Has anyone else drawn the ire of story critic Stacnash? 🤣

[SimonDoom]

Point taken re the speculation - I also agree that it's good that we don't know how the algorithms work. But I can't see how they wouldn't be driven by outliers. There's only so many ways you can do it, surely - multiple votes from the same IP address, flagged IP addresses, flagged accounts, and statistical outliers. Scores often rise dramatically during the sweeping process, so lots of low votes are surely being deleted.

I have an idea, but I'm not going to speculate about it. I think it's better not to, because either a) we say something close to the truth and help people game around it, or b) we say something far from the truth and just get everybody more pissed off because of confusion and perceived unfairness!

 

[Actingup]

I have an idea, but I'm not going to speculate about it. I think it's better not to, because either a) we say something close to the truth and help people game around it, or b) we say something far from the truth and just get everybody more pissed off because of confusion and perceived unfairness!

True. Moving on then....

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Is there room for another chair at this table?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Is there room for another chair at this table?

First drink is on the house!

 

[SimonDoom]

First drink is on the house!

We're going to need a free-flowing tap if this thread is back.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I have no idea why that story got 'Nashed.

 

[Voboy]

I have no idea what that story got 'Nashed.

Did you make one of her "lists?" Lol.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I got a 23/100 whatever that means.


That was after the 10,000 word rambling blather.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I got a 23/100 whatever that means.


That was after the 10,000 word rambling blather.

Which story? Don't hold out on us!

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

At 6 months old, It doesn't need any more attention.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

At 6 months old, It doesn't need any more attention.

Don't make me go through all your stories looking. Please.

 

[Actingup]

Don't make me go through all your stories looking. Please.

This one. To me, the story feels like @Five_Inch_Heels is being a bit playful, a bit experimental to see what works, and the readers have reacted appropriately for that style and category. By contrast, Stacnash is treating it as a serious piece, and like all her reviews she includes a lot of subjectivity about how she feels and responds, and then translates that to an attack on the author's skills and commitment. There may be useful content in the review, but it's obscured by her casual abuse, her condescending and judgemental tone, and her pretense to objectivity. Poorly written review, again. One star.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have an idea, but I'm not going to speculate about it. I think it's better not to, because either a) we say something close to the truth and help people game around it, or b) we say something far from the truth and just get everybody more pissed off because of confusion and perceived unfairness!

Contests are easily manipulated and playing the sweep is part of it, but the rest all has to do with various factors of the story itself that all play into creating a perfect storm that consistently nets a W and it has nothing to do with pounding it with one or five votes.

The cabin cabal had this down to a science, people here didn't believe it-or want to-at the time, but when you had someone who had never placed in a contest in years, place in the next three in a row they were eligible for its hard to ignore.

But that aside there is a lot of things that aren't fair. Some the site has no control over as far as dichotomy of readership and vote totals, or in the case of LW a large faction of nasty trolls but others fall under a word that starts with F and ends in ism, and if people don't think that's a factor, they either don't pay attention or are deluded.

 

[Bazzle]

He’s right that my strokers are lazy writing but damn. He has Lovecraft68 as a one star writer though so at least I scored higher than that at three stars.

No idea why he bothered with one of my stupid stories anyway. At least he has Jackie Hikaru as an “elite 5 star author” that’s definitely right.

I was told never to write ever again

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I was told never to write ever again

I tell myself that several times a day.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Poorly written review, again. One star.

I disagree. I just read the story and the review, and it's a great detailed review chock full of essential feedback. It's actually not even that rude. Yes, it tips into sarcasm and even blunt negativity at a couple of points (and I might even argue unnecessarily), but there are countless far far far worse trolling examples out there than this. This one is fairly tame actually.

 

[Actingup]

I disagree. I just read the story and the review, and it's a great detailed review chock full of essential feedback. It's actually not even that rude. Yes, it tips into sarcasm and even blunt negativity at a couple of points (and I might even argue unnecessarily), but there are countless far far far worse trolling examples out there than this. This one is fairly tame actually.

Thanks for your comment. These are the bits in the review that I really object to:

"After all, the fantasy was already in your head and you’d probably already gotten off to it before you reached that point. To be clear, your lack of effort is strongly linked to the likelihood that your own arousal is more important to you than anything else."

"The only conclusion I could draw was that you put so little thought into your story that you simply didn’t care whether it made sense. Then, of course, the sister was revealed to be the deviant-in-chief and I realised just how bored I was after only a few thousand words."

"Not only do you struggle to create compelling characters, but your ability to write erotic content is sorely lacking. Your dialogue, world-building and chemistry are all gaping holes in your skill set. I’d say that you’re capable of better, but that level of encouragement can never be offered to someone who’s made such little effort across the board."

These are not just rude but also presumptive. I agree that there are worse examples out there. But I stand by my one star rating. For me, the issues with the review obscure any value that it has. And since Stacnash consistently extends her opinion of a story to an evaluation of the author in total (as in the first and third examples above), I'm happy to extend the same courtesy to her.

One other observation from my perspective is that the reviews tend to be humourless. With apologies to Five Inch Heels for dwelling on their story, when I read it I laughed, because it was self-evidently, knowingly ridiculous, and to my way of thinking that's perfectly fine in a category like I/T: the whole category is a silly trope, and there's an element of fun in how these are done. In this case, cousin George's wife is a raging Nymphomaniac, but wait: big sister's on the patch! But the review ignores the loopy nature of the story and approaches it as though it's an assessment piece submitted for creative writing 301, and it's clearly not intended as that. We're not all here to create masterpieces or to get off.

 

[lovecraft68]

I disagree. I just read the story and the review, and it's a great detailed review chock full of essential feedback. It's actually not even that rude. Yes, it tips into sarcasm and even blunt negativity at a couple of points (and I might even argue unnecessarily), but there are countless far far far worse trolling examples out there than this. This one is fairly tame actually.

I think myself and others may have already made this point, but I'll say it again.

To some people when you see someone going flat out unhinged nasty in a lot of reviews, then creating lists where they tell readers to avoid certain authors because they don't like them, then who cares if they give a positive review? They're still a shitty person who bases everything on what they like or hate, but it seems some people are so desperate and needy for approval they'll support anyone who sucks them off regardless of how nasty they are to others.

@Five_Inch_Heels mentioned 'a bunch of blather' but to some here (and I'm not saying them, I just liked the way they said it) its blather if its bad, but if its a good review then suddenly this is not a troll, but a discerning thoughtful qualified expert who obviously knows good material when they see it.

To put it in terms of real life rather than here, its basically knowing someone is an asshole for being insulting and crude to your friends, but if they smile at you, all of a sudden they're a great person.

Comes down to neediness and selling out for approval no matter the source.

Before someone tries to counter this with "well, you're on their shit list so you're mad" I just downloaded that stat report. I've received 13,239 comments since I started here. I don't get giddy over good ones and don't lose sleep over bad ones and aren't motivated by anything other than my opinions and beliefs and one of those is you don't take from a snake. Bash people here, but gush over me and I'll still think you're trash, and I've had that happen with some of the longtime trolls here. BFD you liked my story, you're still a worthless dreg for the way they're attacked other authors who don't deserve to be attack and insulted because you didn't like their story

Useless trivia fact. I have never left a negative comment on a story here. if I didn't like it I don't vote or comment. I respect the work it takes to write and realize that people are proud of their work and I don't need to get a sick thrill out of trashing them. I save that for weak minded losers who need to take their frustration out on others.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

These are not just rude but also presumptive. I agree that there are worse examples out there. But I stand by my one star rating. For me, the issues with the review obscure any value that it has. And since Stacnash consistently extends her opinion of a story to an evaluation of the author in total (as in the first and third examples above), I'm happy to extend the same courtesy to her.

One other observation from my perspective is that the reviews tend to be humourless. With apologies to Five Inch Heels for dwelling on their story, when I read it I laughed, because it was self-evidently, knowingly ridiculous, and to my way of thinking that's perfectly fine in a category like I/T: the whole category is a silly trope, and there's an element of fun in how these are done. In this case, cousin George's wife is a raging Nymphomaniac, but wait: big sister's on the patch! But the review ignores the loopy nature of the story and approaches it as though it's an assessment piece submitted for creative writing 301, and it's clearly not intended as that. We're not all here to create masterpieces or to get off.

You see, the way that you approach the feedback is whether it makes you feel good or not, whether it's something that you want to hear or not. My point is that if you change that approach to legitimately wanting to know what worked and what didn't in regards to your craft, you will not care about the tone. Yet the tone matters to you so you will not receive the feedback, no matter how valuable it is. You prefer to throw away very valuable feedback in favor of avoiding an ego bruise. This may sound blunt but I'm just trying to get across the honest truth. I'm sure that you will toss this comment aside as 'presumptive' but it's not presumptive at all. It's how the human psyche works. Push your ego aside and not only will it not get bruised, you will also get valuable feedback.

And in this particular case, if we peel back the sarcasm, the feedback itself is incredibly good and spot on and has important info to help the writer improve his craft. Now I refuse to criticize people's work publicly on the forums, but if @Five_Inch_Heels consents here, I can post my review of the review. If Heels would not like that I can still offer to PM it if he wishes.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

To some people when you see someone going flat out unhinged nasty in a lot of reviews, then creating lists where they tell readers to avoid certain authors because they don't like them, then who cares if they give a positive review? They're still a shitty person who bases everything on what they like or hate, but it seems some people are so desperate and needy for approval they'll support anyone who sucks them off regardless of how nasty they are to others.

I am not and have not ever commented on whether I care that a review is positive or negative, only whether it is accurate and/or informative.

@FiveInch033 mentioned 'a bunch of blather' but to some here (and I'm not saying them, I just liked the way they said it) its blather if its bad, but if its a good review then suddenly this is not a troll, but a discerning thoughtful qualified expert who obviously knows good material when they see it.

I agree. The response to feedback for most people is ego driven, not craft driven, exactly as you say. Good review = smart thoughtful person, bad review = asshat troll. Most writers care more about approval and applause than about their craft or improving it, and they take any feedback as reflection of themself rather than the piece. My stance on the matter has always been for more people to just try the opposite, as they will probably be pleasantly surprised at how their writing improves if they do. At the same time we hear ad nauseam the phrase 'constructive criticism' from many folks who wouldn't know what constructive criticism is unless it gave them a handjob.

Comes down to neediness and selling out for approval no matter the source.

Exactly.

and one of those is you don't take from a snake

If by this you mean that I am selling myself out to defend Stacnash, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I do not defend her style of critique at all. She's a total cunt. However, when she reviews stories, she does know what she's talking about. When it comes to writing, she knows her shit. It's too bad that she's still a cunt, but good feedback is good feedback. In short, I'll take her review any time but I'm not interested in defending her attitude.

Of course, when I say this, everyone jumps to conclusions that I am defending her. I'm not. All that I am saying is that you can't control her attitude, but you can still control your response. You can still take the feedback and run. If someone takes a shit on your doorstep next to an envelope with $1000 in it, do you throw away the $1000? Fuck no. The attitude (the shit) and the feedback (the money) are two separate things. We are perfectly capable of taking one and leaving the other.

 

[Voboy]

I read the story and the review. I liked the story more than Stacnash did, but the review (I thought) was a very typical Stacnash piece. It didn't seem out of line with most of the rest of her stuff.

 

[Actingup]

You see, the way that you approach the feedback is whether it makes you feel good or not, whether it's something that you want to hear or not. My point is that if you change that approach to legitimately wanting to know what worked and what didn't in regards to your craft, you will not care about the tone. Yet the tone matters to you so you will not receive the feedback, no matter how valuable it is. You prefer to throw away very valuable feedback in favor of avoiding an ego bruise. This may sound blunt but I'm just trying to get across the honest truth. I'm sure that you will toss this comment aside as 'presumptive' but it's not presumptive at all. It's how the human psyche works. Push your ego aside and not only will it not get bruised, you will also get valuable feedback.

And in this particular case, if we peel back the sarcasm, the feedback itself is incredibly good and spot on and has important info to help the writer improve his craft. Now I refuse to criticize people's work publicly on the forums, but if @Five_Inch_Heels consents here, I can post my review of the review. If Heels would not like that I can still offer to PM it if he wishes.

I think we've covered this ground before. In my particular case, there are reviews that I deeply appreciate (and they're not all positive), and some that are less helpful (and they're not all negative). I do think that tone matters a great deal when it acts to obscure or undermine the message, and so does balance. If somebody gives consistently thoughtful, considered and balanced reviews, then those reviews carry a great deal more weight whether they are perceived as positive or negative. That's just how the world works.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I read the story and the review. I liked the story more than Stacnash did, but the review (I thought) was a very typical Stacnash piece. It didn't seem out of line with most of the rest of her stuff.

It did seem par for the course. Stac seems more interested in trying to be clever than providing any useful feedback.
People insist "She knows what she's talking about" but there is scant little evidence to support that.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I do think that tone matters a great deal when it acts to obscure or undermine the message

But that obscurity ultimately is on the receiver. A critic may intend to discourage, intimidate and damage, but is ultimately powerless to do so if the receiver takes the critique neutrally and refuses to be be intimidated, and it is entirely possible to do so without dismissing the content.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

People insist "She knows what she's talking about" but there is scant little evidence to support that.

Obviously you haven't actually read any of her critiques, or if you have you have dismissed them due to tone, which effectively is the same thing.