Title and Description

[AwkwardlySet]

I completely agree with the OP. Title and description are important. I would also add tags, as they make the story show up in search queries and provide additional information about the kinks in the story.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'll say this as a caveat: it depends a lot on the type of story you are writing. If you are writing what you consider a serious story, then you should choose a serious title.

Excellent advice. I will remember this one going forward for sure. Thank you.

So when I choose the title for a mom-son title, I strive to max out the titillation factor. They almost always include the word "mom" or some variation in them. That word is both descriptive and titillating, to the audience I'm trying to reach. I've used titles like "Late Night on the Loveseat with Mom" (over 1.8 million views so far and still getting over 800 per day 7 years later), "Mom, You're a Hucow," and "Drive In Date With Mom."

Do you find these titles cheesy? You're not wrong! But obviously, you are not the right audience for the story in the first place, so I don't care. The people who tend to like these kinds of stories are going to gravitate to these kinds of titles.

I totally agree. The bottom line is getting more clicks. Stroke readers seem to want to know almost exactly what they're getting into. They really don't care about plot or spoilers, so tell them. They will click you.

For taglines, try also to be titillating but also complement your title. If the title is allusive, then make the tagline direct. If the title is direct, make the tagline playful. I sometimes create taglines that are questions or unfinished sentences with ellipses at the end, to make the reader want to read the story to finish the sentence.

The tone of your title and tagline should be adjusted to the tone of the story, but I strongly recommend incorporating some elements of description and titillation in the title/tagline combo to snare more readers.

I absolutely agree. Arty vague title? Use direct description to fill in some blanks. Direct title? Now you have some freedom to be metaphoric in the description.

 

[Djmac1031]

While on this subject;

Is it just me, or did the Short Description section get, well, shorter?

Only allows so many words, makes it tough sometimes to accurately tease the story.

 

[intim8]

I absolutely agree. Arty vague title? Use direct description to fill in some blanks. Direct title? Now you have some freedom to be metaphoric in the description.

That's really good. I'm definitely going to keep that in mind.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'm sure there's an AI for those. LOL

Useful thread. I must confess I often find writing the title and description harder than the story especially since we've only got 60 characters to play with.

 

[intim8]

Only allows so many words, makes it tough sometimes to accurately tease the story.

It's like the old days of Twitter, when you had to make a complex and thoughtful political point in 128 characters.

 

[MillieDynamite]

#Trumpsucks, trump sucks.

It's like the old days of Twitter, when you had to make a complex and thoughtful political point in 128 characters.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The Rivals Ch. 01: Dark Encounters: Two fortune hunters explore an ancient temple.

This is good. It promises what the story intends to deliver and since it's chapter 1, it lets the reader know that we're in for an epic adventure something perhaps Indiana Jones like, but also with some tension between the two characters. Presumably one is male and one is female and there is hot friction. This could be fun. 'The Rivals' itself isn't really grabby (could you imagine a movie poster for this?) but then it does tell us to get ready for that friction and angst between the two (and of course each chapter has a subtitle for more detailed effect). Personally I find friction hot, so this one works especially for me.

Fairytale of New York: A troll hunts for love on Christmas Eve.

This one says, sweet (fairy tale and love) and modern (New York) and non-human (troll) so it does a very effective job of letting the reader know what they're in for. It attracts it's audience for sure.

The Dome 01: Out Into the Wasteland: In a post-apocalyptic world, a fugitive finds a friend.

This is about the same as the rivals. The Dome doesn't say too much, except that it does effectively imbue the image of closed society (Logan's Run say) so that is quite effective right there. Plus again, sub chapter titles fill in blanks. We know that it's chapter 1 so we're in for an epic and we know that there is a world out there both inside and outside this dome. We tell the reader what they're in for without spoiling any plot. This is a good one.

Flesh for Fantasy: I’ll always remember my first sight of Mel under the shower.

Billy Idol. Shouts voyeur story. I imagine that it's in voyeur. The description even taps into the heart of the voyeur kink. Seems effective enough.

Lust Demon's Orgy: A Halloween party becomes an orgy when a demon is summoned.

This is a case of direct being very effective. Demons are staggeringly popular with certain audiences. So are orgies. You're pulling them all in here.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I wrote a story for the Pink Orchid event this year:
"The Maneater"
"A Barbie-wife/anti-heroine learned to control men."

I posted this to Loving Wives, and I expected more views.

But some of my other 750 stories have four times as many views than this one, even when the title doesn't say "750 words." So, I'm wondering if there's a catch requiring the reader to at least go to the last webpage for it to count as a view. The 750-word stories only have one page. But The Maneater was 22K words and seven pages (thus stopping some who clicked on the title.)

EDIT: Another title you might appreciate is:
"Chasing Her in the Wild"
"The cock-tease deserves to be treated like an animal."

This story is only 750 words.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

A Loss, A Gain - First cousins, Once clothes removed.

Honestly, the title does nothing here. The description is clever. It tells me 'light and fun'. It tells me that there will probably be some humor. This also tells me that you are probably a higher-level more nuanced writer. That might entice me, but likely will be lost upon the masses.

Bound to Know - Restraints & ravishments afflict a paleographer.

Clever title that alludes to restraints (and light years better than the old and tires 'Ties that Bind (and Gag)'). Description doesn't reveal much more, but does make me want to look up the definition of paleographer.

Cape Cod Capers - Two randy young bucks meet their match.

Tells me humor. Points for alliteration (stuff that sounds cool is generally grabby) but still vague. Two guys meet their match. In what way? Why should the reader care? It's not really speaking to me. It's all just too vague.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Baptism in Blood … An Erotic Horror Tale that’s good to the last drop.

My immediate thought is vampires. The description says 'An Erotic Horror tale ...' Presumably it is already posted in Erotic Horror? If so, this is redundant. You have 60 precious characters to draw the reader in. You just wasted like 21 of them. Now if it's not in erotic horror then using erotic horror in the description is probably a good thing. I still don't really know much about your story, your plot, your characters. There's blood in it, and probably vampires. That's it.

She-Wolf 750-Word Story … She loves the flavor of fear.

For me, any title with 750 in it is a turn off. What you are saying to me is "I apologize for something in my story that you might not like, please don't read it if that's the case." If you lack this much confidence in your own writing why should I read it? Now I understand that people do this to protect their scores against voters who dislike such short pieces, or even consider it some sort of courtesy, but a title and description should encourage clicks, not discourage. The title itself sounds like non-human, which is good if the story actually is non-human. As for the description, it tells me 'predatory' and really nothing else, although that cerebral connotation would probably be lost on most of the masses.

Going Down in the Elevator … Can true love happen in an elevator? No, but fucking can!

Ooh, I like this one. (blushh) clicky-clicky. See? I'm not the prude bitch of the AH after all. Maybe I just like impromptu spaces for getting it on. That's just me. Seriously, title is direct and alludes to light-hearted humor, perhaps even a fun romp. Coupled with a steamy and direct description. It speaks to its audience (of which I'm probably actually a member of).

Written in Blood … Her touch sent wicked-wild thoughts through me!

We have blood again. Description in first person says that the story will be first person and will focus more on personal emotions. That's good. All in all though, this combo is just too vague. Either the title or the description could have been more direct to the point to attract the piece's audience.

Forbidden Passions in a Dark Room … Beyond desire, beyond obsession, their love is everything.

My first image here is of cameras and developing film (dark room). If that is an element in the story then that's good. If not, then it's misleading. Description says love story but other than that it's very vague. Vague generally doesn't get eyeballs.

The Waiting Game ... Exploring the blurred lines between friendship, love, and lust

This is the vaguest one yet, in both title and description.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The Virginity Promise
It came with condtions, but can she know if they've been met?

First off, typo in 'conditions'. This leads to an important learning point for all of us: always proofread your title and description - ALWAYS

On the surface this one sounds a bit boring but when I actually read into it, the title tells us what this is about and directness is usually good. Then the description asks a question. This is interesting because the question subliminally makes the reader want to find the answer. Well, if you want to know the answer, just click. Subliminal carrot and stick here. The description also backs up the title by delving just a bit deeper and tells us of the actual dynamic and makes it sound like more than just a trope. I like this one. Well done. The question is will a less cerebral mass audience pick up on the nuance? Still, I give this a personal thumbs up.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, The Waiting Game wasn't mine; it was an answer to a question. I find your insights to be your insights, and you are free to have those. I'm also free to take or ignore your insights. I didn't ask for your views, but thanks so much for them.

One more thing: the 750-word story was in the event this year. It's better to let folks like you know right off that's all there is, so you don't waste time reading and then post a nasty comment that it's too short.

And yes, I missed that this was your thread about improving our titles and descriptions. And your comments about the 750-word story, are you being unaware of (or not carrying) the challenge?

My immediate thought is vampires. The description says 'An Erotic Horror tale ...' Presumably it is already posted in Erotic Horror? If so, this is redundant. You have 60 precious characters to draw the reader in. You just wasted like 21 of them. Now if it's not in erotic horror then using erotic horror in the description is probably a good thing. I still don't really know much about your story, your plot, your characters. There's blood in it, and probably vampires. That's it.



For me, any title with 750 in it is a turn off. What you are saying to me is "I apologize for something in my story that you might not like, please don't read it if that's the case." If you lack this much confidence in your own writing why should I read it? Now I understand that people do this to protect their scores against voters who dislike such short pieces, or even consider it some sort of courtesy, but a title and description should encourage clicks, not discourage. The title itself sounds like non-human, which is good if the story actually is non-human. As for the description, it tells me 'predatory' and really nothing else, although that cerebral connotation would probably be lost on most of the masses.



Ooh, I like this one. (blushh) clicky-clicky. See? I'm not the prude bitch of the AH after all. Maybe I just like impromptu spaces for getting it on. That's just me. Seriously, title is direct and alludes to light-hearted humor, perhaps even a fun romp. Coupled with a steamy and direct description. It speaks to its audience (of which I'm probably actually a member of).



We have blood again. Description in first person says that the story will be first person and will focus more on personal emotions. That's good. All in all though, this combo is just too vague. Either the title or the description could have been more direct to the point to attract the piece's audience.



My first image here is of cameras and developing film (dark room). If that is an element in the story then that's good. If not, then it's misleading. Description says love story but other than that it's very vague. Vague generally doesn't get eyeballs.



This is the vaguest one yet, in both title and description.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The Waiting Game ... Exploring the blurred lines between friendship, love, and lust

Not bad, but for a somewhat different story (I think readers would expect that one would end with the two getting together. It's an April Fool, probably for next year, so don't want to say too much about the plot)

The Virginity Promise

It came with condtions, but can she know if they've been met?

Title is good. It doesn't occur to her to question, but maybe something like "He finally agrees to let her destroy his purity test score" (a 1500-question purity test gets quoted repeatedly)?

Of course it may all change by the time I've written the rest of the thing.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

While on this subject;

Is it just me, or did the Short Description section get, well, shorter?

Only allows so many words, makes it tough sometimes to accurately tease the story.

It would be nice if we had say 400 characters. Then we could write a 50 word back cover blurb. But, as it is, we 60 characters. Gotta make 'em count.

 

[intim8]

It would be nice if we had say 400 characters. Then we could write a 50 word back cover blurb. But, as it is, we 60 characters. Gotta make 'em count.

I would never read the blurb when scanning for something to read. If the title and description got me, I'd appreciate having such a blurb to further pin it down, but that can be inside the text.

 

[Lifestyle66]

It would be nice if we had say 400 characters. Then we could write a 50 word back cover blurb. But, as it is, we 60 characters. Gotta make 'em count.

I wonder how a 400-word back cover blurb would work for a 750-word story?

 

[intim8]

I wonder how a 400-word back cover blurb would work for a 750-word story?

It becomes the 1150 Word Challenge.

But it gives me the idea for a 750 word story where the whole thing is actually just a blurb for another story, except the blurb has hot sex right there in it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The Maneater
"A Barbie-wife/anti-heroine learned to control men."

Thoughts on 'The ..." titles (or "A ..." titles for that matter). I often try to avoid using 'The' at the beginning of the title. I certainly don't avoid it at all costs, but there are just so many 'The ..." somethings out there that if the title makes sense without it, I'll probably leave it off. I will be clear that you have done absolutely nothing wrong here. This is just my personal taste which really means nothing. I just thought that I'd throw my opinion out there food for thought.

The title subliminally says danger and that's good. I need to speak aside here for just a moment. There are heaps of thousands of male porn stroke readers out there that are subby. Very few of them are genuinely submissive in the bedroom in that D/s sense, but they're subby because they're fucking lazy, and they absolutely loooove when an aggressive eager and slutty woman takes over and does everything while they do nothing. Getting back to your title and description, you are speaking right to the cocks of those men. First, 'barbie-wife' - none of these men will say no to that. Then 'control men' - she will take charge. That is what the readers will read into and hope for. Now your story may not actually deliver on some woman who sexually pounces men, but these readers will definitely click in hopes of that. This is literally their wet dream and they make up the biggest demographic out there regardless of kink - lazy subby men. I would be absolutely shocked if this story did not get piles of clicks unless it was in non-E or L&T or some other invisible category.

Chasing Her in the Wild
"The cock-tease deserves to be treated like an animal."

The title delivers the promise of the story, predatory/prey theme. So this is good as it speaks directly to that audience and has them on board. The description adds a little detail to it and makes it a karma thing. So this is a pretty good grab. Well done.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I find your insights to be your insights, and you are free to have those. I'm also free to take or ignore your insights. I didn't ask for your views, but thanks so much for them.

However, the real point of this thread is to let authors share their titles and descriptions here, ones that they have published or ones that they are contemplating using or are in the works. If you are willing, post your title an description here for critiquing by myself or anyone else.

I apologize for critiquing your titles and descriptions in a title and description critique thread. My bad. Perhaps you could have added a warning something like "do not critique these titles and descriptions" to make it easier for slow folks like me.

I will say that my critiques will be honest. If I think that it is poor I will say so and say why. If I like it I will say so and why. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings nor chuff anyone's egos. I just want to help everyone, including myself, improve on titles and descriptions so that we can all get more eyeballs.

I'm just being honest, just like I promised.

One more thing: the 750-word story was in the event this year. It's better to let folks like you know right off that's all there is, so you don't waste time reading and then post a nasty comment that it's too short.

And yes, I missed that this was your thread about improving our titles and descriptions. And your comments about the 750-word story, are you being unaware of (or not carrying) the challenge?

I am not only aware of the event, and have been all along, I actually participated in it. I also conceded that many writers do use the number 750 in titles or descriptions (or both! talk about paranoid) in my critique of your title. It's still an apology and still comes off weak to me, and it still tells people to not click on your story rather than click on it. But if a higher score makes you a better writer than I, then keep it up and I'll happily bow to you and concede that you're better at this whole writing thing than I am.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I wonder how a 400-word back cover blurb would work for a 750-word story?

I've thought about that too, but is it really fair that a 50k word story gets 60 chars for description?

I suppose that ideally there could be a formula of something like 1% of story character count, minimum of 60 characters, maximum of 400 characters.

So a 750 worder would have roughly 5000 chars, 1% = 50 chars, bumps to minimum of 60.

A 5k worder would have roughly 35000 chars, 1% = 350 chars.

Anything more then about 6k would hit the max of 400 chars.

 

[intim8]

I apologize for critiquing your titles and descriptions in a title and description critique thread.

I found it constructive.

I've thought about that too, but is it really fair that a 50k word story gets 60 chars for description?

I suppose that ideally there could be a formula of something like 1% of story character count, minimum of 60 characters, maximum of 400 characters.

So a 750 worder would have roughly 5000 chars, 1% = 50 chars, bumps to minimum of 60.

A 5k worder would have roughly 35000 chars, 1% = 350 chars.

Anything more then about 6k would hit the max of 400 char

Better to go with different rules for some categories. Like N&N having longer descriptions. Maybe S/F too.

But for the most part, I think short is better when you are browsing a list of stories. Maybe not 60 char short, but probably not more than 100 or so.

LW can allow only two words. "Non cuck." or "Cheating revenge".

 

[MillieDynamite]

You needn't bow, scrape, or anything else to me. I missed the first post. When I clicked on the thread, it took me to @StillStunned's posting, so I didn't see the originating post. Therefore, I skipped to the end and posted the things I posted. I didn't realize I'd missed the first post until I was nearly through my post responding to you. I wouldn't have posted had I read your first post with any of my works. I've never found your postings to be more than condensation or argumentive most of the time.

I'll retire from the conversation, having been fully humiliated, defeated, and insulted.

But for the record, it's your thread; more power to you, and have fun with it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I've never found your postings to be more than condensation

Interesting. I've been called a lot of things but never dewey.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Condescending my bad, terrible, horrid issue with the wrong words. and again for the record. I don't write for scores, I write for me and hope readers like it.

Interesting. I've been called a lot of things but never dewey.