Question for the author community

[SimonDoom]

This.

I've written some pretty weird shit and taken some fairly odd chances, especially in my Halloween entries, and I feel the readers have always given those stories a fair shake. I'd feel less confident with a small panel; in fact, I'd probably write to please them if I was trying to win. I don't want to write that way.

Another good point. I appreciate the aesthetic judgments of my fellow authors, but I wouldn't want my stories to be judged by them in a contest, and I wouldn't want to feel obligtated to write stories to meet their standards, which are different from mine. I'd rather take my chances with the hoi polloi.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I appreciate that, but I don't wanna. Lol.

What I do think, respectfully, you might've missed was this: So I'm not sure there's much that's "wrong with" the status quo, especially in the context of the way the site likes to operate. That last bit matters, so I might have been burying the lede, but what I mean is that Lit is exactly what Laurel and Manu want it to be. The problems you and I and others identify here in the AH are not problems: they are how Laurel and Manu want the site to operate, for whatever opaque reasons they have.

So that leads me to the conclusion that the contests reflect that overall attitude. Whatever it is the contests accomplish, they serve the purpose the site wants them to serve. In that sense? The contest judging is not broken, and does not need fixing.

I absolutely agree, of course. This is what we see with every other aspect of Literotica as well. I just spoke from my own point of view as such was the nature of the discussion that came after Laurel's "ruling" about how that rule should be interpreted. I know better than to expect anything to change just because we want it to change

 

[KeithD]

I think known authors have a leg up on the contests, which is why a real "story quality" contest would have independent judges judging blind (not knowing who the author of an entry is). That's not what we have here, though, for better or worse, and it's not what we're going to get. I also will have to say, if truth be known, that I think it's legitimate for authors putting a lot of effort and talent in contests continuously to have a leg up in them.

That said--about known authors--I'm surprised by how often new or not-widely-known authors place in the contests.

 

[Voboy]

This is a very good point. Before attempting to fix the "bugs" in the system, you have to determine that they are bugs, not features, and I suspect many of the things that some consider bugs are, in fact, features.

Having a contest system where readers vote serves the purpose of giving readers the best possible scoring/winning system to enable them to choose stories. Readers, as a whole, don't want to choose stories based on what I think; they want to choose stories based on what the broadest pool of other readers think.

We shouldn't forget that Lit's story side has always been reader-focused, not author-focused. There are a number of "issues," regularly discussed here in the AH, that aren't issues at all if you look at them from the perspective of the readers. That reader-centric bias helps explain the contest scoring, and is in keeping with the way the site does many other things.

@AwkwardlySet, with respect (and I do respect him (at the risk of assuming gender), and we've gone 'round and 'round about this on these boards) has always been open about the fact that that doesn't sit well with him. His solution, contest-wise, is to not participate in the contests. I support that, even though I like the contests and regularly advise people to enter; it's his call, and if he's uncomfortable with the scoring, then he's doing the right thing.

But the danger lies in projecting, in assuming that the rest of the site feels the same way. Nope.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Is there evidence that supports the idea that to win contests authors must please the "average" reader/voter?

I don't know, but I don't see that, and my perception is to the contrary.

My perception, from the contest winners and entries that I've read, is that the stories that place in the top three tend to be better than the other stories, by whatever artistic criteria I like to apply. I don't perceive that they particularly "pander" to the lowest common denominator. You may feel otherwise, but I'll bet a lot of others agree with me, so we're back to square one, where you want the site to change how it does things to suit your subjective preferences. Your opinions are no less valid than mine or anyone else's, but you can't make a serious case for change just based on the fact that you don't personally like something.

To form an impression, I would first have to read a story that participated in some contest. I don't think I ever did. I am speaking from the point of view of pure logic, as little or as much as that has to do with reality. The average reader is the voter and thus they are more likely to give 5* to the story that pleases them. Also getting that blue W is an achievement for the author and something that might bring readership. They have an incentive to write something the readers might like. All of this makes sense to me, even if I can't testify to how things actually play out in the contests.
Your own impression doesn't seem logical to me. Maybe you are right in your impression or maybe you are completely off, fuck knows. I also have no impression of mine to clash with yours. I spoke from common sense only.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

I appreciate the aesthetic judgments of my fellow authors, but I wouldn't want my stories to be judged by them in a contest

I wish contests were judged. My only reason for participating in contests is to get filthy rich. If I were a judge, then I could accept bribes and get even filthy richer. Filthier rich? Filthier richer?

Doesn't matter. The point is that as a judge I'd be rich and filthy.

 

[Voboy]

All of this makes sense to me, even if I can't testify to how things actually play out in the contests.
Your own impression doesn't seem logical to me. Maybe you are right in your impression or maybe you are completely off, fuck knows. I also have no impression of mine to clash with yours. I spoke from common sense only.

You should enter a few. You'd get a better sense of where we're coming from.

The contests are NOT logical, but no competition ever is. Even chess is wildly unpredictable when it's played boldly. A key thing I think you're missing [understandably] is that, in all honesty, many of us who enter contests don't really expect to win them. That's not why we're entering. It's nice when it happens, but nobody's relying on winning Lit contests to pay their rent. So most of us aren't really "competing" in a way that would make us pander for a higher score.

 

[KeithD]

I edited regional anthologies that were based on contests for nearly seventeen years. The contests had differing bases, some seasonal, some topical, some annual, but they were judged by panels of unconnected people with judging expertise not associated otherwise with the anthologies or writers, and what they were given to judge didn't have the author's name attached to it while it was being judged. For a "that story quality" based contest, that's the best, most fair way to go.

Given that's not we're going to get at Literotica, I think we should just look at the contests as a shared activity and as helping to build a reader base. On that basis, all I'd do to what we have now is stop giving monetary rewards, which promote cheating. I've placed in various accounts a few times but never have taken the money. The Web site doesn't actively follow up with winners to take the money either.

I've placed at least one story in every contest for more than a decade--and sometimes entered in multiple accounts. The shared experience and added reader base have been enough reason for me to continue to do so, even though my genres sometimes have a tough time getting attention or reaching the vote minimum. It's a fun, mind-engaging activity. I don't need more incentive than that.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I won’t argue with most of your thoughts, VB, but the monetary rewards here are rather like being kissed by your grandmother - a nice acknowledgement but nothing more. Actually, not living in the USA, collecting my occasional winnings would have been enough of a pain that I’ve asked Laurel to send them to various charities. I really wouldn’t mourn their loss.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You should enter a few. You'd get a better sense of where we're coming from.

The contests are NOT logical, but no competition ever is. Even chess is wildly unpredictable when it's played boldly. A key thing I think you're missing [understandably] is that, in all honesty, many of us who enter contests don't really expect to win them. That's not why we're entering. It's nice when it happens, but nobody's relying on winning Lit contests to pay their rent. So most of us aren't really "competing" in a way that would make us pander for a higher score.

I actually started writing a huge post and then gave up on the thought. It would start some things I have no desire to start.
I'll just say that based on everything I saw in the last two years, both you and Simon are far from being an average contestant in this sense. Even if you keep saying "we," you are hardly representative in this particular sense, and I'm sure you understand I mean this in a good way. So it's possible that I am projecting, of course, but I feel that motives that might seem ridiculous to you are maybe not so ridiculous after all. Not to mention that it's not only well-established AH members who participate in these contests.

 

[KeithD]

I won’t argue with most of your thoughts, VB, but the monetary rewards here are rather like being kissed by your grandmother - a nice acknowledgement but nothing more. Actually, not living in the USA, collecting my occasional winnings would have been enough of a pain that I’ve asked Laurel to send them to various charities. I really wouldn’t mourn their loss.

The monetary rewards here are pretty standard with those mainstream contests for short stories I've been connected with.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

The monetary rewards here are pretty standard with those mainstream contests for short stories I've been connected with.

Okay, accepted. Yet you were the one advocating eliminating prizes because they promoted cheating.

Cheating for $100? $10,000 I can see some people cheating for, but this equates to minimum wage cheating,

 

[KeithD]

Okay, accepted. Yet you were the one advocating eliminating prizes because they promoted cheating.

Cheating for $100? $10,000 I can see some people cheating for, but this equates to minimum wage cheating,

So? I was responding to the supposition that the monetary awards here are niggling. They pretty much are standard.

You need to stop thinking about writing erotica in terms of wage earning. And, yes, I think folks will cheat for $100 and a blue W here. In fact, they do. That's why the sweeps were instituted--obvious cheating in the contests.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

People cheating is a sad reality. I’d be sadder still if I thought people would pander themselves for that little.

 

[KeithD]

People cheating is a sad reality. I’d be sadder still if I thought people would pander themselves for that little.

It isn't little for writing contests. Readjust your thinking on writing erotica--for any short story contests for that matter.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I see your point, Keith, but it’s still paltry in the real world. For the effort effective cheating would take, one could do far better working a shift at the second window.

 

[KeithD]

I see your point, Keith, but it’s still paltry in the real world.

My point exactly was that it's NOT paltry in the real world. It's pretty much in line with short story contest prize money in the real world. That's the point I've repeatedly tried to make.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm not sure if the stats bear this out. I don't see a significant correlation between having many followers and winning contests. I DO see a correlation between authors whose stories generally score well and authors who win contests.

I think having followers helps win the annual contests, which are based not on score but on how many people vote for the nominated stories. But the themed contests are based on highest score.

I agree. On the whole, Contest winners are stories where I think most people would say that's good writing, regardless of the popularity of the author. Occasional exceptions, but not many.

The annual "best of" are fan-fests, nothing more, as evidenced by the same nominations year in, year out, and, at the end of the day, the low number of votes. The monthly awards had some value, but since they're not current, not any more.

 

[Carnevil9]

We are posting our stories here for free, but the stories remain OUR intellectual property and the terms of service are clear that authors retain copyright.

That is true, but if you have no chance of obtaining revenue from the stories that you have posted here for FREE, then there is no "cause of action" or damage that you can demonstrate from others commandeering your stories. You retain the legal rights to your intellectual property, but if you can show no damage to yourself or your interests, it is a very toothless sort of right. If the others somehow manage to make money off of your works, you might be able to show that you deserve that money. But if they are just further publishing another free version of your story, I don't see how that makes any sort of difference, in law or in reality. It amounts to no more than "bragging rights."

 

[Kelliezgirl]

That is true, but if you have no chance of obtaining revenue from the stories that you have posted here for FREE, then there is no "cause of action" or damage that you can demonstrate from others commandeering your stories. You retain the legal rights to your intellectual property, but if you can show no damage to yourself or your interests, it is a very toothless sort of right. If the others somehow manage to make money off of your works, you might be able to show that you deserve that money. But if they are just further publishing another free version of your story, I don't see how that makes any sort of difference, in law or in reality. It amounts to no more than "bragging rights."

You are kicking the hornets' nest with that one...

 

[KeithD]

You are kicking the hornets' nest with that one...

Not really. Not from a legal perspective in the United States. In fact, it doesn't mention yet another hurdle right up front. If you haven't obtained a formal copyright, you have no standing in court in the United States to claim ownership of the work. As the quote indicates, though, even if you hold a formal copyright, if the work has been published to the Internet for free access, you've valued it at zero dollars worth and a U.S. court wouldn't give you any monetary damages even if you won a suit (that you've spent a lot of time and money on to bring to court).

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Not really. Not from a legal perspective in the United States. In fact, it doesn't mention yet another hurdle right up front. If you haven't obtained a formal copyright, you have no standing in court in the United States to claim ownership of the work. As the quote indicates, though, even if you hold a formal copyright, if the work has been published to the Internet for free access, you've valued it at zero dollars worth and a U.S. court wouldn't give you any monetary damages even if you won a suit (that you've spent a lot of time and money on to bring to court).

I wasn't talking about the legal aspects of the issue.
More the way people here are highly emotional and over protective when it comes to this kind of thing.
Throwing around emotionally charged words like "feeling violated" over copyright issues.

 

[KeithD]

I wasn't talking about the legal aspects of the issue.
More the way people here are highly emotional and over protective when it comes to this kind of thing.
Throwing around emotionally charged words like "feeling violated" over copyright issues.

Not really. People here have gotten a whole lot better over recent years in understanding that, in the United States, their copyright protections (purposely) aren't what the Berne Convention's "owned upon creation" indicate they are from a surface read. You're new here. You have no idea how hard reality was as a sale here until recent years. We aren't seeing anything like the stubborn denial and emotion we once saw here. And you can't separate "legal" from the issue.

 

[Voboy]

And you can't separate "legal" from the issue.

No, YOU can't.

Some can. Quit projecting. This is not a legal issue at all, for many of us. It's an ethical one.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Not really. People here have gotten a whole lot better over recent years in understanding that, in the United States, their copyright protections (purposely) aren't what the Berne Convention's "owned upon creation" indicate they are from a surface read. You're new here. You have no idea how hard reality was as a sale here until recent years. We aren't seeing anything like the stubborn denial and emotion we once saw here. And you can't separate "legal" from the issue.

Well, if it was worse in the past I'll just count my blessings that things have improved, even if it is borderline hysterical at times.