I recently wrote a short story I Won the Lottery... but... its not your typical lottery win type of story. And maybe that is part of the problem but I have never received such low scores before. I'm curious do tear jerkers and less than happy endings get treated this way in the voting process. If so I guess I've learned a valuable lesson.
At 6.09, it's not that bad.
A would expect tear jerkers would score a bit lower, but I'd bet the biggest impact is how short it is.
It's been discussed before that longer stories score better.
At only 4KB it's not much more than a flash story.
I read and enjoyed your story. It is a collection of negative events that happened to the lottery winner. I think the low score was due to your not fleshing out the events. There wasn't sufficient detail for the reader to fully identify with the winner. If you had provided more detail, I believe the score would have been over 7.0.
Of course more detail means a longer story, and as DS said, longer stories score better.
It depends. While I've written several highly rated books where either the main character, significant secondary characters or, in one case, virtually the entire cast died. But I offset that disappointment by keeping the ending positive, as the characters typically sacrifice themselves in order to advance their mission (i.e. achieving the ultimate goal).
The key to writing non-happy endings is to address the ending when you first begin considering the book, so you can address the issues upfront, so you know what you're expecting and can handle the readers disappointment. It's tricky, but it can be done, though it takes a bit of work.
As far as true 'tear-jerkers', they typically fall under the purview of romances, which is a genre demographic all its own, but the works of writers like Nicolas Sparks proves that there's a very receptive and highly profitable market (and not just for female romance authors, either).
That said, the one book I wrote where I killed off the entire cast (bringing back the 2 principal characters in the final epilogue), despite getting good reviews, a full third of my readers couldn't finish the book, though they all rallied and snapped up the sequel, which continued a more positive future for the characters.
I suspect there are a number of people who created multiple fake accounts for the very purpose of downvoting stories they do not personally like.
It doesn't matter that the story codes were clearly not what they are interested in. it doesn't matter that the description clued them in this is not a story intended for them.
They will go in and down-vote because "I don't like (subject matter xyx) in any story"
This is my unfounded theory. I've noticed that there are periods where I am doing quite well and then I get vote bombed with a collection of 1s for a story with 36 chapters.
How can a well-edited story be voted "You call this a story" when it has a beginning, middle, end and a plot. It is a story. It may not be one you ENJOY but - c'mon. It's not a "one out of ten" - "You call this a story?"
I don't see why they get off on that. It definitely discourages new authors. it discouraged me at first for sure.
That's the opposite of constructive feedback. A vote of less than 5 should reveal the name and include some constructive feedback. How else can anyone grow as an author?
I agree that people should take responsibility for their opinions and comments. Unfortunately, there are people who will use violence against you when they disagree with your opinions even when those opinions are not radical. Therefore, anonymity is a better choice. If they don't know your real name, then they send emails containing derogatory comments and sometimes threats of violence to your penname's email account. Thankfully, Lazeez does not tolerate these types of behavior and does what he can to stop it.
It is rare for me to give any story less than a 5, but in a few cases I have done so. There are several good story tellers on this site who don't care about spelling and grammar errors in their work, or about other inconsistencies. When I encounter a story that has a good plot, I provide feedback so mistakes can be corrected if I feel up to documenting the author's mistakes. When it becomes clear to me that the author does not use spell check, does not use or want to use an editor, and makes no observable effort to correct mistakes that have been pointed out to them, then I am more than willing to give their story a rating of less than 5. However, I normally just skip over these authors' stories for I find it too frustrating to read a poorly written story even if the plot is good.
It is rare for me to give any story less than a 5, but in a few cases I have done so.
I've seen a few case of political and/or religious rants posted with at best a minimal effort to build a story around it. Those are the only things I've ever voted under a 5.
I've seen a few case of political and/or religious rants posted with at best a minimal effort to build a story around it. Those are the only things I've ever voted under a 5.
I agree, but that 'political and/or religious rants' is generally a slippery slope, as it doesn't distinguish the characters' views from those of the author. While I often write about the same issues across multiple books, the views (concerning religion and politics) are still the characters, and are tied into the overall plot (i.e. character building), rather than my proselytizing. Unfortunately, trying to point that out to someone expressing bitter vile is pointless. :(
I agree, but that 'political and/or religious rants' is generally a slippery slope, as it doesn't distinguish the characters' views from those of the author.
There were no characters at all in some of the ones I am talking about. No (or only a very minimal) attempt to wrap it in any kind of story.
There were no characters at all in some of the ones I am talking about. No (or only a very minimal) attempt to wrap it in any kind of story.
Again, I wasn't defending any specific stories, just pointing out the limits on curtailing those abuses. That's why Lazeez makes each call himself, rather than simply banning anyone at the first couple of objections. Like everything else, the one-bombers are quick to report anyone they dislikeβyet more evidence of their abusive personalities (Abusive-Personality Disorder, perhaps?)
just pointing out the limits on curtailing those abuses.
I wouldn't complain in cases where there was more than a minimal effort to wrap it in a proper story.
there are people who will use violence against you when they disagree with your opinions even when those opinions are not radical.
Twitter.
The dictionaries should list "Twitter" as a definition for "bullying." Twitter is the worse thing that's happened to civility. I despise Twitter.
Twitter is the worse thing that's happened to civility. I despise Twitter.
Twitter is the single most aptly named social media service. The vast majority of their users are twits.
Friends don't let friends tweet.
Twitter.
The dictionaries should list "Twitter" as a definition for "bullying." Twitter is the worse thing that's happened to civility. I despise Twitter.
Twitter behavior is a symptom, not a cause. Facebook, instagram, down to youtube and other social media's, all share in common the same thing. Many people say/type things they'd never say or do face to face. That is the mark of a coward in my book, and in many cases, speaking with a forked tongue.
Problem is, those same people have grown accustomed to such behavior, with it now leaking over into real life. Where the mind leads, the body will follow.
Many people say/type things they'd never say or do face to face. That is the mark of a coward in my book, and in many cases, speaking with a forked tongue.
That's why I brought it up in this thread. The cowards use anonymity to 1-bomb.
Where the mind leads, the body will follow.
Or, where bigotry leads, vile hatred and violent actions are only a short reach.
Scum is scum, whether it's abusive twits or the moisture infecting your walls! The only way to clear it, is to tear the entire structure down and rebuild it from scratch, which no one is about to do with a multimillion dollar franchise! :( If jerks keep paying to hear similar bile, it'll continue indefinitely.
, where bigotry leads, vile hatred and violent actions are only a short reach.
Scum is scum, whether it's abusive twits or the moisture infecting your walls! The only way to clear it, is to tear the entire structure down and rebuild it from scratch, which no one is about to do with a multimillion dollar franchise! :( If jerks keep paying to hear similar bile, it'll continue indefinitely.
You're making a stretch there. Bigot has multiple meanings, but the one I use is this one.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
By that definition, there are far more bigots out there than many realize or comprehend. My race, politics, and religion has subjected me to an apparent never ending supply of bigots.
I could rightfully condense that definition to "one who is intolerant of those who differ from themselves."
My personal experiences of having physical violence visited upon me over the decades for those three differences tell me it's more accurate. Then we get into bigots who only use words, however vile they may be.
Violence is not always the result of bigotry in my experience. In fact, it's only a small part of it. Most bigots are in fact, not actually violent physically.
The only way to clear it, is to tear the entire structure down and rebuild it from scratch,
That is simply not true and verges on being highly intolerant of others views. Think about that a moment or two.
In my personal history, education through example works far better.
Bigot has multiple meanings, but the one I use is this one.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I'm intolerant of those who regard women as property or less deserving of rights than men. As such I'm proud to be a bigot.
AJ
I'm intolerant of those who regard women as property or less deserving of rights than men. As such I'm proud to be a bigot.
Therein is the problem with using the word bigot too loosely. I happen to agree with the sentiment you've expressed for what it's worth.
The PC crowd tends to be the least tolerant among us. They are also the first to cry bigot, racist, etc.
In my personal history, education through example works far better.
Alas, in the current political environment in most countries across the globe, teaching 'by example' hasn't worked for some time, as the two side will rarely even tolerate each other's physical presence. I used to discus politics (and religion) with people from all slants, and they'd be wonderful discussions. Now, those same friends won't even enter the same room with anyone who may have another view.
Personally, I miss hearing from a variety of different views, as it's the only real to really verifying your own. Now, I'm terrified to losing valuable long-term friendships because their significant others are so intolerant, so I rarely dare to reach out to anyone anymore. (Other than you folks, that is.)
Personally, I doubt that scenario is likely to change any time soon.
Now, I'm terrified to losing valuable long-term friendships because their significant others are so intolerant, so I rarely dare to reach out to anyone anymore.
Are they really your friends if a different view is enough to make them disavow the supposed friendship? Could they have ever been a friend if they cow under to their significant other when that person tells them to?
Is that the sort of person you would want as a friend?
is to tear the entire structure down and rebuild it from scratch
Not Twitter, but our current society. People complain all the time of their kids getting bullied in school. Well, those same parents get onto Twitter and bully.
I mean simple stuff. An actress wears white shoes to an event and thousands get onto Twitter to criticize her. Tear her to pieces. If she had worn red shoes, a different thousand would have bullied her.
Scum
"scum
/skΙm/
noun
a layer of dirt or froth on the surface of a liquid.
"green scum found on stagnant pools"
verb
(of a liquid) become covered with a layer of dirt or froth.
"the lagoon scummed over"
noun
a layer of dirt or froth on the surface of a liquid.
"green scum found on stagnant pools"
According to that definition, 'pond scum' would include any pond covered by dirt (i.e. a mound). I've never considered scum to consist of dirt, even though most scum comprises a thin layer of dirt too, simply because the scum sits there for so long. I just don't know of anyone who'd describe dirt as 'scum' or scum as 'dirt'. The two aren't even similar. That's akin to describing 'laundry detergent' as water because it consists of liquid.
And I've waded through many a scum-covered body of water over the years, never once thinking of how 'dirty' it was.
Twitter is the worse thing that's happened to civility. I despise Twitter.
Twitter is what you make of it.
I follow interesting people. Tweet things that interest me and block the trolls. I keep my following list trim. Any person that deviates too often from the reason that I followed them, I unfollow unless they're really, really interesting and their deviations from their subject are interesting.
I find it a valuable tool for my interests. I don't have many followers as I'm not in it for the popularity.
But if you follow hundreds and don't block judiciously, Twitter can easily become a firehose of feces.
Tweet things that interest me and block the trolls. I keep my following list trim. Any person that deviates too often from the reason that I followed them, I unfollow unless they're really, really interesting and their deviations from their subject are interesting.
Just like Twitter, I've permanently removed Facebook from ALL my devices and browsers, after my closest friends began reposting the same Russian fake stories during the 2016 election. It doesn't matter whether the lies support your position or not, but I refuse to be inundated with worthless information, regardless of the source. (And I haven't been able to access my friends or family's photos ever since, which is a shame.) :(
But, the buck ultimately stops with each person. If you continue perpetuating the abuseβeven is only by supporting the sites promoting themβthen you're as guilty as the trolls themselves are for allowing it to continue unchallenged. And there are only so many 'fact-checking' articles you can send before you eventually banish your friends' feeds to preserve your sanity.
I don't twitter since I am not a twit.
Alas, I remain a twit, even though I never twitter about it. :) Being opinionated does not absolve you of abuse or purposely hurting others. But, at least as long as you're willing to accept criticism and admit when you're wrong, it says a LOT about your character. As has been noted, everyone's got an opinion, but that doesn't mean we're all asshats!
because you're a Dick
I am NOT a Dick. I am a Richard, the ideal name for a man. Rich and hard.
Unfortunately, there are people who will use violence against you when they disagree with your opinions even when those opinions are not radical.
I wouldn't equate a low vote on a story with committing violence. It's simply an opinion. It may not be a good opinion, but opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one.
If a reader has taken a disliking to a particular author, and they express that dislike by voting, then there's not much you can do about it. What you CAN do is ignore it, keep writing for your dedicated readers and don't let it take up space in your head rent-free.
What you CAN do is ignore it, keep writing for your dedicated readers and don't let it take up space in your head rent-free.
Luckily, Lazeez now allows for overly abusive story comments to be deleted (he makes the call personally), so at least you can blunt the noise, if not the downvoting. It's hard to differentiate between a genuine downvote over spelling and one based on bigotry, as there's no way to evaluate the abuse objectively.
Nope, not everyone. Google 'stoma'...
Yep everyone. A stoma bypasses the asshole in terms of excretory function, it doesn't actually remove it.
So, an asshole not acting like an asshole.
Nothing wrong with having an asshole, acting like one is the issue.
How do we vote for it? ;-)
Press the brown button...?? :)
So, an asshole not acting like an asshole.
What do you mean not acting like an asshole? It's still a hole in someone's ass even if they aren't using it to give a shit. :)
How do we vote for it?
Well, first it would have to run for some elected office...
Political diarrhoea ??
Many women believe that they can not become pregnant from anal sex. But if that's true, where do politicians come from?
New postings at Lit tend to be one bombed within minutes. There is at least one troll whose life is dedicated to being the first to give to hit one and enter.
Another posts 'Cuck shit' in the comments, ignoring the fact the stories lack a cuckold and feces.
They may visit here as well.
Author Larry Correia dealt with one of the first and most persistant internet trolls when he was a gun forum moderator. Gunkid (and his hundred other aliases) was banned from every firearms forum but kept coming back. Usually within minutes.
The day he was jailed for threatening to poison his city's water supply, being a felon in possession of firearms and stealing from his girlfriend was a great day for that particular community.
When Larry hit the big time with his Monster Hunter series he wrote a character who was an actual green skinned troll, living in a basement, addicted to Mountain Dew, Cheetos and internet porn. With the same name as Gunkid in real life.
So if you need a little catharsis you could follow Larry's lead and write your detractors into a story. Red shirting could be an option.
Author Larry Correia dealt with one of the first and most persistant internet trolls when he was a gun forum moderator. Gunkid (and his hundred other aliases) was banned from every firearms forum but kept coming back. Usually within minutes.
The day he was jailed for threatening to poison his city's water supply, being a felon in possession of firearms and stealing from his girlfriend was a great day for that particular community.
I seem to recall an idiot like that. https://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/07/goodbye-gunkid.html?m=1
I'm assuming that's one in the same idiot?
ETA: He was released from prison in 2011 and has been up to his old self since, assuming the same person.
This is my unfounded theory. I've noticed that there are periods where I am doing quite well and then I get vote bombed with a collection of 1s for a story with 36 chapters.
Like many, I believed this for a long, long time, given the predominately low scores that MM stories generate, but after publishing my own gay erotic novel, the score only dipped slightly. Thus, I now believe that it's not the content that tanks these scores, but the overall writing combined with the subject matter.
Quality still counts, especially if you don't immediately start off with LOTS of explicit scenes in the very first chapter, which by the way, is generally never a good approach, as readers prefer getting to know characters beforehand, so starting slow is generally a good policy.
Start off by establishing the main characters' personalities, quickly establish the main conflict, so the readers know what's at stake so they're invested in how the story plays out, and then introduce the controversial or explicit elements once readers are already hooked. That policy has worked for me for years, both here and on sites like Amazon and Apple, which both have restrictive 'content' restrictions.
Despite writing many stories which clearly violate those restrictions (like Incest or underaged characters), I've never had a book banned (other than confusion resulting from my publishing under different names, which is understandable and a bad policy to begin with).
