Here's one: leaving a statement about serialization in the description, like "Updated twice a week," after the story is complete.
What's yours?
Here's one: leaving a statement about serialization in the description, like "Updated twice a week," after the story is complete.
What's yours?
I don't like such remarks in a description but the author has no other place to add an author note.
What I really don't like is a remark to avoid adding a specific code, especially if that is to avoid being passed for reading because of that code.
I don't like such remarks in a description but the author has no other place to add an author note.
That's not true. There's a spot in the story/chapter posting wizard for adding an author note that will go at the end of the story/last posted chapter.
That's not true. There's a spot in the story/chapter posting wizard for adding an author note that will go at the end of the story/last posted chapter.
Yes, of course, but that doesn't show on the home page. And that is where authors who add remarks to the description want it to show.
What I really don't like is a remark to avoid adding a specific code, especially if that is to avoid being passed for reading because of that code.
Yep, really don't like that one. If the code they're trying to get around is one of them that I filter on I'll just filter the author instead.
Not fond of that myself.
(I only code Caution when there's content some might consider too spicy that the current codes don't cover.)
My personal favorite is when they say some sex and it turns out to be closer to a stroke story.
My personal favorite is when they say some sex and it turns out to be closer to a stroke story.
It's not black and white between minimal and some sex.
What I consider minimal sex, others will consider some sex. Even what I consider some sex, others might consider much sex.
Don't fault the author. It's subjective to both the author AND reader.
It's subjective to both the author AND reader
Here's an example. In the novel I'm currently posting, "The Nymphomaniac," I have it as "some sex." There's plenty of graphic sex throughout the story so someone else might think it was "much sex." I don't because there's plenty of scenes with no sex. Someone looking for a story with "much sex" would be upset with all those "no sex" scenes.
So who's right? (That's rhetorical)
Your right that it is somewhat subjective. It's a tag that determines if I read the story by a lot. To me some sex is once in a while, much sex is in every chapter and stroke is more then 3 acts per chapter.
My peeve is when the description is no description at all, but something like "This idea came to me in a dream after eating too many fried pickles." HARD. PASS.
My peeve is when the description is no description at all, but something like "This idea came to me in a dream after eating too many fried pickles." HARD. PASS.
Don't you just love that crap. There are some stories on this site with no description or tag even.
I understand the reasoning behind it, but that doesn't make it less of a peeve. "To understand this story, you need to read the first fifteen books that I've written in the series". I know it's a continuation of what came before but, if I wanted to read thirty-nine "books", I'd have read the bible. Even then, it isn't necessary to read Leviticus to understand Mark. John Grisham has written 37 consecutive best sellers and I can pick up any one of them and understand it completely.
John Grisham has written 37 consecutive best sellers and I can pick up any one of them and understand it completely.
Could you read the third book in "Lord of the Rings" without reading the first two and completely understand it?
I'd have read the bible. Even then, it isn't necessary to read Leviticus to understand Mark.
This is such a bad example, even chapters don't have much in common with each other.
One of the worst examples is where the description only have something like; "This is a repost" or "This story has been updated", and no info about what the story is about.
It's somewhat informative for old readers how know the story, but really bad for everyone else.
Guys, this is a peeve. It doesn't have to be rational; it simply has to piss me off. I deal with it in my own way by simply finding a different story. I'm too old to fart around
with twenty nine books of the same story. I'm probably going to die before I reach book 16, and it really aggravates me when I don't finish a story. I'm so old I'm surely going to be dead before the author reaches the end at 96 books!
I'm probably going to die before I reach book 16, and it really aggravates me when I don't finish a story. I'm so old I'm surely going to be dead before the author reaches the end at 96 books!
I consider this to be a Feature not a bug. If I enjoy a story/series, I wish it would go on forever! (Unrealistic, I know.) When I finish reading a story, I am often a bit sad...
My peef is that the singular of peeves isn't peef ;-)
You're right: one beef, two beeves! But do you really want a single sleeve to be a sleef?
But do you really want a single sleeve to be a sleef?
If you had to give up your harem and settle for a single woman, you probably wouldn't want to call her your wive ;-)
AJ
The questionable one is the plural of "dwarf." It's "dwarfs" (unless you're Tolkien and then it's "dwarves.")
The rule is that words ending with -fe, -f, and -lf are replaced by -ve before adding the "s". So Tolkien mistakenly followed the rules where his elf were elves but also his dwarf were dwarves.