Views

[SimonDoom]

So you criticize the undeniable subjectivity of my view that Lit had a stronger impact and a better image once compared to today, and then offer your own subjective view as a counterargument. I think that warrants an immediate and obvious "objection, your honor!" in your profession?

Well, if we're going to go in that direction, I would say you bear the burden of proving the site should change. You've been dissatisfied with this site practically from the moment you began publishing stories a few years ago. Which is your right. I see no evidence, however, that the site, relative to its competition, is in "decline," whatever that means, by whatever metric. Most of the authors who post in this forum seem not to support the changes you want. I see no groundswell of discontent, and I see no objective metrics that support any of your points. I see no case for tightening standards for story submission. I see no way that the site could do that, even if it wanted to (which it very obviously does not) given its current 2-person management. And, besides, while the imposition of higher standards might weed out some significant chunk of stories at the bottom, it's not going to improve the stories at the top, so how is it going to make anything better? Have you read any of the stories at the top of the most-viewed and most-favorited toplists? I would guess that many of those stories would not pass muster under your standards. But the site has no reason whatsoever to deny publication of stories like that. They're popular! People like them and want them! The existence of stories you don't like does not in any way impair your experience as an author or reader. You're as free as anyone else to be selective and read only those stories you enjoy.

You have made no case for the change you advocate. Your case consists of nothing more than "I want this site to do a better job catering to my specific subjective desires." That's not a persuasive case, counselor.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Well, if we're going to go in that direction, I would say you bear the burden of proving the site should change. You've been dissatisfied with this site practically from the moment you began publishing stories a few years ago. Which is your right. I see no evidence, however, that the site, relative to its competition, is in "decline," whatever that means, by whatever metric. Most of the authors who post in this forum seem not to support the changes you want. I see no groundswell of discontent, and I see no objective metrics that support any of your points. I see no case for tightening standards for story submission. I see no way that the site could do that, even if it wanted to (which it very obviously does not) given its current 2-person management. And, besides, while the imposition of higher standards might weed out some significant chunk of stories at the bottom, it's not going to improve the stories at the top, so how is it going to make anything better? Have you read any of the stories at the top of the most-viewed and most-favorited toplists? I would guess that many of those stories would not pass muster under your standards. But the site has no reason whatsoever to deny publication of stories like that. They're popular! People like them and want them! The existence of stories you don't like does not in any way impair your experience as an author or reader. You're as free as anyone else to be selective and read only those stories you enjoy.

You have made no case for the change you advocate. Your case consists of nothing more than "I want this site to do a better job catering to my specific subjective desires." That's not a persuasive case, counselor.

Wow.

You managed not to make a single correct statement in that post. Everything in there is either false or a non sequitur from what I actually said.

Wow.

 

[LargoKitt]

This 'word-count' thing. If I am concerned about the length of a story I am reading I scroll down to look at number of pages. No clue as to word count other than that. If I am submitting a story I might be concerned whether it is a one-pager; maybe whether a story change happens on the 'page turn'. (It would be nice to structure certain stories that way for 'cliff-hanging' purposes. A single Lit page is more like a 'Dan Brown' chapter in length.) In about all of my tales with real chapters the chapters stand alone. Some authors like WriterAnnaBelle write 'novels' that really seem to require following the thread. Maybe, to circle back, that pulls in more viewers.

 

[JGittes]

This 'word-count' thing. If I am concerned about the length of a story I am reading I scroll down to look at number of pages. No clue as to word count other than that. If I am submitting a story I might be concerned whether it is a one-pager; maybe whether a story change happens on the 'page turn'. (It would be nice to structure certain stories that way for 'cliff-hanging' purposes. A single Lit page is more like a 'Dan Brown' chapter in length.) In about all of my tales with real chapters the chapters stand alone. Some authors like WriterAnnaBelle write 'novels' that really seem to require following the thread. Maybe, to circle back, that pulls in more viewers.

When you click on a story title and it opens to page one, on the right hand side there is a section called 'Story Info.' Three lines down is the story word count, the number of words in the entire story.

Individual Literotica pages are approximately 3700 words. A typical 'Dan Brown' mainstream paperback will have 300 words per page (very roughly). Highly formulaic commercial novels, like 'Dan Brown' or romance novels, consistently have chapter lengths of 10 to 15 pages (again, very roughly). Many decades ago, I came across a very crass description of the reason for such standardized chapter lengths, which was, it was the lenght of time an average person could read while taking a crap.

 

[RejectReality]

Says who? I've been a reader here for more than 20 years on and off, albeit a far less aware one.


Does it, though? Sure, I like some of the changes in the UI, and it was probably about time they made them, but the website has also become considerably more sluggish. I don't think improving the UI somewhat is going to cut it in preset circumstances. AI has changed the paradigm completely, IMO.




So you criticize the undeniable subjectivity of my view that Lit had a stronger impact and a better image once compared to today, and then offer your own subjective view as a counterargument. I think that warrants an immediate and obvious "objection, your honor!" in your profession?

Not really.

Lush was more or less built up by refugees from Lit who were tired of one thing or another. The very same person who started the "Authors and their books" thread here was a huge contributor in the early days there, and has similar sticky threads. We lost the Right Rev RumpleForeskin to Lush, ( mostly because of the shitstorm the forum had become ) and he was a massive contributor here. Other sites were wholly started by little cadres of people from here who thought they could do it better. They're mostly gone, and any that still survive are barely a blip on the radar. I've constantly seen people complaining on other erotica sites about Lit since I started posting. The trolls! The trolls! It takes so long to get a story posted! I got rejected for no reason! And this was back in the late '00s.

Lit's still here with double the traffic of the competition, and still 100% free.

This is nothing more than another wave of discontented people who will leave in a huff and be replaced by newcomers. I think the AI bar is frankly too restrictive, and that certainly costs us new blood, ( and thus I believe some of the huffing is perfectly legitimate ) but there's brand new authors getting published every day, so it's not as if it's cutting the pipeline off completely. Those folks who may have dropped some work here and there are seeing Lit numbers, and they're not going anywhere once they get a taste of that.

Laurel will figure out a way out from under all the delays. She always does. It's just never quick enough for anybody.

 

[qidniz]

Laurel will figure out a way out from under all the delays. She always does.

1. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
2. The Iron Law of Backlogs will not be mocked.

Backlog delays were at least a week before they were acknowledged. Then the official wait time became 15 days. Now it's 30 days. The site has revamped its user interface, with no increase in functionality and plenty of code bloat (which does not bode well for future improvements.) The site may look more modern, but its still creaking at the same seams.

Basically, it's muddling along, and it's still the best of a poor lot.