I have found I am a fan of stories where the characters get involved in show business in some way - modeling, making movies or TV, recording music, etc. There are several good examples out there.
I am proposing a Showbiz category for searching stories. This differs from the Celebrity category as often all characters are original, though some do include real people.
What other categories that do not currently exist would you like to see?
Thanks.
Two things:
1. I wish the incest tags were more specific combinations like the age/gender tags, for example: mother/son as one tag rather than mother and son as separate tags.
2. It would be nice to see more specific tags for bestiality: gender species combos(FH/MA MH/FA MH/MA) codes for specific animal types (dog, cat, horse, livestock(covers all farm animals other than horses), wildlife(any non-domesticated animal))
It would be nice to see more specific tags for bestiality:
It would be nice to see more specific tags for plantiality: carrots, cucumbers, bananas, eggplants :-)
AJ
Those nuns and their cucumber patches, eh!
One of those nuns was in a pickle when she got caught
@awnlee jawking
Those nuns and their cucumber patches, eh!
One of those nuns was in a pickle when she got caught
Now you are just being dilly.
One of those nuns was in a pickle when she got caught
One of those nuns was a trans woman who was caught gherkin off.
AJ
It will be years before such categories return more than a few results because of the large legacy in stories for which those categories will never be added even if they would be appropriate. 'Showbiz' might see some results faster for new stories but seeing how categories are often misused or omitted I bet it will be used interchangeably with "Celebrity'. Even worse for the specialized bestiality categories. If you could add them to existing stories it could be useful for those readers interested in very specific combinations but currently you'll get better results with just 'bestiality' and/or 'Zoophilia' and reading the descriptions and other tags.
See it like this: there are probably very few readers who are interested in, for example, MH/FA. Before category search can give results there must be at least one story with that combination. Those few readers will have read those stories very fast and the categories will be useless until one of those rare stories with MH/FA appears again.
I understand the wishes for some specific categories, I like to search with as specific as possible categories too, but it's a numbers game where a search should return a reasonable number of stories, otherwise it's "Too niche" to extend the already huge number of categories.
Even worse for the specialized bestiality categories. If you could add them to existing stories it could be useful for those readers interested in very specific combinations but currently you'll get better results with just 'bestiality' and/or 'Zoophilia' and reading the descriptions and other tags.
I disagree. You are correct, as to generally FH/MA bestiality, but we recently had a thread of someone looking for MH/FA bestiality stories and the few stories that meet that are almost impossible to find in a general search for bestiality. It's actually easier to find gay bestiality (MH/MA) than to find straight bestiality with a male human.
It's actually easier to find gay bestiality (MH/MA) than to find straight bestiality with a male human.
I don't believe I ever saw a MH/Ma but have seen many MH/Fa so I don't think your assumption is correct. (I assume "H" is "horse.") Same with "dog" btw.
For that matter, I can't remember seeing any gay bestiality story (animal and person the same gender). Is the "gay" tag included in those?
I don't believe I ever saw a MH/Ma but have seen many MH/Fa so I don't think your assumption is correct. (I assume "H" is "horse.") Same with "dog" btw.
H=Human, A=Animal.
MH/FA = MaleHuman/FemaleAnimal
FH/MA = FemaleHuman/MaleAnimal
MH/MA = MaleHuman/MaleAnimal (gay bestiality) and yes it's out there.
FH/FA = FemaleHuman/FemaleAnimal (can't say I've seen lesbian bestiality anywhere)
Try a category search on gay + bestiality.
FH/FA = FemaleHuman/FemaleAnimal (can't say I've seen lesbian bestiality anywhere)
I recall a story involving a girl training her (I believe female) dog to lick peanut butter from her pussy.
I don't recall if rache ever did write her "hot lesbian story" about two women trapped in the bodies of a boy and his dog...
I don't recall if rache ever did write her "hot lesbian story" about two women trapped in the bodies of a boy and his dog...
Male or female dog?
I disagree. You are correct, as to generally FH/MA bestiality, but we recently had a thread of someone looking for MH/FA bestiality stories and the few stories that meet that are almost impossible to find in a general search for bestiality. It's actually easier to find gay bestiality (MH/MA) than to find straight bestiality with a male human.
You said it: "...the few stories that meet...". You just can't add categories for every small niche because you're running into the problem that you can't find the same stories anymore with the more generic category ('bestiality' in this case, unless that category is added too). A lot of authors have a difficult time adding the correct categories as it is because there are so many and even a some that are more or less interchangeable. And yes, it is difficult to find them, but if you combine a few codes with bestiality you get a good list to wade through. More to read!
What I'd like to see is a way to have users tag stories with codes that are missing. This would get around the 'legacy' problem, so older stories could get more recent codes that apply.
Also, something like 'betrayal' - since 'cheating' supposedly only counts with married characters, something to indicate a GF cheats on the MC would be nice. (Actually, tagging if the MC is the cheater or cheated on would be good.)
What I'd like to see is a way to have users tag stories with codes that are missing. This would get around the 'legacy' problem, so older stories could get more recent codes that apply.
Basically a good idea... if all readers were reasonable people. I can see 1-bomber-readers using this to fuck up many story codes.
I doubt it. Especially if there's any effort required in the process. It's quite simple to 1-bomb.
And honestly, I believe the majority of the 1-bomb crowd is upset about content more than anything else. Either content that wasn't coded (which would be possible to fix) or content that was coded, and they searched out in order to down-vote to dissuade the writer from continuing to post such.
That could be largely prevented if adding tags would be a premier feature, adding a boon for contributing members.
That could be largely prevented if adding tags would be a premier feature, adding a boon for contributing members.
As I said years ago in this thread, having users add/change story codes to stories should be a no-no. Absolutely not! Not for Premier members or any other reader. It has nothing to do with 1-bombers.
For the author who wrote the story, it's hard enough to decide what tags to include. And look at how many authors screw it up. It would be worse if readers were allowed to do it.
What I'd like to see is a way to have users tag stories with codes that are missing.
Absolutely not. It's not their story.
Why not let them change the description?
Why not let them change the description?
Because the description is up to the author. The codes are up to the content. Just because authors didn't include codes (that maybe weren't in use at the time, or maybe just because the author didn't understand that the purpose of codes is to identify content for people so they can avoid content they don't like) doesn't change whether they're applicable.
Because the description is up to the author. The codes are up to the content.
The description is content as well. It's what the story is about. When the author writes a description he decides what should be revealed and what shouldn't. The description doesn't tell the whole story, only what the author wants the potential reader to know.
Codes are the same. Who knows the story better and what should be included and what shouldn't?
I've been told that I didn't include the "rape" code more than once. I included "nonconsensual" and other codes like "blackmail" or "coercion" because that's what the story was (based on SOL's definition). So why should we let a reader add the "rape" code to my story when there is no rape (per SOL's definition)?
And people here complain about stories having too many codes. Why would I let the reader add the "oral sex" code simply because there was one insignificant blowjob in the story? Before you know it, the story would have a hundred codes.
There'd have to be a way to determine (maybe crowdsourcing, maybe a review board?) whether the user tagged codes actually apply, obviously. And users would have to acknowledge the SOL definition of the code they wanted to apply, which might clue them in if they tried that 'rape' thing.
But, yeah, there'd be a lot of codes. Meh. I'm fine with showing the 'tagged' codes separately.
Gotta admit tho, it would be a way of getting older stories compliant with codes that those stories may have inspired...
And readers who get sandbagged by content that wasn't coded for that they don't like... seem like a pretty good case of "people who know what should be coded for"... writers don't always know that their kink (or some other kink that they included just for the hell of it) is something people would like to avoid.
There'd have to be a way to determine (maybe crowdsourcing, maybe a review board?) whether the user tagged codes actually apply, obviously. And users would have to acknowledge the SOL definition of the code they wanted to apply, which might clue them in if they tried that 'rape' thing.
Might be a good job for reviewers. If they think codes are missing or misinterpreted they can send an informed opinion to the SOL staff with the request to add/change/remove some codes. This way readers can message a reviewer and request to evaluate the codes. The reviewer can check with the original author (if still around) if he agrees with code changes. This is putting the least extra work on the SOL staff who is already busy enough as it is.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
The story is the purview of the author.
The title is the purview of the author.
The description is the purview of the author.
The codes are the purview of the author.
The score is the purview of the reader.
The review is the purview of the reader.
The comments are the purview of the reader.
If I'm going to allow Ernest to change/add/delete a story code because he feels it's misleading or missing or confusing, I might as well allow him to change a story where I mention IHOP by having him add "(that's a restaurant for those not in the U;S.)" after it. (Sorry, Ernest, I'm just piggybacking on your IHOP comments not picking on you.)
(Sorry, Ernest, I'm just piggybacking on your IHOP comments not picking on you.)
'tis OK. I've actually had to do that in one of the older stories some time back. Had a few readers wonder what the hell a 'ute' was if it wasn't an American Indian.
I mention IHOP by having him add
The next generation of US kids might think IHOP is an Apple branded pogo stick
The next generation of US kids might think IHOP is an Apple branded pogo stick
I'm sure many of the college 'woke' generation do already think that.
The next generation of US kids might think IHOP is an Apple branded pogo stick
They probably think that an iCUP is an Apple Family Jewels protector, (Eye See You Pee), not an ophthalmologist's tool (eyecup).
They probably think that an iCUP is an Apple Family Jewels protector
No, and iCup an Apple web enabled coffee mug. :)
The codes are the purview of the author.
Wrong.
The content of the story dictates what the codes should be. It's fundamentally wrong for stories containing sqjicks to not flag those squicks, as that steals time from readers that isn't going to be returned or refunded. And practically everything is a squick to someone or other.
squick
"Dictionary
Search for a word
squick
/skwik/
verbINFORMAL
cause (someone) to feel intense disgust.
"we get that bodily fluids can squick people out"
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Feedback
Translations and more definitions
Squick - TV Tropestvtropes.org ' Tropes
Squick: Possibly a contraction of "squeamish" and "Ick!" A negative emotional response, more specifically a disturbed or disgusted one. "Squicky" and "squicked" ..."
It's fundamentally wrong for stories containing sqjicks to not flag those squicks,
I dislike stories that not only include genocide but glorify it. But I've never seen that squick warning on any bible or Sunday school picture book.
The fact is that codes are only really applied to online sex stories and there is no widespread agreement on what each code should be, let alone when and why they should be applied.
Yes the content of a story dictates what codes are applied, but the author decides upon the content and how graphic any scene is, so it follows that the author is responsible for the codes and can choose to apply them, or skip them, as they choose.
and there is no widespread agreement on what each code should be
That may be true as to the internet write large.
However, management here at SOL has provided specific definitions of each of the supported tags. I don't think it's asking too much for authors and readers to follow those definitions for stories here.
However, management here at SOL has provided specific definitions of each of the supported tags.
"torture" - self-explanatory (sticking needles in a person's eye is definitely torture, but what about more subtle torturing? What if my hero twists the bad guy's arm back until he gives the information desired. Is that torture? For someone with an aversion to dentists, a story about having a cavity drilled is torture.)
"black male" - self -explanatory - Well, I watched a documentary on Tiger Woods. In it he didn't consider himself black (he's part Black, park Asian, part American Indian, and I believe more). So who's to code "black male" in a Tiger Woods fanfic story? And what if one of the characters happens to be black but not the stereotypical SOL type. Just happens to be black to add diversity to the story. The author wouldn't include the "black" code. But some racist who is squicked by reading anything with a black male in it would add the code. After all, he was tricked into reading a story with a black male.
As to readers or authors being better at choosing the correct codes, I'd pick authors. How many readers even read the definitions? (Okay, how many authors? LOL)
"torture" - self-explanatory (sticking needles in a person's eye is definitely torture, but what about more subtle torturing? What if my hero twists the bad guy's arm back until he gives the information desired. Is that torture? For someone with an aversion to dentists, a story about having a cavity drilled is torture.)
Yes, some of the codes are more clearly defined than others. If you have issues with the definitions of particular codes, that is something you should take up with Lazeez.
As to readers or authors being better at choosing the correct codes, I'd pick authors. How many readers even read the definitions? (Okay, how many authors? LOL)
I'm not taking any sides on that one.
"black male" - self -explanatory - Well, I watched a documentary on Tiger Woods. In it he didn't consider himself black (he's part Black, park Asian, part American Indian, and I believe more). So who's to code "black male" in a Tiger Woods fanfic story?
The same kind of person that would code 'black female' in a Kamala Harris fanfic.
I heard she's making Santa change his cheer to 'Kamala, Kamala, Kamala!', because she thinks he's talking about her when he yells, "Ho, Ho, Ho!"
As to readers or authors being better at choosing the correct codes, I'd pick authors. How many readers even read the definitions?
I'm always happy for readers to suggest additional tags for my stories. But readers sometimes make assumptions from the story title without bothering to check the tags.
AJ
Precisely.
Granted, some SJW types will argue the whole "but this is rape, whether it's the legal definition or not, and the site definitions don't even include everything in the legal definition, but rape is rape is rape so this should count." Such people really need to FOaD tho...
I totly believe the site definitions should be the ones used.
How I really feel? You mean, like... All SJWs and millenial snowflakes would seriously improve the gene pool by removing themselves fdom it, that kind of thing?
I dunno. It would just be gratuitous.
However, management here at SOL has provided specific definitions of each of the supported tags. I don't think it's asking too much for authors and readers to follow those definitions for stories here.
I try. But, for example, it's frustrating not having a 'magic' tag for something other than level of consent, or a 'masturbation tag' that doesn't cover masturbating someone else.
AJ
I try. But, for example, it's frustrating not having a 'magic' tag for something other than level of consent, or a 'masturbation tag' that doesn't cover masturbating someone else.
Again, if you have issues with how certain tags are defined, take that up with site management rather than just using the tags to mean something else.
Again, if you have issues with how certain tags are defined, take that up with site management rather than just using the tags to mean something else.
I think the same argument applies as with the reason for being extremely conservative with new tags. All the authors who have used the 'masturbation' tag (should) have used it exclusively for self-pleasuring. To change the meaning now will mean a lot of old stories might be eligible under the new definition with no automatic way of going back to add the tag.
AJ
I think the same argument applies as with the reason for being extremely conservative with new tags.
I don't think that's a good argument. Authors who are still around can adjust the tags on their stories and management can do so at reader request for stories who's authors are MIA.
Another approach would be to request a hand-job tag for masturbating someone else.
The autbor is responsible for the content in the story. The codes that apply are determined by that content, not the author's whim.
The autbor is responsible for the content in the story. The codes that apply are determined by that content, not the author's whim.
If you delete "are determined" with "should be determined" then your statement would be closer to reality.
Like it or not we don't exist in a story code utopia, how often do authors and readers actually refer to the site code descriptions?
There is a reason for "if all else fails, read the manual".
No, i phrased it correctly. "The codes that apply" doesn't depend on what codes actually get used.
Based on reader feedback, I get the impression that a significant number of readers would like 'British English' and 'American English' tags.
AJ
Based on reader feedback, I get the impression that a significant number of readers would like 'British English' and 'American English' tags.
And Canadian, and Aussie, and...
For some stories it's nice to know which version of English it is written in before starting to read but that could also be done in an author note, foreword, or in the description.
For some stories it's nice to know which version of English it is written in before starting to read but that could also be done in an author note, foreword, or in the description.
I usually write in GB English, but I do note the stories where I write in US English for the whole story as such. There's so much of the US and UK English that is the same it's not always easy to spot which is which.
However, in the dialogue I do make an effort to have that English match the character's background. Thus I', likely to have an Aussie talk about a ute while his US friend he's talking to calls it a pickup truck.
Several Muricans were allegedly baffled by my use of 'torch' in my novel.
I even got occasional positive feedback, saying it was interesting reading a different language, even if they had to have a Dictionary to hand to explain the Britishisms.
AJ
Several Muricans were allegedly baffled by my use of 'torch' in my novel.
I shudder to think on how they'll respond to a character talking about 'roggering' someone. Or having some 'afternoon crumpet.' I do know I had some issues with US readers understanding what an 'own goal' was the first time I used it in a story.
US readers understanding what an 'own goal' was the first time I used it in a story.
I'm actually surprised at that. Hockey also has an own goal and American Football has a similar, but not identical concept (touchback).
Football has a similar, but not identical concept (touchback).
Actually, a safety would be the more closely related concept (sacked in own endzone/stepping out of bounds out of the endzone/etc)
There's so much of the US and UK English that is the same it's not always easy to spot which is which.
True. Maybe it's just me but I feel like British English has a more clear sentence structure, sticks more to official words, i.e. doesn't use as much slang by default. On the other hand I prefer words like 'color' over 'colour'. The 'u' seems superfluous in such words.
Maybe it's just me but I feel like British English has a more clear sentence structure, sticks more to official words, i.e. doesn't use as much slang by default.
When you're using Formal English, yes the UK is a little more structured etc as you say, but the UK English is a lot looser when using colloquial English, which is what I tend to use.
What I do like is I use the English appropriate to the character, thus I sometimes end up with a US character speaking to an Aussie character using words that sound the same and mean the same thing, but have different spelling. I'm just review Life is Change and there's a scene where the Aussie speaks of the town centre and the US character responds in the next paragraph talking about the town center. Over the years I've had different people mention I got the spelling right in one and wrong in the other, whereas I got it right for both characters.
Over the years I've had different people mention I got the spelling right in one and wrong in the other, whereas I got it right for both characters.
I think most readers won't notice the two different spelled words unless they are very close to one another. If they notice it's most likely they indeed see one of the two as spelled wrong. Your way to use the spelling of the word to fit the character is a good one but I don't think there are many readers who will see that connection.
There's another thing here: readers like me who mostly read on SOL are used to different spelled words because of the different English versions on SOL so they probably don't notice, they are just too used to see them.
And Canadian, and Aussie, and...
Canadian is just 'merkin with a few of the limeys' misspellings.
Personally I don't care if the story is in British (or the sub-forms) English or American English AS LONG AS the speaker in using the native English. If an American speaker uses for example the term torch I would expect the light to be 'all' the way around and not a beam lighting up something say 50 feet away.
If an American speaker uses for example the term torch I would expect the light to be 'all' the way around and not a beam lighting up something say 50 feet away.
Oddly enough I got as far as typing "torch " into google and it's second top prediction was "torch button". Choosing that, Google's top result was for Apple's iphone's torch button (although it was from an eng-gb manual).
I knew smartphones could emit a bright light but is it directed or is it all the way around?
AJ
I knew smartphones could emit a bright light but is it directed or is it all the way around?
It's the light for the camera that can be used as a flashlight
If an American speaker uses for example the term torch I would expect the light to be 'all' the way around and not a beam lighting up something say 50 feet away.
As an American, if I heard another American use the term torch, without any modification, I would expect a stick that is burning on one end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torch
A torch is a stick with combustible material at one end which can be used as a light source or to set something on fire.
I would expect the light to be 'all' the way around
A lantern, could provide light all the way around but wouldn't be a torch.
https://www.coleman.com/lighting/lanterns/gas-lanterns/kerosene-lantern/SAP_3000004258.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=oe_col_DTCSearch_2024&utm_term=conversion&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwr9m3BhDHARIsANut04bi1_uq0iAbZldOP_VpG9iqoLVSOzxxEFVnyqhSBHCMBij2qfhofD0aAiJKEALw_wcB&actionPoint=Show
I saw this old thread recently. I am proposing a CFNM (clothed female naked male) category for searching. This is a bit different from Nudity, exhibitionism , voyeurism category. Seen this category in other sites. thanks
The main issue that I see with all of these new tags is that most of these old stories would NOT get the new tags applied.
All tags are applied by the author. They are not changed by the 'system' or by moderators. If the author has left the community, for whatever reason, the story will not get updated. So, we will have LOTS of stories with one set of tags and just a few with the new ones. Search would only have a tiny selection of those new ones to choose from.
A suggestion to deal with this issue:
A new forum section where readers can post links to stories they read on SOL that the new tags would apply to. The reader would have to list the story, the missing tag, and the location/rough description of at least 1 scene in the story that the tag is applicable to (chapter number, approx location within the chapter).
This would make it a lot easier for mods to retroactively apply tags to stories. Retroactively applied tags would only be added to stories from the forum section after the applicability is verified and ONLY if the author is inactive AND the story doesn't have a missing tags warning from the author due to concerns of spoiling plot.
This way active authors still control their story tags, mods aren't nearly as overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of the task, and the readers are doing the work of identifying the stories with missing tags instead of the mods. I am 1000% sure there are more readers than mods authorized to add/remove story tags...even if you include the authors themselves..lol.
Oh yeah... each "new topic" in the forum section would be about a single story with the story title in the Subject field. Replies would not be open but limited to an acknowledgement and approval/rejection of the recommended tag changes by the mods.
EDIT: I know Laz is the Site Mod and I know authors can mod their own submissions, but I don't know if Laz has authorized anyone else as mods. Thus the way I worded this. Either way, this suggestion shifts the majority of the work to the readers, namely to identify the story, the missing tags, and present information sufficient to quickly locate a verifying scene in the story. Thus the mod just has to read the forum post, check that the author is on the inactive list, open the story to the identified scene, scan it to verify it meets the standard of the suggested missing tag, go to the story description to verify tags aren't purposely excluded to limit plot spoilers, then add the tag if needed and reply to post. One hell of a lot easier to do than trying to retro-tag the entire posted story catalogue and shifts the vast majority of the retro-tagging work to the readers as well as limiting the scope and providing a "checklist" of sorts for both mods and readers for submitted posts.
In regards to searching. I wish there was a bit more control over what is an exact match and what isnt.
For example, category X is mandatory, but it can be a mix of XA, XB, XC, XD, etc.
Unless im just dumb, the only way to do this is to open up 10+ tabs of searches for XA, XB, XC, XD. I've only seen 'exact match' or 'match any', which will bring up stories that are XABCD, or X, A, B, C, D.
If that makes sense.
