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 outcomes.
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 it's still creaking at the same seams.

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

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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.

You gotta love it when we speak about stories and authors as if Lit is producing cans. Your point is that no matter who among the authors leaves, some new guy will always replace them. And sure, if we were talking about numbers only, I'd agree. We could erase a thousand of the most popular authors, along with a thousand of those who we (subjectively) consider to be among the best authors regardless of their popularity, and yeah, Lit would barely feel the impact in its statistics. At least for a while.

But that's exactly why I never talked about the number of stories, the traffic, and similar stats. I was talking about less tangible things. Image, presence, reputation, prestige. All those things attract quality. And the focus on numbers and stats leads to a deluge of slop, regardless of whether it's human or AI-made. Claiming that history will keep repeating itself in the exact same way, even when the emergence of AI has changed the playing field so drastically, is shortsighted.

I mean, I may be wrong in my pessimism when it comes to Lit, but saying that everything is and will be exactly the same way as it was ten or twenty years ago is a much more problematic stance.

 

[qidniz]

the focus on numbers and stats leads to a deluge of slop

This isn't clear. The nature of the beast - in a word, smut - inevitably invites slop, of whatever kind. Stats are for the curious, the nerds, and maybe seekers of personal validation or satisfaction. Numbers, OTOH, are often just strictly business.

Lit is run as a business, and is evidently an ongoing concern, in no imminent danger of going belly-up (unless it gets sued, which is the fastest route to ruin.) They have a number of sources of revenue, which as a business, is generally the proper focus. Authors do not figure in this picture, and their stories do so only indirectly, as novelties. The fact that the site is free is the proof that the site is really not for you as an author. You're not a consumer; you're a product.

The owners of the site have made a business calculation that if authors don't like it, then they will have to lump it. That's the reality. Slop is not going to go away.

 

[SmilingLez]

The site may look more modern, but it's still creaking at the same seams.

2026 modern or pre 2000 bulletin board modern?

 

[LargoKitt]

I would not root for inviting stories built by computers 'scraping' human experience. Seems oxymoronic to me that sex could be portrayed by a machine that has never touched a nipple. If the premise is that, "These human animals like to hear narratives with this, this, and this because those scenarios trigger human arousal," maybe that is good enough for a smut site. Humans love recipes and formulas. Makes us feel we are in charge of our blood, sweat, and tears. Pissed me off when all my artwork was taken down because it was hypocritical. My pictures are a lot tamer than my stories, and maybe even my poetry.

 

[JordynRose]

2) Those who can interpolate within complete data…?

2) Everyone else.

 

[qidniz]

2026 modern or pre 2000 bulletin board modern?

Take your pick.

The good and bad thing about this site is that it has plenty of lists. Good, because they offer choice, and bad, because the organization and maintenance are terrible. Caches - which usually make sense - are chronically out of sync - which does not. The whole thing bespeaks the lack of a proper automation system. In the old days, you might have had to pay an arm and a leg for something like Autosys, but there are many much cheaper and fully functional alternatives these days. Relying on a mass of scripts and manual triggers, as seems to be the case, is "pre 2000" with a vengeance.

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

Well, you don't substantiate that statement. I'll cover some of the points:

1. The person seeking change to the system bears the burden of proof that change is needed, AND that a proposed solution will achieve the desired goals. That's standard.

2. Your earliest listed published story on your current story list is from November 2023. You wrote this in a post on Jan. 17, 2023: "No one is really happy with the existing system." You may have deleted stories that you had written earlier. But it appears you were unhappy with the voting system when you either had not published stories or had relatively little publishing history at that point. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know when you published your first story, and if it turns out you published a story long before you began pushing for changes to the system I will retract my statement.

3. You did not substantiate, and have never substantiated, your opinion that no one is really happy with the existing system. There are plenty of people, like me, who have quibbles with the system, and have been proposing changes longer than you have, but are content to see it remain the same rather than make the drastic changes that you and some others have proposed, such allowing only non-anonymous, registered users to vote.

4. There is no groundswell of discontent. I stand by that. You've never proven that. The people who complain the loudest in this system wrongly seem to think that majorities of authors agree with them when there is no evidence that this is so.

5. I stand by my statement that there's no way for a 2-person management team that has on more than one occasion TOLD US that they are understaffed to impose stricter quality requirements for stories. Obviously. It's not at all helpful to say, "They should hire more people." None of us is in a position to say with any confidence whether they can practically do that.

6. You don't make a case for how eliminating what you think are "bad" stories would make the site better. It would simply eliminate many stories that many readers obviously like. You don't explain how it would improve your reader experience. You have all the tools needed to bypass those stories and focus on the ones you like.

7. You offer no proof, no evidence that this site has passed its "golden age." That's an entirely subjective opinion, and a subjective opinion is not a basis for arguing that the site should change. Your subjective, critical opinions about the site are at the very least matched by those of us in this forum who, while we may advocate certain changes, would prefer the site to remain largely as it is than to make drastic changes such as removing stories or dramatically changing the voting system.

If you don't agree with these points, explain why and what your evidence is. "Wow" is not a rebuttal.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Well, you don't substantiate that statement. I'll cover some of the points:

1. The person seeking change to the system bears the burden of proof that change is needed, AND that a proposed solution will achieve the desired goals. That's standard.

2. Your earliest listed published story on your current story list is from November 2023. You wrote this in a post on Jan. 17, 2023: "No one is really happy with the existing system." You may have deleted stories that you had written earlier. But it appears you were unhappy with the voting system when you either had not published stories or had relatively little publishing history at that point. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know when you published your first story, and if it turns out you published a story long before you began pushing for changes to the system I will retract my statement.

3. You did not substantiate, and have never substantiated, your opinion that no one is really happy with the existing system. There are plenty of people, like me, who have quibbles with the system, and have been proposing changes longer than you have, but are content to see it remain the same rather than make the drastic changes that you and some others have proposed, such allowing only non-anonymous, registered users to vote.

4. There is no groundswell of discontent. I stand by that. You've never proven that. The people who complain the loudest in this system wrongly seem to think that majorities of authors agree with them when there is no evidence that this is so.

5. I stand by my statement that there's no way for a 2-person management team that has on more than one occasion TOLD US that they are understaffed to impose stricter quality requirements for stories. Obviously. It's not at all helpful to say, "They should hire more people." None of us is in a position to say with any confidence whether they can practically do that.

6. You don't make a case for how eliminating what you think are "bad" stories would make the site better. It would simply eliminate many stories that many readers obviously like. You don't explain how it would improve your reader experience. You have all the tools needed to bypass those stories and focus on the ones you like.

7. You offer no proof, no evidence that this site has passed its "golden age." That's an entirely subjective opinion, and a subjective opinion is not a basis for arguing that the site should change. Your subjective, critical opinions about the site are at the very least matched by those of us in this forum who, while we may advocate certain changes, would prefer the site to remain largely as it is than to make drastic changes such as removing stories or dramatically changing the voting system.

If you don't agree with these points, explain why and what your evidence is. "Wow" is not a rebuttal.

Seriously, what are you doing?

You've taken ONE out-of-context sentence from my post dated January 2023, and you're trying to prove exactly what? I had to search for that thread, and yeah, it's a thread five pages long where I made multiple posts. Needless to say, it was a more naive version of me back then.

But what was that sentence supposed to prove? That I always ranted against the website? Back then, I praised Lit much, much more than I criticized it. I was absolutely ecstatic about Lit when I first started publishing (July 31st 2022).
I remember even asking for a link to donate to Lit. Anyway, here's a screenshot of my previous story file, with dates.








Everything you said in this and your previous post about me always being set against Lit is false. There was a very specific event and very specific conversation with Laurel that made me see the reality of Lit, and that was months after the sentence you quoted. I had been very, very supportive of Lit until then.

But more than that, your arguments are not made in good faith. You keep trying to twist and fabricate what I was saying in this recent thread, the same as with that old thread from three and a half years ago.

And once again, for the record, I presented a subjective view from the very start. I never talked about stats or tried to prove my point in any way. I offered an impression and a prognosis based on that impression and my view on how Lit could maybe shift the paradigm. Maybe there's something there; maybe there isn't. I never claimed I had any proof. I never claimed I was offering facts or research of any kind.

Yet once again, something else is clearly shown and proven. Just as I said a little while ago in that thread about two-bombs, people here always complain about and attack unsubstantiated criticism, but no one ever complains about unsubstantiated praise. Both you and RR are giving motivational speeches here based on absolutely nothing but hopes and wishful thinking, yet I don't see anyone attacking you for it or asking for "evidence."

 

[RejectReality]

You gotta love it when we speak about stories and authors as if Lit is producing cans. Your point is that no matter who among the authors leaves, some new guy will always replace them. And sure, if we were talking about numbers only, I'd agree. We could erase a thousand of the most popular authors, along with a thousand of those who we (subjectively) consider to be among the best authors regardless of their popularity, and yeah, Lit would barely feel the impact in its statistics. At least for a while.

But that's exactly why I never talked about the number of stories, the traffic, and similar stats. I was talking about less tangible things. Image, presence, reputation, prestige. All those things attract quality. And the focus on numbers and stats leads to a deluge of slop, regardless of whether it's human or AI-made. Claiming that history will keep repeating itself in the exact same way, even when the emergence of AI has changed the playing field so drastically, is shortsighted.

I mean, I may be wrong in my pessimism when it comes to Lit, but saying that everything is and will be exactly the same way as it was ten or twenty years ago is a much more problematic stance.

All the complaints arising now? Nothing new under the sun.

Trolls!
B.S. Rejection!
Takes too long to post!

You can find those same complaints in the same volume going back to the beginning. There's no reputational crisis at Lit. There's a few people who are pissed off. There's people who are perfectly happy. People who shrug, accept the quirks, and reap the rewards of the exposure.

Same as it's always been.

What's probably going to have to happen eventually is that Laurel's going to have to find a percentage she thinks will work with regards to AI, and stop skimming them to potentially override the flag. If it's above that percentage, it's rejected for AI rather than bottom-piled to look at when she has time. Most of the backlog will vanish in a couple of hours. ( As the overwhelming majority of long-pending reports that have come to a reported resolution have resolved as an AI rejection ) She's trying to avoid that, but there's probably no way around it. The screaming will be cacophonous when that happens, but just like every other Lit-ending outrage, it will fade away when the loudest complainers leave in a huff, get bored, etc.

Guess where else you'll find those same complaints? Every other erotica site on the internet.

Meanwhile Lit keeps on keeping on as the biggest, introducing the world to new writers each and every single day, while every other erotica site struggles for a distant second best. If Lit was doing everything so wrong, someone would have supplanted them by now. The only ones that are close have had a decade or two to try, and haven't done it.

 

[SmilingLez]

There is, perhaps, a certain epistemological temptation to imbue the accumulated numerical manifestations of readership - views, ratings, rankings, favorites, lists, and the assorted hierarchies by which one may quantify the reception of one’s literary endeavors - with a degree of cultural and artistic significance that potentially exceeds the institutional circumstances from which those measurements arise. It may therefore be useful, in the interests of maintaining some modest correspondence between metric and meaning, to remember that Literotica is a for-profit commercial porn site rather than a recognized publishing house, literary academy, or adjudicating body for the determination of enduring literary merit. YMMV

 

[SimonDoom]

But more than that, your arguments are not made in good faith.

I'm not engaging with you in bad faith, and I'm not going to engage with someone who accuses me of bad faith. "Bad faith" means I don't mean what I say, that I'm engaging with you insincerely and dishonestly. I'm not. I mean every word.

I sincerely believe that since we began having a back and forth about this site (I think it was around the beginning of 2023), you have routinely made generalizations about the site, often negative ones, that are insufficiently supported by evidence to have any validity.

I sincerely believe that most of your suggestions for changes to the site would hurt it more than help it.

I sincerely believe you have made accusations against the site that reflect a quasi-conspiracy theory attitude toward the motives and operations of the site owners, which, again, have no basis in evidence.

I sincerely believe you have an overweening and unhealthy attachment to high scores, along with a few others who are the loudest in complaining about the site's scoring system. The irony of that is rich. The truth is that you are doing just fine here, just like some of the other big complainers, but you seem incapable of appreciating that and focus unhealthily on the negative.

In your most recent post above you say "I never tried to prove my point in any way" and "I never claimed I had any proof." If you have nothing to support your point, why make it? What's the purpose? It's just pure pointless, speculative negativism. It sincerely seems to me that there are a few contributors in this forum, of whom you are one, who want to wallow in the negative in a way that obviously will not serve any constructive purpose. I don't understand the appeal of that way of thinking or engaging.

You are correct that all of us are extrapolating opinions and conclusions from incomplete evidence. I could be wrong. I could be foolish. But I'm not engaging with you in bad faith. I mean everything I say.