Need an editor, story rejected for AI ...

[slightlyintrovert]

Hello!

I have four parts of my current series ("Mei") posted: https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=7115060&page=submissions, it's about a lady who is under the control of her partner. Her partner has had her belly expanded, hair removed, and a few other things.

The latest chapter has been denied as being written by AI, and I was told I need to find a volunteer editor to look at it.

Let me know if you are interested!

 

[TheDeepThinker]

I've been getting a lot of my stories rejected for the same reason. Something's definitely wrong. As I specifically put in the notes to the Admin, the only AI I use is Grammarly Pro as a spellchecker.

I always have at least one editor, so I'm not sure that getting one will help you.

 

[slightlyintrovert]

Thanks for the details @TheDeepThinker

I have never had an editor before and this is the first story that has been rejected! In their rejection they tell me to get a volunteer editor ...

 

[AwkwardMD]

I've been getting a lot of my stories rejected for the same reason. Something's definitely wrong. As I specifically put in the notes to the Admin, the only AI I use is Grammarly Pro as a spellchecker.

I always have at least one editor, so I'm not sure that getting one will help you.

Lit rejections always allow for an editor from the volunteer editor program (in other words, someone trusted by the site) to look over and approve the story. It's more about the vetting than it is the editing.

 

[AwkwardMD]

To be clear, it is not just asking for someone to volunteer to edit. It is looking for someone from the Literotica Volunteer Editor program.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In this case though, my first advice would be to resubmit the story as-is, using the Notes field to say this is not an AI submission.

Quite a few authors have been reporting these "AI" rejections lately. Clearly Literotica is using some kind of AI-detection tool that's less than 100% reliable, and if it's having problems, Laurel (the human moderator) should know about it.

 

[TheDeepThinker]

To be clear, it is not just asking for someone to volunteer to edit. It is looking for someone from the Literotica Volunteer Editor program.

That's how I get editors.

 

[_Lynn_]

Lit rejections always allow for an editor from the volunteer editor program (in other words, someone trusted by the site) to look over and approve the story. It's more about the vetting than it is the editing.

Volunteer editors aren't vetted by the site. Anyone can sign up.

 

[slightlyintrovert]

Lit rejections always allow for an editor from the volunteer editor program (in other words, someone trusted by the site) to look over and approve the story. It's more about the vetting than it is the editing.

I did that. Got rejected again after waiting a week.
Just going to submit to another site and hope readers can find it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Good luck with that.

 

[djrip]

Lit rejections always allow for an editor from the volunteer editor program (in other words, someone trusted by the site) to look over and approve the story. It's more about the vetting than it is the editing.

Wait, are you saying that one of these volunteer editors can vouch for the story and get it approved? If so this is the first I've heard of that, and it should be much more effectively communicated to authors. How does one get in touch with official volunteer editors? Just post here? If they approve, does the story then get posted?

I thought the rejection boilerplate was just saying, there are problems here, you might want to have someone look it over to help you fix issues before you resubmit. And I thought you would then resubmit, and go through the approval process again, with Laurel again making the decision. In other words, I thought the editor bit was just a suggestion for fixing problems. If it is actually a means of getting approved that should be stated more clearly somewhere. We've all been telling all these people who've been getting rejected for AI to just put a note and resubmit. I thought that was their only recourse. If there is a system where they can have an official volunteer editor review and approve it, we should be pointing them there as well.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Wait, are you saying that one of these volunteer editors can vouch for the story and get it approved? If so this is the first I've heard of that, and it should be much more effectively communicated to authors. How does one get in touch with official volunteer editors? Just post here? If they approve, does the story then get posted?

I thought the rejection boilerplate was just saying, there are problems here, you might want to have someone look it over to help you fix issues before you resubmit. And I thought you would then resubmit, and go through the approval process again, with Laurel again making the decision. In other words, I thought the editor bit was just a suggestion for fixing problems. If it is actually a means of getting approved that should be stated more clearly somewhere. We've all been telling all these people who've been getting rejected for AI to just put a note and resubmit. I thought that was their only recourse. If there is a system where they can have an official volunteer editor review and approve it, we should be pointing them there as well.

No.

I have had *many* rejections over the years. At least 2 dozen rejections. Early on, I had several conversations with Laurel about what to do, and the impression I got was that a repeat submission that did not come with an editors name attached to it was likely to just annoy her. She wanted to see someone else spend the time looking at it before she wasted her time, and if you accept her role as the sole admin for the site and that her time is precious, that does not seem like too big of an ask.

Every rejection letter says this. Go ask an editor, and resubmit with their name attached. Laurel still has to look at it a second time, but she is more willing to do so if/when it has another name attached.

 

[djrip]

No.

I have had *many* rejections over the years. At least 2 dozen rejections. Early on, I had several conversations with Laurel about what to do, and the impression I got was that a repeat submission that did not come with an editors name attached to it was likely to just annoy her. She wanted to see someone else spend the time looking at it before she wasted her time, and if you accept her role as the sole admin for the site and that her time is precious, that does not seem like too big of an ask.

Every rejection letter says this. Go ask an editor, and resubmit with their name attached. Laurel still has to look at it a second time, but she is more willing to do so if/when it has another name attached.

It's not clear which point exactly your "no" is an answer to. The automatic approval by editor, I think. But I've gathered from your reply that there is a way to attach the name of an official volunteer editor to the resubmission. Is that an official process, or do you just mean, put in the note box "I had so and so review this before I resubmitted it"? And again, does that mean post in this editor forum and anyone who replies is an official volunteer editor who can help you, and then you just resubmit and mention their name? Or is there like an official list or other more official process that needs to be followed?

For many issues it's silly; if a story is rejected for the underage rule, it doesn't require an editor for the author to age up the characters. Same for any clear issue of rule breaking. But for grammar and especially for these false positives on AI, it's good to know that attaching an editor's name is one tool at their disposal to get Laurel to reconsider.

I've never had a rejection but this is all stuff I'd like to understand well enough to explain the next time someone complains about being rejected for AI, because no one in AH has ever told any of those people about this that I've seen. Everyone always says just resubmit with a note explaining you didn't use AI, and they do that like three times and get rejected every time, until they start doing absurd things like trying to rewrite their human-written story with more errors included to make it seem more humanish according to some AI.

 

[slightlyintrovert]

Even finding an editor is challenging. This doesn't make it particularly conducive to continuing a story.

 

[AwkwardMD]

It's not clear which point exactly your "no" is an answer to. The automatic approval by editor, I think. But I've gathered from your reply that there is a way to attach the name of an official volunteer editor to the resubmission. Is that an official process, or do you just mean, put in the note box "I had so and so review this before I resubmitted it"? And again, does that mean post in this editor forum and anyone who replies is an official volunteer editor who can help you, and then you just resubmit and mention their name? Or is there like an official list or other more official process that needs to be followed?

For many issues it's silly; if a story is rejected for the underage rule, it doesn't require an editor for the author to age up the characters. Same for any clear issue of rule breaking. But for grammar and especially for these false positives on AI, it's good to know that attaching an editor's name is one tool at their disposal to get Laurel to reconsider.

I've never had a rejection but this is all stuff I'd like to understand well enough to explain the next time someone complains about being rejected for AI, because no one in AH has ever told any of those people about this that I've seen. Everyone always says just resubmit with a note explaining you didn't use AI, and they do that like three times and get rejected every time, until they start doing absurd things like trying to rewrite their human-written story with more errors included to make it seem more humanish according to some AI.

I don't handle messages that ask too many questions all at once, so be patient with me.

The AI thing is new, and I can't speak to how Laurel rejects those. I hold to the theory that Laurel uses a script that looks for objectionable words and phrases. Many of my stories were rejected for underage sex but really just had underage characters. According to this theory, Laurel overrides an automatic rejection by manually inspecting a submitted document. She doesn't want to do that for 7 stories a day per category, so initial rejections are discarded out of hand and resubmissions can wait until she has a day to spend some time on it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's not clear which point exactly your "no" is an answer to. The automatic approval by editor, I think. But I've gathered from your reply that there is a way to attach the name of an official volunteer editor to the resubmission. Is that an official process, or do you just mean, put in the note box "I had so and so review this before I resubmitted it"? And again, does that mean post in this editor forum and anyone who replies is an official volunteer editor who can help you, and then you just resubmit and mention their name? Or is there like an official list or other more official process that needs to be followed?

There's nothing I've seen in nearly ten years that suggests there's a Laurel sanctioned list of editors.

I reckon the standard rejection note is saying to new authors, "Go find someone who knows the site better than you do," but I get no sense from the "comments about editors" traffic we constantly see, that submitting a draft to an editor will automatically help someone over the line.

There have been many posts where people say they've used an editor, but they still getting stories rejected.

 

[Tigersman]

Relying on spell checker is a bad idea. While it will catch misspelled words, it will not catch when the wrong spelled word is used such as, using waste for waist, then for than or though for through. It also in some cases will not tell you if two words should be all one word or if they should be hyphenated. A good editor will ask where the story takes place and the take into account how the word should be spelled. A good editor will also consider the people conversing and their normal word usage such as ghetto speak. I find a common mistake made by writers is omission of words.

 

[O2]

I, too, have had my latest chapter in a long story rejected due to 'AI'. I use a spell checker and have changed the story without using it. I'm waiting for the latest changes to be rejected.

Finding an editor is difficult. I've messaged a couple of people, and no response.

I've also messaged myself, and they don't arrive in my email's inbox. It's hard to get an editor when there isn't any way for them to respond.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I've also messaged myself, and they don't arrive in my email's inbox. It's hard to get an editor when there isn't any way for them to respond.

?? Messages sent by PM (the Lit internal system) don't go to an email address. You get a notification on the envelope icon, top right on the Forum page.

You have to use the story-side Feedback function to switch across to email - those messages go off-site to the account holders registered email address.

 

[O2]

Thank you ElectricBlue. I know that, and I still get nothing. Looking for an editor here is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[Devinter]

Thank you ElectricBlue. I know that, and I still get nothing. Looking for an editor here is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I'd offer to help you out, but I have the exact same problem as you, so..

But as AwkwardMD said above, it's more about getting a confirmed editor from the official volunteer program to place a stamp of approval on it than anything else, and only a select group of people wield that power. I am excluded from those.

Just put a comment in the field and re-upload I suppose? You've been writing stories for this website since 2005. The idea that you'd suddenly start using AI to assist you is quite a stretch.

 

[Sams_Island]

Thank you ElectricBlue. I know that, and I still get nothing. Looking for an editor here is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

O2, I'm intrigued about what makes a story appear like AI to the LIT powers-that-be (or their algorithms). If you're still looking for an editor, please go ahead and start a conversation with me and we'll see if we're simpatico.

 

[O2]

Well, I tried.

 

[Sams_Island]

Hi, O2. I just started a conversation from my end. Hopefully we can get past the tech hurdles.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Ok at this point I'm very curious to know what a story rejected for AI use looks like, so if any of you have a story rejected by AI and need an editor to take a look, send me a message. Any category. Please only if you've been rejected for AI use.