I've made a code change to the stories' tagging mechanism. The updated system will now limit stories to 50 tags (which should be more than enough).
The submission wizard will enforce this limit and the 'Manage Stories' page will too.
Current stories with more than that haven't been affected yet. But I will go through the database and find them. I will notify authors who have stories that have more than this limit about the issue.
I have a suggestion, but I don't know if it's feasible or not.
Several categories of tags form natural groups, with a generic tag and several more detailed tags.
The categories I am thinking of are
Science Fiction
Paranormal
Incest
BDSM
Interracial elements.
If you are limiting the number of tags on a story, It might be helpful if a category search on the generic tag would finds stories tagged with a detail tag but not the generic tag.
That way, as an author, If I am writing a story with just a few elements out of the group, I can leave off the generic tag and people searching on the generic tag would still find it.
Take it or leave it, I'm just putting it out there as food for thought.
It's about time you instituted the change, as several authors seem to take it as a challenge to utilize as many tags as possible, even if they're not required for a specific story. I'd reduce the limit even further, at least forcing the authors to select the most essential tags for cataloguing the story, rather than expecting the readers to decipher it themselves after reading 100+ chapters!
20 or 30 tags are more than enough for the majority of stories. For most stories, it really doesn't matter whether it contains an "Oriental Female" (the proper term is "Asian" anyway) or not!
For most stories, it really doesn't matter whether it contains an "Oriental Female" (the proper term is "Asian" anyway) or not!
He could go one further on that, certain categories of tags, BDSM, Interracial aren't really appropriate for no-sex stories.
If detail interracial tags are used, at least 2 should be selected.
Moderators handling submitted stories could check for code combinations that seem to be contradictory and give them some additional review. For example, a story tagged: Gay, M/M, Femdom, should be looked at more closely.
Moderators handling submitted stories could check for code combinations that seem to be contradictory and give them some additional review. For example, a story tagged: Gay, M/M, Femdom, should be looked at more closely.
Unfortunately, that would require reading the entire submission, as often tags aren't revealed for some time. That would take an inordinate amount of time, and is too much of a burden on already overworked administrators.
Keying tags off one another is a decent idea, but requires coding, which takes time. Limiting tags, though, requires authors to make informed choices no one else would be qualified to make. I prefer offering more tags, but limiting how many can be selected at any one time.
P.S. From my experience, a lot of gay authors tend to hold fairly strong attitudes about women's influence on men, so "Femdom" wouldn't be unrealistic, though I doubt they'd label it as such.
BDSM, Interracial aren't really appropriate for no-sex stories.
I disagree. While I'm sure it's seldom the case, BDSM doesn't have to have a sexual component. Interracial doesn't have to mean sexual, either. You can have a love story between people of different color (where "race" is an important part of the story) but there are no descriptions of sex.
In general, I always have a problem with someone else wanting to decide what makes sense for my stories. It's the same with moderators changing the formating. It's not that I use complex formats or anything, but I have thought about how I want to present my story. There's no reason for some moderators to meddle with it (resulting in different chapters of the same story looking different). It's the same with story codes (I'm the one who gets the "hate" mails if someone doesn't agree with me on the codes I selected for the story, after all).
In general, I always have a problem with someone else wanting to decide what makes sense for my stories.
Perhaps, but for the story codes to have any value, they have to have fixed meanings, not just be what ever the author wants them to be.
You need to spend some time studying the Story Codes FAQ.
Interracial Sexual partners of different races
Doesn't mean there have to be graphic descriptions of sex, at least in my opinion. Of course, to me the color of the people who happen to have sex doesn't matter so I don't care about that code in that context, it would only matter to me if it had a relevance to the story (as a source of conflict). That's just me, of course.
You have expections from readers, and they seldom read the FAQ. If the FAQ stated "Watersports = people playing ball games in a swimming pool" - that's nicely fixed, but the reader has a different expectation.
Doesn't mean there have to be graphic descriptions of sex, at least in my opinion.
It doesn't matter if the descriptions of sex are non-graphic, it's still sex, and that's not a no-sex story.
Doesn't mean there have to be graphic descriptions of sex, at least in my opinion.
It doesn't matter if the descriptions of sex are non-graphic, it's still sex, and that's not a no-sex story.
It doesn't have to have sex to be interracial. Write a love story between a black and a white in the Deep South set in the Jim Crow laws days. That's definitely an interracial story.
It doesn't have to have sex to be interracial. Write a love story between a black and a white in the Deep South set in the Jim Crow laws days. That's definitely an interracial story.
That's not the way the story codes are defined. If you don't want to use the codes the way they are defined in the FAQ, don't use them at all.
The codes have to mean the same thing across all stories/authors or they have no value at all.
That's not the way the story codes are defined. If you don't want to use the codes the way they are defined in the FAQ, don't use them at all.
Then don't allow no-sex stories on SOL. The codes were put there for sex stories. If you want to change what type of story is allowed on SOL, the codes have to accommodate those stories.
Then don't allow no-sex stories on SOL.
If you go back the the original SoL front page it said it was a story site that allowed sex stories, where other sites were either all sex stories or no sex stories, thus to have both was something new.
typical typo edit of mine
If you go back the the original SoL front page it said it was a story site that allowed sex stories, where other sites were either all sex stories or no sex stories, thus to have both was something new.
It has stayed new as well. Although I can only imagine the headaches it has given the site admin's to make it work as well as it has.
The thing I have always enjoyed is there is something for every taste in fiction available here. The only reason its considered an adult site is the sex stories.
How ever when I suggest the site to others, its the variety that I mention not a particular author or genre. My favorites might not suit their taste in fiction. And until I learn what a person will enjoy reading its much safer to mention a site. Now I can add two other sites which are also suitable for kids.
How ever when I suggest the site to others, its the variety that I mention
In my opinion it's the variety of sex and no sex stories that keeps SoL alive when other sites that are either all sex stories or all no sex stories have died out through lack of support. A few have managed to hang on because they're more a showcase for the works of the author who runs them.
It doesn't matter if the descriptions of sex are non-graphic, it's still sex, and that's not a no-sex story.
The FAQ don't help me here, but I assumed off screen sex that's mentioned doesn't mean it can't be no-sex. I'll have to investigate should I ever write a story without sex.
I assumed off screen sex that's mentioned doesn't mean it can't be no-sex. I'll have to investigate should I ever write a story without sex.
This may or may not answer your concern, but It does for me, when you extend what's said at (in text bold added by me for emphasis):
https://storiesonline.net/author/posting_guidelines.php
quote
Correct, Precise Codes:
Correct codes are extremely important. Most people use the codes to decide whether they want to read a story or not. The more precise your codes are the better your scores will be. If you put the wrong codes or you miss some codes or even put extra codes, you risk the chance of people retaliating by giving you low scores.
For example, if you put the romance code in your story's codes, while your story is a rape story, then you'll attract those people that are looking for romance and when they find the rape in there then they'll be shocked and the result is usually a vote of 1. And by not labeling the rape, you won't attract those interested in reading about a rape who would give your story a higher score. So it's all about attracting the right audience.
Precise coding is also important. Excessive coding is bad. If something is mentioned in the story but not described, then it shouldn't coded for. Anything that happens off screen shouldn't be coded for. For example, if a woman gets raped, and the story doesn't contain the rape scene, only a mention that the woman was raped, then the story doesn't need the 'Rape' code. Use your judgement and try to see it from the readers point. If you see a code in the story what would it mean to you? Code accordingly.
Make sure that you read the Code FAQ to have a clear understanding of what each code means. If you have codes that are crucial to your story and are not in the list then email me.
end quote
Thank you, it's been a while since I read that. :)
I can understand why Lazeez changed it a few years back. It now emphasizes sex stories because they attract more new readers. However, the information from the original front page is at the bottom of the page as:
Stories are our focus, including sex stories and erotica. Storiesonline is the home of thousands of authors showcasing their erotic writing talents. Tens of thousands of erotic and non-erotic short stories, novels, and serials and ebooks are available through a comprehensive search engine, author homepages and blogs, and daily updates on new stories and features. With absolutely no advertising and FREE membership, this is the site for online fiction you've been looking for.
Please notice the first sentence, which is either close paraphrasing or direct quote from the original front page. I do wish he'd bold that sentence to make it stand out more.
The FAQ don't help me here, but I assumed off screen sex that's mentioned doesn't mean it can't be no-sex. I'll have to investigate should I ever write a story without sex.
As I said earlier, I have and I made a separate FS version which excludes the various sex scenes. However, the incestuous relationship between the lead characters is essential to the basic plotline, as it reflects a differing cultural perspective (Hint: the series title is "Not-Quite Human"). Thus even though the story is 'no sex', it doesn't assume that younger children are completely unaware of sexual issues addressed in the news almost every day.
You have expections from readers, and they seldom read the FAQ. If the FAQ stated "Watersports = people playing ball games in a swimming pool" - that's nicely fixed, but the reader has a different expectation.
1. You have no knowledge of how common it is (or isn't) for readers to read the story code FAQ.
2. Readers and authors should be encouraged to read the story code FAQ and understand the defined meanings of the codes.
3. Reader expectations for "interracial" are closer to what I and Crumbly have described rather than your suggested use.
1. You have no knowledge of how common it is (or isn't) for readers to read the story code FAQ.
2. Readers and authors should be encouraged to read the story code FAQ and understand the defined meanings of the codes.
3. Reader expectations for "interracial" are closer to what I and Crumbly have described rather than your suggested use.
To borrow point 1 from you, you don't know what readers expect for "interracial", either. ;)
I don't see why I, as a reader, should need to read the story code definitions for every site I visit. In my opinion, codes should be flexible enough that what I learned on other sites applies here, too.
I don't see why I, as a reader, should need to read the story code definitions for every site I visit. In my opinion, codes should be flexible enough that what I learned on other sites applies here, too.
That other sites allow story codes to be heavily misused to the point that the story codes are worthless does not mean we should duplicate that practice here. That is one of the points that makes SOL better.
That is one of the points that makes SOL better.
That's why I'd prefer to see the racial story codes fall into disrepair. In my own case, and that of most other authors, we've simply never used any of them (aside from the obvious "lesbian" and "gay", which again are more for 'squick avoidance' than for story location).
As such, it's a handy search tool for those looking for offensive material, but there's no reason for everyone else to bother with those stories.
I don't see why I, as a reader, should need to read the story code definitions for every site I visit. In my opinion, codes should be flexible enough that what I learned on other sites applies here, too.
The point isn't that readers are required to research the codes, but it's what readers searching for those types of stories are generally searching for. There aren't nearly as many readers searching for "black issues", "Hispanic issues" or "robot issues" ("Alien squid-sex issues?")
You need to spend some time studying the Story Codes FAQ.
And some of the definitions and groups make ti clear they only relate to stories with sexual activity, like Sexual Orientation, Incest, Groups, Interracial Elements, Sexual Activities, Fetishes, Rough Sex, Rape, while some aren't as obvious at involving sex, like, Torture on the story stage.
It would be nice if the Submission Wizard had a way of excluding codes that relate only to sexual activity when the No Sex rating is selected during the submission process, or the codes had something to indicate they should only be used when graphic sexual activity is used.
One thing a lot of authors make mistakes with is when they add a code for some activity that happens off the centre screen, and thus need not be coded. A character mentioning they were raped is not a rape scene unless they go into recounting the full details.
And some of the definitions and groups make ti clear they only relate to stories with sexual activity, like Sexual Orientation, Incest, Groups, Interracial Elements, Sexual Activities, Fetishes, Rough Sex, Rape, while some aren't as obvious at involving sex, like, Torture on the story stage.
But why? Again, the FAQ doesn't state there has to be sex in a story about a girl coming to grips with her sexual orientation and falling in love with another girl to make it "lesbian". Again, for me "interracial" is debatable. Is "rape" really sex, depending on how it is written? One can write a full rape scene without any mention of intercourse, but going into the detail about the horrors the raped person is feeling.
Isn't it all context?
But why? Again, the FAQ doesn't state there has to be sex in a story about a girl coming to grips with her sexual orientation and falling in love with another girl to make it "lesbian".
Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), "lesbian" and "gay" doesn't necessarily correlate to "gay sex". FS includes the gay and lesbian tags. Instead, it also includes "gay and lesbian issues", whereas the racial tags are specifically tagged to allow the majority of readers to avoid the obviously 'squick' material which will make them uncomfortable. In other words, the codes aren't there to promote stories, as much as making it easier to bypass potentially offensive stories.
It would be nice if the Submission Wizard had a way of excluding codes that relate only to sexual activity when the No Sex rating is selected during the submission process,
It does. Many codes are even colour coded for this purpose. When 'no-sex' is selected in the sex contents step the codes table hides roughly half the codes.
When 'no-sex' is selected in the sex contents step the codes table hides roughly half the codes.
Oddly enough, despite writing so many No Sex stories I never noticed this. I just skipped down to the right codes, clicked them, and kept going.
I disagree. While I'm sure it's seldom the case, BDSM doesn't have to have a sexual component. Interracial doesn't have to mean sexual, either. You can have a love story between people of different color (where "race" is an important part of the story) but there are no descriptions of sex.
While that's true, in theory, it's not in practice. If you review most of the race related stories, their all sex based (ex: stereotypical BBM rapist and fragile WF who 'loves it', or the diminutive Asian who dominates men--the types of stories which help discourage minorities from frequenting the site).
My brother, who was a NYC based performance artist during the AIDS crisis in NY during the 90s, was in whipping as a BDSM practice, but refused to play the expected roles. Whenever he's be whipped, he'd giggle like a schoolgirl, unnerving all the 200# Bears in chaps. However, he was also into self-flagellation as a form of meditation (as the religious mystics did a thousand years ago in Europe, as a way of 'communing with God), which qualifies as no-sex, but is an unlikely topic in anything on SOL.
I've written multiple stories with black, Asian, Hispanic, Asain and transgendered characters, but I've never once used any of the tags because their roles are plot based, no sexual-kink based.
While that's true, in theory, it's not in practice. If you review most of the race related stories, their all sex based (ex: stereotypical BBM rapist and fragile WF who 'loves it', or the diminutive Asian who dominates men--the types of stories which help discourage minorities from frequenting the site).
I'm sure you are right (I don't really care about that so I don't have any basis for comparison). All I wanted to say is, just because that's true for almost all stories, it doesn't have to be true for every single one of them.
I've written multiple stories with black, Asian, Hispanic, Asain and transgendered characters, but I've never once used any of the tags because their roles are plot based, no sexual-kink based.
I'm wondering, are there people who have problems with that? For example, I don't like overly religious stories, so I'd really like to have a tag for that to "warn me away". I don't know how people feel about interracial themes these days.
I'm sure you are right (I don't really care about that so I don't have any basis for comparison). All I wanted to say is, just because that's true for almost all stories, it doesn't have to be true for every single one of them.
If not, then you're using the codes incorrectly, which is a further argument for encouraging authors to be more selective in which tags they choose for their stories, rather than allowing a few to use as many as they can think of as a sort of 'prize' for creativity.
@D.S.
It doesn't matter if the descriptions of sex are non-graphic, it's still sex, and that's not a no-sex story.
It's perfectly fine to discuss sex in a non-sex story, you just can't describe the sexual acts. In an upcoming story, I make references to a brother and sister's incestuous relationship in a Finestories story, but I refrain from including any scenes showing what they actually do about it.
The relationship has a bearing on the plot, whereas the sexual activity doesn't (at least not directly, though it aids the SOL story).
@Switch
Since SOL evolved to have no-sex stories, the codes have to evolve with it.
No, what is means is, if you don't use those singular sexual stereotype exchanges, then you simply don't use racial codes to label your story. No one really cares whether a particular character is black or white, especially not when selecting a story, unless they're trying to satisfy a particular kind. If a story addresses black issues, it's easy enough to identify that the conflict in the story description.
Since SOL evolved to have no-sex stories, the codes have to evolve with it.
No, what is means is, if you don't use those singular sexual stereotype exchanges, then you simply don't use racial codes to label your story. No one really cares whether a particular character is black or white, especially not when selecting a story, unless they're trying to satisfy a particular kind. If a story addresses black issues, it's easy enough to identify that the conflict in the story description.
We'll have to disagree on this one. To me, a no-sex love story between a black and white in the Deep South during the Jim Crow laws days is more of an interracial story than a bunch of black kids with big dicks making their white teacher scream.
We'll have to disagree on this one. To me, a no-sex love story between a black and white in the Deep South during the Jim Crow laws days is more of an interracial story than a bunch of black kids with big dicks making their white teacher scream.
Hear, hear!
In the first case, interracial would be a plot element, i.e. story type. A good example would be Wes Boyd's "Alone Together" or Lubrican's "Flossie's Revenge". The second example is essentially a taboo story describing the act of sex between members of different ethnic groups, often with stereotypic depictions of anatomy, behaviour and language.
IMO, there should be a tag for interracial in the Story Type group to indicate stories in which ethnic boundaries and/or conflicts, real or perceived, are plot elements.
BTW: I fully agree with a limit on tags. Even 50 seems like a lot.
We'll have to disagree on this one. To me, a no-sex love story between a black and white in the Deep South during the Jim Crow laws days is more of an interracial story than a bunch of black kids with big dicks making their white teacher scream.
I agree, but it's less likely to be flagged as "black" than a more stereotypical story is. It's the stereotype you're flagging, not the story description.
I agree, but it's less likely to be flagged as "black" than a more stereotypical story is. It's the stereotype you're flagging, not the story description.
Which is why I said there's a problem using the same codes and definitions for both. The codes were created for sex stories. To force them to fit no-sex stories simply doesn't work.
The codes were created for sex stories. To force them to fit no-sex stories simply doesn't work.
The codes were created for stories. Changing their meaning depending on whether it's a sex story or not simply doesn't work.
Stories with sex in them have the code Stroke for stories that are all about Sex & not much else; then there's the Sex code with the modifiers- Much, Some, Minimal, and No.
You can either tag a story as No Sex, or just leave the Sex tag off completely.
The codes were created for stories. Changing their meaning depending on whether it's a sex story or not simply doesn't work.
I'll have to disagree. As Crumbly said, the "interracial" story code has a very stereotypical meaning. Sure, over time, Lazeez added other nationalities, but the original interracial code meant black and white and usually well-hung black males with white women. My guess is that readers searching on "interracial" are looking for those stories.
While that's true, in theory, it's not in practice. If you review most of the race related stories, their all sex based (ex: stereotypical BBM rapist and fragile WF who 'loves it',
That's because the codes were "borrowed" by SOL from a sex story site and, in fact, SOL started as a sex story site.
Since SOL evolved to have no-sex stories, the codes have to evolve with it.
Oriental
It is still politically correct to call a rug an Oriental. As far as I know. And you can use a map, compass and the stars to orient yourself. There may be an ocean-going cruise line with Orient in the name.
20 or 30 tags are more than enough for the majority of stories. For most stories, it really doesn't matter whether it contains an "Oriental Female" (the proper term is "Asian" anyway) or not!
Hear, hear, for both points! I can't conceive of a story that needs more than 20 - 30 tags. If I can't find the exact story I like with 20 freakin tags clicked, it ain't gonna be there, FFS!
I'd also appreciate you changing the "oriental female" tag to "Asian female" Rugs lamps and Trading companies can be "Oriental", but people are "Asian".
P.S. Why is there a specific "Indian Erotica" tag? Are they "special" or can I soon expect a "Old, Fat, White Guy Erotica" tag?
Significant subset? last time I searched the tag it had one story listed.
Color me ignorant but is Indian Erotica different from Western erotica? What exactly defines it as Indian Erotica? Location, nationality of the participants or is there something else that defines the "subset".
This forum posting, about half way down
https://storiesonline.net/d/s7/t559/why-is-there-a-tag-for-small-breasts#po11400
quote
Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)
1/5/2016, 10:01:02 PM
@Switch Blayde
Seriously, what is "Erotica written in Indian Style"?
Indian authors have a peculiar way of using the english language. It's closer to British english than to american english, but some of the phrases use indian style grammar. And they use some words differently. I never heard the phrase 'shifted apartments' except in stories of indian origin and it means moved to a different apartment.
You have to read them to really understand the classification.
Of course, they also use a lot of indian words to describe the sex organs and lots and lots of aunties.
See for example this story:
https://storiesonline.net/s/73817/tale-of-teenage-lust
end quote
Thanks Paliden. I am now a little less ignorant than I was before. It helps to know what defines the sub-genre. I wondered but as it was never an issue with my searching I just left the question unasked. I am definitely NOT an expert on erotica. Those tags outside my particular playground do not generate enough enthusiasm for me to make an effort to search them out.
One side effect of limiting the number of tags is maybe the writers will start looking at how the tags can be combined under one tag. Not saying it will work for all but many times I have thought the tags used could have been combined under one label. But that is just my opinion.
edited to add: I can see if a particular tag is critical to the story's plot causing it to be utilized even when it fits under a more generic tag.
edited to add: I can see if a particular tag is critical to the story's plot causing it to be utilized even when it fits under a more generic tag.
You are correct, for instance with BDSM, there are distinctly different audiences for Female Dominant and Male Dominant stories.
On the other hand, In my opinion, for most of those cases, you can get away with using the particular tag without using the generic tag.
You are correct, for instance with BDSM, there are distinctly different audiences for Female Dominant and Male Dominant stories.
On the other hand, In my opinion, for most of those cases, you can get away with using the particular tag without using the generic tag.
Yeah, I can see FemDom or MDom scenario where Sadism/Masochism portion doesn't fully apply. Which will likewise mostly rule out a significant portion of the Bondage category as well. Not much of a BDSM story if it is all about the Domination and minimal to no bondage to be had, and no sadism/masochism to really speak of.
I can see if a particular tag is critical to the story's plot causing it to be utilized even when it fits under a more generic tag.
That's especially true for squicks, so readers can avoid stories they don't like, and the author won't garner quite as many 1-bombs. Beyond that, most story have certain essential tags, which describe the overall story itself, others which describe specific subplots, and still others which only cover specific chapters. Many naturally go together, say BDSM and Bondage don't both need to be listed, or you can list incest without listing each separate participant.
You can certainly whittle down a list of 50 or more tags without breaking a sweat, though you might have to compromise on a few. However, if authors put more effort into using appropriate tags, they and the readers would be better served. Sometimes I get exhausted just reading the list of story tags.
Many naturally go together, say BDSM and Bondage don't both need to be listed, or you can list incest without listing each separate participant.
Take the incest tag for one example. If the participants are just the brother and sister for example the tag could just be bro/sis (or what ever the relationship of the characters), without having to include the incest tag (implied with the bro/sis tag).
Take the incest tag for one example. If the participants are just the brother and sister for example the tag could just be bro/sis (or what ever the relationship of the characters), without having to include the incest tag (implied with the bro/sis tag).
In another thread, I said I didn't include a story code because it would ruin the surprise. Well, I went back to check and realized I compromised. I did not put in the mother/son code, but I did put in the incest code. So, for that story, I only used the generic code.
In another thread, I said I didn't include a story code because it would ruin the surprise. Well, I went back to check and realized I compromised. I did not put in the mother/son code, but I did put in the incest code. So, for that story, I only used the generic code.
That works as well. The generic code includes all the connecting sub codes or tags.
That works as well. The generic code includes all the connecting sub codes or tags.
My comment was in response to those who said the "incest" story code can be eliminated because it's assumed when you have mother/son, father/daughter, etc.
My comment was in response to those who said the "incest" story code can be eliminated because it's assumed when you have mother/son, father/daughter, etc.
Personally, I think if you have the incest in only one or two sub-categories you go with the specific tags, but once you hit four or more sub-categories just using the generic tag should do.
The only problem I see is where a generic tag existed for a long time before the sub-category tags were added to the system. Then you'd have a lot of stories with the generic tag that would be better off being listed as the sub-category tag.
Personally, I think if you have the incest in only one or two sub-categories you go with the specific tags
The first chapter of the story is about a woman fretting over an encounter she planned at midnight. She constantly watches the minutes tick off on her clock, doubting her decision to cheat on her husband in order to get pregnant. Then the guy comes into the pitch dark room and they have sex. It's not until the very end of the chapter that you learn who the guy is with:
"Did I hurt you?" my son asked.
So mother/son would ruin the surprise. Even incest might, but I put it in as a compromise because of comments on this forum.
One tag I don't understand is "consensual."
If you don't have the "non-consent" tag, well, duh, it's consensual.
One tag I don't understand is "consensual."
If you don't have the "non-consent" tag, well, duh, it's consensual.
A story can have both elements. If you show the non-consent tag then readers may well think there is never an element of consent (which is likely to be different people or the evolution of a relationship)
A story can have both elements. If you show the non-consent tag then readers may well think there is never an element of consent (which is likely to be different people or the evolution of a relationship)
That's part of the problem. Authors are now tagging the painfully obvious stuff (when sex isn't rape it's generally consensual), on the off-chance that someone won't guess the story is all pig's blood and gore.
Forcing readers to pick and choose would hopefully get them to make more informed choices ("Eh, that's not really essential, if I include this "squick" tag, it'll have to go.")
I read the tag definitions, and the one I find most intriguing is "Reluctant," in which the sex starts out as non-consensual, but becomes consensual as it progresses.
Very emo and totally HOT!!!
I read the tag definitions, and the one I find most intriguing is "Reluctant," in which the sex starts out as non-consensual, but becomes consensual as it progresses.
I would think the reversal would also be possible. Consensual becoming non-consensual due to one of the party pushing the limits of the other half.
I know this is contradictory to the notice above, but I regularly see forum requests for stories involving specific sports eg American football, baseball.
Is there sufficient demand to justify consideration of further tags to break down sports stories by sport?
AJ
break down sports stories by sport?
That's a huge list, because how do you justify having one sport and not another - take football, there's several codes, which do you have as individual codes and which are generic? Then hockey as against ice hockey, where do you draw the line?
edit to add: just ran a category search on Sports, and there's only 83 stories - I doubt it's worth splitting lower. And if you want school sports you use both tags to get a count of 26 stories.
how do you justify having one sport and not another
It's a catch-22 situation. How do you know what tags readers want to search for unless those tags are implemented throughout all the qualifying stories and reader searches monitored? But American football and baseball particularly have been requested on this forum. I wouldn't expect cricket or hockey to have any demand, for example, but ice hockey might be a borderline case (if only for the Dman series).
AJ
How do you know what tags readers want to search for unless those tags are implemented throughout all the qualifying stories and reader searches monitored?
True, but the majority of authors mention the sport in the story blurb, and the advanced search allows you to search on words in the blurb, thus you can refine such a search in that way.
We don't want so many tag options it takes forever to go through them when submitting a story. Also when introducing new tags it's almost impossible to get the authors to go and apply them to their existing stories, so you'll never get them all fully tagged, no matter what.
You also need to keep in mind how many stories are listed when you search on a tag 83 stories out of 38,853 is only 0.2136% of them. 11 are baseball and 16 are football - according to the blurbs - and some of those football blurbs may mean soccer. Also I noticed a couple of older stories involving sport weren't found by the search because the stories predate the tag and don't have it.
That readers have requested stories with such content in the forum suggests the tags deserve at least as much consideration as those suggested by authors.
AJ
That readers have requested stories with such content in the forum suggests the tags deserve at least as much consideration as those suggested by authors.
I agree but (I assume you're speaking about the football/baseball tags), the point was no one was sure it would serve a large need, and the risk of increasing demands for additional sports seemed an additional deterrent.
Even if there were more demands for sports-related stories, the list of possible sports could result in quite a few additional, little used tags.
Personally, from comments heard over the years, I suspect there's more demand for sports stories than there are authors writing them. :(
I suspect there's more demand for sports stories than there are authors writing them. :(
I'd support that. One of these reasons a lot of people don't write more sports stories is you need to be fairly well versed in the sport or able to research it well, and then you'll still get people telling you you're wrong.
I'd support that. One of these reasons a lot of people don't write more sports stories is you need to be fairly well versed in the sport or able to research it well, and then you'll still get people telling you you're wrong.
Another factor, sports are--aside from couch potato fans--a young man's sport, whereas most authors are older, and writing is mostly an 'indoor sport' conducted by those who spend their hours hunched over a computer screen.
Familiarity with a topic is more important to the interest in writing about a topic than the ability to research it.
Familiarity with a topic is more important to the interest in writing about a topic than the ability to research it.
Does that apply to sex?
Does that apply to sex?
The appeal of sex is fairly universal, and knowledge (and interest) in it remains even when the ability to act on it fades over time. It's the interest in sex which promotes the research into the unfamiliar aspects, like when I wrote my one gay story.
I'd support that. One of these reasons a lot of people don't write more sports stories is you need to be fairly well versed in the sport or able to research it well, and then you'll still get people telling you you're wrong.
There's a cure for that. Make up your own sport. :)
Make up your own sport.
as in: a plant or animal that is different in a noticeable way from other plants or animals of the same type. Could take a lot of work to do that.
as in: a plant or animal that is different in a noticeable way from other plants or animals of the same type. Could take a lot of work to do that.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy authors frequently create entire worlds. A sport is nothing.
as in: a plant or animal that is different in a noticeable way from other plants or animals of the same type. Could take a lot of work to do that.
No, as in Quiddich. Unfortunately, fiction takes time, especially to get it right. However, if you managed to play it just right, you give someone a world to absorb them for a couple hours. ;D
No, as in Quiddich.
As an attempt to devise a plausible sport, Quidditch is laughable. However as a hook to hang multiple side plots, it serves its purpose.
AJ
Also I noticed a couple of older stories involving sport weren't found by the search because the stories predate the tag and don't have it.
I suspect that there might be more stories involving sports that don't have the code than those that do.
Just in the series "Take me out to the ballgame", "A Golfer's Dream" and "Playing the Game" are over 20 stories that could use the code. Dance of a Lifetime is another classic that is centered around ice dancing (and includes many competitions including three trips to the Olympics.)
I suspect that there might be more stories involving sports that don't have the code than those that do.
One thing a reader can do is: Tell Lazeez about a story which should have a code and doesn't. He'll take action to have it fixed. He recognises this is an issue, and works to have it corrected.
the usual typo edit
One thing a reader can do is: Tell Lazeez about a story which should have a coed and doesn't.
I don't have a coed, a nice looking young female student, and would be happy to have one for a while. Lazeez the Magician should send me one before he fixes someone else.
If my postings were free of errors I might think about correcting some-one else's. No harm intended. It was intended to be funny. "Lazeez the Magician" is not exactly intended to be serious. You have to be at least 55 to live in my apartment building, please cancel sending the coed. Or is it co-ed?
It was intended to be funny
I realised that, thus the sarcasm in my reply, but I forgot the sarky tags. believe me, if you ever offend me you'll know about when your computer vanishes in a cloud of smoke to be replaced by a large snake.
You have to be at least 55 to live in my apartment building, please cancel sending the coed. Or is it co-ed?
Sorry I'm a bit late in responding to this one, but haven't you heard of mature age admissions to college courses?
orry I'm a bit late in responding to this one, but haven't you heard of mature age admissions to college courses?
The term used in the US is "non-traditional students". This term covers anyone who goes back to college after working and are past traditional college age, so it covers anyone over 25 with significant full-time work experience.
These non-traditional students aren't just taking individual courses, many are signing up for full degree programs.
You then get the problem of what is considered a sport by the author or the reader. If ice dancing is included, then why not ballroom dancing or even high school dances? I will let someone else argue the point on golf or bridge :)
I consider cricket a game, but Aussie rules football a sport, even though cricket has been an Olympic event whereas Aussie rules hasn't (as far as I know).
There are a lot of stories including martial arts at competition level, but should those show a sports tag?
Olympic event whereas Aussie rules hasn't (as far as I know).
Demonstration sport at the 1956 Olympics
You then get the problem of what is considered a sport by the author or the reader. If ice dancing is included, then why not ballroom dancing or even high school dances? I will let someone else argue the point on golf or bridge :)
I consider cricket a game, but Aussie rules football a sport, even though cricket has been an Olympic event whereas Aussie rules hasn't (as far as I know).
There are a lot of stories including martial arts at competition level, but should those show a sports tag?
In "Dance of a Lifetime" the main POV characters are ice dancers consider themselves to be athletes. That and the fact that they attend two Olympic events as athletes.
I will agree that there are some things that would normally be considered sports no matter what. Other activities (for instance ice dancing, golf, martial arts) would depend on how the author portrays them, and how important they are to the story as a whole.
Each of those activities might be considered sports in at least some point in some stories, in others just as a game or other activity. For instance, I consider Golf to be a sport in the three "A Golfer's Dream" stories. On the other hand, I only count it as a game in LA Fun.
I consider Golf to be a sport in the three "A Golfer's Dream" stories. On the other hand, I only count it as a game in LA Fun.
I think it depends on whether it is being played for 'fun'. There are some things I see on the sport networks that I would never consider a sport. I mean really, POKER as a sport?
I mean really, POKER as a sport?
It involves more activity than the sport of chess ;)
AJ
To help define Sport:
[spôrt]
NOUN
1.an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:
"team sports such as baseball and soccer" ·
synonyms: (competitive) game(s) · physical recreation
2.
informal
a person who behaves in a good or specified way in response to teasing, defeat, or a similarly trying situation:
"go on, be a sport!" ·
3.
biology
an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type, especially in form or color, as a result of spontaneous mutation.
VERB
1.wear or display (a distinctive or noticeable item):
"he was sporting a huge handlebar mustache"
synonyms: wear · have on · dress in · display · exhibit · show off ·
2.amuse oneself or play in a lively, energetic way:
"the children sported in the water"
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator
1.an activity involving physical exertion
What about that Olympic sport where they push the thing on the ice with a broom? Curling? Physical exertion? Skill, yes. Physical activity, yes. Physical exertion, no.
Physical exertion, no.
The physical exertion are all the calories lost due to excessive shivering.
I consider cricket a game, but Aussie rules football a sport, even though cricket has been an Olympic event whereas Aussie rules hasn't (as far as I know).
There are a lot of stories including martial arts at competition level, but should those show a sports tag?
The tag is for "Sports", a part-time athletic event, not "Olympic events". I'd object if the listed Bridge, since there's no physical activity, but I wouldn't even object to mumbly peg if the players were relatively dedicated to it's practice.
Participation in sports is more about training the mind and body, dedication and improving oneself, rather than being recognized by others.
That's a huge list, because how do you justify having one sport and not another - take football, there's several codes, which do you have as individual codes and which are generic? Then hockey as against ice hockey, where do you draw the line?
I agree. It's easy enough searching for "volleyball", rather than relying purely on the listed tags. I can't see adding dozens of tags would really benefit anyone.
However, I wouldn't be averse to removing the racial codes entirely. By eliminating them, it would prevent authors from earmarking those types of stories, while leaving the existing stories (mostly written years ago in a different time) as they are.
Instead of disabling story codes when the story is no-sex, I wonder if there needs to be separate sets of codes for sex stories and no-sex stories with unique definitions.
Interracial is one we've discussed, but how about Mm? In a sex story, that's a gay story with an adult male and teenage male. But Mm in a no-sex story might be a story about the relationship between a teenage boy and his coach or priest or father or even parole officer.
Whereas the story code of "teenagers" would have the same definition for both sets (or in today's terminology, YA or Young Adult).
Instead of disabling story codes when the story is no-sex, I wonder if there needs to be separate sets of codes for sex stories and no-sex stories with unique definitions.
Not really, most of the tags just give information as to the interactions of characters. Sure some are sex act specific and those could be skipped, but let the writer decide which codes best fit their story with in reason.
Its like when I went to the Waffle House or some other public place. I met and interacted with different races, gays and lesbians among other lifestyle choices. It was there and even kids could see it. But as long as the lifestyle choice wasn't forced on someone else I for one didn't care.
edited to add: change the didn't care to the phrase from one of Hank Williams songs "Not my business".
a no-sex story might be a story about the relationship between a teenage boy and his coach or priest or father or even parole officer.
Why do you feel the need to tag that at all?
a no-sex story might be a story about the relationship between a teenage boy and his coach or priest or father or even parole officer.
Why do you feel the need to tag that at all?
So that someone searching for a story with a relationship between a teenage boy and an adult male could find it.
Instead of disabling story codes when the story is no-sex, I wonder if there needs to be separate sets of codes for sex stories and no-sex stories with unique definitions.
God no.
The whole idea of the codes is that they have a specific meaning. Having the same terms have multiple meanings depending on the type of story & which web site it's used on just makes a mockery of the idea & would make it a complete waste of time.
If you think people have problems now, that would make it orders of magnitude worse.
"This is my brother Bob Jones, my baby brother Bob Jones & my younger brother Bob Jones and my sister, Bob Jones."
Words that can have different meanings are bad enough even with the use of context; one name for different people doesn't work, a tag with multiple definitions won't work.
The whole idea of the codes is that they have a specific meaning.
The specific meanings are for sex stories. A meaning might not apply to no-sex story. For example, my "Mm" example. And even my "interracial" one.
The specific meanings are for sex stories.
Stories yes.
Sex stories, only in limited cases.
A meaning might not apply to no-sex story. For example, my "Mm" example.
Why wouldn't "Mm" be applicable to a non sex story? If the story is about the relationship between the main characters, and they're Mm, it's applicable.
And even my "interracial" one.
And that is one Tag that is by definition only for Sex stories. Along with Incest.
Fromm the Code FAQ-
"Interracial; Sexual partners of different races"
"Incest; Sex between blood-related members of the same family"
About the only other tags I can see that aren't applicable to non sex stories are, surprise! the Sexual Activities tags; and under Fetishes, Public Sex.
Instead of disabling story codes when the story is no-sex, I wonder if there needs to be separate sets of codes for sex stories and no-sex stories with unique definitions.
I feel that having a different set of codes makes things even more complicated for the reader than they are now.
Why not use the "sex content" for that distinction? If you have a no-sex story with interracial tag, racial issues are important to the story but there's no sex. If it's a sex-story, there's probably sex between the two. If not, I feel that would be an edge case where the description could clear it up. Same with lesbian and other codes.
For those who use the tags to filter out squicks, I assume that would be the better solution because I don't think many people who don't want to read about interracial sex are fine with a story discussing interracial conflicts. I might be wrong.
I can't begin to guess if there are more people who don't want to read about that or who specifically search for interracial stories, however...
For those who use the tags to filter out squicks, I assume that would be the better solution because I don't think many people who don't want to read about interracial sex are fine with a story discussing interracial conflicts. I might be wrong.
A bad assumption. Neither the category search, nor the category exclusion preferences are that sophisticated.
Category exclusions in the user profile are applied to all story lists site wide.
Assume a reader who is squicked by interracial sex but interested in a no sex story involving interracial conflict.
If that reader sets Interracial in their category exclusion preferences, that reader will never even know that your no-sex interracial story exists.
Neither the category search, nor the category exclusion preferences are that sophisticated.
actually, you can get close by being careful on how you use the search page. If you select for no sex only and also for interracial you get 65 stories listed
actually, you can get close by being careful on how you use the search page. If you select for no sex only and also for interracial you get 65 stories listed
But you can't do that on the exclusion side. You can't exclude only interracial stories that are not no-sex
But you can't do that on the exclusion side. You can't exclude only interracial stories that are not no-sex
I'm not sure what you're trying to say or do with this. With the Category Search page you have the Simple form and the Advanced form. With the Advanced search form you can select a + or a - for any of the categories, the plus means I 'I want his category' while the minus means 'I don't want this category.' Thus you can exclude any category.
At the bottom you can choose to select the level of sexual content, you can choose any of the levels or multiple levels - thus you can exclude a level by not selecting it. Thus you can mix and match the options how you like.
At the bottom you can choose to select the level of sexual content, you can choose any of the levels or multiple levels - thus you can exclude a level by not selecting it. Thus you can mix and match the options how you like.
But that exclude all of the stories with any one of the excluded tags, not just those with all of them.
What if I want to search for all Mystery stories whether they have sex in them or not, but I don't want to see any that have M/M or M/m or m/m sex in them.
If authors start using the age/gender tags for platonic relationships, I can't exclude M/m sex stories without also excluding M/m no sex stories.
Then there are the category exclusion preferences which apply on top of the category search and any other story list.
If authors start using the age/gender tags for platonic relationships, I can't exclude M/m sex stories without also excluding M/m no sex stories.
I would think that was what the field for the amount of sex was far. It lists what the writer thinks is the appropriate sex activity from none to stroke levels. I think that is where the exclusions would be made. Of course you have to remember that older stories might not have that field as part of their descriptions.
I would think that was what the field for the amount of sex was far.
The exclusion is an or not an and. If you exclude no sex and M/M you will see no no-sex stories and no M/M stories.
There is no way to exclude only those m/m stories that have sex in them.
What if I want to search for all Mystery stories whether they have sex in them or not, but I don't want to see any that have M/M or M/m or m/m sex in them.
simple, you leave the sex level codes set at 'All' and you use the advanced search from to tag the minus symbol for the codes you don't want, and the plus symbol for the code you do want. Thus, in this example you put a Plus for Mystery and a Minus for M/M, M/m, m/m. That will give you all the Mystery stories that don't have an male / male action regardless of the sex level.
Where it gets awkward is if you want the search above, but want to also include the No Sex male / male mystery stories you'll have to run a second search with plus tags for No sex, Mystery, M/M, M/m, m/m. Then sue both lists.
Yes, it's very awkward and I don't think many readers squicked by M/M sex will go that far. Rather I think they will avoid no-sex stories tagged M/M, M/m or m/m as well.
That's why I think using those tags for no-sex stories is a bad idea.
That's why I think using those tags for no-sex stories is a bad idea.
Just ran a search and there are NO male male stories at the No sex or Minimal Sex levels, at Some Sex there are 3 hits, and 74 hits for Any
Just ran a search and there are NO male male stories at the No sex or Minimal Sex levels, at Some Sex there are 3 hits, and 74 hits for Any
Yes, but others on this thread have been talking about using M/m for no-sex stories.
I didn't mean to say it was a perfect solution. But why add to the site admin's headaches. No solution will be perfect for everyone. But why not try and work within the present system. I have noticed that Laz is constantly trying to improve the system's performance.
I didn't mean to say it was a perfect solution. But why add to the site admin's headaches. No solution will be perfect for everyone. But why not try and work within the present system. I have noticed that Laz is constantly trying to improve the system's performance. Any author who tags a no-sex story M/M is going to drastically cut the audience for the story.
The problem is that M/M sex is a squick for a large percentage of the reader base. I think their aversion to M/M sex is strong enough that they won't be willing to jump trough hoops to see platonic M/M stories, that's why using M/M on no-sex stories is particularly problematic. Any author who tags a no-sex story with M/M is going to significantly reduce the potential audience for the story.
I think their aversion to M/M sex is strong enough that they won't be willing to jump trough hoops to see platonic M/M stories, that's why using M/M on no-sex stories is particularly problematic.
If someone has problems with M/M sex, isn't the probability high that they don't want to read a M/M love story, either? If someone is open minded enough that they would read a no-sex story with M/M, they can just not filter by that tag and not read stories from the results that don't fit their expectations.
Seems I don't know enough about the search feature, as I don't have premier membership. I can only search for what I'd like to have in a story, not for what I don't like. I don't think I would anyway, I just don't read stories from the results that seem to contain something I don't like.
If someone has problems with M/M sex, isn't the probability high that they don't want to read a M/M love story, either?
A love story, probably not. However, the up thread suggestion for a no-sex M/m story wasn't a love story, but rather a strictly platonic mentoring relationship between an older male and a younger male.
Sure, go ahead and use the age/gender combo codes for a no-sex romance. But they are not appropriate for a no-sex story that isn't a romance.
But they are not appropriate for a no-sex story that isn't a romance.
If the fact that the protagonists are gay are a major plot point, I think different. If it's not important to the story, I'm with you. But that's true for every tag, I think.
Sure, go ahead and use the age/gender combo codes for a no-sex romance. But they are not appropriate for a no-sex story that isn't a romance.
I remember posting a no-sex story. None of the story codes fit because it wasn't a sex story. But the Wizard required me to have at least one so I chose M/F because the two characters were male and female.
Now if that story had been a mentoring story between a male adult and a teenage boy, and the Wizard insisted I have at least one code, I would have chosen M/m.
I remember posting a no-sex story. None of the story codes fit because it wasn't a sex story. But the Wizard required me to have at least one
Perhaps the solution could be to add 'Platonic' to the available story codes.
Perhaps the solution could be to add 'Platonic' to the available story codes.
Except my no-sex stories are not platonic.
I went back to check. I only have 2 no-sex stories. One is "mt/ft romantic" and the other is simply "romantic."
So, as usual, my memory failed me again. When I had to choose only one, it wasn't "MF". It was "romantic." But although the story had a romantic ending, it wasn't a romantic story. It was about an ex-soldier suffering through the scars of war. (I don't think "military" was an option when I posted the story, but it's not a military story either.)
I'm not a big no-sex story reader or writer on SOL so it doesn't really matter to me. I was simply raising some points.
I remember posting a no-sex story. None of the story codes fit because it wasn't a sex story. But the Wizard required me to have at least one so I chose M/F because the two characters were male and female.
You could have selected fiction from the story types instead.
No solution will be perfect for everyone. But why not try and work within the present system. I have noticed that Laz is constantly trying to improve the system's performance.
That's the whole point. Lazeez is the one offering to expand the list of tags to attract more readers, so it's his option. He was the one proposing the new, detailed sports tags. If he thinks it'll help the site, it's not really our purview to stand in his way. However, we're merely discussing how BIG an impact we'd expect it to have, but then, we aren't the one getting the request from readers.
Lazeez is the one offering to expand the list of tags to attract more readers, so it's his option. He was the one proposing the new, detailed sports tags.
Actually, it was Awnlee Jawking who proposed the new detailed sports tag, not Lazeez.
Lazeez is prepared to add new codes if an author or reader can justify it to him, I know, having put forwards such requests in the past and had them accepted, and also had some rejected.
Yes, but others on this thread have been talking about using M/m for no-sex stories.
A better option would be to add non-sexual "gay" and "lesbian" tags, while leaving the "MM" and "FF" for sexual content.
A better option would be to add non-sexual "gay" and "lesbian" tags, while leaving the "MM" and "FF" for sexual content.
Mm doesn't have to be gay when it's not sexual. That's the point.
Mm doesn't have to be gay when it's not sexual. That's the point.
The only distinction between an "adult male" and a "juvenile male", in regard to the story tags, is whether they're having sex or not. After all, you don't mark an additional "M" or "F" for every character in the story do you? Instead, you only designate it for those involved in the primary sexual relationship. That runs counter to your suggestion you flag non-sex stories as "MM", "Ff" or "mGopher".
Instead, you only designate it for those involved in the primary sexual relationship. That runs counter to your suggestion you flag non-sex
For no-sex stories, you need to take out the word "sexual" in your statement. Then the Mm code works for a story about a teen boy and some adult male who's like a father figure to him. The story would be about their relationship not sex.
You keep making my point. The codes are viewed as having to do with sex (even though there are no-sex stories on the site). So MM is gay. Interracial is sex between races. Now "slavery" says "sexual or otherwise."
I wonder if someone not familiar with SOL, who was on Finestories and saw Mm on a story, would think of it as gay or a relationship between an adult male and boy.
I wonder if someone not familiar with SOL, who was on Finestories and saw Mm on a story, would think of it as gay or a relationship between an adult male and boy.
Finestories doesn't have any of the gender/age codes available. If such a person did see a story coded that way, they probably wouldn't know what to make of it at all.
Finestories doesn't have any of the gender/age codes available. If such a person did see a story coded that way, they probably wouldn't know what to make of it at all.
I didn't know that. I just checked the codes on Finestories. Nothing like the ones on SOL.
So I'll say it again, the codes on SOL are geared towards sex stories. To use them for no-sex stories is a stretch.
So I'll say it again, the codes on SOL are geared towards sex stories. To use them for no-sex stories is a stretch.
And as I said previously, I can see adding "gay", "lesbian" and "trans", to describe non-sexual relationships, but there's absolutely no requirement to label stories with an older man's attraction to younger boys. You've got this backwards. "Mm" does not describe supportive behavior.
but there's absolutely no requirement to label stories with an older man's attraction to younger boys. You've got this backwards. "Mm" does not describe supportive behavior.
Who said anything about attraction? The plot I used in my example was a man taking a boy under his wings. Could be a coach or a priest or a parole officer or a teacher. Think of the relationship between Pop Warner and Jim Thorpe. Or the priest and boy in "Boys Town."
Could be a coach or a priest or a parole officer or a teacher. Think of the relationship between Pop Warner and Jim Thorpe. Or the priest and boy in "Boys Town."
And there are a lot of readers who might be interested in such a story who use Mm as a category exclusion. You will likely lose far more readers than you gain tagging such a story as Mm.
And there are a lot of readers who might be interested in such a story who use Mm as a category exclusion. You will likely lose far more readers than you gain tagging such a story as Mm.
True.
I didn't know Finestories had a different set of story codes. Maybe instead of the Submission Wizard blacking out some codes it should bring up the Finestories set of codes when the story is no-sex. And when you do a Category Search, if you choose no-sex you get the Finestories set of codes to choose from.
Submission Wizard blacking out some codes it should bring up the Finestories set of codes when the story is no-sex
What I'd like to see, once Lazeez gets the unified submission wizard done, is both sites draw from the same set of codes, but the ones not allowed on that site aren't shown. At the moment there are some codes on one that aren't on the other, and I don't refer to just the sex related codes. I'd also like to see the groupings the same, but it'll take time.
That site difference brings up another can of worms. If I recall correctly, Lazeez said he was hoping to migrate all the No Sex stories from SOL to FS over time.
If there is a totally different set of codes, migrating stories could lead to miscoding of the FS stories, which wouldn't benefit anyone.
Your suggestion may actually reduce that happening with any new non sex stories posted to SOL, though older ones could still create inaccuracies when transferred.
Although I agree with you that Mm doesn't have t be sexual and could be important as a main focus of a story, maybe "mentor" could be added to distinguish the non sex ones....mentor Ff... There are quite a few stories with a strong element of mentoring and no sex.
Mm doesn't have t be sexual and could be important as a main focus of a story, maybe "mentor" could be added to distinguish the non sex ones....mentor Ff... There are quite a few stories with a strong element of mentoring and no sex.
Again, that's my point. We're trying to fit a set of codes created for sex stories to no-sex stories. The only choice today is to code it Mm or leave it out even if that's what the story is about.
The only choice today is to code it Mm or leave it out even if that's what the story is about.
If there is a significant reader base for that kind of story, maybe it calls for a Big Brother/Big Sister tag.
If there is a significant reader base for that kind of story, maybe it calls for a Big Brother/Big Sister tag.
It was just one example. My other one was interracial. I don't want to go through the codes, but there are probably more.
Finestories came up with a set of no-sex story codes. It was smart not to force-feed the SOL ones on it's no-sex stories.
That site difference brings up another can of worms. If I recall correctly, Lazeez said he was hoping to migrate all the No Sex stories from SOL to FS over time.
He's not planning to remove no-sex stories from SOL, merely automatically cross-post no-sex stories to FS.
He's not planning to remove no-sex stories from SOL, merely automatically cross-post no-sex stories to FS.
True, but the fact that the FS story codes are very different from the SOL story codes is going to complicate doing it.
True, but the fact that the FS story codes are very different from the SOL story codes is going to complicate doing it.
Apart from the sex related codes, most of the codes are the same, but there are some on one not on the other. Which is why I see a unified code list and presentation as part of the unified uploading Wizard, and probably part of what's taking ti so long.
Yes, but others on this thread have been talking about using M/m for no-sex stories.
True, but I was focusing on how to use the search page to locate what you were talking about. All this does is highlight you can use the categories for such stories, if you wish to.
True, but I was focusing on how to use the search page to locate what you were talking about.
I was focusing on how using it for no sex stories brakes the existing search tools. That there is a multi step work around isn't relevant to the point I was making.
I was focusing on how using it for no sex stories brakes the existing search tools. That there is a multi step work around isn't relevant to the point I was making.
Not really, a work around is only needed if you want to mix different category searches. You want a list of no sex stories, then just select the no sex option and that's what you get. If you want a bunch of other categories to include sex, and then just one set of categories as only no sex, then you need to do them as two searches, that's all.
If you want a bunch of other categories to include sex, and then just one set of categories as only no sex, then you need to do them as two searches, that's all.
You're still missing the point. In what universe do you imagine that people using category exclusions to avoid sexual squicks would be willing to go to that level of effort?
The point is, if you use a major sexual squick tag like M/M on a no-sex story for different reasons, people who might otherwise like your story will never know it exists.
Just ran a search and there are NO male male stories at the No sex or Minimal Sex levels, at Some Sex there are 3 hits, and 74 hits for Any
So, are there no stories with M/M content without sex? Or are people who are squishy about it just not warned?
I just clicked through the submission wizzard and I noticed that M/M (and most of the Age/Gender category) are available for no-sex, as are Sexual Orientations (Gay/Lesbian/TransGenter/...), BDSM and Interracial Elements. The FAQ doesn't mention they are for sex stories only, either. With the exception of Interracial where "sexual partners" might lean in that direction.
So, are there no stories with M/M content without sex? Or are people who are squishy about it just not warned?
There are no male male stories that don't include sex as per the tags, at this time.
Yes, it's very awkward and I don't think many readers squicked by M/M sex will go that far. Rather I think they will avoid no-sex stories tagged M/M, M/m or m/m as well.
That's why I think using those tags for no-sex stories is a bad idea.
And that's why I believe having a story code designed for a sex story for a no-sex story could be a bad idea.
A bad assumption. Neither the category search, nor the category exclusion preferences are that sophisticated.
I don't know if that's really true, but so what?
I feel like we are discussing different things. You want people to follow the rules. I'm discussing if it isn't time for the rules to evolve (to match the realities as I see them). Those positions are not mutually exclusive.
Should the rules change, if the search functions don't fit them any more they can be changed, too.
Should the rules change, if the search functions don't fit them any more they can be changed, too.
That's up to Lazeez. If he decides that the rule change is too much for the current search / exclusion functions and that updating the functions to match the rules you want is too much work, you will need to live with the rules as they are.
(to match the realities as I see them)
As Adam Savage of Mythbusters once said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own"
As Adam Savage of Mythbusters once said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own"
I believe everyone has their own reality. Isn't it human to project one's own believes on how one perceives reality? Just because I believe the majority of readers have some expectations, I might be totally wrong. And for sure others believe different.
The real question in my mind is what to call Brazilian and Portuguese women who are not really "Latina" as they don't speak Spanish.
The real question in my mind is what to call Brazilian and Portuguese women who are not really "Latina" as they don't speak Spanish.
Firstly, despite the Moorish influences Portuguese is a Latin language just as are Italian, Romanian, Llanito, Catalan (Occitan) and Spanish etc.
Surely "Latina" refers to those from Latin America so you exclude Spanish and Portuguese. Those two plus Brasil refer to themselves as Luso or Luzo though personally I would exclude Spanish speakers from that adjective.
For me "Latina" also requires a swarthy / Mediterranean appearance. Brasil, like the USA, is a melting pot of races from extremely fair blue-eyed blondes to those who seem to be straight out of Africa to the ever-present Asians (mainly Japanese). Argentina has the world's largest population of Welsh speakers whilst Chile has Scots and Irish - not Latina by my definition.
Would you lump Maya with those of Spanish extraction? Latina is too hard a word to define as relating to a country or five.
@richardshagrin
The real question in my mind is what to call Brazilian and Portuguese women who are not really "Latina" as they don't speak Spanish.
Firstly, despite the Moorish influences Portuguese is a Latin language just as are Italian, Romanian, Llanito, Catalan (Occitan) and Spanish etc.
Surely "Latina" refers to those from Latin America so you exclude Spanish and Portuguese. Those two plus Brasil refer to themselves as Luso or Luzo though personally I would exclude Spanish speakers from that adjective.
For me "Latina" also requires a swarthy / Mediterranean appearance. Brasil, like the USA, is a melting pot of races from extremely fair blue-eyed blondes to those who seem to be straight out of Africa to the ever-present Asians (mainly Japanese). Argentina has the world's largest population of Welsh speakers whilst Chile has Scots and Irish - not Latina by my definition.
Would you lump Maya with those of Spanish extraction? Latina is too hard a word to define as relating to a country or five.
This is where the writer should choose the tag that best fits the story. Although whenever you have people (characters) from more than one racial background or culture you have the "interracial" tag requirement covered regardless of the sex act. Racial and culture details usually come out in the story if required. That interracial tag for me means more than one race or culture is involved in the plot.
edited to add: Interracial tags are not just for black and white interactions.
Although whenever you have people (characters) from more than one racial background or culture you have the "interracial" tag requirement covered regardless of the sex act.
Except, this isn't about what you, personally, would like to use the existing codes for. Instead, it's based on what Lazeez established the codes for, which is the most efficient classification of stories. Since these sex acts are major sticks and attractions, it's a bigger selection criteria than is nationality, which is more easily described in the story description.
If there's enough demand, Lazeez could add additional tags, say "BBM" and "racial", but I have trouble seeing how that would buy the site much.
Personally, I'd go back and read the tags FAQ if I were you, as I'm guessing you've been mislabeling your stories for some time.
Personally, I'd go back and read the tags FAQ if I were you, as I'm guessing you've been mislabeling your stories for some time.
Not mislabeling so much as using the in story descriptions more than the racial tags. Those do exist to some extent and are utilized.
Not mislabeling so much as using the in story descriptions more than the racial tags. Those do exist to some extent and are utilized.
I still contend that's the proper choice. Most interracial stories (rather than sex acts) are based on romantic couplings, which are easier to search for and identify. They also appeal to more than one specific racial type.
They also don't have the 'squick' stigma to worry about. Someone may not be interested in 'racial issues', but if the story is good, most will ignore how you label the character.
I still contend that's the proper choice. Most interracial stories (rather than sex acts) are based on romantic couplings, which are easier to search for and identify. They also appeal to more than one specific racial type.
You can have romance without describing the actual sex acts. Those activities can be implied instead of explicit details.
Remember why I stated that the current story codes are not totally suitable for no-sex stories. It was in response to comments like:
"While I'm sure it's seldom the case, BDSM doesn't have to have a sexual component. Interracial doesn't have to mean sexual, either."
and
"While that's true, in theory, it's not in practice. If you review most of the race related stories, their all sex based (ex: stereotypical BBM rapist and fragile WF who 'loves it'."
The assumption is readers will understand and accept the variations of the codes. I still have people telling me my non-consent stories are rape even though they are not rape per the SOL definition. So I'm not confident that will ever happen.
I didn't originally say we needed a separate set of codes. I said the codes need to evolve with their diverse use. When that was objected to, I said then we needed separate codes for sex and no-sex stories because some of them had different meanings.
I said the codes need to evolve with their diverse use. When that was objected to
I don't object to that, I just object to authors doing so unilaterally.
Petition Lazeez to broaden the definition of a particular code, then the FAQ can be updated along with site wide announcements.
I don't object to that, I just object to authors doing so unilaterally.
Seems that you posted as I was typing. See, we can agree on something. :)
My feeling is the search function would work better with many fewer tags. It's awesomely comprehensive, but daunting. There's a massive drop-off in reads when a story falls off the 'front pages' of the site, and I think that's because the search facility is so demanding, and visually very 'text'. I get the impression it started with every possible tag, then the search interface followed, but it would be better to start with an appealing search interface IMO.
Also my experience is that setting a large number of parameters isn't such a great help in finding a story I'm going to enjoy.
Readers want one click to go to a broad category, is my feeling, and ideally direct from the home page. Then a very small number of filters/sort parameters, ideally graphic and colourful.
Just my thoughts.
Readers want one click to go to a broad category, is my feeling, and ideally direct from the home page. Then a very small number of filters/sort parameters, ideally graphic and colourful.
The problem is, while Premiere Readers, which most of us authors have access to, can use the advanced search features not available to the majority of readers. Those those readers, the only 'search' option is the tags, which restricts how much they can access. That's why a tag like "Sports" or even "football" (which kind, by the way) are beneficial for many readers.
The Category Search you mean? That's for non-premier members? I think that's awesomely powerful (in fact to start with I thought that must be the Advanced one), then the Advanced is icing on the cake.
Still, if you aimed to design a highly usable search facility, as opposed to exhaustive, I think you'd end up with something a bit different. Very different, even.
Of course Lazeez might not have that ambition, in the same way as the site chooses not to use Google to find readers, as we've discussed before.
Of course Lazeez might not have that ambition, in the same way as the site chooses not to use Google to find readers, as we've discussed before.
the site chooses not to use google to find readers? how does that work?
the site chooses not to use google to find readers? how does that work?
I don't know how it works :) I've mentioned before by webmaster message that SOL stories don't turn up in Google searches unless you absolutely nail it to the wall with a long text string in quotes. CW mentioned it suits him to have his circulation limited in scope, tho for a rank amateur like me the more readers the merrier. I assumed it was a policy.
I don't know how it works :) I've mentioned before by webmaster message that SOL stories don't turn up in Google searches unless you absolutely nail it to the wall with a long text string in quotes.
Oh, ok. Well, believe me, it's not by choice.
SOL is penalized by Google's algorithm (starting on Sept 1st, 2014) and I have no concrete clue why. I tried hiring some SEO companies to figure it out and was turned down each and every time. I was told that they won't touch it with a 10 foot pole after they do a cursory crawl of the site. Technically, everything is good. I don't have any Google-upsetting errors in the site's engine.
Every SEO company asked me for my Google analytics account to check what's going on and when I tell them that I don't have one because I don't want anybody to track site members on the site to preserve their privacy, they laugh at me and they tell me they can't do much for me.
Although, honestly, I'm gonna start giving up on the privacy thing soon. At the moment 45.05% of the site's visitors use Google's Chrome to browse the site and another ~10 are on Android without chrome. I don't how many other members have Google's Tool bar installed or are using Google's DNS server. All these things give Google a very good idea of what you do on the internet despite my stance on the issue. So my concern for those particular people's privacy is pointless.
Also, another issue for Google might be the lack of ads on SOL. Why would google's engine send people to a site that doesn't patronize google's system with anything? No data and no money for google from SOL...
I don't show people ads and I don't sell out their data to search engines; well, you might be right, maybe Google's suppression of SOL has something to do with my choices after all.
Google analytics account
Google Analytics is one of the first things security people recommend people block when they set up a new browser that has blocking capability, so I'm not sure what help that gives Google about people who have any sense of security or privacy, but there are so many who don't so it must be profitable enough for them.
Although, honestly, I'm gonna start giving up on the privacy thing soon. At the moment 45.05% of the site's visitors use Google's Chrome
Ah, I see your problem. It's a personal thing but FWIW I chill about Google and their ads, myself. I use gmail, android, Maps and the whole amazing free thing, and love it. I buy a tractor, or look at one, and Lo I get tractor ads. It doesn't make me buy any more tractors :)
Other people get creeped out by it, I appreciate, but it's very limiting if you try to fight it. Same thing happens on FB, YT and everywhere of course. I got used to it, and so far it doesn't hurt.
Also it occurs to me to wonder how many members/readers do NOT visit other sex-oriented sites that have the full Analytics loaded, and ads?
I got used to it, and so far it doesn't hurt.
So far.
The thing is, nobody knows what the future may bring. Legal activities that you take for granted today may become illegal tomorrow and may land you in hot water.
If the left keeps encroaching on more freedoms in the US, would you want your future government to have a clear and concise record of every activity you've done online?
The thing is, nobody knows what the future may bring. Legal activities that you take for granted today may become illegal tomorrow and may land you in hot water.
Thank you for protecting our right to privacy. Heck I am sure if anyone here was actively encouraging illegal activities or behavior we all would gladly turn those in to the law.
I am sure if anyone here was actively encouraging illegal activities or behavior we all would gladly turn those in to the law.
Illegal under whose law. Many things legal in the US are illegal in China or Iran, so where do you draw the line?
Please let's not act like adults or one day we might be stoned to death for adultery :)
AJ
Illegal under whose law.
In my personal way of looking at Law, its the difference between "Right and Wrong". We can all tell those differences. That is where I draw my lines, not what the politicians tell me the law is.
would you want your future government to have a clear and concise record of every activity you've done online?
It wouldn't be a problem, but if they did decide to get me for my stories on here, and they had a legal basis, I imagine they could have a court order you to hand over my IP address? I don't think they'd be going to Google.
But I don't see any legislation being retrospective, just as the 14 age law in Canada still allows you to publish sub-14 stories written earlier.
So for me personally I'd be glad for you to get advertising, add colour, get SEO'd, add readers and make as much money as you can for all your hard work. It's just how it works these days.
So for me personally I'd be glad for you to get advertising, add colour
As long a premium members can elect to go add free, go for it.
As long a premium members can elect to go add free, go for it.
Fair point. F1fanatic does it like that, and Google loves that site. In fact their code would be worth a look maybe.
I prefer the simplicity. Start adding color and advertisements and all the other junk and it drives up bandwidth usage. It's bad enough that my ISPs suck and have some of the worst (95% of ISPs are better according to pingtest) service without adding all the fluff to make things even slower.
Have you tried using Opera browser? Its adblocker makes quite a difference.
If I'm not mistaken, adblockers only block them from being displayed, which means the bandwidth is still used to get it to your computer, you just don't see it. I have a good one on Waterfox.
If I'm not mistaken, adblockers only block them from being displayed, which means the bandwidth is still used to get it to your computer,
Opera speeds things up quite a bit for me. It works by the browser not calling the ad content, so it must cut bandwidth use. Not sure about Waterfox though.
Will DL it and give it a go. I am always running out of bandwidth before the end of the month so hopefully it helps.
Opera speeds things up quite a bit for me. It works by the browser not calling the ad content, so it must cut bandwidth use. Not sure about Waterfox though.
Just skipping the step of rendering the content can make a big difference. Google Ads aren't too bad about this, but a lot of other advertising services out there are usually the single worst contributors to slow page load times on just about any website out there. Particularly if you're going to "off brand" websites that try for advertisers who'll pay them more per impression/click-through.
Besides the increased hazard of browser hijack via banner ad. You contend with ad-servers that will often be overburdened with demand vs capacity to meet that demand. As having more than ample ad-server capacity isn't a concern for the banner-ad service, its one less expense for them to carry.
Yep no coincidence Google search started penalising slow page load times ;)
Anyway as I said I embrace tracking and advertising, in exchange for all the free wonderfulness. Some sites overdo it and are almost unusable in Chrome, but mostly it's fair enough.
I embrace tracking and advertising, in exchange for all the free wonderfulness.
I'll let you, but I hate that garbage because we pay for every dang MB of upload and download so every add I can stop dead before it's called saves me money.
we pay for every dang MB of upload and download
Ah well that would make a difference, indeed. Mine and I'd say probably most connections here in the UK are unlimited.
Anyway from Lazeez' point of view with Google ranking it's impressive that he cares about our privacy with such integrity, but I'd suggest the way of the world now is we get tracked and our ads get tailored.
Also, getting back to where I came in, I think there's a role for 1-click search facility, more graphical and usable. The key metric, for me, is the difference in reads between stories that are on the front pages and those that have to be found by search, and at the moment it looks quite a big difference, because with so many tags it's more powerful than usable.
If Google would find them too then so much the better of course.
You know, some of us are using mobile devices too. Every ad brings you closer to your volume limit after which everything slows to a crawl. I don't want to pay for additional volume just to watch fucking ads.
The thing is, nobody knows what the future may bring. Legal activities that you take for granted today may become illegal tomorrow and may land you in hot water.
If the left keeps encroaching on more freedoms in the US, would you want your future government to have a clear and concise record of every activity you've done online?
A little from column A and some more column B. It's actually more of a "during the reign of the NEXT King" concern about precedents being set rather than the current group of Yahoos. "The Left" is no more a monolithic entity than "The Right" is.
20 to 30 years ago, most leftists, and in particular feminists, would have likely been all for prohibition of pornographic content. These days, most self-identified leftists are probably more likely to be fully supportive of pornographic content, so long as the involved parties are informed and consenting to it. (With the implied parts of being of an age or mental state where consent can be given) This kind of position is also supported by many members of the current wave of feminism, in case you haven't noticed, they're fully supportive of women "expressing themselves" however they please. So if Kim Kardashian wants to post naked pictures of herself everywhere, she should be able to do so.
In that respect, it isn't the lefties that concern me directly in regards to my pornography and erotica consumption. What does concern me is that leftists in general are more focused on groups than they are individual rights. In that focused zeal for pursuing their utopian ideal, they're the ones most aggressively working to erode away protections focused on individuals in favor of some vague amorphous group.
And it is after they've battered down all of those personal protections that things get scary. Particularly once the pendulum swings back the other direction and a religious "moral majority" comes in behind that liberal/socialist movement and retakes the reigns of power. As they(the liberals) will have created all of the legal tools and precedents needed to make life Hell for those who don't conform to THEIR(the religious arch-conservative) vision.
Also it occurs to me to wonder how many members/readers do NOT visit other sex-oriented sites that have the full Analytics loaded, and ads?
I NEVER visit adult sites with ads, as they're notoriously obnoxious, full of viruses and malware, and are more interested in catering to special interests than their customers. I DON'T want to see SOL go down that route. However, if Lazeez eventually concludes he needs to include Google Analytics (which I've used for years, though I ALWAYS disable their ability to track me), I wouldn't blame him for the choice.
By the way, years ago you used to get meaningful data from GA, nowadays, you only learn where the naive reside. Too many Governments use GA, among other tools, to track the actions of the citizens.
GA, nowadays, you only learn where the naive reside.
So, the majority of Americans then. :)
By the way, years ago you used to get meaningful data from GA, nowadays, you only learn where the naive reside. Too many Governments use GA, among other tools, to track the actions of the citizens.
I don't know how good they are in the US but the last time I took a look they said I was about 150 miles from where I was living at the time. They had located my ISP's HQ
I don't know how good they are in the US but the last time I took a look they said I was about 150 miles from where I was living at the time. They had located my ISP's HQ
That's due to them keying off the ICANN registry information for that IP address. Your ISP owns that address, not you. So for most GEO IP projects, they'll key it to the best information that your ISP makes available.
SOL is penalized by Google's algorithm
Maybe linked to authors alias, For instance if I do a search on /Al Steiner Greenies/ all I see are site linking to SOL. Nothing from SOL show up.
However there is an unrelated artist named A.L. Steiner and a notice which says:
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe"
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten for more information.
Which means that A.L. Steiner or a third party impersonating him probably abused that European Law to ban part of SOL.
I wonder what kind of search results you get in the US.
Now given the long history of author pseudonym being that of politician or preacher, I wonder if there is not a side effect.
Edit:
1 A search for
/site:storiesonline.net al Steiner Greenies/
show sol content, still with that odd warning, so it's not a de-listing as required by the european law. There is something fishy going on in the ranking that's for sure.
2 A search for /Steiner Greenies/ (no "Al") return the result on the 4th page.
There is something fishy going on in the ranking that's for sure.
It's an issue that started in September 2014. I did few wrong things at the same time that caused google's algorithm to mark SOL as low quality site.
At the time I was fixing the site's SEO stuff. Part of the SEO stuff is the URL format storiesonline.net/s/{story id}/{story url-encoded title}. While working on that, I inadvertently pushed the update to the live site before it was ready and all stories URLs got changed to storiesonline.net/s/{story id}/story-slug-goes-here. Once google saw that there are so many new URLs on the site it went on a crawl binge downloading an unprecedented 33,000 pages in one day (up from an average of 1500 pages per day). Since it had those stories already in its index, it marked all those new URLs as duplicates because I hadn't implemented the 301 redirect for those pages. Lots of duplicates are signs of a spammy site for Google.
Before that, in May of 2014, I was testing Google Analytics (GA) on the site to see if it provides me with additional info about referrals, so I put GA on the non-logged in portion of the site. Once you log in, no more GA. It turned out that was a very stupid thing to do, because to google, people came to SOL and then disappeared from google's view. That could mean they left. So it's a bounce in a way.
And the cherry on top of that was that for three months I tested using ads on google for SOL and when I didn't get more than one new registration per day from google's ads, I stopped them that same week. So three things happened on the last week of August 2014 that may have contributed to SOL's marking as a low quality site.
The site was getting 11,000 clicks with nearly 100,000 impressions according to Google Search Console (for webmasters) on August 31 2014. By September 5th 2014 the site was getting 3000 impressions and 1100 clicks strictly from people searching specifically for 'storiesonline' or 'storiesonline.net' or 'sex stories online net'.
We've recovered some since that sucky week, but we're nowhere near what a site of SOL's size, calibre and history should be. I've contacted several SEO companies for help and I've been declined each and every time when they do a test crawl of the site. I'm doing everything correctly but something in Google's algorithm is still blocking us. Maybe it is compounded by that Steiner block, I don't know. What I know is that I've been paying very close attention to any error reports on Google's end and so far we've only recovered to ~9000 daily impressions and 2000 clicks.
I Googled "switch blayde". The first result is my ASSTR index page. The second result is my author's story page on SOL.
Then I Googled "switch blayde forced lust" (both with "forced lust" in quotes and without — made no difference). The first 2 results were ASSTR. What's odd is the 3rd result was SOL, but not the story. It was a review of the story. In fact, there was no link to the story on SOL.
I don't know if any of that is helpful, but I was curious. So since I had the findings I passed them along.
I just did a Google Search on "Ernest Bywater" and the first hit for SoL was my author page at SoL as number 40 while my author page at FS and SF were 3 & 4 (respectively) after my website and Lulu.
The same search on DuckDuckGo (DDG) has FS in 4th and SF in 6th but SoL not mentioned in the first 50 hits., and I didn't check the next 50 hits.
On a search "Ernest Bywater" "Finding Home" I got no SoL related hits in the first 50, but the DDG search turns up blog posts and forum posts from SoL in the first 50 hits, but not the story at SoL.
Similar type results when I change the story title to other stories.
Both Google and DDG seem to find it easier to search FS and SF than SoL, and when searching SoL they find the blogs and the forum easier to locate than the stories. Danged if I know what all that means.
Both Google and DDG seem to find it easier to search FS and SF than SoL, and when searching SoL they find the blogs and the forum easier to locate than the stories. Danged if I know what all that means.
That's how you can tell that SOL is penalized by Google. DDG is a meta search engine, so it doesn't rank things itself, it polls other search engines for its results.
SOL has thousands of incoming links and it used to rank higher than FS on almost every search query. If there was no penalty, SOL would rank above FS for the same query and same contents as they both have the exact same engine and same SEO and SOL has way more incoming links that FS.
I'm glad you understand this, because I don't - all this SEO stuff came into the fore since I left the IT industry for retirement and writing. At that time good research involved a trip to the library and the technical book shop.
Regarding SEO, as far as I can see, you did everything by the book.
The only real issues that I can see is the lack of https support.
Then there are potential issues:
- Having page indexed heavily linked for robots but not reachable once logged on (bytag navigation).
- The differing page and url content for robots and real users more specifically:
+ The synopsis is not loaded.
+ The robot version isn't paginated.
+ The differing url and the robot specific redirect:
Example:
Google know that visitors visit:
https://storiesonline.net/s/14387:180567;1 but his robots are redirect to
https://storiesonline.net/s/14387:180567/island-fever-6-sanctuary-chapter-1 which is much much bigger.
Google also know that nobody visit that page...
This is accepted behavior for site using ajax but you are not really doing that in a verifiable way from google perspective, so it could be contrived by google as trying to index content hidden from the user which would result in instant downgrade.
I'm not sure when you implemented the pagination feature instead of the artificial chapter 1A/1B/1C which was when the problem was introduced.
I'm also not sure and when google cracked down on the robot vs user discrepancy, but IIRC those checks started around 2008.
Effect of stories per day limits?
- The differing page and url content for robots and real users more specifically:
+ The synopsis is not loaded.
+ The robot version isn't paginated.
+ The differing url and the robot specific redirect:
In support of that theory, search:
/Al Steiner Aftermath/ -> chapter 1 & 2 linked not paginated -> present 1st result
/Al Steiner Greenies/ -> only prologue linked paginated -> downgraded (absent)!
Of course, a more exhaustive search on ranking of /author title/ is needed to validate an effect of pagination.
Then there are potential issues:
- Having page indexed heavily linked for robots but not reachable once logged on (bytag navigation).
- The differing page and url content for robots and real users more specifically:
Could it be possible that Google's robot has an account on the site? And tests whether the logged in users see less?
As far as I know Google tests different user agent strings to test whether the site is doing something specific for its crawler vs normal browsers used by humans. While possible, it's very unlikely that Google has created an account on the site and tries pages as logged in as well as logged out to see the differences.
Google shouldn't penalize a site if it doesn't serve users the hidden code that Google relies on. Like the description, canonical and tags. Those are of zero benefit to humans and google relies on them to properly classify pages. Now google is asking webmasters to use javascript to classify their documents, so if I don't embed that code in pages served to logged in users I could get a penalty? Unlikely.
By the way, the pagination is going away now that we have much more bandwidth for the site.
I do not think that Google has an account, however it has metric of visited URL, certainly file size, word count, scroll height, etc... by normal visitors and the metric of the redirected URL doesn't match. It's far fetched as an explanation, but possible. And a known cause of lower ranking.
Unless Google has an account on the site and crawls the site while logged in or is using something other than its crawler to view the site (like collect what site members see when they use Chrome) there is no way for Google to see what logged in users see and compare vs the preview version of the site.
By the way, I just removed the paginator from stories. It used to save about 4% of bandwidth, but it's not needed anymore.
I just removed the paginator from stories
Aha, that explains it. When I started reading chapter 38 of Xalir's story, it had two pages allocated. When I clicked the link to go to the second page, I got the start of the chapter again, which now had only one page. Very confusing.
AJ
When I clicked the link to go to the second page, I got the start of the chapter again, which now had only one page. Very confusing.
An hour or two and those page links won't exist on the site anymore. As soon as everybody finishes reading the page they were on when I removed the function the links would be gone forever.
Temporary confusion, not a big deal.
like collect what site members see when they use Chrome
URL and extensive metric are collected, sufficient to see a discrepancy between visited page and indexed page, index bigger means intentional deceit of search engine and users by content stufing and problems...
URL and extensive metric are collected, sufficient to see a discrepancy between visited page and indexed page, index bigger means problems...
We'll have to wait and see I guess. I've removed the paginator, so those links won't even show up to chrome users that Google spies on. For the single part stories, googlebot sees less than logged in users. If that's a problem in google's eyes, then too bad.
I never done SEO until 2014 and the site did well enough. I've grown tired of catering to google in the last two and a half years.
Google's webmaster guidelines say that you shouldn't do anything for google specifically and to treat googlebot like any site visitor. Do what makes good sense for your users.
But anybody that works on a CMS and cares about SEO knows that it's a bunch of bullshit.
For a problem free site in Google's eyes you have to do a lot of work. Half of the development time now is making sure that google doesn't get any duplicate pages or duplicate description or title tags that are too long or too short and making sure the canonical links (that users don't see or care about) are consistent and not create a loop and other bullshit that is only about pleasing google.
The following is what's on Google's HTML improvement suggestions for Webmasters:
HTML Improvements
Addressing the following may help your site's user experience and performance.
- Duplicate meta descriptions
- Long meta descriptions
- Short meta descriptions
- Missing title tags
- Duplicate title tags
- Long title tags
- Short title tags
- Non-informative title tags
No user sees the meta description. No user cares how long or short the meta description is or how long the title tag is. (among other things).
Can you tell I'm pissed off at Google?
Anyway, I've ranted enough.
No user sees the meta description. No user cares how long or short the meta description is or how long the title tag is
Well, that's what is shown in a search result page...
Well, that's what is shown in a search result page...
While that's generally true, it's not always the case. Even when it is, it's not really indicative of anything significant.
I've studied the descriptions displayed by Google vs the ones embedded in the pages referenced for the pages that rank higher than SOL and found no informative clues. Google ranks some really, really crappy pages above SOL on many queries, so it's not the description or if the description maters then its effect is on the order of 0.0001% of ranking signals.
By the way, the pagination is going away now that we have much more bandwidth for the site.
Just to be on the safe side, I would put back the rest and toggle a class in JavaScript instead doing Ajax. Also be carefully to keep the same default state visible or hidden in the robot version
Google shouldn't penalize a site if it doesn't serve users the hidden code that Google relies on
It doesn't. The penalty comes if the document submitted for indexing has more visible content than the document viewed by regular visitor. Problem is that Google should have realised that the login state was different and may have missed that.
The story when everything is boiled down is the writer's not mine. I along with all of the other readers just have the privilege of reading their story.
The writer is the only one who can properly tag the story, since it is their work. I will say the tags should be chosen to fit the story with the minimum number of tags possible. In other words don't duplicate the tag meanings unless really required.
The thing is to help make the system work without destroying everything.
The gender related codes can also mean relationships between characters with or without being sexual activities. The "Sex Contents" field can indicate whether it is a sexually related code or not for example. Romantic interactions can fit all the possible gender related groupings.
I am not saying that is a perfect example. But instead of looking at why the tags will not work. How about looking for ways to make them work.
The gender related codes can also mean relationships between characters with or without being sexual activities. The "Sex Contents" field can indicate whether it is a sexually related code or not for example. Romantic interactions can fit all the possible gender related groupings.
The problem is that an number of those gender related codes represent major squick items. Reading a non sexual romance involving such gender combinations would be equally uncomfortable for those squicked by the sexual activities.
However, using them for non-romantic and non-sexual relationship up-thread, and I my opinion, that would cause more problems than it solves.
The problem is that you along with a lot of others are asking the wrong set of questions.
Instead of asking "What will not work?" how about asking "How do I make the existing tools work?".
Figure out how to work with the existing tools first then add to them only if and when required.
Instead of asking "What will not work?" how about asking "How do I make the existing tools work?".
The existing tools (category search and category exclusion) can't work if you start overloading squick codes for use on no-sex stories.
Category exclusion in particular would require a major re-write.
Without that re-write, anyone who uses a squick code on a no-sex story is drastically limiting the potential reader base for their story for no good reason.
Category exclusion in particular would require a major re-write.
Okay who will do that rewrite and under what correct standards. Is it you or do you have someone else in mind to do that so you can blame them for it not working.
What I have tried to say is make the existing tools work. That "Sex content" field is a great tool, but only if you are willing to use it.
Okay who will do that rewrite and under what correct standards. Is it you or do you have someone else in mind to do that so you can blame them for it not working.
Lazeez would have to do the re-write. I rather doubt he would want to which is why what you are suggesting is a bad idea.
What I have tried to say is make the existing tools work. That "Sex content" field is a great tool, but only if you are willing to use it.
You are missing the point, whether you want to or not, you can't use the sex content field with the existing category exclusion tool in the user profile. That tool is there for squick avoidence.
It filters all stories with any of the selected code out of all story lists on the site (new stories, updated stories, all stories, author pages, search results).
MM is a major squick for a lot of readers. If you post a no sex non romance story and code it MM, any reader who has selected MM for category exclusion in their profile will never know your story exists.
The problem is you keep looking at it from the perspective of someone looking to find sex + some code.
You also need to look at it from the perspective of people looking to avoid some code that is traditionally used mark some sexual squick, and how the existing tools will work for them if you start using that code for no sex stories.
If you are willing to forgo the large base of potential readers who use category exclusions fine, but understand that even if they might be interested in your story, they will never know it exists.
Lazeez would have to do the re-write. I rather doubt he would want to which is why what you are suggesting is a bad idea.
Why do you think I keep saying we all both the readers and the writers have to find a way to make the existing tags work. He has a ton of work just keeping the site going and growing.
The only possible solution which might require special coding to be added is to key the filters off the "Sex Content" field. That way readers and/or writers could either block or allow whatever tags based on the "sex content" field. (Not perfect)
Users would have to set their filters up for each area based on the "Sex Content" field or just get everything listed without filters. The key field would become the "Sex Content" line. Both users and writers could code both ways using that line as a foundation filter.
edited to add: Regardless of the eventual solution. There will be those who will be unhappy with the setup.
The only possible solution which might require special coding to be added is to key the filters off the "Sex Content" field. That way readers and/or writers could either block or allow whatever tags based on the "sex content" field. (Not perfect)
It's the only possible solution period. Unless all the authors who want to do what you want to do are willing to simply blow off all the readers who use category exclusions.
The only possible solution which might require special coding to be added is to key the filters off the "Sex Content" field.
You can do this already. When running a search with the Category Search page you can select what levels of sex activity to include, and what aren't included are excluded from the results. Also, if you have a Premier Account there's a page in the Account Settings where you can set categories to be excluded from what you see anywhere on the site.
You can do this already. When running a search with the Category Search page you can select what levels of sex activity to include, and what aren't included are excluded from the results. Also, if you have a Premier Account there's a page in the Account Settings where you can set categories to be excluded from what you see anywhere on the site.
True. What is creating the problem seems to be the filtering of the updates and new story lists where some want to combine the filters into one master set. I for one can't see that happening easily. The search is another story its already setup so selective searches are simple at least with a premier membership. In fact one Master list that will totally cover all areas seems to be in the area of "ONE MAJOR HEADACHE". There are just too many differences in opinion as to what is acceptable for both. Personally I believe its going to be a problem the individual reader will have to solve.
I have an advantage in the fact I don't filter to start with based on the tags. I have found that there are some good stories that hit my squick factor, but usually I will just fast forward through those sections.
What is creating the problem seems to be the filtering of the updates and new story lists where some want to combine the filters into one master set.
This will work only for those with a Premier account, and if the filtering upsets them enough, then they need only pay for the service by getting a Premier Account.
Home Page - My Account (near top right corner) - Edit Category Exclusion Preferences (near the bottom of the list under Premier Preferences) - this will open a page much like the Category Search page in it shows all the categories. However, at the top of the page is a list of where you want it to apply. You tick where you want the exclusions to be applied, then go down through the list to tick the categories you want excluded. Here's the list of the places it can be applied to:
New stories pages (New Stories)
Updated stories pages (Updates)
Category Search results pages (Category Search)
Search results pages (Advanced Search)
Random Story Mechanism (Front Page)
Rising Stars List (library)
Make the selections you want excluded, and where, then save, and it works automatically after that.
edit to add: You can also add a sex related limit with the Access Level preference every account can use to filter out stories with characters under 13 years of age.
I see all the new and updated stories anyway, since I don't use filters to block them from the lists. What others want to do is to combine all their separate filter settings into one master filter.
You can do this already.
For a category search, if you are willing to go to the trouble of a two pass search.
However, you can not do that with the category exclusions in the user profile.
I'm sorry I brought the no-sex story code list up. I wasn't using a real life example. I made up two examples that hypothetically could cause a problem. One happened to be a squick code so this discussion got way out of hand.
My only point was that on SOL we're using codes designed for one purpose to be used for another. I didn't know that FS came up with different codes. FS solved the problem. Unfortunately, SOL isn't using those codes for no-sex stories.
But it's really not a big deal. The majority of stories on SOL are sex stories so the codes fit most.
That is why I stress the fact that its the readers who have to decide whether they want to chance missing a good story or not. Sure writers want more readers but when readers filter based on squick tags some stories will be blocked from the lists. its not the writers fault or the site's. It is the reader's fault for being narrow minded and wanting everything on a silver platter.
FS solved the problem. Unfortunately, SOL isn't using those codes for no-sex stories.
The majority of the FS codes are duplicated on SoL, but the sex related codes aren't duplicated on FS. However, there are a few of the no-sex related codes that are on one and not the other, but not many.
The task ahead for Lazeez, as I see it, is to come up with a unified list that incorporates all the codes in a reasonable manner, and then have them grouped (which he already does) with a notation on each group as to what sites they relate to. Say a group and notation like below:
Story Types (all sites)
Sexual Orientation (SoL only)
and so on down the list
Story Types (all sites)
Sexual Orientation (SoL only)
and so on down the list
That might work out. Although I can already imagine the complaints from those who will never be satisfied.
Now me, I am grateful just to have a great set of story sites to go and find all kinds of stories. Hopefully I have expressed my gratitude properly to everyone for sharing all the stories I enjoy so much. I never got into TV or Movies or such, reading has always been both my source of learning and entertainment.
That might work out.
I'll work with what's here to use, but I would appreciate being able to upload a new story into one wizard, tick the codes and sites it's suitable for, and be done. Right now every no-sex story is uploaded twice, and every no-sex sci-fi story is uploaded three times. The difference in the no sex codes between the sites means I have to tick different codes for each site, and that's annoying. However, fixing this is on Lazeez' agenda, just not sure when.
I'll work with what's here to use, but I would appreciate being able to upload a new story into one wizard, tick the codes and sites it's suitable for, and be done.
Best idea yet. I love that idea, now if everyone could only join in on it as a solution. Although like I mentioned before, someone will hate the idea.
edited to add: Over the years I have seen many underage storytellers lie about their age just to post stories online. Thankfully now there are well designed alternatives available at least 2 of which should get them the helpful feedback they need to develop the gift.
I love that idea, now if everyone could only join in on it as a solution. Although like I mentioned before, someone will hate the idea.
As long as there is no overloading of the codes intended for sex stories, I'm in.
Right now every no-sex story is uploaded twice, and every no-sex sci-fi story is uploaded three times. The difference in the no sex codes between the sites means I have to tick different codes for each site, and that's annoying. However, fixing this is on Lazeez' agenda, just not sure when.
Alright, it's time that I answer this thread to clear things up.
1 - There will be no addition to the 'Category exclusion preference' to add sex contents as option. Sex contents field apply to all stories, it is kind of on top of the categories themselves. So if I combine them, I'll end up with a lot of problems of premier members/authors losing stories due to changing tags sex contents etc... I deal at least with one member a day that has lost something due to authors updating their stories codes. I don't need the headache of something that would multiply the chance of the member not understanding what's going on.
2 - When I do create the 'story server' that will serve stories to all sites from one repository, all the tags/genres/sex contents will be managed by that server, so all the tags will need to get harmonized. The wizard will have to be redesigned to work with that server. I'm not sure that I will make a step to tick which site a story appears on. The way I envisioned it would be to handle it automatically. If the author chooses 'no-sex', then they'll be presented with all the tags that apply to no sex stories and the story will appear on SOL and FS automatically. If the story has sex, then it won't appear on FS. If the story includes any of the science fiction tags, then it will appear on Scifistories.com automatically. I have one more domain ready to host sex stories and that won't show 'no sex' stories.
Although, to tell the truth, I think I'll need to hire some programmers to handle those changes as my life has gotten too complicated and too busy to be able to program such a monumental project on my own within reasonable time. Even using SOL's code as a starting point, the specific code required to create a multi-site contents server will be huge and will take me years of work on my own. But of course that will take a bigger budget than what the site can support.
I'm currently focusing on a project that should be announced soon (next few months). It should make authors happy.
Even using SOL's code as a starting point, the specific code required to create a multi-site contents server will be huge and will take me years of work on my own.
Is it worth doing? Will the benefits be that great to justify the expense and potential problems?
Is it worth doing? Will the benefits be that great to justify the expense and potential problems?
Yes it is worth it. Keeping things in sync across three or more databases is a lot of work. Just ask Ernest.
And such a server will make more things even easier. Just like rewriting sol's engine to support multiple sites allowed scifistories to exist very easily and other future sites. Due to changes in search engines it's become better to have multiple specialized sites than one monolithic site like SOL. Also the need for apps necessitate the existence of such a server as a backend.
Although, to tell the truth, I think I'll need to hire some programmers to handle those changes as my life has gotten too complicated and too busy to be able to program such a monumental project on my own within reasonable time. Even using SOL's code as a starting point, the specific code required to create a multi-site contents server will be huge and will take me years of work on my own.
I don't have the time for it right now, but there are a number of users who have indicated IT experience at one point or another in the forums. You might want to consider asking for volunteers.
I'm not sure that I will make a step to tick which site a story appears on.
That would be my preference. I would like to have full control over where my stories appear.
Is this an instance where you'd value author feedback before reaching a decision?
AJ
That would be my preference. I would like to have full control over where my stories appear.
Is this an instance where you'd value author feedback before reaching a decision?
I'd echo that choice (to allow individual author control on cross-site postings). Although I've got a few 'no-sex' stories, I'll sometimes rewrite a given chapter to include 'cleaner' curse words. I'm aware the site (FS) already does that for me, and in most cases that's fine, but in a few cases, I prefer a more 'hands on' approach.
By being able to 'opt out', that allows me to post my own version, rather than the same version of each site.
That said, given the huge time involvement required, if the first pass version of the changes didn't have this feature, I could definitely live with it. After all, worst case scenario, I'd post one version everywhere, then delete the FS version and repost my modified version.
I'll sometimes rewrite a given chapter to include 'cleaner' curse words. I'm aware the site (FS) already does that for me,
My current YA novel was originally squeaky clean. I ended up adding some swear words, even the f-word, because the teenagers on wattpad said it would not be realistic to have it set in high school and not have swear words. I also added some teenage hormone-caused almost sex because of their feedback.
Swearing is acceptable if not expected today.
The majority of the FS codes are duplicated on SoL,
Not from what I saw. There may be a few that overlap, but they look different to me. I just went to the SOL Submission Wizard for a no-sex story.
Interracial is available on SOL, but not FS. That was one of my two hypothetical examples.
None of the gender relationships are available on FS, but are on SOL. That was my other example.
The Sexual Orientation codes available on SOL are not available on FS. (Remember, I clicked on no-sex in the Wizard.)
None of the Levels of Consent codes are available on FS. There are 7 on SOL for no-sex stories.
Etc.
Its like those utilities that will block access based on key words or other things in the site codes. Problem is as follows:
Parents have to download and install.
Parents have to set the parental password(override).
Parents have to pick which filters to use.
Critical part is the Password (override), many will not be able to remember them (being nice). Many will not write them down for safe keeping. So usually the only ones knowing and remembering passwords are the kids. So parents blame the site for allowing their kids, using their computers, to log onto the adult sites. its the parents fault not the site.
edited to add: In the words of one parent when I ran a BBS back in the 80's: "Block my kids, but don't you dare block my access." Using the same login name and password.
In the words of one parent when I ran a BBS back in the 80's: "Block my kids, but don't you dare block my access." Using the same login name and password.
That's why the UK's new anti-porn regime is so badly thought out. Opting into or out of porn is at the ISP level, so if you want to watch adult vids but keep your kids safe, you're screwed.
AJ
Opting into or out of porn is at the ISP level, so if you want to watch adult vids but keep your kids safe, you're screwed.
Proxies are your friend. Of course, your children have that same option as well.
Lazeez has to be a magician. He makes one simple change to the site - limiting the number of codes - and he receives 204 "suggestions" on how to do it better! Imagine the number of "suggestions" he would receive if he were to again change scoring!
Richard, I'm in my 70's but live in an apartment which accepts all ages. I highly recommend it - watching the cute co-ed next door sunbathe on the balcony keeps me young (and happy)!
Imagine the number of "suggestions" he would receive if he were to again change scoring!
He has imagined it. That's precisely why he's vowed to never change the scoring system again.
He has imagined it. That's precisely why he's vowed to never change the scoring system again.
Actually, he made the vow because of the avalanche of emails he got when he made past changes.
Any positive effect of the de-pagination will take a long time to manifest, I doubt the revision of ranking malus is done realtime
This story is an example of too many tags and because of it don't really help describe the story.
https://storiesonline.net/s/75061/favors-small-and-great
Just as a quick question, why are writer's so concerned about being stingy about tags. I can understand a given limit for administrative sake, but it's not that YOU have to use them or that they cost you anything if others do.
I personally like a LOT of tags because it lets me know that if there is even a wiff of something I consider to be a squick, then I skip the story. What I find reprehensible is when an author DOESN'T tell me and I get a "rude surprise".
Just as a quick question, why are writer's so concerned about being stingy about tags.
1. Most of the authors are also readers. They are mostly complaining on this issue as readers not as authors.
2. Efficient, not stingy. Not all tags are fully compatible with all other tags, some combination come close to being paradoxical.
4. Story length matters. A long story can support more tags, but a large number of tags on a relatively short story likely means the story is a confused mess.
3. While many readers use tags to avoid squicks, others use them to find kinks. The more tags on a given story, the less time/space that the story can give to any one tagged activity. Reader that use tags to find kinks get a "rude surprise" hitting a story that tags and activity but that activity doesn't actually show up in the story (yes, that happens).
What I find reprehensible is when an author DOESN'T tell me and I get a "rude surprise".
Exactly.
~ JBB
I personally like a LOT of tags because it lets me know that if there is even a wiff of something I consider to be a squick, then I skip the story. What I find reprehensible is when an author DOESN'T tell me and I get a "rude surprise".
I counted. I appointed eighteen tags to my story and could have applied another twenty-two. I didn't because I decided these twenty-two tags were too unimportant to warrant a tag. So far none of my readers complained about missing tags.
You'd probably wouldn't get any complaints about missing tags, but if I read your story and I found something that squicked me, without warning, I'd bypass anything else you wrote. I honestly doubt I am alone in that regards. Just say'in.
...if I read your story and I found something that squicked me, without warning, I'd bypass anything else you wrote. I honestly doubt I am alone in that regards. Just say'in
These tags are as much warning as advertisement. If I advertise something with a tag that doesn't play a prominent role in my story, some readers will feel cheated and will bypass anything else I wrote. Yadda-yadda-yadda...
If I advertise something with a tag that doesn't play a prominent role in my story, some readers will feel cheated and will bypass anything else I wrote. Yadda-yadda-yadda...
It's a no win scenario.
It's a no win scenario.
No, it's more 'common sense'. You ONLY list the major element tags, PLUS the major squicks in the story. You DON'T list the minor story elements which are unlikely to squick anyone, as you'd only promise something you never actually delivered.
The trouble comes if you mention that daddy raped little Bobby, but then someone gets upset either because you didn't flag it, or it wasn't described in detail.
Oh, that makes it easy... you just dismiss anything you don't want to hear with a "Yadda-yadda-yadda..." or a "It's a no win scenario"? LOL
Ever think about maybe showing your readers some of the respect I often see writers insisting upon (and usually deserve) by putting away your "Genuine Dom!" card and stop being so dismissive?
So now that we've got that out of our systems LOL...
Let me say that I have been around this joint for a LONG time (over 10+ years? Wow... GO ME!!!!) and "tags" aren't that big of a deal one way or the other for readers OR writers, BUT seeing as how there are over 40 THOUSAND stories on this site, you might want to make it as convenient as possible for the readers who WILL appreciate being able to find what they want and avoid what they don't and their appreciate will be shown as higher scores for all of your hard work and creativity. Capisce?
BTW, I might be wrong (I OFTEN am), but I bet that prolific writers like Dual Writer, Earnest Bywater, Al Steiner, Lazlo Z, etc. grok what I'm trying to say.
P.S. God bless Phil Phantom where ever he is! LOL
Oh, that makes it easy... you just dismiss anything you don't want to hear with a "Yadda-yadda-yadda..." or a "It's a no win scenario"? LOL
I expounded my reasoning. You are the one who's dismissing a divergent opinion by simply repeating your initial complaint. So 'Yadda-yadda-yadda' was a fitting prediction for the future of this discussion.
BUT seeing as how there are over 40 THOUSAND stories on this site, you might want to make it as convenient as possible for the readers who WILL appreciate being able to find what they want and avoid what they don't and their appreciate will be shown as higher scores for all of your hard work and creativity. Capisce?
Thanks for the advice but I'm happy with my readers and with my scores as well.
Oh, that makes it easy... you just dismiss anything you don't want to hear with a "Yadda-yadda-yadda..." or a "It's a no win scenario"? LOL
The only complaints I have had related to story tagging is a couple of idiots bitching about actually encountering content that the story was tagged for from the initial post.
It's like I said, we authors can't win. Someone will complain about it no matter what we do.
The only complaints I have had related to story tagging is a couple of idiots bitching about actually encountering content that the story was tagged for from the initial post.
That's MUCH more common than any complaints about stories not tagging actions in a story. Some readers just don't read tags, but bitch whenever they encounter a tag. The best bet, for them, is to enter them as 'story exclusions', but most readers are unlikely to put that much effort into defining that process, and once they do, they bitch about not being able to find stories.
We have more cases of stupid readers than we do of shorting readers of necessary tags.
Some readers just don't read tags
In my case, both insisted that they had read the tags, but still thought it would be "off stage" and just mentioned as having happened.
You'd probably wouldn't get any complaints about missing tags, but if I read your story and I found something that squicked me, without warning, I'd bypass anything else you wrote. I honestly doubt I am alone in that regards. Just say'in.
That's true, but using my previous example, if I tag a story with "incest", and the description mentions the entire family is involved, are you really going to accuse the author of scamming you if he didn't warn you that grandpa was also included?
It's like government warnings. I want to know what my risks are, but I don't need a list of every possible way I can hurt myself with a paper bag!
I personally like a LOT of tags because it lets me know that if there is even a wiff of something I consider to be a squick, then I skip the story. What I find reprehensible is when an author DOESN'T tell me and I get a "rude surprise".
I don't think anyone objects to the listing of essential elements, but that some stories tags just seem excessive and repetitious. Take for instance (incest, mom, son, father, daughter, cousin, nephew, grandma, grandpa, dog, pet family squid, woman next door). At some point, you've just got to say "family incest" and be done with it, rather than listing EVERY SINGLE variation involved into 50+ chapter story!
It's especially annoying when they include ALL those tags in a SHORT STORY, rather than one where the events unfold over time. I want to scream at the author: JUST SAY INCEST, damn it!!!
What I find reprehensible is when an author DOESN'T tell me and I get a "rude surprise".
Have you ever stopped and considered that a complete list of everyone's squicks would probably be longer than the story. Authors generally add codes for what they believe might be a squick for a reader. But the Author may not be aware of some things being a squick. So your "rude surprise" may not have been intentional.
What I find reprehensible is when an author DOESN'T tell me and I get a "rude surprise".
One of the characters in my current story is a racist. SOL doesn't have a racism tag. The story's score dropped significantly after the racism was revealed.
Should there be a racism tag to warn readers?
AJ
Should there be a racism tag to warn readers?
There is a "caution" tag, and then in the description you could mention racism comes up in the story but is not condoned.
Tags: Ma/Fa, mt/ft, Ma/ft, mt/Fa, Fa/Fa, ft/ft, Fa/ft, Ma/Ma, Ma/mt, mt/mt, Mult, Teenagers, Consensual, Romantic, NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, Blackmail, Gay, Lesbian, BiSexual, Heterosexual, TransGender, Fiction, Humor, Cheating, Slut Wife, Wife Watching, Revenge, BDSM, DomSub, MaleDom, FemaleDom, Spanking, Rough, Light Bond, Humiliation, Sadistic, Swinging, Gang Bang, Group Sex, Orgy, Harem, Polygamy/Polyamory, Interracial, White Couple, Black Female, White Male, White Female, Hispanic Male, Hispanic Female, First, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Masturbation, Petting, Fisting, Sex Toys, Squirting, Pregnancy, Cream Pie, Exhibitionism, Voyeurism, Double Penetration, Tit-Fucking, Analingus, Size, Teacher/Student, Small Breasts, Big Breasts, Clergy, Public Sex, Violent, Workplace, School, Nudism
I think it was a really good idea to limit the use of tags to 50.
I think it was a really good idea to limit the use of tags to 50.
Heck with all those tags for one story. Where is there any room for a real story. All the effort put into writing would have to go to creating sex scenes of one type or another to fill that list. I for one would probably pass any story with that many tags, thinking there would not be a story worth reading.
That's nothing compared to 107 in one of his other stories.
Ma/Fa, mt/ft, Ma/ft, mt/Fa, Fa/Fa, ft/ft, Fa/ft, girl, Ma/Ma, Ma/mt, mt/mt, Mult, Teenagers, Consensual, Romantic, NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, Blackmail, Slavery, Gay, Lesbian, BiSexual, Heterosexual, CrossDressing, Science Fiction, Space, Aliens, Cheating, Slut Wife, Wife Watching, Incest, Mother, Son, Brother, Sister, Father, Daughter, Cousins, Uncle, Niece, Aunt, Nephew, InLaws, BDSM, DomSub, MaleDom, FemaleDom, Spanking, Rough, Light Bond, Humiliation, Sadistic, Snuff, Swinging, Gang Bang, Group Sex, Orgy, Harem, Polygamy/Polyamory, Interracial, White Couple, Black Couple, Black Female, Black Male, White Male, White Female, Oriental Male, Oriental Female, Hispanic Male, Hispanic Female, First, Safe Sex, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Masturbation, Petting, Fisting, Sex Toys, Squirting, Water Sports, Pregnancy, Cream Pie, Spitting, Exhibitionism, Voyeurism, Double Penetration, Tit-Fucking, Analingus, Size, Doctor/Nurse, BBW, Body Modification, Teacher/Student, Babysitter, Big Breasts, Public Sex, Violent, Workplace, School, Transformation, Prostitution, Nudism, Military, War, Politics
That's nothing compared to 107 in one of his other stories
Like I said with that many I would skip the story since it would probably just be nothing but trying to include all those sex scenes. No room for a real story to develop.
I for one would probably pass any story with that many tags, thinking there would not be a story worth reading.
I don't know the answer to the seemingly excessive use of tags, but the author's consistent style attracts a reliably decent readership. I've tried a couple of the stories and there is a plot, although the building a polyamorous commune takes up a large proportion of it.
AJ
I don't know the answer to the seemingly excessive use of tags, but the author's consistent style attracts a reliably decent readership.
I tend to agree with Docholladay. The number and types of codes listed indicate a probability of there being a large amount of sex in the story even if it isn't coded as a Stroke Story.
There may be a plot mixed in with all the sex, but based on my personal experience, and as a general rule, the stories that have a large number of sex codes have poor character development and the plot is hard to find and follow.
I generally skip stories that have an excessive number of sex codes for I prefer well-written stories that have good plots and have no sex or sex scenes that add to the story development.
There may be a plot mixed in with all the sex, but based on my personal experience, and as a general rule, the stories that have a large number of sex codes have poor character development and the plot is hard to find and follow.
I have a different personal experience. It depends in part on the length of the story. A very long story could support a much larger number of tags than a shorter story without it becoming problematic for character/story development.
In terms of avoidance, I look more for things like:
1. Multiple story type tags. In particular certain fusions are more difficult to make work than others. In my opinion, science fiction/paranormal combos are particularly problematic.
2. multiple consent level tags.
ETA: In the two tag lists that have been posted, here is what stands out for me.
1.
Consensual, Romantic, NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, Blackmail
And
Teacher/Student, Clergy, Workplace, School
The only way those four work together is if the story takes place in a religious school. But that raises the question of why/how so much sex is going on.
2.
Consensual, Romantic, NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, Blackmail, Slavery
and
Doctor/Nurse, Teacher/Student, Babysitter, Workplace, School, Prostitution, Military, War, Politics
Consensual, Romantic, NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, Blackmail
Consensual and Romantic could be one relationship. Nonconsensual and Rape could be a second interaction; I wouldn't classify it as a relationship but it might have started that way. NonConsensual, Reluctant, and Blackmail could fit a third encounter. That would be fairly easy to fit into a 3-4 chapter story, but I doubt very much that I would be interested in reading it.
The other group of codes would fit into the sex codes nicely. But not my cup-of-tea.
Nonconsensual and Rape could be a second interaction
I would consider that redundant and the nonconsensual tag should be dropped.
I would consider that redundant and the nonconsensual tag should be dropped.
Agreed, assuming nonconsensual refers to the same incident.
I would consider that redundant and the nonconsensual tag should be dropped.
Nope. Someone might do a Category Search on "non-consent" and would not find the non-consent story.
It's the same for "incest" and the type of incest. Some might search on "mother/son" while others might search on "incest." If the author tagged it the opposite way the reader searched, it would not be found.
It's a nature of the beast.
It's a nature of the beast
The reader can always expand their search criteria to include related terms.
The reader can always expand their search criteria to include related terms.
But if they don't...
I was looking at it from the author's perspective.
It's the same for "incest" and the type of incest. Some might search on "mother/son" while others might search on "incest." If the author tagged it the opposite way the reader searched, it would not be found.
How about a new system-imposed tag for (too damn many tags!), so everyone can avoid any story with over 50 tags, regardless of the subject matter? 'D
How about a new system-imposed tag for (too damn many tags!), so everyone can avoid any story with over 50 tags, regardless of the subject matter? 'D
There is a sort such fix in place. If you have over 50 tags Lazeez has a warning on the stats page that you have to fix it, and if you don't do that within a reasonable amount of time he will.
It's the same for "incest" and the type of incest. Some might search on "mother/son" while others might search on "incest." If the author tagged it the opposite way the reader searched, it would not be found.
It's a nature of the beast.
Isn't!
I did some programming until retirement. My solution would be to create tag-groups. Incest would be such a group.
Groups can't be assigned to a story, only group members like mother/son, brother/sister,...
For searching you can search for groups as well as for individual group members.
HM.
My solution would be to create tag-groups. Incest would be such a group.
That would be my approach as well.
My solution would be to create tag-groups. Incest would be such a group.
Have you looked at what Lazeez currently has in place for Incest?
He has 'tag-groups' and one of them is labeled Incest. Within the Incest tag-group, there is 1 general code (Incest) and there are 13 unique relationship codes.
It sounds like you are suggesting the use of 2-code pairings like what is done for Age/Gender. In the Incest group the 13 unique relationship codes would result in 91 pair codes. You would probably also want general codes like Mult (multiple), so you wouldn't have to provide 3-code, 4-code, etc. pairings, and Incest, which would be a good code for the Author who doesn't want to be specific about the relationship involved. That means you would have 93 search criteria in your Incest tag-group.
Sounds to me like that would make the selection of search criteria even more difficult.
It sounds like you are suggesting the use of 2-code pairings like what is done for Age/Gender.
No, that's not at all what he is suggesting.
I've suggested something similar before.
Here is what he is suggesting laid out as steps.
1. Remove group headings from the tag choices available when posting a story.
2. Leave the group heading available as a choice on the category search.
3. Modify the underlying search for the category search so that the search for the group heading will find all stories tagged with any sub tag belonging to the group.
So you are very wrong, he's not talking about adding even one new tag.
My suggestion was 2 and 3 but leaving the group main tag as a choice for the authors.
suggesting.
helmut_meukel 8/28/2017 5:48:38 AM
Groups can't be assigned to a story, only group members like mother/son, brother/sister,...
For searching you can search for groups as well as for individual group members.
In Age/Gender we have 2-code pairings of MA/FA, MA/MA, MA/mt, MA/ft, FA/FA, FA/mt, etc.
If helmut was not suggesting 2-code pairings for the Incest Group, what did he mean by "mother/son, brother/sister,..."
If helmut was not suggesting 2-code pairings for the Incest Group, what did he mean by "mother/son, brother/sister,..."
Just that the incest sub codes are almost always used in pairs. You wouldn't tag a story incest, son or incest, mother. That makes no sense.
It wouldn't come out to 93 pairs anyway. If you paired every incest sub tag with every other sub tag, the majority of the pairings would be nonsense.
You end up with 9 primary pairings,
father/daughter
father/son
Mother/daughter
Mother/son
Brother/sister
Aunt/nice
aunt/nephew
uncle/nice
uncle/nephew
Cousins still stands on it's own or splits into 3
MC/FC, FC/FC, MC/MC
In-laws isn't incest, it stands on it's own or should be removed from the incest group.
Grandparents would split into 4 sensible pairings
GM/GS, GF/GS, GM/GD, GF/GD.
So even if you re-do incest into pairings, like the age/gender tags, it's still only 17 sub tags tops.
In-laws isn't incest, it stands on it's own or should be removed from the incest group.
Grandparents would split into 4 sensible pairings
If the MC were to have group sex with his family to include his wife and her parents with sexual interaction between them, then the In-law code would be valid since her family is not technically part of his family's blood line. The same thing would be true of the 'Grand Parent' code if the MC or wife had sex with their respective Grandparent(s).
If you check the incest codes available for selection when posting a story and when defining search criteria and the codes listed in story descriptions, you will find that they appear as individual codes, not pairs.
Yes, they are listed individually, but for the most part they only make sense in pairs. With just son, you don't have an incest story at all.
If the MC were to have group sex with his family to include his wife and her parents with sexual interaction between them, then the In-law code would be valid since her family is not technically part of his family's blood line.
I disagree, because while sex with your in-laws might be a valid story, it is in no way shape or form an incest story.
Sex with people to whom you are not related by blood is not incest.
The same thing would be true of the 'Grand Parent' code if the MC or wife had sex with their respective Grandparent(s).
True, but as is grandparent really doesn't fit in because it's gender neutral when all the individual tags are gender specific except for grandparent, cousins and in-laws and the valid other side of the relationship grandchild was left out.
If it's your grandmother having sex with your father, that's just mother/son. If it's your paternal grandfather with your mother, that's not incest.
I do agree that some of the 91 possible pairings may not valid, but I am not interested enough to verify that possibility.
The majority aren't valid.
The some total of all the possible combinations, without getting into group sex are
father/daughter
father/son
mother/daughter
mother/son
brother/sister
brother/brother*
sister/sister*
aunt/nice
aunt/nephew
uncle/nice
uncle/nephew
grandmother/grandson*
grandmother/granddaughter*
grandfather/grandson*
grandfather/granddaughter*
cousin/cousin
That sixteen combinations, six of which can't even be properly specified in the current setup.
* can't be coded properly in the current setup.
Yes, they are listed individually, but for the most part they only make sense in pairs. With just son, you don't have an incest story at all.
You do if you write a Circle Jerk story featuring three brothers.
I disagree, because while sex with your in-laws might be a valid story, it is in no way shape or form an incest story.
Sex with people to whom you are not related by blood is not incest.
It wouldn't be for one person, but for the man's wife, or the woman's husband, it would be, thus the Incest tab is applicable, the same as it would be "Incest, father, son, mother" is the mother picks up a new guy and introduces him to sex with her son (pre-the changes to the site's bylaws).
You do if you write a Circle Jerk story featuring three brothers.
Nope, that would be brother, not son.
Nope, that would be brother, not son.
Fine, then how about a story of three men discovering they're actually brothers following the reading of the will of a father they never knew they were related to getting together to celebrate their good fortune?
Fine, then how about a story of three men discovering they're actually brothers following the reading of the will of a father they never knew they were related to getting together to celebrate their good fortune?
Unless they are getting freaky with their deceased father's corpse, it's still brother, not son. The incest is brother/brother/brother.
It wouldn't be for one person, but for the man's wife, or the woman's husband, it would be, thus the Incest tab is applicable
Incest, yes, but in my opinion, A man his wife and his sister should be coded brother/sister for the incest, not in-laws. I used a man and his sister because ther is no way to properly code for same sex siblings in the current setup.
I disagree, because while sex with your in-laws might be a valid story, it is in no way shape or form an incest story.
Either is stepchildren, but Amazon considers that incest. I thought SOL did too. And that's not a blood relation. I don't know what Amazon's take is on in-laws.
As to "grandparent," that could be a major squick to some. Maybe there should be a "geriatric" code.
I thought SOL did too.
No: from the codes FAQ: Incest Sex between blood-related members of the same family
As to "grandparent," that could be a major squick to some. Maybe there should be a "geriatric" code.
An old people having sex squick should be it's own tag not part of incest
My issue with grand parent is entirely different than my issue with in-law.
Of the incest sub tags, all are gender specific except for 3 (grandparent, cousins and in-laws)
in-laws doesn't belong at all.
Cousins sort of works as a single, because it would always be cousin/cousin.
Grandparent doesn't fit because there is no grandchild tag and it's not gender specific.
Take a story coded mother, son, grandparent
Is that grandfather->mother->son?
Is mom fucking son and mom fucking grandfather, why isn't that father,daughter,mother,son?
Is it mom and grandmother both fucking the son? This is why no grandchild tag is problematic.
Grandparent doesn't fit because there is no grandchild tag and it's not gender specific.
Grandchild is assumed.
As you said, if a boy's grandfather is having sex with the boy's mother, it's father/daughter (even though the father is the boy's grandfather).
Grandchild is assumed.
Yes, but is it grandfather/granddaughter, grandfather/grandson, grandmother/granddaughter or grandmother/grandson? I don't think it's right to assume a separate incestuous relationship in the same story give a definitive answer to that and it will make a difference to some people.
Grandparent doesn't fit because there is no grandchild tag and it's not gender specific.
Actual statistical evidence demonstrates that pedophilia is rarely gender specific. Generally, pedophiles are attracted to children, of either sex, rather than merely boys or girls.
Following that logic, many of those interested in underaged sex stories would be unconcerned with the sex of the target (though that no longer applies, since those stories are no longer allowed on SOL).
Actual statistical evidence demonstrates that pedophilia is rarely gender specific. Generally, pedophiles are attracted to children, of either sex, rather than merely boys or girls.
We are talking about incest, not pedophilia. One does not necessarily imply the other. The point is all of the specific incest tags except grandparent, cousin and in-laws are gender specific. Pedophilia has squat to do with it.
We are talking about incest, not pedophilia. One does not necessarily imply the other. The point is all of the specific incest tags except grandparent, cousin and in-laws are gender specific. Pedophilia has squat to do with it.
I think Crumbly forgot that grandparents can live long enough to have adult grandchildren. Thus not pedophilia. My last grandparent died when I was in my forties. Some of her great-grandchildren were old enough that if they were involved it wouldn't have been pedophilia.
I'll grant that what you generally find with grandparent/grandchild sex stories edges toward pedophilia, but that's because of what the authors are interested in, not what the terms mandate.
As to "grandparent," that could be a major squick to some. Maybe there should be a "geriatric" code.
There is one. It's the same one used whenever you include the "gay" code. It's called "one-bombers". If you write about grandparents—in virtually any role in an SOL story other than a passing minor character with few spoken lines—your story's rating will drop like a stone! No one wants to read about their grandparents having sex. Not even grandparents writing sex stories!
It's a nature of the beast.
Isn't!
I did some programming until retirement. My solution would be to create tag-groups. Incest would be such a group.
Groups can't be assigned to a story, only group members like mother/son, brother/sister,...
For searching you can search for groups as well as for individual group members.
That will only work if the Category Search engine was smart enough to read the reader's mind as to what he's looking for. If I code my story "incest" and also "mother/son," it will be found by readers looking for any incest story and those specifically looking for mother/son incest stories.
But today it doesn't work that way. So if someone checks only "mother/son" in the Category Search and I had removed it because I have the higher level "incest," then my story won't be found.
Now if the search engine assumes "incest" if someone checks "mother/son," and all I have is "incest," then it will find my story.
BUT... what if the person was looking for a father/daughter story and the search engine automatically found all incest stories (because it assumed the "incest" tag)? Then it would find mine, but that wasn't what the reader was looking for.
That's why it's a nature of the beast. But in this case, "beast" is not being used negatively. One of the strengths of SOL is it's Category Search. It does what it was designed to do and it does it well.
Now I think some tags are in the wrong group. Humiliation is in the BDSM group. When I write a humiliation story it has nothing to do with BDSM. So if someone is searching on "humiliation," should the engine give them BDSM stories?
It works just fine.
That will only work if the Category Search engine was smart enough to read the reader's mind as to what he's looking for.
That's not what Helmut was suggesting.
If the tags were restructured and the category search re-coded as Helmut suggests, a reader using the category search would have the option of selecting "incest" or father/daughter.
If the user selects incest the search engine would return stories tagged Father/daughter and stories tagged mother/son, whether they were also tagged as incest or not.
However, the inverse does not apply the way you suggest.
If the user selects to search for father/daughter, the engine would return only stories tagged father/daughter exactly as it does now.
No mind reading is necessary.
No mind reading is necessary.
That's how it works today if the author codes both "incest" and "mother/son." But if the suggestion is there are too many tags so the author should only code one, that's when it falls apart.
But if the suggestion is there are too many tags so the author should only code one, that's when it falls apart.
No, the suggestion is not just that the author only code one, but that the category search code be updated to compensate, so that if the reader does a category search on the generic tag "incest" it will find all stories coded with incest and also all stories coded mother/son but not coded incest and that's not how it works today.
No, the suggestion is not just that the author only code one, but that the category search code be updated to compensate, so that if the reader does a category search on the generic tag "incest" it will find all stories coded with incest and also all stories coded mother/son but not coded incest and that's not how it works today.
99% of the stories I find on SOL are through the Category Search so I'm very familiar with it.
An author codes his story: incest, mother/son.
A reader searches on "incest" because they are interested in ANY incest story. They will find that author's story.
A reader searches on mother/son because that's the type of incest story they want. They will also find that author's story.
This thread is saying the number of tags needs to be reduced. Both "incest" and "mother/son" are still needed with your proposed change. And since both tags are required, the mother/son would already be there so why have the Cat Search look for incest when mother/son is selected? If it finds stories with "incest," they may not be mother/son.
It's not broken.
This thread is saying the number of tags needs to be reduced. Both "incest" and "mother/son" are still needed with your proposed change.
No, not on any one story. You have misunderstood the proposal.
And since both tags are required, the mother/son would already be there so why have the Cat Search look for incest when mother/son is selected?
No one is suggesting that the cat search look for incest when mother son is selected.
Again, here is what is being suggested.
If incest is selected, Cat search will look for incest and all individual incest sub tags.
If individual incest sub-tags are selected by a searcher, the cat search look only for those specific sub tags.
If this change were made to the category search, it would no longer be necessary for an author to select both mother/son and incest.
It's not broken.
No one is saying it's broken. That doesn't mean it can't be improved so that authors don't have to select as many tags.
No one is saying it's broken. That doesn't mean it can't be improved so that authors don't have to select as many tags.
I think I understand what's being suggested. The group names (e.g., incest, BDSM, etc) should not be a story tag for an author since he already has one or more tags that are in that group.
I disagree.
First, it could end up being more tags. What if I have every combination of incest. Today, I might only select the "incest" tag to keep the number of tags down. With this change I would have to list them all.
Second, I have a story coded as "incest" because it's a squick to some. I didn't want to include it because it would give away the surprise. But I didn't list the specific incest to minimize the code as a spoiler.
Third, some items are in the wrong place. Humiliation isn't only BSDM. I don't want to list a humiliation story only to have people directed to it looking for BDSM stories and vice versa.
And, finally, how many tags will it really save. Is it worth Lazeez's time?
First, it could end up being more tags. What if I have every combination of incest. Today, I might only select the "incest" tag to keep the number of tags down. With this change I would have to list them all.
No, you wouldn't have to do that. If I am searching for mother/son, I am probably not going to be interested in your everyone fucking everyone else family fun time story anyway.
Second, I have a story coded as "incest" because it's a squick to some. I didn't want to include it because it would give away the surprise. But I didn't list the specific incest to minimize the code as a spoiler.
You can keep doing that. Anyone specifically looking for the excluded combination in Category search isn't going to find your story under the existing setup.
Third, some items are in the wrong place. Humiliation isn't only BSDM. I don't want to list a humiliation story only to have people directed to it looking for BDSM stories and vice versa.
That is a separate issue that Lazeez can fix easily.
ETA: He moved revenge from Cheating to Other recently for the same kind of reason.
And, finally, how many tags will it really save. Is it worth Lazeez's time?
Maybe, maybe not, but you haven't offered even one reason other than narrow mindedness for rejecting it out of hand.
Maybe, maybe not, but you haven't offered even one reason other than narrow mindedness for rejecting it out of hand.
It's never been because of my narrow mindedness. It's always been because you can't look beyond your idea and won't accept others opinions. Wait! Isn't that narrow mindedness.
You always ask for proof. Prove to Lazeez this is worth his time.
How many tags will this save?
How can you ensure authors will code their stories the way you want them to?
How much confusion will it cause people used to using Category Search and how much benefit (if any) will be derived?
It's never been because of my narrow mindedness.
Right, that's why you kept pushing the but what about people looking for mother/son finding father/daughter after being repeatedly told that specific including general was not part of the suggestion.
It's always been because you can't look beyond your idea and won't accept others opinions.
Come up with a valid objection and I'll consider it.
You always ask for proof. Prove to Lazeez this is worth his time.
How many tags will this save?
Don't know. I'm looking into it.
How can you ensure authors will code their stories the way you want them to?
I don't see any reason why it would be any more or less difficult to ensure authors correctly code stories than it is now.
If you have a specific reason for thinking it would be, I'm listening...
How much confusion will it cause people used to using Category Search and how much benefit (if any) will be derived?
Possible confusion over the change is a valid issue, but then it's an issue for any change and the site has made many over the years.
I read quite a few incest stories, I hate having to explicitly exclude every other possible combo when I am trying to search for one specific combo, so I personally see it as significant benefit. Other's may disagree, ultimately that's for Lazeez to judge.
I read quite a few incest stories, I hate having to explicitly exclude every other possible combo when I am trying to search for one specific combo,
This has been my concern all the time. Today you can search for a specific type of incest. After the suggested change, you'll get stories you don't want. **see my previous post for an example**
This has been my concern all the time. Today you can search for a specific type of incest. After the suggested change, you'll get stories you don't want. **see my previous post for an example**
NO, NO, NO: The suggested change to the category search is a one way expansion of a search for the generic tag to include all sub tags.
A category search on a specific sub tag will not be expanded and the results will not be affected at all.
My complaint is exactly the opposite and is a problem for the existing category search as it works today.
A search for +mother +son returns all the family fun time stories because few of them are coded using only the generic incest tag.
There are only 642 stories tagged with incest and none of the sub tags.
On the other hand, a search for +mother+son+brother+sister with no exclusions returns 722 stories.
+father+daughter+brother+sister = 513
+brother+sister no exclusions= 2681
+brother+sister excluding everything but the generic incest = 1600.
That's a 1081 stories is a lot of junk to wade through and that's with the category search as it works NOW.
NO, NO, NO: The suggested change to the category search is a one way expansion of a search for the generic tag to include all sub tags.
I wish you'd refer to my specific example. We're still talking in generalities.
Are you saying if the reader selects "mother/son," only stories with "mother/son" coded will be found. But if the reader selects "incest," then all incest stories will be found even if an author didn't include the "incest" tag?
Are you saying if the reader selects "mother/son," only stories with "mother/son" coded will be found. But if the reader selects "incest," then all incest stories will be found even if an author didn't include the "incest" tag?
Yes, finally he gets it.
I have no problem with that.
And nobody but you ever suggested the thing you were objecting to.
And nobody but you ever suggested the thing you were objecting to.
Switch never saw the initial suggestions, even though several of us kept reminding him of what was proposed. For some reason, he just couldn't wrap his mind around the concept.
It's like many arguments on the forum. Someone suggests something, and the entire discussion degrades in the resulting fight over those who simply can't grasp the concept, and those trying vainly to explain it in every more simplistic terms. :(
That's why, in most cases, it's better just to walk away from ANY thread with more than 10 or 15 posts. After that, little of value is added to the discussion aside from a few clever puns near the tail end. :(
I have no problem with that.
And nobody but you ever suggested the thing you were objecting to.
Because no one was clear. If you read through the posts you'll see that different people said different things. For example, someone said it meant a new tag called "incest:all".
I wish you'd refer to my specific example.
I did refer to your specific example in a different reply, directly above the one you replied to this time.
How many tags will this save?
Looking at the just incest and just 9 primary incest combinations (father/daughter, father/son, mother/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, uncle/nice, uncle/nephew, aunt/nice, aunt/nephew)
There are 4191 stories tagged with one and only one combination (all others excluded). Of those, 483 do not include the generic incest tag.
Is that enough to be worth Lazeez's time, I can't say, because I don't know enough to judge the level of effor to make the change.
But that's just the incest group. The same could be done with some of the other groups as well, Science fiction, Paranormal, couples/cheating, group sex,
BDSM, and the interracial elements group could all potentially benefit from this kind of change.
Combo Count Count without incest.
Mother/ son 1050 93
father/daughter 886 76
father/son 25 2
mother/daughter 339 85
brother/sister 1600 155
aunt/nephew 95 24
uncle/nephew 7 3
aunt/nice 20 6
uncle/nice 169 39
That's how it works today if the author codes both "incest" and "mother/son."
Part of the problem is there are writers who not only select the "incest" tag but all the tags under that category or at least that is what it seems. One or two maybe okay but when you start listing all the relationship possibilities its too many. The main category yes but not all the underlying tags. Those could be assumed if the only tag is the group tag.
It could be assumed in a search that if say "mother/son" was selected as the tag to search for then the "incest" tag would be included even if unchecked since it is the master tag.
Part of the problem is there are writers who not only select the "incest" tag but all the tags under that category
That's not a problem. It's required.
A reader wants to read a mother/son incest story so he selects "mother/son" in the Category search. The author must have that story code to be found. If they have only "incest" because it's redundant to have both "incest" and "mother/son" (since mother/son is incest), it won't be found.
So let's say the author tags his mother/son incest story only as "incest" and the Category Search is changed to assume any of the incest combinations is incest. A reader selects "mother/son." The new Category Search engine converts that to "incest." The only problem is, the result will be any type of incest story (e.g., father/son, brother/sister, etc.).
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
Remember I said all the tags under the "incest" tag not just one or two. If all the tags are going to be listed then the master tag "Incest" is the only one needed. I stated that one or two tags under the "incest" group would be fine along with the incest tag. But when all the potential relationships are listed its too many tags.
When all the relationship tags are included the only tag needed is the "incest" tag since that includes all of them.
When all the relationship tags are included the only tag needed is the "incest" tag since that includes all of them.
Have you ever seen a story coded with all the tags? I'm just curious. How many would that be?
Have you ever seen a story coded with all the tags? I'm just curious. How many would that be?
Excluding In-laws because I don't think it belongs, there are 11 stories coded with Mother [AND] Son [AND] Brother [AND] Sister [AND] Father [AND] Daughter [AND] Cousins [AND] Uncle [AND] Niece [AND] Aunt [AND] Nephew [AND] Grand Parent
What am I missing?
We'd earlier suggested a new category of "Incest:ALL". The poster was merely building on that idea.
We'd earlier suggested a new category of "Incest:ALL". The poster was merely building on that idea.
I missed that. I thought the current "incest" code would be used instead of the specific codes. That's why I thought it wouldn't work. I have no problem with a new "incest:all" code.
I missed that. I thought the current "incest" code would be used instead of the specific codes. That's why I thought it wouldn't work. I have no problem with a new "incest:all" code.
No, the poster suggested adding a new "Incest" group code, which would flag all the other codes during searches whenever the group code was specified during the story creation. Thus they'd move the responsibility away from each authors to label every imaginable code to the system software. It's a sensible work around, but without knowing how the SOL coding is coded, it's hard to know whether we could implement it or not. He simply stated that he'd worked on similar systems back when he used to work in programming (on entirely different systems).
No, the poster suggested adding a new "Incest" group code,
No. What DS explained was if the "incest" code was selected in the Cat Search, then it would find incest stories even though "incest" wasn't included as a code. No new codes will be created. (See previous post)
Part of the problem is there are writers who not only select the "incest" tag but all the tags under that category or at least that is what it seems. One or two maybe okay but when you start listing all the relationship possibilities its too many. The main category yes but not all the underlying tags. Those could be assumed if the only tag is the group tag.
It could be assumed in a search that if say "mother/son" was selected as the tag to search for then the "incest" tag would be included even if unchecked since it is the master tag.
As others have suggested, it's ONLY a problem because a few authors seek to include every single kink they can think of. In other words, it's an activity limited to only a few authors who seek to shock, rather than develop the characters.
As such, I think it's best to leave it alone and let the Admins handle it with a warning ("Either cut the number of codes, or we will!"). I'm unconvinced we need to revise the entire scheme to circumvent the issue.
As we've noted before, it's a short-sighted strategy, since many of us have already stated we purposely avoid any stories with such a complicated code listing.
As far as incest stories, I prefer reading why someone is driven to seek such a relationship (i.e. what the relationship is so unique), rather than read that 'everyone is doing it and you can too!', which seems to be a familiar refrain in many of these stories.
In one, it's a 'one of a kind' love affair doomed to failure, while in the other, it's a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the reader can pretend he's not such a freak. (I'm teasing, but seriously, I want to understand the mindset, not justify it.)
In one, it's a 'one of a kind' love affair doomed to failure, while in the other, it's a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the reader can pretend he's not such a freak.
Do you not see any middle ground between those two extremes? Why does the one have to be doomed to failure?
Do you not see any middle ground between those two extremes? Why does the one have to be doomed to failure?
I didn't mean the relationship was "doomed to fail", rather the motif is "we're facing unsurmountable odds, so how do we keep from being disowned and driven out of the state/country?"
In one, the story is more Romeo & Juliet with the threat of death and dishonor hanging over their heads—even if everything works out in the end—while in the other it's "Let's invite the whole town in to join this secret past time no one ever told us about."
One is a 'once-in-a-lifetime' event, so you focus on its uniqueness, the other is a free-for-all so isn't special at all.
That will only work if the Category Search engine was smart enough to read the reader's mind as to what he's looking for. If I code my story "incest" and also "mother/son," it will be found by readers looking for any incest story and those specifically looking for mother/son incest stories.
Not quite. As explained, we're not talking about a new 'limited' tag, only that we're 'smartening' the tag reader. Thus individual can search for any individual tag, which they'd find, but it allows the author to insert a "incest group" tag which flags ALL the various incest tags while only listing one for the story.
Same functionality, less obnoxious tags.
Wonderful idea, we just need to see how practical it is.
Thus individual can search for any individual tag, which they'd find, but it allows the author to insert a "incest group" tag which flags ALL the various incest tags while only listing one for the story.
Okay, I still don't understand. We're talking generalizations here. Let me try again with a specific example.
AUTHOR: has a story with mother/son and brother/sister incest. He codes his story as "INCEST" (one code instead of three — instead of coding it "incest, mother/son, brother/sister").
READER: is looking for a father/daughter incest story so he checks "father/daughter" in the Category Search. The engine will return those stories the author coded as father/daughter. But it will also return the story above that was simply coded as "incest." The reader doesn't want a mother/son or brother/sister incest story, but that's what is given to him in the results.
What am I missing? The reader got something he didn't ask for.
What am I missing? The reader got something he didn't ask for.
You are missing that what is being suggested doesn't work that way.
In your supposition a reader checking father/daughter in the category search will not see that story at all.
Let's posit several stories,
1. mother/son + brother/sister coded just incest.
2. mother/son story coded as mother + son + incest.
3. mother/son story coded as mother + son no incest tag.
4. brother / sister story coded brother + sister no incest tag.
5. brother / sister story coded brother + sister + incest.
Reader does category search +brother+sister
Today results: 4, 5
Suggested results: 4, 5
Reader does category search +incest
Today results: 1,2,5
Suggested results: 1,2,3,4,5
Okay, I still don't understand. We're talking generalizations here. Let me try again with a specific example.
AUTHOR: has a story with mother/son and brother/sister incest. He codes his story as "INCEST" (one code instead of three — instead of coding it "incest, mother/son, brother/sister").
READER: is looking for a father/daughter incest story so he checks "father/daughter" in the Category Search. The engine will return those stories the author coded as father/daughter. But it will also return the story above that was simply coded as "incest." The reader doesn't want a mother/son or brother/sister incest story, but that's what is given to him in the results.
What am I missing? The reader got something he didn't ask for.
They were again proposing an alternative to someone listing EVERY SINGLE code available, rather than someone listing individual codes. Thus they'd substitute a global "Everything imaginable" code instead of the full display of every individual code.
The problem, though, which has yet to be addressed, is exactly how you'd implement it without rewriting the entire SOL coding system.
They were again proposing an alternative to someone listing EVERY SINGLE code available,
That is not what's being recommended. See, I'm not the only one.
The author would still list every combination. So if there's mom/son, mom/daughter, bro/sis, the author will list all of those. Why? In case a reader using the Category Search chose one of them, say bro/sis. If the author did not list bro/sis, his story would not be selected.
Today, if "incest" is chosen on the Cat Search, only stories with "incest" as a story code would be returned. If the author put in all the combinations without the "incest" code it would not meet the search criteria. What's being suggested is, if "incest" is selected on the Cat Search, return all stories with one or more incest combinations even if the "incest" code was not included on the author's story.
This thread is about reducing the number of tags. All it reduces is the need for one tag, the "incest" tag which the author might include to highlight that it's an incest story.
It's not worth Lazeez's time to make that change.
It's not worth Lazeez's time to make that change.
You may be right, but that can't be known for certain without knowing what the level of effort to make the change would be, and that is something that only Lazeez himself can properly determine.
The author would still list every combination. So if there's mom/son, mom/daughter, bro/sis, the author will list all of those. Why? In case a reader using the Category Search chose one of them, say bro/sis. If the author did not list bro/sis, his story would not be selected.
You are correct, that many authors of such stories think that way. However, in my opinion, it's a false premise. I think the odds that a reader searching for just bro/sis would be interested in a mom/son, mom/daughter, bro/sis story are actually fairly low.
In my opinion, authors who list more than two specific combinations gain almost nothing for doing so.
I think the odds that a reader searching for just bro/sis would be interested in a mom/son, mom/daughter, bro/sis story are actually fairly low.
In my opinion, authors who list more than two specific combinations gain almost nothing for doing so.
The Category Search is an "or" check, not an "and." So all need to be specified so that any one would match what the reader was looking for.
EDITED: HIT Post too soon.
The Category Search is an "or" check, not an "and."
You are wrong. If it was an or check, adding more tags to the category search would increase the number of results, but that's not what happens.
If I do a category search for + grandparent, there are 272 results and the top of the results page says
Showing: Grand Parent
If I do a category search for + mother + grandparent, I only get 148 results and the top of the page says
Showing: Mother [AND] Grand Parent
You are wrong. If it was an or check, adding more tags to the category search would increase the number of results, but that's not what happens
At the bottom of the Category Search is a "Find Stories having." The default is "all" but you can also choose "any" or "exact match." When a reader chooses "any" it's an "or" search.
I am not wrong.
At the bottom of the Category Search is a "Find Stories having." The default is "all" but you can also choose "any" or "exact match." When a reader chooses "any" it's an "or" search.
I am not wrong.
You are mostly wrong.
Most searches would be done as all.
I've never used anything other than the default and I doubt more than a small fraction of the users have ever done so. Or searches are not especially useful.
Besides, or wouldn't work for incest stories very well the way the sub tags are structured.
That function is all or nothing, so you can't search for mother and son or mother and daughter.
A search for mother or son or daughter would yield father/daughter and father/son stories.
Or mostly right.
Nowhere near mostly right. Or is a mostly useless option any I doubt it gets used much, if at all.
So all need to be specified so that any one would match what the reader was looking for.
Backwards. if the reader is searching +brother+sister, then in all likely hood your mother,son,daughter,brother, sister story is NOT what the reader was looking for, but will show up in the category search unless a premium user goes to the effort to exclude mother,son,daughter.
What's being suggested is, if "incest" is selected on the Cat Search, return all stories with one or more incest combinations even if the "incest" code was not included on the author's story.
I may be missing something.
You are saying that clicking the incest tag would result in stories with any incest combinations being retrieved. What that mean is ALL (3,000+) incest stories would be displayed.
You are saying that clicking the incest tag would result in stories with any incest combinations being retrieved. What that mean is ALL (3,000+) incest stories would be displayed.
That's the suggestion.
And all it does is potentially save one tag on incest stories — the "incest" one — which might be there anyway to highlight that it's an incest story.
I said it's not worth it. But now that you mentioned what you did, it's actually a bad thing.
But now that you mentioned what you did, it's actually a bad thing.
Why would that be a bad thing if a user deliberately did a category search using the generic incest tag?
Wouldn't that be exactly what the user wanted?
Wouldn't that be exactly what the user wanted?
There's an expression: "Be careful what you wish for." The number of results is unmanageable with checking "incest" today, and this change will make it more so. But you're right, it will be what the reader asked for.
Here's something else to consider with the Category Search with "all" being the default.
mom+son = 2482 results
incest+mom+son = 2321 results (161 less found)
Authors of 161 stories with mom/son didn't bother to include the "incest" story code so their stories didn't show up.
So...
1. if an author has an incest story, he better have the "incest" story code.
2. if a reader is searching for a certain type of incest, he better not select the "incest" code.
ETA: It's true for other categories as well. When I write a blackmail story, I sometimes wonder if I should include the "non-consent" code. I do just in case someone searches solely on "non-consent."
But it's needed in case the reader searches on "blackmail" and "non-consent." If the latter code isn't there, the story won't be found.
So since this thread started as a way to reduce the number of story codes, it seems some of the redundant ones are actually needed. So, authors, be careful of what you DON'T include.
2. if a reader is searching for a certain type of incest, he better not select the "incest" code.
I think you meant ... just the incest code.
2. if a reader is searching for a certain type of incest, he better not select the "incest" code.
I think you meant ... just the incest code.
No.
If he wants mom/son he should only select "mother" and "son." If he does, he'll get all stories that have the mother and son codes (whether they have the "incest" code or not).
But if the reader selects "mother" and "son" AND "incest" there are mother/son stories only tagged "mother" and "son." So since the default in the Cat Search is "all," all 3 have to be present in the story's codes. If the author didn't bother with "incest" because he chose "mother" and "son," his story would not be found.
if an author has an incest story, he better have the "incest" story code.
The suggested change to how the category search treats the group generic tags would fix that.
if a reader is searching for a certain type of incest, he better not select the "incest" code.
Do you have any actual reason for thinking anyone would actually search for incest and specific type of incest other than to do this kind of data analysis? I am skeptical that anyone would actually do that for the purpose of finding a story to read. This is a non-issue.
Do you have any actual reason for thinking anyone would actually search for incest and specific type of incest other than to do this kind of data analysis? I am skeptical that anyone would actually do that for the purpose of finding a story to read. This is a non-issue.
Me. There were times I went through the list and chose all that I was interested in at the moment without considering how the "all" worked. I bet I'm not unique.
SW: if an author has an incest story, he better have the "incest" story code.
DS: The suggested change to how the category search treats the group generic tags would fix that.
It won't because it would return ALL incest stories.
Today, I want a mom/son story. If I select "mother" and "son" I will get all of them (with or without the proposed change).
But if I add "incest" to my search criteria, I will not get mom/son stories that didn't have the "incest" code. With the proposed change, I would get ALL incest stories, not only mom/son ones.
With the proposed change, I would get ALL incest stories, not only mom/son ones.
This is why I now believe it's a bad idea.
But if I add "incest" to my search criteria, I will not get mom/son stories that didn't have the "incest" code. With the proposed change, I would get ALL incest stories, not only mom/son ones.
That's ridiculous. There is no reason why the suggested change to how "generic" group tags should affect how other explicitly set criteria are handled.
Properly coded +incest+mom+son using all should return exactly the same set as +mom+son.
Properly coded +incest+mom+son using all should return exactly the same set as +mom+son.
You said that, with the proposed change, selecting "incest" in the Category Search would return ALL incest stories. Now maybe in your mind the mom+son part makes the "incest" part work differently, but I was a programmer long enough to know it depends how it's coded.
Look, it ain't broke. Why introduce potential problems?
but I was a programmer long enough to know it depends how it's coded.
And I've been a programmer long enough to know that any competent programmer who saw something coded the way you suggest would recognized that it's coded wrong.
Look, it ain't broke. Why introduce potential problems?
So no-one can ever suggest potential improvement unless you think it's broken as is?
Today, I want a mom/son story. If I select "mother" and "son" I will get all of them (with or without the proposed change).
But if I add "incest" to my search criteria, I will not get mom/son stories that didn't have the "incest" code. With the proposed change, I would get ALL incest stories, not only mom/son ones.
That's akin to saying, if I want a story about a mother-son combo, then I'd better add in "Revenge", because if I don't it WON'T list anything that includes the missing component.
Again, we were discussing a new generic Incest group tag, not changing how the tags are defined or used.
Again, we were discussing a new generic Incest group tag, not changing how the tags are defined or used.
The suggestion is not a new tag.
What DS is asking for is: In the Category Search, if the reader selects "incest," then any story with an incest sub-code (mother, son, cousin, etc.) will be found even if the author didn't include "incest" as a story tag (and the same for the other categories, such as, BDSM).
If the change is implemented, I wonder what would happen if the reader selects (-) for incest?
If the change is implemented, I wonder what would happen if the reader selects (-) for incest?
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that side.
Exclude all incest sub tags unless one or more are explicitly included.
Exclude all incest sub tags unless one or more are explicitly included.
yes, that's how I would program it.
With the exclude (-) option results could always be unexpected.
eg. a story is tagged mother, son, father, daughter.
How does the search actually work if the criteria are
+mother +son -father?
Does the current implementation return this story?
IMHO an exclusion should override the inclusions, the story should not be returned.
My proposal was for a search-only group-tag 'incest'. I thought the existing sub-tag incest would then be superfluous and could be removed from the tag list.
For search-only group-tags the inclusion (+) or exclusion (-) of a sub-tag should override the group-tag setting.
BTW, the author can't add the search-only group-tag to the story.
Another problem with the existing incest tags, they are not relations.
eg. the tags of a story are father, mother, son, daughter (is the order significant?). What type of incest is it? Mother/son and father/daughter or father/son and mother/daughter or all? Son/doughter would be brother/sister and should be listed as such.
HM.
BTW, the author can't add the search-only group-tag to the story.
CW,
my mistake. I didn't realize there were two different proposals.
Another problem with the existing incest tags, they are not relations.
Agreed.
So since this thread started as a way to reduce the number of story codes, it seems some of the redundant ones are actually needed. So, authors, be careful of what you DON'T include.
Alas, the discussion didn't start with making the codes less redundant, it was in response to the few stories where the author seemed to include EVERY CODE available, simply in order to beef up the story (i.e. they don't seem to advance the plot much beyond 'mucho sex!').
What that mean is ALL (3,000+) incest stories would be displayed.
The actual number is 8,979 incest stories.
You are saying that clicking the incest tag would result in stories with any incest combinations being retrieved.
I just did some checks and got 7,801 for incest only tagged 1,086 for incest + mother tagged, while just mother only tagged got 1,139 and when I hit +mother: - incest I got 53 stories. I think the incest tagged only returns hits on the stories where it's been applied to the story by the author.
typo edit
edit to add: I found some stories had the incest category sub-group tags but not the incest tag - so they tagged mother, sister, brother, etc but not incest - not sure what they mean by that one.
edit to add: I found some stories had the incest category sub-group tags but not the incest tag - so they tagged mother, sister, brother, etc but not incest - not sure what they mean by that one.
those probably decided that the incest group tag was unneeded. The tags mentioned would have to be considered incest anyway. Tag the needed relationships and leave out the rest.
then again that is just my opinion and I have been wrong many times.
those probably decided that the incest group tag was unneeded. The tags mentioned would have to be considered incest anyway. Tag the needed relationships and leave out the rest.
then again that is just my opinion and I have been wrong many times.
I couldn't be bothered to look at the stories, so you could be right. However, with the high level of people who use tags without ever looking at the code definitions page, the usage could be almost anything.
However, with the high level of people who use tags without ever looking at the code definitions page, the usage could be almost anything.
Very true or don't bother to think about what codes they are using. Some writers actually think about what codes they will use both for a story. You and CW among others who only post a story when its finished can fairly easily include all the codes that actually apply to the story, updating as new codes become available. The serial story writers have to make their best guess based on where they think the story will go, only many times to find the story took a different route than they planned.
Some writers actually think about what codes they will use both for a story. You and CW among others who only post a story when its finished can fairly easily include all the codes that actually apply to the story, updating as new codes become available. The serial story writers have to make their best guess based on where they think the story will go, only many times to find the story took a different route than they planned.
Alas, any time we (Ernest and I, at least) discover a new tag has been added, we'll frequently go back and update the stories, to make them easier to find by anyone looking for them.
For example, as more and more tags lose their 'sexual' connotations (as the range of stories increases over time), I trust that many severely limited tags will open up to more universal usages (ex: the "Revenge" tag).
I just did some checks
Your checks are relevant to the current system. My comment addressed what would happen if the proposed change were to be implemented. Namely, the proposed change would result in all incest stories (8,979 per SB) being returned if any search criteria is selected.
In the two tag lists that have been posted, here is what stands out for me.
1.
Consensual, Romantic, NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, Blackmail
Those actually aren't that unusual, especially for a longer story, as they likely don't list the same relationships (i.e. the "romance" is probably between the main characters, while the rape is probably something they encounter and help someone recover from). Thus there really isn't a conflict between the tags.
However, that wouldn't apply for shorter stories. But ... when you have that many different sex tags (from the previous example), even if there is a plot, I'd suspect more time went into arranging the various sex scenes then went into any character development.
Heck with all those tags for one story. Where is there any room for a real story.
And it was probably a 2k stroke story :)
And there are some stories named "Tag", several by Rache, and at least one by another author.
(Edit) Wrong again, it was by Rachel Ross (same author, different name). There is a universe named Tag-the-game.
https://storiesonline.net/universe/538/tag-the-game
What's wrong with multiple consent levels in one story?
Maybe nothing in a very long story, but it raises the difficulty of making the story work well. The shorter the story is the greater the difficulty in making it work.
As long as consensual, non-consensual, and/or rape are not applied to the same scene, I don't see that as particularly difficult.
As long as consensual, non-consensual, and/or rape are not applied to the same scene, I don't see that as particularly difficult.
You have to go back to what I said about the story length mattering.
Either rape and non-consensual are redundant or the story needs at least three different sex scenes.
Then you also have both coercion and blackmail. Either they are redundant or you have both blackmail and some form of coercion that's not blackmail.
What is the common thread that ties all these very different sex scenes into a coherent story?
Is there one character that ties all these sex scenes together?
If it's the victim in the non-conensual, rape, coercion, blackmail scenes, it really sucks to be them.
If it's the perpetrator, what the fuck is going on in his / her head.
You have to go back to what I said about the story length mattering.
I got that, and you're right of course. I just don't think that the level of consent is any different from other tags in context to the story length. Non-consensual and rape could have been a woman's past and consensual her present or her future.
Non-consensual and rape could have been a woman's past and consensual her present or her future.
I disagree, background items that aren't graphically on stage in the story should not be tagged.
background items that aren't graphically on stage
I didn't say that, did I? Flashbacks and multiple timelines are possibilities as well, and those can be very well descriptive. The story simply can start with a woman's unhappy past and we follow her into her happy future.
Flashbacks and multiple timelines are possibilities as well
Flashbacks and multiple timelines are things that are done far more often than they are done well. Again, something that raises the difficulty of crafting a good story.
Flashbacks and multiple timelines are things that are done far more often than they are done well. Again, something that raises the difficulty of crafting a good story.
Well, that leaves the ordinary storyline. It starts somewhere, ends somewhere and in-between things are happening. But I already mentioned that, you just avoided it in your last response.
Two different consent tags should work okay. Three might be okay. When you have four or more different consent level tags it starts getting questionable.
Two different consent tags should work okay. Three might be okay. When you have four or more different consent level tags it starts getting questionable.
Since apart from consensual and romantic, all listed tags are variables of 'non-consensual', it's only a matter of how much scenes you can fit in how much of a story.
all listed tags are variables of 'non-consensual', it's only a matter of how much scenes you can fit in how much of a story.
No, it's also how well you can string all those scenes together into a coherent story.
I disagree, background items that aren't graphically on stage in the story should not be tagged.
It doesn't matter whether it's in her background or not. As long as it's described, and provides 'sexual stimulation', you've supposed to list it (say if she has flashbacks where she remembers the earlier incidents which relate those activities to her present situation).
It doesn't matter whether it's in her background or not. As long as it's described, and provides 'sexual stimulation', you've supposed to list it
What part of "that aren't graphically on stage" did you not understand?
What part of "that aren't graphically on stage" did you not understand?
LOLOL Sorry, but reading someone try to snarkily "teach" another writer who has 6 times as many stories, a half dozen of which are longer than EVERYTHING written by the other guy, strikes me as comical. In fact, that comment might need a "Humor" tag.
but reading someone try to snarkily "teach" another writer
I wasn't trying to teach him anything. I made a comment about how I interpret tags as a reader and he comes back with a correction that drastically misinterpreted the comment of mine to which he was replying.
How should it be tagged if it's consensual rape? That is, where someone intentionally put themselves in a position where they're likely to be raped (a term I've heard for this is "rapebaiting") knowing what the likely outcome is, but still going through with the rape as a rape?
I don't think there is something like consensual rape.
- Roleplay rape? Is consensual.
- Slavery rape? Is non-consensual.
- Everything BDSM with a safeword is consensual, without is non-consensual (a little blurred, if the sub is completely under the influence of the dom)
- but "rapebaiting" is not a term that would be used outside of rape-fantasy sites. It is too close to the old "she had a dress that didn't even go past her knees Officer! She clearly wanted sex." argument.
A Person who willingly puts herself in a situation where she could be raped can be classified in many categories. Mental issues, Slut/Bimbo, BDSM/Humiliation, Vigilante, etc. But that doesn't mean a "consensual rape" category is warranted. The person itself would define the category, not the sex act.
How should it be tagged if it's consensual rape?
It should be tagged 'nonsense'. However, we're not talking about legal terms. Consensual by definition requires the consent of every participant, otherwise I'd still consider it non-consensual, and would tag it accordingly. Rape in regards to tags used on SoL requires physical violence.
knowing what the likely outcome is, but still going through with the rape as a rape?
I have also heard of cases like what you are referring to. In the cases I've heard the victim was playing out a rape fantasy and did not expect to actually be raped.
ETA: In such a case, the woman is probably looking for rough sex on her terms. Rape is violent and/or nonconsensual (withdrawal of consent during the act) sex on the rapist's terms.
I wasn't suggesting a new category be created; I was wondering how it should be tagged from a consent point of view, because it's a weird edge case.
Even outside of rape-fantasy sites, you still will find things like a person putting a picture on Tumblr of themselves holding a sign that says "rape me". I even once found a post on Reddit I think purportedly by a person who had successfully rapebaited in the past, and was providing tips for other people who wanted to be rapebait.
I'm not going to argue that these people don't probably have mental or psychological issues in some capacity—but it is a thing, and it is a thing that people might write a story about. How is it classified?
I'm not going to argue that these people don't probably have mental or psychological issues in some capacity—but it is a thing, and it is a thing that people might write a story about. How is it classified?
Just because it may look like rape, doesn't mean it is. There is an old adage that you can't rape the willing.
If they genuinely go out looking for it, then it's consensual not rape.
Of course, that view might upset the trigger warning crowd, but you can't please everyone.
Just because it may look like rape, doesn't mean it is. There is an old adage that you can't rape the willing.
If they genuinely go out looking for it, then it's consensual not rape.
How about this scenario: the rapist doesn't know of her intentions and because there is no safeword she gets more than expected.
HM.
How about this scenario: the rapist doesn't know of her intentions (wanting to get 'raped')
That's what I was talking about before, you don't even need the escalation to dispute a consensus. If the rapist isn't aware of his victim's consent, then from his point of view it still is a rape and cannot be classified as 'consensual'.
How about this scenario: the rapist doesn't know of her intentions and because there is no safeword she gets more than expected.
For a story, it depends on her attitude. Just because she got more than expected doesn't necessarily mean she would be unhappy with the result.
In real life, it's highly inadvisable to go looking for these kinds of women. They exist, but they are extremely rare and the fist indication you will have that you chose the wrong woman will be the police knocking on your door.
rape, consensual, non-consensual
In the story Lost and Found, there is a situation where there was a consent between the mc, his girlfriend and another guy to have a threesome.
The consent on the part of the mc stopped when he realized that the other guy had understood that the mc would be the filling in the threesome and not his girlfriend.
The Consent and rape tags could apply to a scene where an unconscious person was being raped by a guy who was also the recipient of consensual anal sex.
Sorry I got lost in the shuffle somewhere. Who consented to what? As for the rape tag, again, we're not talking about legal terms. The 'rape' tag on SoL should only be applied to stories where the non-consensual act is accopanied by violence.
The 'rape' tag on SoL should only be applied to stories where the non-consensual act is accopanied by violence.
Don't forget, even if the 'rape' in a story is non-graphic, many people who've been raped don't care to have the fact shoved in their faces. Thus sometimes a 'squick warning' is justified, even if the sex is not part of the story.
However, in that case, I'd include the warning either in the story description, or more likely at the start of the chapter in question, rather than tagging something which isn't a part of the story.
But it's important to remember, many readers don't read codes, or assume 'you didn't really mean it', and so they'll read even if it offends them. In fact, most 1-bombers purposely seek out the stories which upset them, simply in an attempt to shame the authors into giving up (gay sex stories are a classical case of this). In those cases, the 1-bomber isn't an expression of opinion, but is rather an attempt to censor stories and subject matter. Thus, people will complain no matter how you deal with it!
But it's important to remember, many readers don't read codes, or assume 'you didn't really mean it', and so they'll read even if it offends them.
If that's the case, why should it concern me when they don't care what I tell them anyway?
Truth in Advertising. If the reader fails to read or ignores what you say, then it's on them if they don't like what they get.
Truth in Advertising.
I agree with you, although I doubt these two terms belong in the same sentence.
If that's the case, why should it concern me when they don't care what I tell them anyway?
That's essentially what I'm saying. Write what you will, and provide the necessary tags, but some people will still get upset anyone. If you did the best you could to prepare the story, take pride in the fact that you did the right thing and ignore the invalid complaints. Three comes a time to climb down off the emotional roller-coaster of slip-sliding scores.
Your story will either stand or fall on it's own, regardless of what random individuals complain about.
You, as the author, are only responsible for accidental exposure. You can't prevent people who go looking to be offended!
In the initial scene the MC, his girlfriend and a guy agreed to have a threesome. The MC thought that his girlfriend would be the center of attention when he consented to the idea, The guy on the other hand, thought that the MC was consenting to have anal with him while he was having sex with his girlfriend. When the guy acted on his impression, that MC told him that he had not consented to that and withdrew from the room.
As for the second scene, how about the rape victim being fully conscious, but tied up prior to the start of the rape. During the rape the victim is choked (almost?) to death.
Having just got back from there I can understand Lazeez wishing to limit the number of tags (especially after someone earlier in the year probably used every single one and invented more) I do think his limit of fifty could be too many - I don't want to check so many when considering a new story.
Looking at the list of possible tags there are umpteen which cannot reasonable work together - can a fiction story go with a true story?. Why use "fiction story" together with "fairy story"? Trying to tie together the Military with Zoophilia, Hermaphrodites, Pedophilia and Crossdressing would be a rare ability.
Sorry Lazeez, I think 50 is far too many but I accept it is your ballcourt
edit; just come across a new chapter of a story with 76 tags (I was getting bored with counting so add/subtract one or two) which included NonConsensual, Reluctant, Rape, Coercion, plus clergy, violent and consensual.
Surely rape is non-consensual by definition? I suspect it is also reluctant, coerced and violent (oh, and I could add a few more from the 76). IMHO that is one author who should reconsider his/her tags
Sorry Lazeez, I think 50 is far too many
A lot will depend on the length of the story and what's involved in it. One of the stories I wrote with Cazna got hit for the over 50 tags issue, and I had a hard time working out what tags to take off it. However, the story involved had 268,000 words and had a lot of different types of sexual interactions.
Normally I'm hard pushed to find half a dozen tags to hit my stories with that apply to them.
A lot will depend on the length of the story and what's involved in it. One of the stories I wrote with Cazna got hit for the over 50 tags issue, and I had a hard time working out what tags to take off it. However, the story involved had 268,000 words and had a lot of different types of sexual interactions.
In that case, I'd probably take a different tag. I'd list it as "Much Sex", put a warning in the story description that "many situations are not accurately tagged", and I'd instead place specific tags at the story of each chapter, so regular readers could skip any chapter which might squick them.
It's an extreme case, but might be your best situation (assuming you ever encounter it).
Looking at the list of possible tags there are umpteen which cannot reasonable work together - can a fiction story go with a true story?. Why use "fiction story" together with "fairy story"? Trying to tie together the Military with Zoophilia, Hermaphrodites, Pedophilia and Crossdressing would be a rare ability.
Easy. For many "True Story" is a writing style, rather than an objective observation (i.e. this story is written as a 'true confession' fiction story, not as a non-fiction story). In your second case, I just wrote two science fiction stories that features fairies, dragons and demons as part of the plot. Should all those stories be yanked, or would you just remove all the tags you think are misapplied (and then upset any readers interested in them).
The key is that tags are not always what they seem. Just as many tags (like "black" and "oriental" refer to specific sexual kinks, rather than the racial type of various characters, many tags (like "true story") refers to things other than what they claim.
By the way, that's why I'll NEVER read any story listed as "True"! I no longer trust them having read too many which abuse the terminology.
I just wrote two science fiction stories that features fairies, dragons and demons as part of the plot.
Fusions of Science fiction and High Fantasy or Paranormal, can be done. However, in my opinion, they are done poorly more often than they are done well.
Just two story types, probably won't scare me off, but when you start having three or more, the likelihood that the it's a cohesive story drops dramatically.
Fusions of Science fiction and High Fantasy or Paranormal, can be done. However, in my opinion, they are done poorly more often than they are done well.
Just two story types, probably won't scare me off, but when you start having three or more, the likelihood that the it's a cohesive story drops dramatically.
I agree on both counts. They're red flags, alerting you that the author is largely unfocused, trying too much, too soon, with little likelihood of success (even those of us with a little experience under our belt would only risk a couple in any given story, much less every one imaginable.
And above all remember, no matter what there will be someone who will hate it. Regardless of the tags used or how many someone will decide its wrong. Its a catch 22 situation as to what tags or how many tags to use. That is why I tend to pay more attention to the descriptive paragraph than the tags among other things. And when I don't like something I just go to the next story.
Speaking as a programmer, certainly something like that is possible; migrating from the current flat structure is also possible. The devil, as they say, is in the details: how much time/effort will it take? What will it look like in the code list? What will it look like on the search screen? How are the various corner cases handled?
It's possible that it's easy, quick, and can easily have a good UI. I've just been working in the industry too long to assume that out of the gate.
The problem isn't with the Category Search. It's with authors and readers.
Authors tag stories wrong. Find me a story written in 2nd-POV with the "2nd POV" tag? There ain't none. And some authors code stuff that shouldn't be coded. I believe that's the problem Lazeez is trying to fix.
Readers interpret story tags the way they want, not what the definition states. I've had many readers tell me I should have the "rape" code when there's no rape based on SOL's definition. I do have the "non-consent" code because blackmail, coercion, etc. are non-consent, but although they're legally rape, they are not rape based on SOL's definition. However, the reader wants the rape code. Interestingly, no one ever asked for the rape code when it was consensual underage sex, although legally that's rape.
I never realized how many readers are squick sensitive until reading some comments in this forum. Maybe that's a reason for some authors listing a ton of story codes — to protect themselves.
Let me put it this way.
A reader wants any incest story. They select "incest" in the Category Search.
A reader wants only mom/son incest stories. They select "mother/son" in the Category Search.
Today's Category Search handles that.
Today's Category Search handles that.
It only handles that if authors use the incest tag as well as the more specific tags on every story.
What is being suggested is a change to category search so authors no longer need to use the general incest tag unless a large number of combinations are present in the story in which case, they can use the general tag without any of the specific tags.
What is being suggested is a change to category search so authors no longer need to use the general incest tag unless a large number of combinations are present in the story in which case, they can use the general tag without any of the specific tags.
I was typing my last post while you were posting this one.
Ok, that addresses my first item in the other post.
But how many tags will it really save? Maybe eliminating "incest" from some stories (but not all).
But how many tags will it really save? Maybe eliminating "incest" from some stories (but not all).
True, but there is a significant number of stories that in my opinion ought to be reduced to JUST incest.
True, but there is a significant number of stories that in my opinion ought to be reduced to JUST incest.
How about a new tag of "every squick imaginable" or "ESI" for short?
How about a new tag of "every squick imaginable" or "ESI" for short?
There is one. It's called "caution."
Its probably because incest has the largest reactions. Heck any grouping of tags would probably have just as many likes and dislikes of the options. Part of the problem would be that previous stories with tags might not fit properly within the new labeling.
Basically no matter what the final decision is, there will be no satisfying everyone.
Looking back over prior posts, I found what appear to be several posts that imply variations in what is proposed.
Just to make sure we all understand what this proposed change is, will someone please define it.
Just to make sure we all understand what this proposed change is, will someone please define it.
This is my guess since I was as confused as you.
On the Category Search:
1. Select any or all incest codes EXCEPT "incest" and you'll get only what you ask for.
2. Select "incest" and you get all incest stories, even those that don't have the "incest" code (if they have one or more of the son, mom, etc. codes.
3. What if you select one or more incest codes AND the "incest" code? Does the "incest" find all incest stories as in #2, or does the selection of another incest type code (e.g., son, mom) make the "incest" work the way it does now? That was my comment on it depends how it's programmed.
4. Now what if someone uses the - to exclude something from the search, like "grandparent" but they also select the "incest" code? Will they get all incest stories, even those with the old folks? Or will they get all incest stories except the grandparent ones? Or something else? And don't forget, there are different selection strategies, "all," "any," "exact match."
The only change this solves is to accommodate the low percentage of incest stories that don't have the "incest" code. Today they won't be found if "incest" is selected on the Category Search. But with almost 9,000 results, who would do that anyway?
This is my guess since I was as confused as you.
On the Category Search:
1. Select any or all incest codes EXCEPT "incest" and you'll get only what you ask for.
2. Select "incest" and you get all incest stories, even those that don't have the "incest" code (if they have one or more of the son, mom, etc. codes.
Sorry, but we were discussing a new 'Group tag', not suggesting that we change the nature of the 'Incest' tag itself. In that case, if the author selects the incest group tag, they wouldn't need to list everything, but if they ONLY picked "incest", "mother" and "son", then the incest tag would work just as it does now, since no one proposed changing the function of the existing "incest" search function.
Again, we're all arguing about details that no one ever explicitly suggested. We're simply reading between the lines and attacking one another based on our faulty assumptions.
Plus, it was suggested as a discussion point, NOT as an end product coding order.
since no one proposed changing the function of the existing "incest" search function.
That is the suggestion. Re-read the old posts.
Just to make sure we all understand what this proposed change is, will someone please define it.
As far as I know, there are only two variations.
1. A change to category search so that generic group tags are logically expanded to include all group sub tags used without the group tag. No change to how individual group tags are processed.
No change to how a queries on multiple tags are processed. So if a group generic tag is used along with a specific sub tag from the same group, unless the user selects or at the bottom of the search criteria, the use of the group sub tag effectively nullifies the use of the generic tag.
I have suggested this change previously on a different thread.
2. helmut_meukel who originally brought it up on this thread also suggested changing the story/chapter submission wizard to remove the generic group tags as an option for the authors. They would still be available on the category search.
Personally, I would not include that second piece as it is definitely counter productive to getting authors to use fewer tags.
Namely, the proposed change would result in all incest stories (8,979 per SB) being returned if any search criteria is selected.
No, that's just a straw man that SB raised in objecting to the proposal. He raised it repeatedly even after he was repeatedly told that's not how what was being suggested would work.
Namely, the proposed change would result in all incest stories (8,979 per SB) being returned if any search criteria is selected.
No, that's just a straw man that SB raised in objecting to the proposal
It's an actual count I got by selecting all incest codes and using the "any" option. The smaller number did the same search without the "incest" code.
Don't say I made the number up. It's factual.
Don't say I made the number up. It's factual.
It's a straw man to say you would get all of those using any of the incest sub tags.
It's a straw man to say you would get all of those using any of the incest sub tags.
No, you would get that many if you select the "incest" code. Today, the smaller number. With the change, the larger number.
Of course if SB read the proposed change(s) it is possible he came up with a different interpretation. Let's wait and see if anyone else has an interpretation that is different than yours.
1. A change to category search so that generic group tags are logically expanded to include all group sub tags used without the group tag.
btw, the incest group tag is straightforward (assuming you agree in-laws, etc. is incest). But the other groupings aren't so. My example with "humiliation" being under BDSM is one case. With the change, if someone were to select BDSM, they'd get my humiliation stories that are not BDSM. So the change will actually introduce errors.
My example with "humiliation" being under BDSM is one case.
That's a separate issue not related to the proposal, and one that Lazeez can easily fixed. He just moved revenge from the couples/cheating group to the other group within the last month or so for exactly the same kind of reason.
That's a separate issue not related to the proposal
It is related if the change is made for all categories, not just incest.
But I ask again — What problem are you trying to solve?
Your description seems confusing.
A change to category search so that generic group tags are logically expanded to include all group sub tags used without the group tag. No change to how individual group tags are processed.
What does a logical expansion of the generic group tags mean?
1) We only have one generic group tag - Incest.
2) Logically expanding Incest would yield all sub tags. If the sub tags are used with an AND function few if any stories would be returned. If the sub tags are used with an OR function all incest stories would be returned. Ignoring the use of the (+) and (-) feature.
No change to how a queries on multiple tags are processed. So if a group generic tag is used along with a specific sub tag from the same group, unless the user selects or at the bottom of the search criteria, the use of the group sub tag effectively nullifies the use of the generic tag.
Okay the multiple tags without Incest will return the stories that have all of the selected tags (And function) or any story with any of the tags (OR function). Ignoring the use of the (+) and (-) feature.
In the second sentence, logically expanding the Incest with the OR function would yield 2) above. If the (-) feature is selected for any of the sub group tags, then those tags would be ignored. However, with the multiple sub group tags most Authors put on their stories, the stories that the (-) feature would exclude would probably be returned due to the (+) feature of the other codes.
The bottom line seems to be we will get almost all or none of the stories returned.
We only have one generic group tag - Incest.
Not true
Science Fiction
Paranormal
Couples-Cheating and all the rest of the tags in that group are variations on cheating.
Groups (group sex)
BDSM
Interracial.
I was referring to the Incest tag in the Incest Group. All of the other codes in that group define a unique relationship.
I was referring to the Incest tag in the Incest Group. All of the other codes in that group define a unique relationship.
But the proposal to logically expand the generic group tags on the category search is not limited to the incest tag. So your reply that there is only one generic tag makes no sense.
It makes a lot of sense because I and the other posters have been specifically addressing the Incest tags.
If you want to address the other tags, go ahead and discuss them with the other posters, assuming of course that they want to make the discussion's scope bigger and more complex than it already is.
I personally feel that the conversation is too complex already with many of us not understanding what the others are saying about just the Incest tags. Your wanting to expand the scope to all tags will just make the conversation more complex and pointless than it already seems to be.
The conversation focused on incest as an example, but the suggestion for the change to the category search was never specific to the incest group, that's why the mention of generic group tags plural.
Oh well, no matter what is done or what decision is made. There will be those who will hate it as well as those who will like the decision. I think I will just go with the idea that Laz will do the best he can for everyone to keep improving the site.
As a reader the reason I love this site and the new sister sites, is the fact there is something for everyone. Regardless of taste in reading materials it has a very good variety. It might not be perfect but what is.
The number 6.
It isn't even a prime number. I suggest the number two, which is the only prime number that is not an odd number.
The number 6.
I would have thought that the perfect number was 42. It is after all the answer to life the universe and everything. :)
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
Correct, you are Free man 1,873,478 on the list of free men.
Correct, you are Free man 1,873,478 on the list of free men.
And due to a recent Federal court ruling, that gets you back your recognition as a member of the Cherokee nation.
Even though the tribe still maintains sovereignty, in this instance Federal law overrules the tribes actions in 1970 of removing the descendants of their slaves from the Dawes Rolls. (I've been following this since my great grandmother is on that list.)
mathworld.wolfram.com/perfectnumber.html
Damn, that requires too much thinking this late at night. It makes my poor brain hurt (or was it pondering "vaster" vs. "more vast that vast"?)
I'll take a suggestion from a wonderful poet from the great city of Seattle Sir Mix A Lot who suggests the perfect proportions should be 36-24-36 but only if she is 5'3".
;-)
On the much discussed issue of the Incest tags, if it can be set up that way, maybe the sub-group tags shouldn't be allowed to be applied unless the general incest tag is applied, and then only up to 3 sub-group tags can be listed. If it's done with a note that only one to three sub-types of incest are involved you tag for them, otherwise just go with the generic tag to show there are multiple types of incest groups involved. Then allow the searches to be done with the plus or minus on the various sub-groups.
The updated system will now limit stories to 50 tags (which should be more than enough).
With emphasis on the word MORE.
Maybe there should be one more tag, "Sample." It means that the story tries to sample every sort of sexual encounter possible.
OTOH, the same story could be tagged: "mf 1st" and "mf, teen high school, 1st, rom." (Apologies if I haven't got the SOL tags quite right.)
Maybe there should be one more tag, "Sample." It means that the story tries to sample every sort of sexual encounter possible.
I suspect having the tags of - multi, group sex, orgy, incest, bisexual, - would give a huge coverage for just about anything.
