Grammarly appears to be a common link with people saying their stories have been rejected for suspected AI. Whether it leaves a recognisable pattern, I don't know.
My grammar is fine, thanks. As I said, I used Grammarly to check spelling and punctuation.
I wrote it in Word, then cut and pasted the text into the submission box.
Literotica is also banning adult images in forums, which seems odd for an 'erotic' website. Now there is this AI nonsense. I can't face the hassle of proving my story is not AI written. The fun has been squeezed out of the site - what a shame.
If you're writing in Word, and your grammar is fine, why bother with Grammarly? Word's spellchecker should be enough.
Yes, most errors are detected by Word, but not all. It does not trap all punctuation mistakes, especially with dialogue punctuation. I only ran it through Grammarly as a final proof-reading check. I did that with the first 9 stories that all sailed through.
"I has an idea," would not be caught by MS Word's spell check. That is just one example of where a simple typo could get missed by Word, but caught by Grammarly.
If you decide to submit it as a Word document instead, let us know the results.
Because no matter how well you know your grammar and punctuation, you make mistakes that you become blind to.
No single, and even multiple edits steps are foolproof. There is no problem with using every resource available to produce quality work.
I dunno. The frequency of "I've been rejected for suspected use of AI" threads has dropped dramatically over the last year. All I said was, Grammarly is the one constant in all of those threads.
EB is right. Grammarly is a common thread in rejections. I have experience getting stories like yours corrected and successfully posted, and EB's advice is solid advice. if you're interested in getting your story posted, listen to EB.
If we're trying to find acceptability levels, I think that your use of the word "occassionally" is a load-bearing support for what makes your experience different from some other authors who have experienced rejections.
If we liked that better, we'd be there and not here.
Fair point, but I am simply curious.
A couple of years ago. I left it because of the arbitrary and whimsical and opaque review process. Different people do the gate-keeping with wildly different interpretations of the rules.
