Rejected Story

[CopyCarver]

No, she isn't. She answers PMs. She's always answered mine. So has Manu, for that matter.

Yep, and usually very quickly. They're good people.

 

[sr71plt]

Didn't say they weren't good people, of course (bang, bang, up spring the defenses--and the "twisting what was said" offenses). In fact, I said that there were few glitches, when there naturally would be some. Just that they apparently pick and choose who they will talk to and let know a problem is beng addressed. (Which leaves me with less comfort than just thinking they don't respond to anyone.) Oh, well. It's not arms and legs. And, happily, I've given the regulars another exhilarating opportunity to circle up those wagons and bring out the nukes.

I always find trying to be included in discussions in this forum so much fun.

 

[cloudy]

Happy for you, cloudy. Must be the naturally curly hair.

I don't have curly hair.

 

[CopyCarver]

Didn't say they weren't good people, of course (bang, bang, up spring the defenses--and the "twisting what was said" offenses). In fact, I said that there were few glitches, when there naturally would be some. Just that they apparently pick and choose who they will talk to and let know a problem is beng addressed. (Which leaves me with less comfort than just thinking they don't respond to anyone.) Oh, well. It's not arms and legs. And, happily, I've given the regulars another exhilarating opportunity to circle up those wagons and bring out the nukes.

I always find trying to be included in discussions in this forum so much fun.

Actually, I was responding to Cloudy's comment--not yours.

 

[tickledkitty]

Didn't say they weren't good people, of course (bang, bang, up spring the defenses--and the "twisting what was said" offenses). In fact, I said that there were few glitches, when there naturally would be some. Just that they apparently pick and choose who they will talk to and let know a problem is beng addressed. (Which leaves me with less comfort than just thinking they don't respond to anyone.) Oh, well. It's not arms and legs. And, happily, I've given the regulars another exhilarating opportunity to circle up those wagons and bring out the nukes.

I always find trying to be included in discussions in this forum so much fun.

Wow. Nice attitude.

 

[mjl2010]

No, she isn't. She answers PMs. She's always answered mine. So has Manu, for that matter.

Three PMs to Laurel from me. No answer on any of them. Others have told me the same thing. I think there's some requirement like you have to be here five years or something ridiculous.

MJL

 

[Darkniciad]

If the answer is anywhere in the FAQ ( that thing can require some serious mining and staring hard at it sometimes. The structure seems a little off and some of the wording is a bit confusing at times ) or the answer is one of those "asked a million times and can't really be answered for technical/security/etc. reasons", or there's an established way to report something ( report links at the end of stories ) then you probably won't get a response.

With a site this active, all the webmasters would do is answer PMs and emails if they responded to every one of them. I imagine they're going through looking for the ones that simply don't have an answer anywhere and responding to those. I don't doubt that names recognized from the long history of the site will catch their eye, but my first PM only a few months into my time here at Lit around a year ago was answered, so there's no time limit or anything like that.

As to the cryptic rejections, that's likely a product of how many stories the moderators are trying to read and approve each day. If they took the time to write out a detailed explaination, they'd never get through the daily backlog.

What probably seems impersonal is really more to do with time management than anything. There are only so many hours in a day, and a person only has so many hands. A look at the "who's online" listing at the bottom of the forum at any given moment gives you just a peek at how active this site is.

 

[sr71plt]

Avoiding the Facts

Not wishing to belabor the point, but this is wagon circling avoidance of a basic fact. Some story contributors here get the courtesy of a response to a query and some rarely or never do. Just a fact of uneveness of relationship.

All of my messages, sent three ways--PM, e-mail, refiling of story with comment--have gone without messaged response. All have been related to specific things related to problems in the Web site's posting of my stories specifically. None of these were tragic occurrence if fixed, and they all eventually were fixed (but usually to the permanent detriment of the reader numbers for the work and never when first pointed out). They haven't been general questions addressed by the FAQ. They were, indeed, covered in the FAQ--the FAQ told me to contact Laurel directly on such problems. I did. Never have gotten the courtesy of an answer back--rarely gotten the problem fixed until I've methodically used all three contact attempts over several days. Have always tried to stay polite and professional through the process (just anticipating the next "it's your fault" excuse the apologists are going to use here).

Don't know for certain why this simple statement of fact invites so much dissimulation and "it must be the author's fault" excusing. And I wouldn't have more than mentioned this point in passing if I hadn't gotten the "it doesn't happen to me so it doesn't happen to anyone else" responses here.

Can I live with unequal regard from this Web site? Yes. Does it irritate me and make me feel my posted work also is unequally regarded? Yes. Am I going to slit my wrists over it? No. Are we going to have another round of "it's your fault excusing" moving toward the personal attacking and isolating? Probably yes. Is the knee jerk negative voting on my stories now going to set in. Apparently yes (have lost four "hots" on older stories in the past two days). Ho hum. Does any of this have any relationship to how well I write and tell my stories and stimulate/satisfy my readers? I don't think so. It's a pity that the latter point isn't what the Web site is all about.

 

[cloudy]

Not wishing to belabor the point, but this is wagon circling avoidance of a basic fact. Some story contributors here get the courtesy of a response to a query and some rarely or never do. Just a fact of uneveness of relationship.

All of my messages, sent three ways--PM, e-mail, refiling of story with comment--have gone without messaged response. All have been related to specific things related to problems in the Web site's posting of my stories specifically. None of these were tragic occurrence if fixed, and they all eventually were fixed (but usually to the permanent detriment of the reader numbers for the work and never when first pointed out). They haven't been general questions addressed by the FAQ. They were, indeed, covered in the FAQ--the FAQ told me to contact Laurel directly on such problems. I did. Never have gotten the courtesy of an answer back--rarely gotten the problem fixed until I've methodically used all three contact attempts over several days. Have always tried to stay polite and professional through the process (just anticipating the next "it's your fault" excuse the apologists are going to use here).

Don't know for certain why this simple statement of fact invites so much dissimulation and "it must be the author's fault" excusing. And I wouldn't have more than mentioned this point in passing if I hadn't gotten the "it doesn't happen to me so it doesn't happen to anyone else" responses here.

Can I live with unequal regard from this Web site? Yes. Does it irritate me and make me feel my posted work also is unequally regarded? Yes. Am I going to slit my wrists over it? No. Are we going to have another round of "it's your fault excusing" moving toward the personal attacking and isolating? Probably yes. Is the knee jerk negative voting on my stories now going to set in. Apparently yes (have lost four "hots" on older stories in the past two days). Ho hum. Does any of this have any relationship to how well I write and tell my stories and stimulate/satisfy my readers? I don't think so. It's a pity that the latter point isn't what the Web site is all about.

Whoever said it was your fault???? Look at my posts, and those of others. I don't think anyone has said that, and to be quite honest, you're sounding more and more like you're having a pity party. We've all been polite, and you insist on reading things into our words that just aren't there. Get over yourself.

If it's something technical, then Manu is who you have to contact. I've had limited contact with him, but limited though it was, I have always received replies. Maybe not as quickly as you seem to want, but replies, nonetheless.

Once or twice Laurel hasn't replied, but you know what? This is a big site, and they're busy people. When she hasn't replied, it wasn't anything all that critical to begin with. I try to keep my requests very simple, and very easy for them to deal with quickly. As in, one or two sentences.

And, the fact that many of us old-timers are getting tired of the whining isn't your fault, either, got it? But for fuck's sake, none of us is all that "special."

 

[sr71plt]

Sure you were saying it was the fault of anyone who would actually note a discrepancy, Cloudy--by how you said what you posted (having chosen to post at all). If you are one of the writer contributors to the Web site, you are pretty aware of how what you say/how you say it/what you don't say in what you post is wordsmithed to take a chosen position.

But, as nothing you said in your last posting addresses the point--that some contributors here get the courtesy of response and some don't--I'll just let your new line of personal attack go on by.

(And who's Manu and how the fuck am I supposed to know that I really should be addressing Manu when Laurel doesn't have the courtesy to respond to my messages? This folds back onto Darkniciad posted--and you all seem to be stumbling over yourselves here--I read the FAQ on who to contact when there were problems in story postings and I got no response--and no answer without repeated approaches by various routes. Start of issue; end of issue.)

I don't have to get over myself on this. Your little world here isn't that much of a universe for me. I think your use of "old-timers" says it all. Apparently having been around for a year, with 200 stories posted, most hot, and five "E"s means squat. You need to be an "old-timer" to get a courtesy reply to a query. I sort of knew that from the beginning--doesn't make it wrong to point it out as unequal relationship.

 

[sr71plt]

Contributing

Wow, cloudy, I see a picture forming. You've got all of 17 stories posted here in three years, but nearly 28,000 forum posts, an average of more than 22 a day according to the statistics blocks. I suppose some of us are here to connect with readers and some of us are here to talk on the forum.

My points have been about connecting with readers--which, yes, I take a little seriously. We've obviously been talking from two different planets. So sorry.

 

[cloudy]

Wow, cloudy, I see a picture forming. You've got all of 17 stories posted here in three years, but nearly 28,000 forum posts, an average of more than 22 a day according to the statistics blocks. I suppose some of us are here to connect with readers and some of us are here to talk on the forum.

My points have been about connecting with readers--which, yes, I take a little seriously. We've obviously been talking from two different planets. So sorry.

And some of us have pulled stories for publication.

 

[sr71plt]

Back to Square One

I'll make an attempt at least to get back to the main thread issue here. And I apologize, Hakawati, for contributing in taking the issue wholly off on a directly related issue, but not the only issue posed.

As I saw it, you raised two issues: Not knowing why a story was rejected and not being told why when you asked.

On the not knowing why:

Probably in all cases that are not simply an inadvertent slip of the intended keystroke (which will naturally happen, given the volume of work the editors have), I think a story is initially rejected here because it gets--or appears to get--very close to an edge of something that was declared as not acceptable in the submissions directions.

From what I can tell in having submitted a whole lot of stories here, they rarely are capricious or knee jerk about rejecting a story--they seem to give a lot of latitude where it can be given. And they should be given some lattitude in making a wrong call here and there based on the number of stories they have to wade through continuously.

Whatever explanation they give you plus a reread of the submissions guidelines should tell you most of the time what is wrong. And they let you fix it and resubmit within the guidelines here--and they have editorial help pointed to if you need to call it in.

That said, they do, in my observation sometimes miss the beat in rejections. I gave an example of rejection based on something that wasn't actually in the story--and when I pointed out that it wasn't there, they ran the story as originally submitted. And one other story of mine was less than a 100 words too short for their standards (and they had already run another story of mine without rejection that was shorter than that). They had the guidelines on their side on that even though it seemed a little pedantic to me and the hook of the story was its brevity. But they had guidelines and it was up to me to fill the story out if I wanted it run. The bottom line here, though, is that the rejection wasn't sustained once the problem was taken away.

On the not telling why when you ask them why:

This gets off on the directly related tangent we've been on. When you've been rejected for a reason you can't understand, I do agree that you should be told why if you ask to the address given in the FAQ. This is a social contract. They have invited you to contribute your creative work without physical compensation to what is the centerpiece product of their Web site (the life's blood of the Web site). If you've done your part of the social contract, I agree they should do theirs as advertised.

I didn't get any response either in asking about my two rejections, but I finally just did what I could and refiled the story with my comments in the comments box--and they ran them, saying nothing in response to me. That might work for you as well in your circumstance. This would solve your problem, of course, although it wouldn't solve their social contract faux pas.

If you remain in a qundary on why something is rejected and the Web site won't tell you, they have those editors listed who you might query. They might be more helpful. And you can ask the forum here (after putting on a full set of body armor, of course, and with low expectations of getting as much help as attacks for having the nerve even to ask).

Best of luck in getting it worked out.

If no one else will help, send them to me. I'm a professional book editor (including a couple of NYT best-sellers). I might be able to tell you why it won't fly and what you might do to help it do so.

 

[sr71plt]

"And some of us have pulled stories for publication."

And some of us have more published that never were included here than are available here, including loads that are still here but are off on other sites for pay as well.

Would be happy to compare credits, Cloudy --even if I believed you, actually. A lister here who has all hots is a dead giveaway to me of a vote manipulator. No one can tromp through the negative voting trolls here consistently with winners on everything listed without a lot of spare computers and bruised index fingers, IMO.

But, as I said, two different planets. Some are here to connect with readers on stories (and will be serious about issues related to that) and some are here to yak on the forum.

 

[MarshAlien]

"And some of us have pulled stories for publication."

And some of us have more published that never were included here than are available here, including loads that are still here but are off on other sites for pay as well.

Would be happy to compare credits, Cloudy --even if I believed you, actually. A lister here who has all hots is a dead giveaway to me of a vote manipulator. No one can tromp through the negative voting trolls here consistently with winners on everything listed without a lot of spare computers and bruised index fingers, IMO.

But, as I said, two different planets. Some are here to connect with readers on stories (and will be serious about issues related to that) and some are here to yak on the forum.

I would hope that before you publicly called someone a liar, you would try to find out whether you have all the available facts. I would hope that before you accused someone of being a vote manipulator, you would actually read their stories, and see whether or not the voting roughly corresponds with your own view of the story. I would hope that, at some point, you would simply let your own effort to "connect with the readers" speak for itself, and not stoop to nasty personal attacks on someone with whom you happen to have found yourself in a disagreement.

Apparently I'm just destined for disappointment today.

 

[sr71plt]

"I would hope that before you accused someone of being a vote manipulator, you would actually read their stories, and see whether or not the voting roughly corresponds with your own view of the story."

Which of course is a large assumption on your part. (It doesn't take long to go through 17 stories).

Anything to contribute on the thread issue?

 

[MarshAlien]

"I would hope that before you accused someone of being a vote manipulator, you would actually read their stories, and see whether or not the voting roughly corresponds with your own view of the story."

Which of course is a large assumption on your part. (It doesn't take long to go through 17 stories).

Anything to contribute on the thread issue?

Post # 7 was mine, on the only rejection issue that I felt competent to address. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

If you did read all of her stories, which you still haven't actually said you did, then I apologize for implying that that was not the case.

 

[cloudy]

Post # 7 was mine, on the only rejection issue that I felt competent to address. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

If you did read all of her stories, which you still haven't actually said you did, then I apologize for implying that that was not the case.

He hasn't. Even if he has, the ones still here aren't an accurate representation of my writing ability anymore, as if I care what he thinks. He can have at it, read 'em all, one-bomb every single one of them - makes no difference to me. I'm past caring about all that.

I tried to be nice to the little fucktard, so I'll just go back to what I'm being good at.

Oh, and sr71plt? Fuck off. I have yet to "manipulate" a single vote, and I don't work, so I have only one IP address. Nice try, whiner. Grow the fuck up and worry about your own inadequacies instead of trying to accuse others of things you have no fucking clue about.

As to whether you believe me or not about the publication - it makes not one whit of difference to me whether you believe me or not. Who are you to me?

 

[sr71plt]

I did read some of Cloudy's stories and scanned most of the rest. And I'll not bring the writing and story ability of anyone into this discussion. I celebrate any writer who goes through the creative process and submits stories for others to read.

Cloudy is the one who introduced the relevance of credentials for voicing opinions on the issue on this thread, not me.

The comments of mine you objected to, MarshAlien, had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of Cloudy's stories or anyone else's--so let's not scream this thread off in that direction, shall we?

My taking off on whether or not I believe in Cloudy's veracity on one comment (and giving an IMO is my right to do) had to do with ALL of someone's stories on this Web site being at the hot level and there having been a load of stories here once that were pulled to run for pay elsewhere.

Stories on the Web site don't ipso facto register hot based on the quality of the story--unfortunately. Many of the best stories I have read here haven't registered hot and some of the very worst stories I've read here are by an author who registers hot on all of their stories. There is no causal link between story quality and voting strength here (again, unfortunately). And, I repeat, when I see an author with all hot stories, I believe that the hotness has much more to do with computer access and index finger stroking than story quality--it's a dead giveaway in an opinion I've arrived at by long-term observation, and I've never seen an example that has mitigated that observation. And then when I see claims that aren't/can't be substantiated by the same person, I discount them. Yes, I do. This isn't a knee jerk reaction based on disagreement on that particular thread--this is a scientific progression of analysis. It may, in fact, not be true despite all the evidence--but it is legitimate grounds on which to base an opinon (And I said it was my opinion, not an absolute ground truth).

And the judgment that 17 stories registered here over three years set against nearly 28,000 posts to this forum (and an average 22 daily posts to the forum statistic provided by this forum) indicates more of a forum yakker than a story poster isn't a knee jerk reaction, either. It's a judgment based on scientific reasoning. And as I have 131 of my 197 posted stories here posted at one or more other site that paid for them without requiring me to take them off this site, that's yet another analytical judgment of Cloudy's blowing of smoke on that assertion that doesn't hold up under scrutiny--in experience I have observed.

But back to the topic of the thread . . . no matter how much ya'all want to get off the subject.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy is the one who introduced the relevance of credentials for voicing opinions on the issue on this thread, not me.

No, it wasn't. You implied that since I "only had 17" stories up, that I was unqualified to voice an opinion.

My taking off on whether or not I believe in Cloudy's veracity on one comment (and giving an IMO is my right to do) had to do with ALL of someone's stories on this Web site being at the hot level and there having been a load of stories here once that were pulled to run for pay elsewhere.

Wrong. Not all of my stories are at the hot level, although most of them are, and I never said there were a "load of stories" pulled for publication. Those are your words, not mine.

Nice attempt, but a little too transparent. Try harder next time. I'm sure you can do better than that.

Stories on the Web site don't epso facto register hot based on the quality of the story--unfortunately. Many of the best stories I have read here haven't registered hot and some of the very worst stories I've read here are by an author who registers hot on all of their stories. There is no causal link between story quality and voting strength here (again, unfortunately). And, I repeat, when I see an author with all hot stories, I believe that the hotness has much more to do with computer access and index finger stroking than story quality--it's a dead giveaway in an opinion I've arrived at by long-term observation, and I've never seen an example that has mitigated that observation. And then when I see claims that aren't/can't be substantiated by the same person, I discount them. Yes, I do. This isn't a knee jerk reaction based on disagreement on that particular thread--this is a scientific progression of analysis. In may, in fact, not be true despite all the evidence--but it is legitimate grounds on which to base an opinon (And I said it was my opinion, not an absolute ground truth).

They have doctors now that can help with that paranoia, you know.

I agree that score has little to do with quality, sometimes, but I don't always assume that someone with high scores is manipulating the votes. But then, I'm not paranoid.

Please get some help.

And the judgment that 17 stories registered here over three years set against nearly 28,000 posts to this forum (and an average 22 daily posts to the forum statistic provided by this forum) indicates more of a forum yakker than a story poster isn't a knee jerk reaction, either. It's a judgment based on scientific reasoning. And as I have 131 of my 197 posted stories here posted at one or more other site that paid for them without requiring me to take them off this site, that's yet another analytical judgment of Cloudy's blowing of smoke on that assertion that doesn't hold up under scrutiny--in experience I have observed.

so, I'm popular. *shrug*

I'm so sorry. It must suck to be you.

 

[FatDino]

"I would hope that before you accused someone of being a vote manipulator, you would actually read their stories, and see whether or not the voting roughly corresponds with your own view of the story."

Which of course is a large assumption on your part. (It doesn't take long to go through 17 stories).

Anything to contribute on the thread issue?

So, are you saying that you have read all her stories, and that she manipulated votes on all of her stories to get votes?

If you have actually read them all, please point out the ones you think don't deserve an H, along with a preview, please. Because some of us just love to read stuff like that, previews, I mean.

And even if you have read them, and can write convincing previews as to why those stories are not H-worthy, I still don't understand how one can "manipulate" votes on their stories. All votes that don't seem to reflect the stories get wiped out, and all votes on the same stories from the same IP address get wiped out. So, unless she has an army of alts and "manipulative" voters, which I'm sure she doesn't, she doesn't have the time for all that, unlike some others, I don't think she, or anyone, can "manipulate" votes.

Btw, I'm being reasonable and nice here, try not to poke me, you may get some nastier response. I'm not in the mood to reason with trolls.

Have a nice day.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, I see now, MarshAlien, that all of your twenty-something stories have registered hot too. Ah, I see.

 

[cloudy]

It's always so cute when people attack others rather than address their own inadequacies.

Just so cute, makes me want to hug 'em and tell them things will be okay. Just chill.

 

[FatDino]

And the judgment that 17 stories registered here over three years set against nearly 28,000 posts to this forum (and an average 22 daily posts to the forum statistic provided by this forum) indicates more of a forum yakker than a story poster isn't a knee jerk reaction, either. It's a judgment based on scientific reasoning. And as I have 131 of my 197 posted stories here posted at one or more other site that paid for them without requiring me to take them off this site, that's yet another analytical judgment of Cloudy's blowing of smoke on that assertion that doesn't hold up under scrutiny--in experience I have observed.

But back to the topic of the thread . . . no matter how much ya'all want to get off the subject.

I'm sorry, but some of us must work hard to perfect our stories, we're not those who can just cough up words and submit...oh say, a stroke scene. Three years, 17 stories, with a few pulled out for publication...let's just say 3, so, 3 years, 20 stories, that's about 6.67 stories/year, less than 2 months to write one. And, they received high votes. So excuse me if I'm just being a naive little newb, but I think that's pretty fast writing.

Oh, btw, you're not the one who started this thread, you're the one who accused others of manipulating votes, so who, may I ask, is wandering off-topic here? And, I think the answer to the starter of the thread has already been posted somewhere in the first page. Please go check.

P/s: I suggest you get a C.A.T. scan some time too, as your brain seems to be malfunctioning.

 

[sr71plt]

"So, are you saying that you have read all her stories, and that she manipulated votes on all of her stories to get votes?"

I said I'd read some of the stories and scanned others, and I said that the quality of her stories has nothing to do with what I said about them all registering Hot (or anything else being discussed on this thread), and I did say that in my observation and reading of stories here and experience with the voting pattern that, yes, in my opinion, "someone" has just manipulated any of the ratings needing it to "hot" on a list that registers all hot, and I said, furthermore, that this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread?