone liked my stuff enough to steal it."

Liked the sepuku one.

 

[Sauceblade]

Yeah I think they are seriously backed up now. I submitted a 7k word story on Monday and it's now Saturday and nothing. But I expect with the Easter long weekend and the backlog of going thru those stories, and then the submissions of this week... There must be a wrench in the timetables.

I agree it's slightly maddening, especially because I am so proud of this story, but yep, just gotta keep writing and worry about things I actually can control. Like eating bacon.

 

[Darkniciad]

We're still nowhere near where it was when I first started here. The normal wait time was a week then, and was that way for at least a year.

 

[sr71plt]

The wait on mine that posted today was six days.

 

[Sauceblade]

The wait on mine that posted today was six days.

Thanks for the reference. It's appreciated.

 

[woodcotton]

Approval update

Found yet yesterday that my story was not approved. Bummer. But it's seems like it was only because I was a tad scrappy with my dialogue's punctuation. Should be an easy fix. Hope to fix it on Wednesday then quickly reapply for approval.
WC

 

[Darkniciad]

Found yet yesterday that my story was not approved. Bummer. But it's seems like it was only because I was a tad scrappy with my dialogue's punctuation. Should be an easy fix. Hope to fix it on Wednesday then quickly reapply for approval.
WC

When you get that rejection, go through every bit of dialogue with a fine-toothed comb.

For some reason, punctuation in dialogue gets singled out more than any other grammar issue, and a lot of times, a single comma where it shouldn't be will get the story rejected. If the one Laurel noticed the first time is the one you miss when fixing errors...

Do a "find" for closing quotes, and concentrate on that. That's where almost all the errors that cause this rejection fall. The punctuation always goes inside the quotes.

 

[sr71plt]

The punctuation always goes inside the quotes.

That's another question that keeps on spinning without the website administrators pinning down. British authors here say that their British styles go through fine, but in British style, the commas frequently go outside of the quote marks.

So, it's unresolved whether quote marking not following American style is a rejection point or not.

 

[Darkniciad]

That's another question that keeps on spinning without the website administrators pinning down. British authors here say that their British styles go through fine, but in British style, the commas frequently go outside of the quote marks.

So, it's unresolved whether quote marking not following American style is a rejection point or not.

Maybe that's only established authors using the style? First time authors could very well be getting popped for it.

All I can go by is the reported rejections, and the ones I've looked over. A lot of times, the only thing I end up finding is commas outside the quotes, ( as few as one) and they go through without a hitch after those are corrected.

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe that's only established authors using the style? First time authors could very well be getting popped for it.

All I can go by is the reported rejections, and the ones I've looked over. A lot of times, the only thing I end up finding is commas outside the quotes, ( as few as one) and they go through without a hitch after those are corrected.

I agree with you. But every time I look at someone's rejected copy and suggest it might be that, some British author says they have no trouble with it.

It just would be nice for Laurel to declare on this, so some of us didn't get dinked by jackasses like Lovecraft just for trying to help an author figure out why their story was rejected.

Maybe when she looks at a story she makes some determination whether she thinks they truly are a British author or not(?) But who knows?

 

[Darkniciad]

I agree with you. But every time I look at someone's rejected copy and suggest it might be that, some British author says they have no trouble with it.

It just would be nice for Laurel to declare on this, so some of us didn't get dinked by jackasses like Lovecraft just for trying to help an author figure out why their story was rejected.

Maybe when she looks at a story she makes some determination whether she thinks they truly are a British author or not(?) But who knows?

Must be nice and confusing with a certain fake Floridian who regularly mixes ou/o and s/z spellings -- sometimes in the same story.

I agree that a lot of this should be clarified in one way or another. The rejections could use clarification within the text that they're questions. Few actually visit the forum, and many who do only do so to rant about rejections, and by that time, many don't actually want answers. The FAQ needs some major overhauling and expansion.

But, the same post that clarified the point explained why. She'd rather spend the time approving stories than dealing with the far smaller percentage that have issues.

Maybe if we all play dumb for a while, enough ranting PMs will get through to encourage some FAQ updating

*laugh* As if. Not in my nature. Question gets asked that I think I can answer, I answer it.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

in British style, the commas frequently go outside of the quote marks.

... A lot of times, the only thing I end up finding is commas outside the quotes, ( as few as one) and they go through without a hitch after those are corrected.

The statement you quote as coming from SR is simply not true. See http://www.http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/punctuation-in-direct-speech for the current definitive statement.

 

[woodcotton]

Thx so much for the advice

My fine tooth comb is at the ready now all I need is a few hours away from work and family.
Hearing that dialogue punctuation was the most common reason for rejection reassured me. Nice to know I'm not dumbest rookie.
Thanks peeps.
WC

 

[Darkniciad]

My fine tooth comb is at the ready now all I need is a few hours away from work and family.
Hearing that dialogue punctuation was the most common reason for rejection reassured me. Nice to know I'm not dumbest rookie.
Thanks peeps.
WC

The most common grammar rejection.

I'd say the content rejections are more frequent, if the reports and complaints that appear on the forum are any indication. Underage followed by Rape fantasy vs. Rapist fantasy, and finally "Excessive physical or mental cruelty"

But, your point stands. Getting this rejection on grammar is hardly uncommon, and you're in company that probably includes many of the top-listed authors at one point or another