May I suggest listing stories about to go Premier Only alphabetically by Author instead of Title? When an author such as Carlos M. with a lot of stories is listed and a day or two later another author is listed before Carlos moves off the list it's really easy to miss the new author wading through a 150+ stories you've already checked. Either that or top-list new stories being added to the pending list.
Maybe just another list of Authors Up for Archival so readers can decide if they want to track authors or story titles. The lists can be the standard last 100 on the list. That way the Author list would be up for a lot longer than the story list.
Why not just click the 'Author' header ? Works for me ...
And what if there are 100 stories up for archive by three authors,
A: 49
B: 1
C: 50
Even sorting the full list of stories by author, the story by B gets lost in the middle.
Why not just click the 'Author' header ?
current list shows the last 100 stories listed, one time I saw a full page of stories by the same author, often there's only a few authors. The list can be anywhere from just one day to a few weeks of activity in the list.
What I propose would show the last 100 authors archived, which is likely to have a few months of activity in the list.
At the moment I can see 150 stories in the list - a suspiciously round number. Is there a size limit for that list?
The vast majority are by Carlos Malenkov, Dick the Prophet and Kien Reti.
it's really easy to miss the new author wading through 150+ stories you've already checked.
Luckily, there ain't no new authors in this particular list. By definition.
Is there a size limit for that list?
No, when the archive system was introduced there were about 6500 entries, the 150 figure is the sum of the story counts of the listed authors (146 now as one author has been processed). However, the list is now of a size that someone monitoring it has either only just or not quite enough time to access all the stories before they are archived, depending on when they look at the list and when the authors are processed.
To check for new authors you could sort by author, then page through looking for a change of author and back up to the last of the previous author; I leave the list in natural order and rely of the browser colour-coding of visited vs unvisited links to spot new-to-the-list authors
The obvious answer for the problems with the "pay wall" is to pay for a Premier Membership.
Yes I know some of us are on a limited budget and most of us feel we can't afford the price ($67.99). I also know that almost all of us on budgets treat ourselves to something on a regular basis throughout the year. If we were to delete a small amount of that something every month, most of us who are on budgets could afford a membership. For example:
Depending on who you consult the average price for a pack of cigarettes in the US, is around $5.00. So if a smoker were to cut out one pack of cigarettes a month, they could afford a year's membership.
The average cost of a beer in a bar is around $3.00. So if a person who drinks beer in a bar were to cut out two bottles of beer a month, they could afford a year's membership.
We have to prioritize our treats and give in one area so we can have it all.
The average cost of a beer in a bar is around $3.00. So if a person who drinks beer in a bar were to cut out two bottles of beer a month, they could afford a year's membership.
And just like you don't need a beer every day, you don't need Premiere status every day of the year. If you pace it out, you can download the major stories you've missed before letting your subscription lapse again.
Just saying, if the money is tight, then paying for it occasionally is more beneficial to Lazeez than never paying at all!
Agreed and just one of several possible strategies in which you have it all and provide Lazeez with a degree of support.
Carlos Malenkov, Dick the Prophet and Kien Reti
have now been archived. The only one left now has been grand-daughtered in - you couldn't post that stuff here nowadays. The scores are surprisingly high, with more voters than I'd expect if it was just the pedo crowd voting them up.
The scores are surprisingly high, with more voters than I'd expect if it was just the pedo crowd voting them up.
I'm not familiar with those authors in particular, so I don't know how 'pedo' they are, but the 'idealistic young people learning how to cope with the world' is an ages old literary tradition, so most authors like tackling the premise, including young kids (mostly high-school kids) exploring their sexuality—which is becoming increasing verbotten.
So yeah, I can see how those stories would remain popular, despite the more recent repressive legal trends, including in the types of stories that mainstream publishers are willing to touch. Does anyone think Vladimir Nabokov could actually publish a book like "Lolita" today?
So yeah, I can see how those stories would remain popular, despite the more recent repressive legal trends, including in the types of stories that mainstream publishers are willing to touch. Does anyone think Vladimir Nabokov could actually publish a book like "Lolita" today?
It would depend on jurisdiction, of course, but in the US, he most likely could. The question would be whether any major publisher would risk doing so.
Lolita and Game of Thrones have created interesting dilemmas for sites such as Patreon who want to impose content-baed restrictions. If those two are OK, it's hard to see how you ban (in the US at least), stories about underage kids, incest, or sexual violence.
Lolita and Game of Thrones have created interesting dilemmas for sites such as Patreon who want to impose content-baed restrictions. If those two are OK, it's hard to see how you ban (in the US at least), stories about underage kids, incest, or sexual violence.
The question isn't what the U.S. market can bear, as it's got a long and firmly established legal precedent barring government censorship. Instead, you're dealing with what international corporations like Amazon are willing to support, given the political backlash it's likely to present on a variety of different markets they're intent on capturing.
The U. S. supports sites like ASSTR, which is currently floundering because they can't find enough readers willing to financially support the site, while sites like Amazon and Google have restricted content across the board across the world. The question is finding a publishing site which will support authors, rather than what you can 'get away with' in a single country with adequate financing.
