Title and Description

[intim8]

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

The best things in life involve moisture.

 

[intim8]

Condescending my bad, terrible, horrid issue with the wrong words.

I know it sucks to make that kind of mistake in a heated retort, but dont.... sweat it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The best things in life involve moisture.

Well someday, I will write the ultimate steamy-windows-in-backseat-of-car scene. You just wait.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't sweat or perspire even I glisten.

I know it sucks to make that kind of mistake in a heated retort, but dont.... sweat it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

First off, apologies for missing this one.

Into the Woods
They're both desperate for sex, but no privacy!

Total honesty here, I absolutely picked that title out of thin air for my example. I had no idea whatsoever that anyone had actually used it. This is pure coincidence, so no you are not being called out at all. Very sorry about that.

Funnily enough, when I typed up the the example it was 'In the Woods' and then I changed it last minute to 'Into'.

Into the Woods itself is not a bad title. It's not a great title, at least not all that grabby, but it can still totally work provided that the description backs it up. What sticks out here in this description, to me anyways, is bad grammar. The secondary phrase is incomplete. I do understand that with 60 characters often one must cram stuff in and grammar be damned, but ...

They're both desperate for sex but can't find any privacy!

... is 58 characters and is a complete sentence. Not a huge deal as most people aren't going to pick up on this, but to the more literate folk it's a bit of a sore thumb and perhaps a red flag. Again, let us all remember to proofread our titles and descriptions. Sure, accidents happen, but hey, we're writers, not plumbers, so this is something that we should get right. At least that's how I see it.

The content of the description is decent, though. It tells that this will likely be something steamy (desperate for sex - which your audience presumably is as well) and it tells that the sex will be au nature. This will likely reach it's audience. Overall, it doesn't really make the story seem all that special, but it doesn't really have to, it just needs to get more people to click, and I think that this does. Any time that a sexy word (like fuck or cock or sex) is used in a title or description, we can't help but notice (for good or for bad, usually good).

Gas Station Guy
Gay virgin mistakes her for a man

The title is not really sexy but it does give us a setting - and that specific setting of a gas station sounds like a one-shot scene, so if the story really is a one-shot or close to a one-shot this is good. The description tells us what this is about, which is good, but it isn't really clear on what might be sexy about the story, so it feels ambiguous. Is a gay male reader supposed to get excited that there's no second gay man to engage with? Is there a gender bend involved? Is there going to be a vagina surprise or something? I think that it might leave the reader more confused than interested. Not sure about this one. Perhaps the category would shed more light.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Into the Woods itself is not a bad title. It's not a great title, at least not all that grabby, but it can still totally work provided that the description backs it up. What sticks out here in this description, to me anyways, is bad grammar. The secondary phrase is incomplete. I do understand that with 60 characters often one must cram stuff in and grammar be damned, but ...

Certainly isn't a Bad title. Into the Woods is a 1987 Broadway Musical smash hit that had a long run and a revival run in 2023. It is also a motion picture of the same name (and based on the play). Stephen Sondheim wrote the music and lyrics, and James Lapine wrote the book. It's not bad, UDERSTATEMENT. I've seen it on stage, on Broadway. It's a fantastic musical and a wonderful title. If the story is a fairy tale, fractured or otherwise, it's a perfect title.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Certainly isn't a Bad title. Into the Woods is a 1987 Broadway Musical smash hit that had a long run and a revival run in 2023. It is also a motion picture of the same name (and based on the play). Stephen Sondheim wrote the music and lyrics, and James Lapine wrote the book. It's not bad, UDERSTATEMENT. I've seen it on stage, on Broadway. It's a fantastic musical and a wonderful title. If the story is a fairy tale, fractured or otherwise, it's a perfect title.

This story presumably has nothing to do with the play, and I am in no way slagging the play. The phrase 'Into the Woods' by itself is pretty generic. That's all that I'm saying. By such rationale should I name my next story 'Gone with the Wind' or 'The Sound of Music'? Of course not. The mystique of those titles has nothing to do with our stories, and neither does the play called 'Into the Woods'.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Total honesty here, I absolutely picked that title out of thin air for my example. I had no idea whatsoever that anyone had actually used it. This is pure coincidence, so no you are not being called out at all. Very sorry about that.

Funnily enough, when I typed up the the example it was 'In the Woods' and then I changed it last minute to 'Into'.

Into the Woods itself is not a bad title. It's not a great title, at least not all that grabby, but it can still totally work provided that the description backs it up.

Seemed to work. Might have done better if I'd bigged up the E/V content for that audience, but it was a simple tale of a young couple and their sex life.

What sticks out here in this description, to me anyways, is bad grammar. The secondary phrase is incomplete. I do understand that with 60 characters often one must cram stuff in and grammar be damned, but ...

They're both desperate for sex but can't find any privacy!
... is 58 characters and is a complete sentence.

I don't know if it's a glitch or a function of the title and tagline fields being linked, but I've had numerous occasions when I've carefully crafted a tagline within the character limit, and then the site has tried to truncate it so I've had to hastily edit. This was one of those - my original was roughly your suggestion.

Anyone else had this issue? I haven't noticed it in the last year.

The title is not really sexy but it does give us a setting - and that specific setting of a gas station sounds like a one-shot scene, so if the story really is a one-shot or close to a one-shot this is good. The description tells us what this is about, which is good, but it isn't really clear on what might be sexy about the story, so it feels ambiguous. Is a gay male reader supposed to get excited that there's no second gay man to engage with? Is there a gender bend involved? Is there going to be a vagina surprise or something? I think that it might leave the reader more confused than interested. Not sure about this one. Perhaps the category would shed more light.

Yeah, this was my first story that didn't really fit any category. It is essentially a one-shot in a petrol station, but the US term was more alliterative.

I think it was EC I put it in, but Laurel moved it to Fetish, which was probably a good move. I suppose you could call it gender bending on her part (for extra deterrent of readers, there's a strap-on cock that doesn't get used for fucking - there was a limit to what could be mentioned that wouldn't just leave readers disappointed). 'An analysis of lived experience of gender and sexuality in late-night North London' might have been accurate but even less sexy - there's a blow job and some fingering, and lots of talking about sex, life, family expectations...

For extra learning points, I tagged it as Interracial, and Asian Man, as the guy is British Bangladeshi and they're popular tags. Mistake. It still attracts new readers via those, but almost all of them downvote it!

 

[MillieDynamite]

And yet, when they read the title, everyone automatically thinks of the play or movie. It will pique interest. You could use any classic movie, play, musical, or, for that matter, TV show title on any work you want; titles aren't copyrightable. If it garners more reads, why wouldn't you? (I know I said I stay out of it) Gone with the Wind by @pink_silk_glove When Rhett carries Scarlett up the stars and kicks the door open, the fun begins

Just being a smart ass, but I'm also right.

This story presumably has nothing to do with the play, and I am in no way slagging the play. The phrase 'Into the Woods' by itself is pretty generic. That's all that I'm saying. By such rationale should I name my next story 'Gone with the Wind' or 'The Sound of Music'? Of course not. The mystique of those titles has nothing to do with our stories, and neither does the play called 'Into the Woods'.

 

[Djmac1031]

I've been kinda hit or miss in this regard, I'll fully admit. Although I think more hits than misses.

The only one I truly had to intentionally whiff on was Riders On The Storm, because I found it impossible to tease the story without revealing at least one of two major spoilers.

And so I went with a really vague description. And yeah, my audience was lacking. But so be it.

 

[NotWise]

I posted a story last winter that went into EC, and has been largely ignored ever since (5.4K views). My only guess is that the title and short description are miserable failures. They were:

A Little Dirty, a LIttle Bit Salty
and
"Taking her little thrills and fantasies out for a walk"

What's the problem here? I put some intentional effort into both of those, but something must have gone wrong.

 

[intim8]

What's the problem here?

I'm guessing a large marjority of readers here are looking for stroke stories, to stroke to. So they want something fairly specific, and without a lot of foreplay. A description that sounds like a slow burn, or too thinky, they'll skim right past it. Especially in EC.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

And yet, when they read the title, everyone automatically thinks of the play or movie. It will pique interest. You could use any classic movie, play, musical, or, for that matter, TV show title on any work you want; titles aren't copyrightable. If it garners more reads, why wouldn't you? (I know I said I stay out of it) Gone with the Wind by @pink_silk_glove When Rhett carries Scarlett up the stars and kicks the door open, the fun begins

Just being a smart ass, but I'm also right.

No, you're suggesting that I do a smutty fandom of Gone with the Wind itself. Facetious or not, that is hardly the topic here.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

A Little Dirty, a LIttle Bit Salty
"Taking her little thrills and fantasies out for a walk"

What went wrong is that you put it in EC.

Playful title and original. I like it but the description begs for more. This is one where I would be looking to that description to fill in the blanks of my piqued curiosity but it fills in nothing. Okay, we're going for a walk, I guess on the beach maybe, so?

 

[NotWise]

What went wrong is that you put it in EC.

Playful title and original. I like it but the description begs for more. This is one where I would be looking to that description to fill in the blanks of my piqued curiosity but it fills in nothing. Okay, we're going for a walk, I guess on the beach maybe, so?

That was a 32k word story--something the readers wouldn't know until after they opened the story and registered a view. The characters did walk at the country club, but "out for a walk" wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was a way of saying "finding them and exploring them." I probably over-thought that.

 

[SimonDoom]

I posted a story last winter that went into EC, and has been largely ignored ever since (5.4K views). My only guess is that the title and short description are miserable failures. They were:

A Little Dirty, a LIttle Bit Salty
and
"Taking her little thrills and fantasies out for a walk"

What's the problem here? I put some intentional effort into both of those, but something must have gone wrong.

Too vague. "Out for a walk" makes it sound like it might be an exhibitionist story, but the tags, other than "showoff," don't make that clear. EC is the blandest, most grab-bag category. I don't understand what the tagline means. WHAT are her thrills or fantasies? I have no idea.

The score of the story is good, so presumably those who read it liked it. But your combination of title, tags, tagline, and category choice is insufficiently descriptive and titillating to maximize your number of readers. There's nothing specific or descriptive. There are no key words that are going to grab potential readers.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

key words that are going to grab

Speaking as a lyricist, this is something that I haven't really mentioned, at least not outright, and I really should have. Key words are huge. Just as you say, they grab. I know that when I write songs, often I will craft lines specifically to incorporate key words. When writing a song about addiction, I thought of the word dope, and knew that it had to get worked in somewhere for all of its connotations and for how cool it sounds. When writing about a stalker, the word voyeur hit me, and it had to go in. It held me at gunpoint. "Put me in the song or the song dies!"

 

[Britva415]

I posted a story last winter that went into EC, and has been largely ignored ever since (5.4K views). My only guess is that the title and short description are miserable failures. They were:

A Little Dirty, a LIttle Bit Salty
and
"Taking her little thrills and fantasies out for a walk"

What's the problem here? I put some intentional effort into both of those, but something must have gone wrong.

It's pretty long for EC. I feel like readers there don't expect more than 3k-8k words.

But if you're asking for critique of the title and description, the title is cute and suggestive but doesn't tell me at all what are dirty and salty, and the description doesn't give me any idea at all what it's about. Maybe exhibitionism? No idea, really, just a guess. To me, the description ideally would (A) give at least a teeny bit more data to interpret the title by, and (B) get to the point. That sentence triggers nothing but questions for me and no reason to care about finding out the answers. Is the walk the point, does the walk lead to an encounter, is the walk not actually important to the story at all? Does a fantasy get satisfied? Does it involve a partner? Is she looking for someone to thrill her out there or someone for her to thrill?

I'm three pages in to the story (very good so far, btw) and still don't see what either the title or the description have to do with the story yet. I wouldn't have clicked to read it if it hadn't been for this discussion. Now I'm seeing that I would have missed something good!

 

[StillStunned]

Let's have a go at prediction.

I just submitted a new story:
A Fool Not to Fuck: My sister competes with my girlfriend

My expectations are above-average.

 

[NotWise]

It's pretty long for EC. I feel like readers there don't expect more than 3k-8k words.

But if you're asking for critique of the title and description, the title is cute and suggestive but doesn't tell me at all what are dirty and salty, and the description doesn't give me any idea at all what it's about. Maybe exhibitionism? No idea, really, just a guess. To me, the description ideally would (A) give at least a teeny bit more data to interpret the title by, and (B) get to the point. That sentence triggers nothing but questions for me and no reason to care about finding out the answers. Is the walk the point, does the walk lead to an encounter, is the walk not actually important to the story at all? Does a fantasy get satisfied? Does it involve a partner? Is she looking for someone to thrill her out there or someone for her to thrill?

I'm three pages in to the story (very good so far, btw) and still don't see what either the title or the description have to do with the story yet. I wouldn't have clicked to read it if it hadn't been for this discussion. Now I'm seeing that I would have missed something good!

Thanks for all that.

I think the short description was a case of getting wrapped up in my story and forgetting that someone who hadn't already read the story wouldn't know what the description meant. Same goes for the title, but the title was suggestive enough that it doesn't make much difference.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It was more of Royal you, as in every one or anyone that wanted to do so.

No, you're suggesting that I do a smutty fandom of Gone with the Wind itself. Facetious or not, that is hardly the topic here.

 

[OldGoodPup]

Great discussion. I struggle with both title and description. I have a (great, IMNSHO) story , entitled "Sushi", with the description, "In which I prepare one of Miss's favorite meals." with very few views (compared to my other stories). Convinced that it is due to too much vanilla in both title and description.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

A Fool Not to Fuck
My sister competes with my girlfriend

Same theme as your other 'not to fuck' titles. All that these do is tell me that they're probably largely fappy. If that is your intended audience then that's good. Obviously sister means it's incest. Incest is a huge crowd and rabid. All the sister lovers will jump on board. Can't go wrong.

 

[StillStunned]

Same theme as your other 'not to fuck' titles. All that these do is tell me that they're probably largely fappy. If that is your intended audience then that's good. Obviously sister means it's incest. Incest is a huge crowd and rabid. All the sister lovers will jump on board. Can't go wrong.

Define "largely fappy". Erotic? Describing sexual acts or desires? Well yes, then "largely fappy" fits. Does it mean "a poorly written sequence of people doing it"? I hope not.

Either way, "jump on board" is the whole idea, isn't it? Come up with a title and description to attract readers? So far my "largely fappy" Not to Fuck titles have attracted more than 300k views and more than 5000 votes. So I'd say I've got it right with this series.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Define "largely fappy". Erotic? Describing sexual acts or desires? Well yes, then "largely fappy" fits. Does it mean "a poorly written sequence of people doing it"? I hope not.

Either way, "jump on board" is the whole idea, isn't it? Come up with a title and description to attract readers? So far my "largely fappy" Not to Fuck titles have attracted more than 300k views and more than 5000 votes. So I'd say I've got it right with this series.

Slow down Stunned. I meant exactly what I said, there is nothing to read into it. I make no judgment on your actual story nor anyone else's in this thread as I have read exactly zero of them, and even if I had this thread is about how potential readers (who have not yet read your story) may or may not react to your titles and descriptions on first sighting. That is all.

This is purely objective criticism, by me, and if you don't care for my objective feedback I have invited in the opening post anyone else to critique you as well.

"blank-blank-blank not to fuck" doesn't exactly scream serious story - that's what 'largely fappy' means. And there's nothing wrong with that. I never said that there was but if you need more clarity from me, there it is. But since I can't assume your actual content in your story for this exercise, I merely state that if that's your intended audience this is good. If it is not your intended audience then perhaps your title is a bit misleading (maybe, maybe not bit worth considering). That is all that I'm saying. It's just thoughts on the title to help you get a sense of how people out there may or may not be reacting to it. What I'm saying is, the readers out there may be sensing a less than serious story with that title, maybe even a stroker. If that was your intention, to get those readers to click then you have done well.

As for your numbers, I've already told you, I'm not here to discuss numbers or compare categories. Just reactions to titles and descriptions. If you want to use your numbers to justify your titles and descriptions then why do you need critique feedback on them? You already know that they're good.