And because I totally forgot to put this in the OP, have some queue information:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AtvMttKpjm7udHZfLTdTd0lDcFFQRmpDMDdhUlJUQlE&single=true&gid=18&output=html

I have a question:

Can we omit the quantum mechanics joke from the next one? It's getting a little worn out. At least switch it up. I don't know anything about opera music or farming either.

>>113141
You're tearing me apart, Ebon!

>>113143

Are you a secret opera-singing hoe wielder?

OP pic reported for lewd and uncouth worst actor

There ya go. Put the link in the OP.

>>113140
Here's a URL that's a little less verbose: http://derpy.me/EqDFicStats

>>113147
Thank you!

I never got my question answered. Any pre-readers going to Canterlot Gardens? I want to sneak attack hug them.

>>113185
Only if someone else is paying.

Mister Snarkle, may I touch the beard?

Srsly guise. Anyone know how that works or do you guys as pre-readers just rate it yourselves and he goes of that?

>>113147
THANKS PINKIE MOD

>>113206
Stories don't get star ratings anymore, to my understanding. Last we heard, Seth was "working on" a replacement. We have nothing to do with it.

>>113202
Me, as well. Maybe just a gentle stroke?

Oh shit you guys, lucky nr. 13

>>113192

> Still not using a cable connection for the internet.
I'm waiting and I got your spoon. You're one of the few I do want to meet, though.

By far, this is the biggest hint I've dropped about my true username. I'll still deny being anyone you guess, though.

>>113225
>pic related
You are the illegitimate son of cabal and Roan. And I don't think anyone cares.

If you want to say your name, please do. If you don't, I'm sure we'll all live.

>>113227

Love you too. Figured I might as well mention it while I was addressing TwilightSnarkle had said.

Why am I not surprised there are people that hate me?

>>113227
>>113225
He is Anon, son of Anon and Anon.

>>113228
I don't hate you, I just don't care who you are. The only person I hated in this place is currently safely drinking from the {redacted} that his {redacted} fans in fimfiction give as a thank for his {redacted, redacted, redacted, and more redacted because oh god are people stupid and horrible and they make me want to get banned}.

That's what I'm saying.

>pic is you.

>>113229

So... she is the son of the Samurai with Derpy?
>pic is me

>>113228
>"lol guys guess my name but even if you guess right I won't tell you lol"
>"We don't care."
>"OMG Y EVERY1 HATE MEEE"

Chill, dude. No one hates you, and no one gives a fuck what your former internet name is. It was entertaining for a little while. Give it a rest for a thread or two.

>>113231
Chances are he would be better of just saying who she/he is. I mean, what's the worse that can happen?

Picture is complete unrelated to anything and everything, but it still makes me laugh.

>>113231

No u... You make it sound as if I were being a complete whinny bitch. Refer to Diamond Dogs episode for true whining.

>>113230
That made me laugh. Thanks.

>>113229
You, sir, are a clever man.

Fine, I'll be productive and ask a question because I may derail, but I also do my part in rerailing.

I've heard the argument that the IRC was just a waste of time. The IRC hurts productivity. The IRC just allows for more drama. What are your thoughts on it? Has it helped more than it hurt? Have you found that the running of EqD has become smoother because of it? The opposite?

>>113230
We have only begun to scratch the surface.

In a desperate attempt to legitimize my unrelated posting, I shall ask an inane question!

Who has the softest facial hair amongst the pre-reader team?

>>113235
Which IRC are you referring to? The pre-readers'? EqD's? /fic/'s?

>>113237
Me. For $10, I'll send you a few strands.

>>113235
The picture is not really appropriate for the conversation, but you still.

>>113237
>pic related

A question did come to mind: the pre-readers have said in multiple occasions that some do, in fact, believe EqD is not really the best arrangement for fanfiction, it is simply the best one we currently have.

What would be a better arrangement? And will happen if it is made?

>>113235
Better than being Amon.

You weren't being a whinny bitch, nor a whiny bitch. More like a bitch that's trying to make themselves a martyr ^_^.

>>113239
Hah, nice try, but we both know you'd send me pubic hairs!

>>113241
Talk to the good Samurai. He has a good plan in mind, as most of his plans are.

>>113238

My apologies... I meant pre-reader IRC.

>>113241

I don't always use relevant pictures. If you notice, I never say >pic related or >pic unrelated.

I usually just pick what strikes my fancy at the time. Usually, I can find one that works with the situation.

Another question so the pre-readers aren't just staring at two people fighting like asshats:

Disregard all previous mascots for EqD or this thread. Who would you choose for the new mascot?

>>113241
A better fanfic site, in my mind, would need to have:

-A larger, more organized quality control team.
-A decent sized group of people that actually care about what's posted there. This is the hardest point, I think.
-Clear, consistent, and incredibly high standards.
-I'd prefer if there were no rules banning clop/gore/content of any sort. If it's high quality, it gets posted. This isn't really a necessity, though, as I can understand why such a site wouldn't want to endorse certain types of stories.

If someone managed to make something like that, I'd put my full support behind it. Not that my support means much, but you get the idea.

>>113242
The questions is for the pre-readers. The Samurai is always planning something.

>>113243
This is the first time I'm hearing that people dislike the idea of our IRC, but okay.

>What are your thoughts on it? Has it helped more than it hurt? Have you found that the running of EqD has become smoother because of it? The opposite?

I don't think our IRC has affected EqD in any way whatsoever. 90% of the time, we use it to socialize. All of the important pre-reading related stuff gets done via email and our spreadsheet. The IRC is just a hangout.

>>113247
I think the point behind ***'s question is whether it's a timesink or boon for the pre-readers and has affected their productivity as a whole, not about how it affects the actual structuring.

>>113248
Eh. If anything, it helps us blow off steam between pre-reading sessions, thus preventing burnout. I know that if I didn't have the ability to sit and talk to the other PRs about things other than fanfic from time to time, I'd have quit a long time ago.

>>113247

The hate is for more for any chat that was supposed to be for productivity. I may have been presumptuous when I implied the pre-reader IRC was originally for productivity.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who dislike the IRC because they see it as a distraction and they see how many people use it. Perhaps they have some perceived notion that productivity has dropped, but they don't have solid data.

>>113250
It's a similar situation with the /fic/ IRC and people claiming that its inception has caused the TG's turnaround time for reviews to drastically drop. No one has any hard numbers and the human mind's ability to remember actual facts is remarkably poor.

>>113245
How would you achieve this, though? Goals are great, but to reach them you need a plan (unless you're a master of the Indy Ploy).

>>113242
Curse my spelling. How did I miss the red dotted line. Inb4 "are you colour blind" jokes.

But Amon was an amazing character imo. He's like the asshole that managed to be a badass at the same time.

>>113248
Yes

>>113251
The IRC has neither helped nor hurt me. I think I would have burnt out regardless of the IRC coming about.

>>113249
This is true. Except, I wouldn't have quit. My desire to write outweighs any desire I might have to drop the fandom. And trust me, I've considered it. But no, you guys are just too fun to leave.

>>113251
The Samurai will save us all?

In a more serious note, I wanted to hear the other pre-readers if they care to answer about this>>113241 .

Quick, everyone blame the IRC!

>>113235

You're not whiny, just a coward.

>>113259

Gee... I wonder where I've heard that argument before. Isn't it irony for one anon to be calling another [not so anon] anon a coward?

I'm not blaming the IRC for anything. Personally, I think it's helped more than hurt.

>>113259
>Anon calling out an "anon" calling out an ""anon""

Sure this thread is fun.

>>113263

>>113261
The prereaders have never had to close their queue because they lacked the discipline to chat responsibly.

/fic/ would have, without me.

>>113265

While an impressive feat, I do believe this issue has been addressed.

Personally, I think it was due to a lack of reviewers/time. I do not believe it was solely the IRC's fault. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of school related activities going on at the time.

But yes, you are correct... ttg was on the verge of collapse at the time.

>>113268
Internet Chat Relay is a useful technology. it's the difference in the users being mature enough to know when to "work" and know when to "play."

>>113265
>>113265
The training Grounds would have in any case. And it does make me wonder where were the heroes of /fic/ in that time period of real need. If you aren't going to be there when you are actually needed, why get the title of heroes at all?

Also, I don't think the comparison between continuoing pre-reading and reviewing is fair. A reviewer is mostly an unthanked editor who has no prestige and no one could care a tiny bit if you do so or not. Being a pre-reader makes you be a sort of superman amongst the fandom, and many people love having the power to tell people that they are good or bad. You have an actual allure to pre-read, reviewing just sounds like a bag of suck which only constant assure.

You could make it that you could only pre-reader five stories in all your pre-reading career and chances are you would still have volunteers. Try to do that here and you would have made /fic/ collapse ages ago.

>>113272
Don't forget that reviewing takes an inordinate amount of time compared to pre-reading. A single review can take several hours for even a couple thousand words, depending on how in-depth you want to be. A pre-reader can glance at the first five-hundred (or less) and can usually make an accurate guesstimate to whether the story will be good enough to post on EqD from that. There's also the fact that if a story is bad, a pre-reader can just send a rejection letter; they have no other obligations and can forego additional help if pressed for time. A reviewer, on the other hand, is expected to help that person, which means a substantial amount of time is put into at least why the story has been rejected and a collection of passages that are the cause of said reasoning. It's like the difference between a vigilante shooting the bad guy in a seedy alley and a criminal being put through due legal process. The comparison of reviewers to pre-readers and their ability to clear a queue is unfair, illogical, and insulting. This is besides the point that the only evidence he can provide of this so-called "lack of discipline" is anecdotal at best.

While Terran Ghost's efforts were, are, and always will be appreciated, such derision on his part to the other people that donate their time, skills and energy without expectation of recompense (and often not receiving any thanks even, for that matter) is a matter of degrees worse than any possibly-valid claims he has to them being "lazy". No one signed on a dotted line when they joined the TG that they would review X stories in Y amount of time. If he wants to insult reviewers, he should at least only be targeting those who claim a story and then leave the author hanging in limbo.

I feel like a lawyer defending a client here. Also, apologies if my referring to you, Terran, seems like they're being made passive-aggressively by speaking through the anon's comment instead of directly at you. I'd already finished writing it before I realized how it sounds.

>>113272
>>113279


Yes, Demetrius is the best person involved with the TG.

>>113287
Wait... what? How does that follow from those two comments?

>>113289

I'm just sticking to the thread's current logic.

>>113290

>>113290
The threads current logic being that... pre-readers have a much greater reason to continue being pre-readers (prestige, less work with each thing they read, more people being thankful, etc.) than reviewers being reviewers (the opposite of the above, I think?), making any comparison of the IRC effect upon productivity be impossible.

Which still makes your comment make no sense. Except for Demetrius being the best person in the TTG, he pretty much made the whole thing that makes it work.

I remember when this thread used to be about pre-reading. No, not this thread, but the thread about seven or eight incarnations ago. Man, those were the days.

I see so many words being tossed around here and it makes me feel all self-conscious and guilty for some part of it, because like any craven internet citizen I often can't help but gravitate towards drama and dump mass quantities of keystrokes on it like boughs of a tree on a brush-disposal bonfire. The fun part is waiting to see whether the fuel extinguished the fire or ends up making it bigger.

What pulled me away from that for a good amount of time was seeing how all the people who spent the most time reviewing around here were always the most friendly or the most quiet people in those debates. I wanted to be like them, because those kind people were who were at stake, and they didn't need to defend themselves, because the authors would always defend them. Truth be told, in one particularly big shitstorm late last December (it was new years' eve day as I recall), short_skirts_and_explosions made an appearance to vouch for a statement made by Vimbert.

I would say "try reviewing a story instead next time you feel tempted to engage in pointed yet off-topic discourse about nothing of importance and see how it makes you feel when you're done and you've given the author your all," but that would make me a hypocrite, because I hardly review any more, and at this point I've spent plenty of keystrokes and wasted time on...nothing really much.

>>113301
I think I love you.

Reviewing just doesn't seem like all that it's cracked up to be anymore. You spend a lot of time working on reviews and, like a certain person mentioned, don't often get much feedback. Or they completely don't try to understand it and come back with the same exact mistakes during rewrites. Or worse, they give you a completely different story with the same exact mistakes.

I guess the point is that pre-reading is sorta the same. You put in lots of work and shouldn't expect any acknowledgements because if you do, you might be pre-reading for the wrong reasons. Whether or not the IRC causes one to procrastinate via timesuck is irrelevant. One can only work so long because they get frustrated with it all and quit. Luckily, some of those former reviewers just become pre-readers instead so they still help people.

Perhaps it's just something different to help the burnout. You can point out the problems as a pre-reader and then guide the author to help. If they really want it, they'll seek it. I can only imagine what being a pre-reader must be like since you get to point out the same mistakes ad infinium though (reviewers do that too).

Perhaps it's a good reason that pre-readers keep their identity secret. At least that way readers can vouch for the group as a whole. Of course, that works for both positive and negative.

As for the Training Grounds, yea Demetrius was definitely the engine that kept the whole thing running. Without him, it would have imploded long ago. Although I can't help but feel slighted from Terran's comments, seeing as it takes forever to work on a review and then hardly anyone sees it, the authors completely miss the point, or various other reasons that make the reviewer feel like his time was wasted. It's expected, but after a while, it just makes someone not want to do any reviewing anymore.

Maybe that's why it seems like so many people either quit the fandom or become pre-readers?

I'm not sure where my point went. I just wanted to pretend that someone was actually listening. Sorry for the derail, pre-readers.

>>113301
As usual, Dem gets his choice of the cookies.

>>113305
In conclusion, don't review, everyone either just abandons it for more important work or just stops, seems to be the point.

>>113310
Of course he does, he is Demetrius.

Sure is debbie downer anon in here.

As a person who tries his best to be entirely unproductive, you guys are giving me a run for my money.

>>113287
Many people have had there time to shine in ttg. Most recent, we could say, is [redacted]. But judging from Demetrius's comments, while he may shine, he does not wish to draw undue attention to himself.

I'm just saying that while people may have their moments, they may not want to be praised like some sort of /fic/ god. Unless someone appears to revel in the praise, or gives their okay, I would suggest refraining from shining and putting up any given reviewer on a pedestal.

>>113293
Well that is an entertaining thought, the thought that Daffodil has multiple personalities and completely ignored one for nearly an entire thread, it is not true.

And a special thanks to Daffodil for putting up with my bullcrap. I see these derails I cause and sometimes I try to let it die down. Other times, I try to ask a legit question to rerail the thread. As you can see, that worked stupendously.

>>113301
The more people that discover any particular branch of any given fandom, the more likely there is to be drama/derails/etc...

I personally think that coming when called just added to the fire, but if you think you did anything useful, good on you. I wish you luck with your project to help the productivity of this particular branch of the fandom.

>>113305
No, reviewing is exactly the same. It's the authors who are changing. As this fandom rushes towards an inevitable demise, whether it be two months from now or three years from now, people are most likely trying to get in their two cents worth of fiction before something drastic happens. Something like the next EoP or FoE story that steals the limelight for an entire year while it runs its course. The simplest thing is to pound out story after story until they get praise on one of them. Until they get a single review and get it up on EqD or the feature box. Then they might focus on that story because they're receiving praise for it.

Reviewing will always be the same. Open doc, read story, highlight sections, comment on sections, leave tips in whatever thread you're using, leave your overall impression, let the author sort it out.

Or if you're lucky, you'll get that one author that does want to see one story succeed and they'll work with you.

>>113323
Don't ever undercredit yourself. You may feel unproductive, but like I said earlier, everyone has their moments.

Look, I know you hate me, and I'm not to keen on you either, but I do hate anyone saying that they've been "unproductive", whether in sarcasm, jest, or otherwise.

>>113327
Hahaha, I don't hate you, mate. It takes a lot of effort to hate people. I'm too lazy for that. And hate is a strong word. I like to save that shit for real-world problems, like people who furiously click their pens in lectures. Bastards.

>>113329

Mkay... if you say so.

I'm always skeptical of people who are so willing to jump on someones case in such a vicious manner and then come back saying, "I don't hate you.". One's actions would seem to suggest otherwise. But if you say so.

> like people who furiously click their pens in lectures. Bastards.
Agreed.

So I'm not just replying to a small post:

What's the music of choice for any pre-reader?

I'm running out of questions to ask! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I'm on the verge of just asking random shit so the pre-readers have something other than drama to reply to.

Need questions? I've got a good one for you.

For good reason, there is a minimum word count limit. But would you consider allowing double features of similarly themed short stories?

Here's an example. Let's say I write two cosmic horror stories -- let's call them "Zalgo" and "The Doom." Individually, they're too short. But suppose I submitted both at once under the title "'Zalgo' and 'The Doom,'" and linked to a single document containing both?

The synopsis would read something like, "Two surreal tales of terror, by So-and-So."

What do you think?

For just once, I would like someone who talks about the Training Grounds to be a current and consistent affiliate. Not Sturm, not some anon I can't identify and sit down with, an actual contributor to the Training Grounds, and I don't mean like Filler, myself, and the other gaffers that have since moved onto different things for one reason or another. If someone would like to talk about the current state of the Training Grounds, it should be in the Training Grounds Thread, by Training Grounds people or the authors involved. Same goes for reviewer-ethic talk: make a thread for it.

I don't see this as a dichotomy that needs to be made and any further discussion of it is pointless and just for the sake of complaining. Or, if you want something closer to the truth, something for everyone who is not involved to laugh at while they sip their tea.

>>113327

>Many people have had there time to shine in ttg.
>there

Roughly four.

>I'm just saying that while people may have their moments, they may not want to be praised like some sort of /fic/ god.

You are gravely mistaken if you think I am doing that.

>No, reviewing is exactly the same. It's the authors who are changing.

The authors have always been like this. The reviewers have always had to deal with people not coming back, people abandoning stories, getting mad at angry responses, and the like. I assume it being due to an inability to retain a team of experienced reviewers that can handle these sorts of things when these situations present themselves. I posit that this is because that those sorts of reviewers find an author they like and stick to that author exclusively after restrictions in time kick in and priorities take place.

>>113332
>music

70's rock and 90's grunge. One of my favorite recent bands is Cage the Elephant.

>I posit that this is because that those sorts of reviewers find an author they like and stick to that author exclusively after restrictions in time kick in and priorities take place.

I can confirm that this is the case. I don't maintain a thread, nor do i seek stories on TTG, but the 2-4 authors I am in contact with keep me busy, and I at least know they aren't completely wasting my time.

>>113339
That's Seth's call, not ours. Email [email protected] and ask if he'll post two short stories together.

>>113391

Cool, thanks.

One more question. I have an idea for a horror story called, "The Brony's Paw." I assume, ordinarily, this would probably get auto-rejected for the title alone. But there is no brony present in the story, unless you count the titular body part, so it doesn't really break the anti-BiE rule.

What are my options for avoiding auto-rejection of a story that only looks like it breaks the rule?

Thanks in advance.

>>113393
Mention that it does not feature a brony in your additional comments. Since you've posted about it here, you've already tipped us off about it, and since we run the auto-rejection process, it should go through.

>>113399

Excellent. Now, my actual last question, though I'm sure I already know the answer.

Suppose I like the cut of a particular pre-reader's jib. If I request him for a story, will it increase the odds of getting him? Or should I not bother?

Thanks again.

>>113410
Your odds are better, at least. It's not a guaranteed thing, but it'll probably happen.

Speaking of the BiE thingy, why is that an auto reject? I mean, I've only read a few, but it COULD be done in an original way and be genuinely funny, could it not? I mean, I can understand having a harsh standard for them, but to not even read them? Seems kinda harsh.

>>113431
The best defense against auto-reject is your synopsis and the "special notes" field. If you can make your story out to be something that isn't cliché in the synopsis and give a little note saying, "I know most BiE is crap, but at least try this one," you get a reasonable chance at avoiding autoreject and getting the quick skim that stories are given before being sent to the prereaders. If it fails the skim, you're rejected. If it passes, you're pre-read.

As for "why," it's because BiE stories are bullshit. Every fanfic is a person's fantasies in the first place: "I wish that Twilight and Rainbow Dash made a batch of doughnuts!" However, BiE stories are much more selfish of fantasies: "I wish that a human—it doesn't have to be me—could visit Equestria." Some people subvert that by making Equestria a dystopia, but still, BiE stories always end up reeking of misanthropy in the end.

Is there a "Do's and Don't's" list for Pre-reading? Someone made one for reviewing a couple of months ago here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10TgSNJ7fVL_75KM2qfoAitgYd_-Ny6BQis7rG0c_et8/edit

I was just curious if pre-readers had such a document for them too?

What do "OOC" and "fanon" stand for, please?

>>113498
>OOC
Out of character

>fanon
Fan theory, e.g., that Lyra and Bon Bon are a couple

Greetings,

I was wondering if it is at all possible to change the synopsis of a fic. I wrote mine a year ago, and have learned much including how to make a proper synopsis.

>>113499
Thank! But I still don't understand what "Out Of Character" means... May you enlighten me, please? (Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker)

>>113517
OOC is shortform for "Out of Character". It means that a character's personality, as established by the show's canon, is not followed or is broken without suitable justification.

For example, Twilight Sparkle is incredibly smart and amazing at magic. If you were to take her character and make her act stupidly and/or be poor at magic without giving a reason for that, it would be Out of Character.

However, that doesn't mean you can't make her dumb. Discord could zap her brain or perhaps she's poisoned by a drug. Those are examples of justifications for Twilight not acting like she normally would.

>Pic is Twilight's face when someone writes a story that hinges on her screwing up a spell

>>113515
You should email seth about it, but don't expect the fic to bump if you only want to change the synopsis.

>>113478
If... you followed these threads at all, you'd see that we do pretty much all of the things listed there.

If you're just asking if we have our own document for how to do reviews, no we don't.

>>113530

Not expecting a bump. Just want a proper synopsis that isn't terrible. I will send a message once I have one.

Thank you for the response.

>>113531
Respectfully, if I had to follow those rules as a reviewer I would never have reviewed, and thus would never have woken back up my own muse, and thus would likely have never been so invested in the fandom.
Hidden to avoid yet another twenty-page shitstorm: Whoever is directly responsible for those rules takes a completely different tack from professional reviewing. In my humble opinion, it is not the job of a reviewer to make someone feel good about their work, but to point out their mistakes.

>>113478
Why did you bother bringing this up? For all those who see it, disregard. When this was originally posted, it caused a pretty big shitstorm.

>>113554
Originally Logician.

>>113554
This document was created as part of a drive in favor of awrong perception of what this location was meant to do, and did little more than cause grievances as no reviewer accepted it as valid for reasons that can be found on that thread.

Why would this be a discussion point again is beyond me and I'll suggest the matter be ignored completely as it doesn't regard anything of relevance.

>current device does not contain the neccesary images

>>113558
Logician wasn't very logical at times.

>>113558
Indeed. It's old, made in response and as part of a shitstorm, and not even a list of do's and don't's per se.

You know, when I didn't even think someone would immediately reference reviewer ethic after I told them that this wasn't the thread to do it, there must be something wrong with me.

>>113581
I think the clinical term for that is "faith in this fandom."

It's just a big list of things.

I follow most of the big headers, but not what the actual explanations say.

Okay, getting reports about non-prereaders answering questions in this thread. I wasn't aware that this was actually something that happened, so I'm just going to let you guys off with a warning.

If you are not a pre-reader, do not answer questions aimed at pre-readers in this thread. If you want to run your own Ask Thread feel free to do so, but don't go barging into somebody else's thread like this. I mean, if you were a reviewer you wouldn't like it if somebody jumped into your thread and reviewed everything in your queue, would you?

If you answer yes I'm going to be disappointed in you.

>>113598
>I mean, if you were a reviewer you wouldn't like it if somebody jumped into your thread and reviewed everything in your queue, would you?
Just about every reviewer thread here welcomes help with open arms, !!Pinkie.

>>113599
ok... but that's not the point of what he said, anyway. Let's not nitpick.

>>113598
>I mean, if you were a reviewer you wouldn't like it if somebody jumped into your thread and reviewed everything in your queue, would you?
That's a pretty bad example, moderator, as that's actually necessary from time to time.

Still, this is the third or fourth time that the "wannabes" have been "warned." I'm not asking for anything Apocalypse-class, but if people can count on warnings like this, you're not going to have any effect.

>>113601
It's the point of what he quoted.

That said, I'm not here often but it seems like people who aren't prereaders, but are answering questions, are pretty regular. That said, we'll respond anyway, so... I guess don't listen to other people? Or something? I don't think it's that big a deal.

>>113602
>That's a pretty bad example, moderator, as that's actually necessary from time to time.

I figured. Doesn't make it any less disappointing, but c'est la vie.

>>113605

Well, somebody did complain about it via reports, so while you might not think it's a big deal, somebody else seems to. If you don't think it should be a big deal, I'd recommend working that out with the other? pre-readers.

>>113605
>>113606
If someone's going around pretending to be a prereader because they crave the illusion of authority, it's both annoying and, since we have to answer the questions anyway, a redundant waste of posting, which clutters the board with unnecessarily frequent remakes of the "Ask a Prereader Anything" thread.

Howdy. Is this thread in want of questions?

Here’s one for y’all:

Would you encourage a writer to finish a work before submitting it? I’m not asking whether this affects its potential to get accepted, just what you guys’ personal preferences were on the matter. Is it better to have a longer fic be written to completion, or is it better for the author to write it in chunks with the possibility it might decline in quality—or simply not get finished at all?

Thanks for your time.

>>113629
fascinating. could have sworn I'd just replied to this. mods?

>>113671
The post went as follows:

>>113629
Totally depends on the quality of the author and his/her writing. It really doesn't matter if a piece is complete, for instance, if the grammar in the first page is enough to warrant a strike.

So to answer your question directly-
>Would you encourage a writer to finish a work before submitting it?
Not really, though I have requested the author resubmit with another chapter completed so I can get a better feel for where something is heading.
Now, some pieces do tread thematic ground that is... shifty, at best. By that, I mean it raises our content-sensitive brows, and we may request a full outline of the work, if the fic is incomplete. While there are few things more sad than a good fic that gets dropped, that's really not a part of our consideration. At no point do I ponder "Hmm, well this is good enough to post, but is the author going to finish it?" That's on them.

>>113524
Thank you very much!

>>113675
Thanks anon. That's... mildly cache creepy, but still, thanks.

I can't answer questions anymore? Damn... and I thought I was being helpful when I tried to answer the simpler questions asked here. I.E. Ones that have been addressed before.

Anyways, here's a question:

Average age of pre-readers? It's probably been asked, but the answer is probably several threads back. At least, it wouldn't surprise me if it has.

>>113718
Average age is 20something. Youngest is around 17, oldest is in their 40s.

Well, I'm just going to be anonymous here for this kinda embarrassing question.

Basically, I wrote a cheap FIM Fiction humor fic where I imply Twilight is clopping, but it turns out she's just sleeping in. Now, it's definitely more well-written than other cheap humor fics, and I just wanted to see that, since nothing explicit is mentioned, if a story of this sort would slip past the content rules or not. Or should I just punch myself in the face right now for even THINKING of submitting such a thing to EqD?

I mean, I suppose "Fluffershy" had more suggestive stuff than my fic, but then again, that was a February 2011 fic, so I can understand if things were much different back then.

Dear Celestia, what have I reduced myself to...

Oh! I suppose I also have a cleaner question to ask too. How strict are pre-readers on story pacing? I wrote a slice of life fic that one reviewer said needed to be cut by about 3000 words to have engaging pacing, and the other reviewer said the pacing was fine, and gave the story a pretty positive review. Besides that, the writing quality is definitely above average. So I'm not sure how much I should cut, if any at all.

Thanks!

>>113735
You should be okay as far as the content rules go.

As for pacing, I really couldn't say anything without actually seeing the story.

>>113735
>pic related

Hey guys, I'm back! What did I miss over the last few wee--

... Oh.

Well. Somehow the friendly in-depth debates always occur when I'm away. Figures.

Anyway, question! Is it possible to have a fic posted without a picture? If I've really got to provide one, then there are only a few options. I could screengrab it from the series, or purloin a piece of fanart. Neither would be likely to effectively convey the precise theme and mood of the story. Or I could roll for Charisma and try to have someone create one for me. Flawless plan, bound to work. (This, by the way, is a lie. I would try to paint it myself. And probably waste weeks on it before giving up in frustration.)

This is a completely theoretical question, by the way, seeing as the "have a fic posted" clause carries a number of prerequisites, most of which stay as of yet unfulfilled. But, y'know. Just curious.

>>113740
Shabbat shalom, everyone! Peace be with all.

Okay, I have a question.

Why you guys reject heavy grimdark or gore fics when EqD promotes .MOV videos, which are much, much worse than written words?

>>113751
If you don't provide an image, Seth will find one featuring a main character in the story and use that. I don't think he'll post a story without an image, so you'll likely have to settle for something close.

>>113753
I don't know. Email Seth and ask him. We don't make the rules, we just enforce them. Though, to my understanding, Shed.mov was never posted on EqD (or was taken down soon after being posted), and that was the very gory one. The rest didn't have nearly the same level of violence, unless I'm remembering wrong.

>Imb4 the calling of me. Stupid.

...For asking this.

Who's the British bloke in the Q&Neigh? For some reason, I thought he was Daff, but I thought I heard you guys call him Midnight.

>>113775

Midnight Shadow yo.

>>113775
I wish I had an accent that sexy.

>>113789

http://www.wikihow.com/Speak-in-a-British-Accent

Let's all do it.

May someone explain me why did - and still do - FoE, Past Sins or EoP get such famousness? Iirc, it's because:

1) They simply are well-written, duh. And kinda long.
2) They were among the first really good fanfictions in the fandom.
3) Several months ago, iirc, every story update = a whole article on EQD => much more visible than "hidden" in a bunch of story updates.

And that's why you think there won't likely be another fanfiction with such praise. Amirite?

Are there any other reasons?

>>113806
Mostly 2 and 3.

I can't say I've read (nor will I ever read) End of Ponies, however, Past Sins and Fallout Equestria were notably averagely-written when they started out. They attracted fan bases because of a combination of a decent idea and a decent cover page. Past Sins got worse as the story progressed, and Fallout Equestria... improved, I suppose, but not enough to make Kkat as good of an author as s/he acts like s/he is.

So, for those two at least, the "writing" wasn't as much of a factor as was the smaller fanbase and more widespread notification of updates. Combined with the fact that standards on EQD have long-since grown since they were published... they got lucky with the timing, is most of it.

As for if there's going to be another big story? My Little Dashie and Ponyfall (though that's more of a genre) were popular, so there's that. However, in terms of "cornering a percent" of the fandom, as the fandom grows, more people can read a story but represent less of a percentage. So, wheras last summer 80% of the fandom knew about Fallout Equestria and Past Sins, this summer, 45% of the fandom can know about a current story that's being published. In theory, that number looks like it's less popular; however, 45% of the fandom now is bigger than 80% of the fandom last summer because of the growth.

So basically... popular stories nowadays get more readers, and less widespread fame. If you want fans, learn how to draw well.

Hello EqD prereaders,

A buddy of mine recently submitted a fic to EqD as a side story to my tale, "From the Mouths of Fillies". What follows below is a verbatim transcription of the rejection email:

> Regardless of the quality of the work, we are not comfortable with recommending this sort of material for publishing on Equestria Daily. We hope to see other fics from you in the future, but we won't be accepting Saying Goodbye. This is a permanent rejection due to content, so strikes do not apply; please do not resubmit this story.

>-Prereader E

First and foremost I'd like to say that the content referred to is a scene in the story rather than the fic as a whole, a ~100 word stretch that could have easily been taken out for a future revision. While I agree with PrE's assessment of the scene, I'm surprised that no chance was given for revision. There is literally no opening to go back and make this story more acceptable for EqD standards. The TL;DR of this email is, "Me no likey--have a perma-ban."

So here's my question: Does this set an unfortunate precedent, is it merely a case of one prereader overstepping their bounds, or is there something else going on here that I'm unaware of?

>>113813
The only precedent that we set is that sex should be handled with an ounce of tact and respect.

Random OC coming into the hospital and having sex with a terminally ill Derpy in a way that is paradoxically unnecessary yet done in a manner such that the story hinges on it makes it out to be, basically, sex for the sake of sex. There weren't enough emotions in that scene to warrant it, the sex didn't resolve anything (even though the author intended it to), and all in all, it wasn't well-written enough to overcome the taboo of "deathbed sex."

If "your buddy" wants to rework the ending of that story so that it doesn't hinge upon sex and therefore, it can be omitted without leaving the story empty, then fine; however, you can see how that will cease to be the same story that got banned in the first place.

>>113820

I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you, but I still fail to see why it was permanently rejected on the first submission rather than given some sort of warning as per the Three Strikes Rule.

Writing out the scene in question would not, in fact, make this a different story because the character coming in to stay with Derpy in her final hours is in context. This story is directly linked to "The Life and Times of a Winning Pony," in which their relationship has already been established.

Also: Hello, Prereader E.

>>113822
I'm not Prereader E.

The story got banned because we, as a group of prereaders, don't feel comfortable hosting a story involving someone having sex with a cancer patient in her hospital deathbed with insufficient setup and, therefore, validity.

Merely giving the story a strike would've been a disservice to the story, as it implies we are comfortable hosting a story involving someone having sex with a cancer patient in her hospital deathbed with insufficient setup and, therefore validity.

That story needs "Sun"-level revisions to be acceptable, not a mere "Mooning."

>>113823

It wasn't a question of sex so much as intimacy--again, while I agree with the assessment of The Scene, taking it out makes it EqD friendly; it becomes an intimate story of somepony spending time with their lover in their final hours in a more appropriate manner.

That said, I do apologize for my earlier snipe. Regardless of my opinion of this story (and I have some strong ones, having poured a lot of time into it), that was unbecoming and un-bronylike.

>>113775
Hey, thank you for such a detailed answer! About Ponyfall, correct me if I'm wrong, it's a genre of story where a member of the show (mane 6, CMC, etc.) gets teleported in our world and gets transformed into his/her "human form". Someone has to take care of him/her.

(MLD-like?)

I don't understand all the fuss about MLD, it's not bad in itself, but the other sad fics I've read roughly have the same quality as MLD, without its famousness (e.g. Simply Rarity).

I guess it's the "1st-such-idea-ever-effect"? Several stories are way more gore/shocking than Cupcakes (SAM, Cheerilee's Garden, ...), but Cupcakes is much more famous.

Combined with the fact that standards on EQD have long-since grown since they were published... they got lucky with the timing, is most of it.

Are you telling me that, if these fanfictions were submitted tomorrow (using the past tense with the word "tomorrow", LIKE A BOSS), they could not be approved?!

>>113841
I can't speak for all of the stories you refer to, but after attempting to edit Past Sins a number of months ago (before I was a pre-reader), I was ready to strangle whoever approved it when it still contained errors like using "lighting" instead of "lightning" repeatedly.

When I'm pre-reading, I ignore how popular a story is, unless I'm trying to predict how likely a whiny, self-entitled "EQD DOESNT LIEK ME" FiMFic blog post is in the case of rejection.

>>113831

Careful when removing a scene. When you do, 80-90% of the time, you suddenly have a gap that isn't always jumpable. I mean, there are scenes that you can remove and the section is fine. Others, you remove and readers can make the jump between the previous scene and the next one without too much trouble. Then you have the scenes that if taken out, make it impossible to read on if taken out. My suggestion for scene type two or three is merely to write in something suitable to replace the lost scene. The issue being that the amount needed varies from scene to scene, and that, I cannot help you with unless I had a document in front of me.

Sounds like your friend is dealing with scene type number one.

I only point the scene issue out because there are others here who may find this useful.

Anyways, write on! I wish you all success in your future endeavors.

>>113841
>Are you telling me that, if these fanfictions were submitted tomorrow (using the past tense with the word "tomorrow", LIKE A BOSS), they could not be approved?!

Yes. If we lived in an alternate universe where none of these stories were on EqD and were all submitted tomorrow, Fallout: Equestria would likely be permanently rejected due to content, Past Sins would be sent back for editing, and MLD... I don't even want to talk about. This is, of course, assuming that Seth doesn't step in and tell us to post them anyway, which has (unfortunately) happened.

>>113849
Seconded.

No fucking way any of those three would make it through in regards to content and grammar issues. Despite how much I love FOE.. and yes, I do wanna fight about it

>>113849
I personally find it odd the content which made EqD get the audience it got is now no longer acceptable to be posted, but what can you do when you have reap the benefits I guess.

>This is, of course, assuming that Seth doesn't step in and tell us to post them anyway, which has (unfortunately) happened.
This has bothered me somewhat because I keep seeing contradicting points about what exactly the pre-readers do at this point. At times they are described as a sort of filter whose responsibility with EqD end after the read the story and reject (or accept) the story. However, many times I have seen the prereaders speak about Seth telling the prereaders to post as though they were the ones making the posts for EqD and putting things in the posting roster.

Which one is it?

>Might as well use this for more questions anyway:

There has been some discussion here about how sci-fi doesn't really make sense within the context of the universe because it is at the end a fantasy world, making the idea of sci-fi impossible. What is sci-fi under the EqD?

There was a discussion just up here about reviewing a thankless job that has little motivation to be continued. Your thoughts on that?

And then there was a mentioned how there is a motivation of being in charge and having powers over others that makes the prereaders want to be prereaders and remain (and return) to being prereaders. That seems a bit too cynical, so I wonder: what is the motivation for prereadering?

I also liked the question about a better arrangement, because I can't see anything doing much better than FiMfiction or EqD in terms of getting good stories to be noticed.

What are your views about people editing their work after they have already posted them in EqD?

Suppose an author dropped ten stories in your queue. How likely is he to be ignored for a while because of it?

There was talk about needing better relationships between EqD and /fic/. Because you are essentially EqD, or something, what do you think could be done about that?

What is your position of experimental stories such as Eyes, by Sugar^3? Interesting enough to be posted or simply pretentious attempts at being good?

What's the total word count for all the stories currently in the pre-reading queue?

Any story you want to see but haven't found?

Finally, how many cyberpunk stories have you read in the fandom?

>>113852

>I personally find it odd the content which made EqD get the audience it got is now no longer acceptable to be posted, but what can you do when you have reap the benefits I guess.
Those fanfics aren't the reason EqD is so popular now. We could have posted anything back in the day and it would have been just as popular.

>This has bothered me somewhat because I keep seeing contradicting points about what exactly the pre-readers do at this point. At times they are described as a sort of filter whose responsibility with EqD end after the read the story and reject (or accept) the story. However, many times I have seen the prereaders speak about Seth telling the prereaders to post as though they were the ones making the posts for EqD and putting things in the posting roster.

Seth sends us stories because he wants our opinions on them. 99% of the time, he listens to those opinions. However, there have been times when we have requested that stories be rejected, and he has stepped in and posted them anyway for other reasons.

>What is sci-fi under the EqD?
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>There was a discussion just up here about reviewing a thankless job that has little motivation to be continued. Your thoughts on that?
It is.

>what is the motivation for prereadering?
A desire to help Equestria Daily maintain its high quality standard/to provide the best possible writing to the EqD community.

>What are your views about people editing their work after they have already posted them in EqD?
I see no problem with it, unless they're inserting scenes that break the rules after getting past the pre-readers.

>Suppose an author dropped ten stories in your queue. How likely is he to be ignored for a while because of it?
Not likely at all. Those stories would be pre-read at the same rate as any other story. It would just take longer to get through all of them.

>There was talk about needing better relationships between EqD and /fic/. Because you are essentially EqD, or something, what do you think could be done about that?
I don't know. Maybe organize something like Phoe's art thingy where you draw a picture every day, except with writing?

>What is your position of experimental stories such as Eyes, by Sugar^3? Interesting enough to be posted or simply pretentious attempts at being good?
Haven't read it.

>What's the total word count for all the stories currently in the pre-reading queue?
No clue.

>Any story you want to see but haven't found?
A Fairly Oddparents crossover, and a Gravity Falls crossover.

>Finally, how many cyberpunk stories have you read in the fandom?
Personally? None. I've seen a few come through my inbox for pre-reading, though.

>>113852
The first view is correct. The only one of us with posting powers is Midnight Shadow, but sometimes Seth will step in if we're all bitterly divided or otherwise can't agree on content acceptability, but this doesn't happen often.

> What is sci-fi under the EqD?

Um... space ships and giant robots and such, I guess? I don't really read any of the sci-fi the fandom puts out.

> There was a discussion just up here about reviewing a thankless job that has little motivation to be continued. Your thoughts on that?

I absolutely disagree. I would still be reviewing here on /fic/ if I had more free time. It can be trying, but the satisfaction of seeing a story and author improve through one's help is its own reward in my view. If someone is reviewing just to become brony famous, they need to seriously re-think their life, I'd say.

>And then there was a mentioned how there is a motivation of being in charge and having powers over others that makes the prereaders want to be prereaders and remain (and return) to being prereaders. That seems a bit too cynical, so I wonder: what is the motivation for prereadering?

I can't speak for us all, but my motivation for pre-reading is the same as it was for reviewing: see stories in the fandom get better as a whole. With more power, I can make this happen on a bigger scale than I could on /fic/.

> What are your views about people editing their work after they have already posted them in EqD?

I'm for it. So long as they aren't editing in sex and gore, no story is ever perfect. Nothing the fandom has ever written couldn't be improved in some way, so I applaud those who try to continue to improve their work.

Suppose an author dropped ten stories in your queue. How likely is he to be ignored for a while because of it?

> There was talk about needing better relationships between EqD and /fic/. Because you are essentially EqD, or something, what do you think could be done about that?

I wasn't aware there was any enmity between /fic/ and EqD; then again, I come on this board more or less for this thread, so I guess I'm a bit in the dark.

> What's the total word count for all the stories currently in the pre-reading queue?

Roughly 437,260 words at present.

Any story you want to see but haven't found?

> Finally, how many cyberpunk stories have you read in the fandom?

None.

>>113856
Gah, derped a few questions.

>Suppose an author dropped ten stories in your queue. How likely is he to be ignored for a while because of it?

Maybe a little, but it's unlikely.

> Any story you want to see but haven't found?

I'd love to see a good Valkyria Chronicles crossover.

>>113852
Two prereaders already answered your questions so I'll answer the one I like.

I want a damned PPG crossover, or a straight up Tales of Symphonia crossover. Hell, actually, most of the cartoons I watched as a kid would probably get some nostalgia flowing enough for me to like a crossover with them. I was a huge cartoon network kid.

>>113842
>>113849
>>113851
Thank you all! But I don't understand why FoE could be rejected due to its content, since there are other grimdark stories on EQD (And the tag for it). Is this story extremely gore?

Talking about gore, my fanfiction contains very few (2-3) grimdark scenes, should I still add the grimdark tag? Or should I rather remove the scenes, using an ellipsis? Iirc, it draws more readers if the grimdark tag isn't here.

Oh, and how do you write in blue (you mostly use it to quote previous messages)? :p

>>113863
>Thank you all! But I don't understand why FoE could be rejected due to its content, since there are other grimdark stories on EQD (And the tag for it). Is this story extremely gore?
Grimdark doesn't mean gore. Grimdark means, well, dark. Bad things happening to good ponies. That sort of thing. Fo:E has many scenes which violate our "No Gore" rule. It's one of those stories (like Cupcakes) which was posted before we had any real standards for content.

>Talking about gore, my fanfiction contains very few (2-3) grimdark scenes, should I still add the grimdark tag?
To repeat: Grimdark doesn't mean gore. If you have any gory scenes, I recommend removing them before you submit your work to Equestria Daily.
As far as adding the tag goes, Grimdark is a mood. If the overall feeling of your story is hopeless, depressing, etc, then a Dark or Grimdark tag would fit.

>Oh, and how do you write in blue (you mostly use it to quote previous messages)? :p
Put a greater-than symbol (does it have a different name?) at the beginning of the line.

>>113864
I am not even going to discuss the definition of gore, because there lies the path to madness (to quote the one thread I saw here with what I found to be a good description of what is and is not gore) but I have to ask how does this "no gore" rule works.

Take for example that recent griffin story were two griffins are playing with a foal's head, amongst other similar scenes, or Ponies make war. The first one is a recent one, not much more than a couple of days old, but the level of description and violence depicted is not all that dissimilar to FoE. On Ponies Make War... well...

It's not that they are bad stories (I can safely say I prefer the first one to FoE, and the other one is ok I guess), but I am having an issue understanding the range which is and is not allowed considering FoE "gore" isn't all that worse than those.

Now, sexual content, that's something that FoE will run into issues (22.5 is porn, no question), but actual gore seems to be a odd issue here.

>Pic unrelated

>>113872
>I have to ask how does this "no gore" rule works.
There isn't really a clear line I can point to and say "anything worse than that breaks the rule." A lot of it is context dependent. Now, I haven't read Ponies Make War or Carnivore's Tale (which I assume is the Griffon story you're referring to), so I can't speak for them specifically, but the question we as pre-readers ask ourselves when faced with violent content is this: does this scene need this level of violence (or description of violence) to work effectively? If the answer to that is "no", we'll ask if the author can tone it down. So, for example, we have a scene where Fluttershy is walking along in Ponyville and trips, scraping her knee (or something). The reader doesn't need a graphic description of her wound to understand what's going on, nor does it add to the scene, so we'd ask the author to remove any such description.

Granted, there are some things that will always fall on the wrong side of the gore rule (which I won't describe here. Use your imagination). For most things, though, context is key.

>>113872
For reference, I and another pre-reader actually rejected the griffin story once under our gore rule (although I liked it), so the version you read was after the author toned it down.

>>113864
Ok, thank you! :)

Currently, side stories (prequels, sequels, ...) don't really have a cover image, do you think it's possible to add a cover image for a side story? (Should I rather ask Sethisto?)

>>113876
That's Seth's call. Email him and ask.

>>113874
Which understandable, but I mention that because I didn't find segment of FoE where I could go and say "this would still sound like it showing if you eliminated the details" or that the scenes aren't comparable to recently posted stories.

Also, I decided to read all mature rated stories in FiMfiction, so yeah. Anyone want to drink with me? It helps me sleep at night when I wonder why I am still doing that...

>>113875
I personally don't see how that's relevant. The issue is if a story is EqD postable, so all previous version don't really matter to the question if "foal head catch is the greatest, man" is acceptable or not.

And yeah, the story is awesome.

Also, I'm not saying you have to be more lenient with gore, I'm just curious as to how FoE's violence is any worse than those.

Also, has anyone really been far even as decided a story?

>>113879

Having edited The Carnivore's Prayer extensively, I think I'm a bit qualified to address this.

I'm thinking that there is a confusion over gore content (e.g. ponies dying, disease, famine, sickness, and other bad things) vs. presentation of said content (how much blood, how much attention to flesh wounds, overall attention to violence to detail in the story). We certainly allow death, dying, foal heads, the like, but it's dependent on how the writer presents it that qualifies the story as "gore."

The passage in The Carnivore's Prayer is a single sentence or so to set the scene as after a massacre, whereas reject-able content would give an inordinate amount of detail to said foal's head. The passage would most likely be at least several sentences long, self-indulgent , and place large significance on the presence of the no doubt copious amounts of blood or gore.

Getting dark, death-ridden stories on EqD is all about knowing when to stop, knowing how to have a limit, and knowing how to leave something to the imagination.

That being said, I believe there is a set of all-encompassing no-nos that act regardless of presentation such as rape or incest.

>Also, has anyone really been far even as decided a story?

What.

>>113885
I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I was speaking of how it was being presented and how that presentation adds to the plot. In the particular case of FoE, the content isn't describe any worse that those stories apart from particular segments where you need the descriptions for events to make sense (except for one or two exceptions I can think of later on the story).

Now, incest I knew was a no-no, but I didn't know rape was an issue. I won't comment about such a thing, but I guess sure, why not.

Thanks for answering though, gives some insight to whom we are dealing with. Also, exactly that: has anyone really been far even as decided a story?

>>113863
Consider the Xenith being sexually abused with a severed unicorn head.

>>113904
Ehmm... That wasn't actually described in detail, so... try again? After all, bunch of ponies being chopped into pieces was declared acceptable as long as we don't see it, which makes sense.

>>113841
Don't celebrate too soon, Grammar Cadet! That's no past tense, that's the subjunctive mood!

>>113864
>greater-than symbol (does it have a different name?)
Right angle bracket.

I am useful.

>

^

Screw that, that's known as "Alligator wants to eat the stuff on the left cause it's bigger" to me. :3 Muwahwahwah.

>>113917
>Don't celebrate too soon, Grammar Cadet! That's no past tense, that's the subjunctive mood!
Oh, you're right. Sorry.

Anyway, iirc there are 13 tenses (with the subjunctive, etc.) in English. Too many to learn. :D

It's still easier to learn than our 21 French tenses, plus the way more complicated conjugation. I have no excuse.

OT: In which thread should authors go to get their stories proofread? Where do editors hide?

So, I have a question:

My story got rejected the first time (I think about a month ago), nothing special there, still too many mistakes (despite an editor :/) and some issues hailing from me not being a native speaker. I got another editor, got rid of the mistakes he pointed out, restructured some sentences and generally worked on the story some more. But I disagree with what my EQD prereader said about the buildup of a scene and I really don’t want to change it. Personally I think it’s a matter of opinion, not of right and wrong. Is it a wasted strike to submit it again despite not changing everything a prereader suggested?

>>113906

Rape was mentioned as one of the things that doesn't need to be described in detail to be rejected. Same with incest.

>>114027

Send a response to the rejection email and (politely) explain your case for that scene. It won't count as a strike and can't hurt.

Do sequels go through the fanfic submission form, or the submit email?

Good rule of thumb. If you describe the guts detail, it's probably not okay. If you find yourself stopping in your writing for more than, say, 5 minutes trying to determine if a scene is too controversial for EqD, it probably is. Or should I say, the longer you have to think about how controversial the scene is, the increased chance it's not okay for EqD.

Helpful?

Question:

Do you have different standards for each type of story? Does each story have a base standard with more tacked on depending on genre?

Do you tend to hold authors you know to higher standards than authors your don't know, whether this is intentional or not? It would explain how I got my two stories up on EqD. There's no way I'd approve those now if I were a pre-reader.

>>114042

I believe you asked that question already (2nd one). Oh You. Dropping another hint to tease people with.

>>114047

I might have. I can never remember every question I've asked. If so, I apologize.

And what hint? There are tons of people with two stories on EqD. If it's a hint at who I am, it was unintentional.

>>114042
I really need to come into this thread more. Anyway...

>Do you have different standards for each type of story? Does each story have a base standard with more tacked on depending on genre?

Me, personally, no. I have the same set of standards for each story. I read it, I find the errors, I list them. There's no specific genre I have a different set of 'rules' for. I do my best to be fairly standard with my reviews.

>Do you tend to hold authors you know to higher standards than authors your don't know, whether this is intentional or not?

Usually. When I know someone's abilities and what their capable of, I will be nitpicky and point out every single issue I find. I'm also way snarkier when I know someone.

>>114050
> I read it, I find the errors, I list them.
Speaking as someone who edited a story you (and to be fair, four other people) edited a week or so ago, you need to brush up on this point.

Has a pre-reader ever been dismissed for being too lenient with stories submitted to EqD?

If I believe that a pre-reader erred on a point of grammar, should I:

A) E-mail the pre-reader?

B) State my case why in my notes during resubmission?

C) Both A and B?

D) Do something else (please elaborate)?

>>114058

Option A the best option.

>>114055
And what story was this?

>>114061
Email me if you want to talk about it. I've filled my thread-derail quota for this week, anyways.

>>114055
Also, no. A pre-reader has never been dropped for being too lenient. The only time a pre-reader has ever been asked to leave was when they only did a few fics every couple months, and some people didn't get along with them.

>>114063
That strikes me as being rather huggy-huggy for a system designed to ensure quality. Has there ever been an internal attempt at establishing basic guidelines and notably increasing the level of quality required by submissions?
For example, a recent story on the site was a Spyro crossover starring Spike. For the most part its writing was decent. However, its dialogue punctuation was all over the place. Considering its status as a hard rule and being an easy fix (hell, the auto-reviewer would point out most of the mistakes), why was this story posted before being properly edited? The only explanations I can see for this is that the pre-reader who cleared it was either unaware of the rule (and seeing as how it's among the most basic, that does not bode well) or they were knowingly allowing a story with obvious errors through the system. This story is hardly the only example that I've seen of such a common error, too.

On the topic of the auto-reviewer, has this program been adopted by the pre-readers as a quick way to do preliminary reviews? It's fairly accurate and can easily spot basic errors, so its use as a pre-check for sloppy writing could greatly improve turnaround time.

>>114065
Another thing it would ave picked up would be how many times I re-used "error" in that reply >_>

In which thread should authors go to get their stories proofread? Where do editors hide?

>>114067
Seeing as how this question doesn't actually require pre-reader status (and I'm pretty sure it was asked a little earlier without a reply)...
Does it say "Reviews/Reviewer"? Chances are that's what you're looking for. For the best reviewer, find the good Samurai's thread (I believe it's >>99999 ). An editor is more difficult, although many reviewers effectively double as a basic editor since they mark and comment on mistakes (make sure to use Gdocs with commenting enabled!). Also, search for Cartoon Geld's Auto-Reviewer thread. It can catch many basic mistakes in a matter of seconds, saving both you and your reviewer a lot of grief (them having to read your sloppy writing, and you having to listen to them whine complain about it)

>>114065
I'm not familiar with any auto-reviewer. Care to bring me up to speed? And as far as the quality of fics, there are some of us that are more lenient than others, clearly. It would be nice if this could be fixed so everyone has the same 'minimum' quality standard, per se. I know that many of us use the omnibus as a basis for grammar and the like, but we need everyone to do that.

I'll have to look at the review thread and see who reviewed it and what they said.

>>114071

>>102514

>>114072
This posts also seems relevant to this, and probably why Ion brought it up to begin with:
>>108026

>>114071
>I'm not familiar with any auto-reviewer. Care to bring me up to speed?
Easy as one-two-three, eh-bee-sea. Just copy/paste your work into it, hit "Submit" and it'll do all the legwork for you. There's also an optional Passive Voice option above the text field.
http://auto-reviewer.appspot.com/
You can find the thread for it here: http://www.ponychan.net/chan/fic/res/102154.html

I can understand some of the reviewers being less stringent when it comes to style since that's purely subjective, but the number of mechanical errors creeping in is far too high for what is supposed to be a quality-assurance team.

>>114075
I'm trying to figure out why he linked that, unless he was using it as an example of a story that really could have used the auto-reviewer.

>>114075

>mfw I link to Minty's thread

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/fic/res/102154.html

>>114078
>yfw you didn't post a fw and I ninja'd your correction

>>114079

>mfw you didn't realize the lack of picture was intentional

>>114068
Thanks! And I meant "editors", not "reviewers" ^^

>>114080
>pic

>>114081
Well, "proofread" would mean pre-readers (not to be confused with EqD's), which are like reviewers lite. Editors are a step above a reviewer and, as I mentioned, getting a review here often doubles as an edit. Also, you should heavily consider using the auto-reviewer ( >>102154 ) before submitting to anyone, pre-reader, reviewer, editor or otherwise.

>>114076
Oh, wow. This is actually pretty awesome. I'll have to start using this from now on before I hand it off to other proofreaders.

>>114082
>>114088
As a short trial will attest to, the current set up has a tendency to ignore errors and mark incorrect ones while still having a good hit ratio by comparison.

As stated here:

>>108026

for this implementation to serve completely green writers, and those with with only some notion of language as they will be unable to recognize where these mistake do occur, their needs to be involved a greater amount of development which is still a bit far off simply because it

I will advise against its usage by anyone who cannot immediately recognize said false positives, while not denying that the ability to provide good raw data for the matters I described. All in all, this cannot be considered a consumers product in anyway, but more of a "professional" or experimental one which requires a bit more finesse to use.

Do please keep this in mind when jumping ahead and sending others to it, or using it yourself.

>>114088
Yes, it is quite remarkable. I used it on the aforementioned story I was editing and found several mistakes immediately. It greatly expedites first-round edits.

The pre-readers might wish to include it on their submission sheet (with a warning, as per the Samurai's suggestion) for writers to use before sending their story.

>>114091
Duly noted, Samurai. I shall make sure to include such a disclaimer in any future recommendations.

>>114082
Yes, thanks.

Is there actually a prereader named Grump?

>>114105
There is a pre-reader that signs his reviews "Grump."

>>114106
Thanks, just wanted to make sure I didn't derp when submitting

>>114105
Nope, no prereader grump here.

Note: I am not actually prereader grump. I don't handle half as many fics as he does, and secretly wonder if he is a robot.

>>114065

Not every pre-reader is as skilled with grammar as many reviewers (and other pre-readers) are and there's nothing wrong with that. Grammar is not the only (nor even the most important) consideration when it comes to deciding whether or not a story is postable. I don't think it should surprise you to learn that the vast majority of EqD's readership neither knows nor particularly cares about correct dialogue punctuation (Though I haven't read that crossover so I'm not sure how much of a mess it is). It's something many prereaders would have pointed out but it's not something that would impact the readability of the fic for 99% of our audience, so I don't see the problem.

If you're talking about the fic I think you're talking about, the pre-reader who approved it is one of the people I respect most within this fandom. If he says it's good enough, it's good enough. If he's not qualified to be a pre-reader, then almost none of us are.

>>114174
I actually think that's the point he is making Mane.

What has been the weirdest story you have gotten in the inbox? Not grotesque, not bad, but one so outlandishly weird you felt the need to share it.

>>114174
>Not every pre-reader is as skilled with grammar as many reviewers
The problem deals with punctuation. I should hope a pre-reader could recognize that.
This is one of the most basic rules of writing. If you don't know how to do it and can't be bothered to learn it, then you shouldn't be in a position where you entire job is to spot such problems. It's literally a fifteen-minute google session to figure out how it's done.
> It's something many prereaders would have pointed out but it's not something that would impact the readability of the fic for 99% of our audience, so I don't see the problem.
Please don't tell me you're trying to play the "It's fanfiction" card, because that's what you're doing. Operating on the lowest common denominator is no way for a system to be run. I thought EqD was about showcasing the best of the fandom, not being the literary quasi-equivalent of the "No Child Left Behind" act.

You have also failed to answer my first question in any capacity with your digression, only offered justifications excuses for a writer to be, either knowingly or in ignorance, sub-par. Please do so.

I should mention that I went to his story page and instructed him on how to properly punctuate dialogue. It took five minutes of my time and the next chapter's punctuation was greatly improved. He was exceptionally grateful and also made changes to the story where I had noted he'd made a huge, ugly info-dump (another thing which should have been picked up by the pre-reader that cleared him).

You also haven't answered my second question. While one could argue that ( >>114088 ) replied to it, he never actually answered my question on whether or not the pre-readers plan to or could possibly utilize the auto-reviewer (and assuming they're versed on basic rules of writing to parse out false positives, as the Samurai mentioned, I see no reason why not).

For your benefit, I'll restate them here.
>Has there ever been an internal attempt at establishing basic guidelines and notably increasing the level of quality required by submissions?
>On the topic of the auto-reviewer, has or will this program be adopted by the pre-readers as a quick way to do preliminary reviews?
A bonus to the pre-reader is that it has built-in explanations for proper dialogue punctuation (among other rules), meaning the pre-reader won't even have to explain the rule themselves, just copy/paste it.

> The problem deals with punctuation. I should hope a pre-reader could recognize that.
I think the point is that it is writing by someone who is most likely not a pro. Nor do they have someone who makes a living off catching mistakes like that. Pre-readers recognize that grammar won't/can't be perfect. Thus, they have to find an acceptable level of errors they'll allow. Unfortunately, that means there's a minimum and there are fics that'll make it in on the minimum.

> where you entire job is to spot such problems.
I thought it wasn't their entire job to spot grammar errors. True, it's a large part, but there are other things to watch for, correct?

> Operating on the lowest common denominator is no way for a system to be run
But there is a minimum and fics will get in on minimum. If they didn't the minimum would just keep rising until eventually you'd need to be J.K. Rowling or Tolkien just to get a 4k word fan fiction on EqD. That's no way to run a system either.

> I went to his story page and instructed him on how to properly punctuate dialogue.
Good. You're doing your part in making sure that EqD has only quality on it. I can't speak for the pre-readers, but I can speak for myself, and I say good job. But that doesn't change the fact that some pre-reader took a look at the story and determined that it was good enough for EqD.

> could possibly utilize the auto-reviewer
I run all my stories by this. It's helpful. I don't see any reason I couldn't use it for other stories if I were a pre-reader. I can't speak for the other pre-readers, but I would imagine that now it's being brought to their attention, at least some will use it.

There, I put my two cents into this. Thanks for taking the time read this. Here's to you, pre-readers!

A while back I think one of you said that like 60% of authors never resubmit. Has there ever been an author who you rejected, and then came back a month or two later and surprised the hell out of you with a great story?

>>114185
Since answering questions if you're not a pre-reader--even if it's not actually directed at them--is a bannable offence, I can't properly reply in this thread. Email me so that we can discuss it.

>>114185
***, the questions were not directed at you, and you are not a pre-reader. Please refrain from taking it upon yourself to answer questions in this thread.

>>114190

Fine. Because you asked nicely.

< This is me not giving a fuck. Because frankly, if I want to state my opinion, I will. At the very least, I'll keep it on topic, though.

>>114189

No, I was stating my opinion and I can't speak for the pre-readers. I thought I made that clear.

>>114191
I wasn't berating you, that was me giving a reason why I can't reply. I honestly would like to discuss it, it just can't take place here.

And I'm still waiting on you to Email me, Alex.

>>114191
>This is me not giving a fuck. Because frankly, if I want to state my opinion, I will. At the very least, I'll keep it on topic, though

Feel free to state your opinion in your own thread.

>>114065
>Mfw I wrote the fic in question.
I fixed everything the pre-reader told me to correct. I'm not a professional writer (lol, as if that needed to be said), so I am ignorant to some of those rules. Granted, this was before I had a better understanding of dialogue punctuation, and after a few more edits, I'd like to have thought I've corrected those mistakes.

How are shared universes handled by EqD?

Meh, that question is kind of...vague...

See, the thing is that right now I've sort of managed to turn a little short story I wrote about an bizzaro universe "Boast Busters" with Trixie as the hero and Twilight as the antagonist into a full-blown alternate universe, currently with something like 10 authors besides myself and more than 20 distinct stories, only 4 by me.

Not every story - probably not even most of them - are necessarily up to the standards of EqD, but I know at least a few of them are (at the very least the original is 'cause it's already on EqD), and besides which I'm not looking for recognition of any indiviudal story, but rather the universe as a whole. If we could spend even a single hour on EqD's front page, it'd be huge.

So...yeah, basically the question is how do I get a shared universe acknowledged on EqD, and not necessarily any individual fic that's part of it?

>>114208
There really isn't anything you can do to warrant Seth making a post about this sub-genre/universe/whatever. If it becomes as big as, say, The Conversion Bureau or Fallout: Equestria, it might get something like a side-story compilation. However, the chances of this happening are slim to none.

>>114208
Options that come to mind are:
1) If the story can stand on its own, mention in the synopsis that it shares continuity with (other story), but (other story) isn't required reading.

2) If the story requires another story to fully establish its premise, get the original author to email Seth and give him permission to put your story on as a sequel to the original (I don't think he just up-and-posts other authors' stories on a story's post anymore, after something with Raging Semi or whatever).

>>114210
I was afraid of that.

See, the problem is that I wrote the original story before the thought of making it a shared universe had even entered my mind. The thing now is that any updates to that story - whether my own or made by others - will necessarily either have to be lumped into "story updates" for that one story, where they're unlikely to be seen except by someone already looking for it (defeating the purpose of getting them onto EqD in the first place) - or it has to be a completely stand-alone story, but that's not easy to do because we've kind of given the shared universe a continuing plot.

It's not as tightly continuous as, say, Lost - with one episode bleeding directly into the next - but it's more cohesive than FiM on its own. I guess Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica is probably a good reference point - the point is that each story makes certain default assumptions about what the reader currently knows - that Luna won 1,000 years ago, that Celestia is the mad goddess Corona and is still at large, and that there's a completely different mane 6, etc.

Basically we're constructing an entire season of 26 episodes, and we're nearly done. But as it stands the only way we're likely to get the wide-spread word out about the shared universe on the scale needed to get onto EqD, is if we're put on EqD.

Are there no other possibilities?

(Also, neat fact: out group is only 41 members shy of the Conversion Bureau's group).

>Are there no other possibilities?

Not really, no. I'm very happy your story spawned such a following, but Equestria Daily isn't in the business of making your work famous. We exist to please the masses -- at least, the ones that visit our site -- and at the moment there is little to no demand for posts set within your universe. As such, we're not going to dedicate a post to it. If a significant number of people start asking for it, then we (read: Seth) may consider making another compilation post. This is not a guarantee, but that's the only chance I see of you getting your own compilation.

>(Also, neat fact: out group is only 41 members shy of the Conversion Bureau's group).

Your group can have 1000 more members than the TCB group, but if A) They're not frequent EqD readers and B) They don't ask Seth for a compilation, you're not going to get a compilation.

>>114219
...wait...

...okay, I was about to make a post saying that I understand, and then just leave, but...

We exist to please the masses

This...doesn't hold up under inspection. If that were the sole criteria - or even a criteria - for a story, video, Civilization V mod, or whatever, to get up on EqD, then your submission process would be very different. You *would* care if I had a group with 1,000 followers in that case.

You primarily put things up based on quality (theoreticaly) and whether or not it was actually submitted - but only rarely due to popularity. If that were the case than a large number of stories, to say nothing of PMVs or Civilization V mods, wouldn't be on EqD at all, because the interest in them doesn't exist until it's put on EqD in the first place.

I mean...let's take, for example, [url=http://www.equestriadaily.com/2012/04/disney-pmvs-beauty-and-beast.html]this PMV maker[/url]. We're using DagaYemar because he happens to be my IRL roommate, so I can say for a fact that he isn't on EqD because of all sorts of fan demand ahead of time, because if there was, he'd of told me. No, he's on EqD simply because he submitted his videos and they passed whatever PMV inspection teams they have to pass. And he regularly gets his own header, besides.

Anyway. I understand that there's a slight difference between PMVs and fanfictions, but the point is that, looking at EqD, I think it's safe to say that fan demand is not what I need. It'd help, but there are clearly other ways.

>>114223
It's a pretty simple process to understand. Higher quality works appeal to more people. As such, we try to post the highest quality we can to appeal to the largest number of people. That's the reason we don't allow clop and gore in fanfics. It's not because stories with those elements are bad, but because they don't appeal to a very large audience. Conversely, we've also posted things of a lower quality because they already had a large following. I don't support this practice in the slighest, but those are the rules and it's my job to follow them.

However, this isn't entirely relevant to what you're asking. You're not asking us to make a post about an individual story or work. You're asking us to make a post about an [i]idea[/]: your sub-universe. You've admitted yourself that the majority of the stories in this universe are not of a very high quality, but you want attention drawn to it anyway. Since the quality is, by your own admission, not present, the only thing you have to fall back on is popularity. Popularity is the reason Fallout: Equestria and TCB sidefics get their own compilations (they sure as hell aren't there due to quality).

Quality is a very easy thing to determine for Fanfics, PMVs, art, etc, but for an entire sub-universe, popularity is really all we have to go on.

>You *would* care if I had a group with 1,000 followers in that case.
I never said we didn't care, but in order for something to be done, they have to speak up. If Seth wakes up to 1000 emails in his inbox demanding a compilation post for fics set in your universe, you'll have your post by lunch.

>>114224
>>114224
I didn't say they weren't of a very high quality, I said that they didn't meet the exacting standards of...well, at least a few, but certainly not all...pre-readers that I am currently aware of. Slight, but important, difference. I've been more concerned with quality of story than quality of grammar or syntax when deciding what would be canon or not canon in the Lunaverse (yes, one can impact the other, but it's entirely possible to tell an engaging story and at the same time have the grammatical skills of a 6th grader)

Clop and Gore
Cupcakes. I know you guys don't like that Cupcakes is continuously brought up, but as long as it's on your site, you're going to keep hearing about it.

You could always delete it from your site, then you'd be able to take the high ground again...

Oh, but a new question: I actually can't find Seth's e-mail on the site. What is it?

(I am notoriously blind about these things; I'm sure it's there, I just can't find it).

>>114226
Cupcakes got grandfathered/filibustered on the site. It'd be more of a hassle to take it off (because of the email complaints) than it is to deal with self-righteous authors who think their torture porn is Vishnu's gift to writing.

It's not, and your gore / porn isn't getting posted. Get over it.

>>114226
And Seth's email is [email protected]

>>114226
>it's entirely possible to tell an engaging story and at the same time have the grammatical skills of a 6th grader
Of course it is. It's also possible to do some really great art on a napkin with some crayons.

>Cupcakes.
You have no idea how much I wish Seth would delete this fic from EqD so we could stop hearing about it. I hate it as much as anyone else, but he's the boss, and he says he doesn't want it taken down.

>Oh, but a new question: I actually can't find Seth's e-mail on the site. What is it?
[email protected]

>>114183
It seems this has been forgotten. I am also interested in a PR response to it, even at the risk of inflating Ion's already overlarge ego.

>>114223
Apologies for stepping on a couple toes here, but fic submission is entirely different from any other submissions. Additionally, Pre-readers have no influence on how other media are selected for posting. The long and short of your question is that Seth or another blog pony can answer it far better and officially than anyone on this thread.

>>114227
I don't write gore or porn. The most racy thing I've ever written has Lyra transformed into a naked human in it, and it's completely glanced over because ponies are naked all the time anyway, so nopony cares in the story or the narrative. National Geographic nudity, basically. PG-13 nudity. And no clopping.

No, my point is just that you can't claim "No porn, no gore, no exceptions," and then have Cupcakes on your site, and expect the claim to be taken seriously in that claim. Further, it exists as demonstratable proof that there are exceptions to even your "no exceptions" rule.

>>114231
Thanks. I figured I'd try here first regardless, though, since it's most like a fanfic submission.

>>114183
>Has there ever been an internal attempt at establishing basic guidelines and notably increasing the level of quality required by submissions?
No, though it has been considered. I would really like some sort of standardization because, you're right, inconsistency is not really something that we should allow in a job like this.

>On the topic of the auto-reviewer, has or will this program be adopted by the pre-readers as a quick way to do preliminary reviews?
Officially? No. Will some of use use it when we're swamped? Probably.

>>114233
Except Cupcakes was posted before those rules were in place, so your argument is invalid.

>>114237
That's one way of looking at it. Personally if I were running the site, and I decided that I wanted a rule of "no porn, no gore, no exceptions," then I would go back and delete any fics that violated that rule. Retroactively deny their submissions, basically.

Trade-off of annoyed e-mails is worth it in exchange for the show of conviction, I think.

But, I don't run the site.

>>114238
And I agree wholeheartedly with you. I really do. Cupcakes shouldn't be on EqD. Neither should certain chapters of Fallout: Equestria, barring some major rewrites. But, as I mentioned previously, Seth is the boss and he doesn't want them taken down. We've had this discussion with him many times and it doesn't look like he's going to change his mind.

>>114239
You could go the other way and change the rule to "clop and gore only if it Merriam-freakin'-Webster wouldn't find grammar problems with it."

Permission to answer him and tell him how irrational and dumb he is being?

>>114243
Not entirely sure who you're referring to, but permission denied. I'd rather not start another shitstorm.

I'm just sayin'. Consistancy is nice.

And unlike pre-reader quality inspections and how they can vary wildly from pre-reader to pre-reader, this seems like a comparitively easy fix.

>>114219

>Equestria Daily isn't in the business of making your work famous. We exist to please the masses -- at least, the ones that visit our site. . .

Question: do you think there would be any future in a blog/site that did have that as its mission? To take the submissions that people gave and spread them to as wide an audience as possible?

>>114247
We call that site Equestria Daily. Like I pointed out, that is what they're in the business of doing. Just, apparently for some things, there's an initial investment of popularity needed.

Which is fair enough, I guess, I have Seth's e-mail address now so now that I have a degree of idea of what I'm getting in to, I can go and actually test the waters.

>>114175
I feel the need to direct attention back to this question:

>What has been the weirdest story you have gotten in the inbox? Not grotesque, not bad, but one so outlandishly weird you felt the need to share it.

You guys should talk about the Nazi ponies. :V

>>114248
>some degree of popularity
It's weird how you sound like a whiny, butthurt reject, yet you apparently have something posted. Maybe it's just how you're reacting to the fact that your friends' sequels won't get their own posts?

I don't understand how the concept of "grandfathered" stories is so difficult to comprehend, or how it makes it impossible to take the current rules seriously. I'll spell it out in short sentences, though: Those stories are bad. New authors can't post those stories. Old authors could. Old authors aren't going to be punished because the rules changed.

In closing, you're arguing in a pissy manner with a group of individuals who can't change what you're raving about in the first place. You've got answers to your current questions, and you've got Sethisto's email. Unless you have any new questions that are unrelated to the ones you've already asked, I kindly request that you find something better to do with your time this evening.

>>114253
Dude, the bit I was being "whiny' about wasn't even connected to my question, it was above Cupcakes, which you correctly identified, but missed that my fic has nothing to do with Cupcakes, so I don't even know why you're still going on about it, when ultimately I was agreed with (or rather it was brought up that I had a view that was already felt)

Heck, I wasn't even the one who brought up clop and gore in the first place; that was Daffodil. I just pointed out the hypocracy of having a blanket "no exceptions" rule with a blatant exception.

(doesn't matter if you think you have a good excuse with grandfathering, it's still hypocracy).

Irregardless, that conversation was already over by the time you linked my latest post.

Now, then, all of this has been leading up to my two questions: one, given that the conversation was done, why did you feel the need to make a Parthian shot?

Two, how do you feel about my usage of the non-word "irregardless" up there?

Addendum:

But at least Daffodil acknowledges that it's hypocritical. I am sympathetic to the fact that he (she? I probably shouldn't make assumptions) doesn't really have the ability to change it.

>>114257
1) It's not a Parthian shot because I'm not going anywhere.
2) I'm more amused at the fact that you can't spell "hypocrisy."

Any other pointless questions?

>>114253
>>114257
>>114260

I'd really appreciate it if you both ended this conversation.

>>114257
>how do you feel about my usage of the non-word "irregardless" up there?
I for one found it hilarious.

>>114257
>>114259

Hypocrisy operates under the pretension of some moral belief that is contradicted by one's behavior. This is not the case; it's a change in policy due to a change in purpose and direction of the submission goals and site image. There is no associated claim of an individual's personal beliefs therein.

>how do you feel about my usage of the non-word "irregardless" up there?

I would have preferred it if you added "for all intensive purposes" as well.

>>114236
Thank you.

To expand on those: How directed was the attempt to raise and standardize the minimum requirements? Was there an actual discussion between all of the pre-readers, or did one of them just make a passing comment that a couple of people remarked on how it would be nice before returning to a chat on Nic Cage's lack of acting capabilities?

>Officially? No.
Is there any actual reason why, or is it one of those "Because it is" things?
I can't help but imagine that some of the pre-readers would feel threatened by a program that could conceivably do better than them at the job :|

>>114260
Eh...personally I find the usage of a non-word more amusing the mispelling of an existing word. Words are mispelled all the time, especially in English and especially on an internet forum. But the poster child of non-words on a forum dedicated to improving writing?

(You're correct about the Parthian shot, though, I guess that's a good catch)

>>114263
Nuts, I feel bad about forgetting about that one.

Hypocrisy, at least its colloquial usage, isn't necessarily based on morality, just standards and the violation thereof by the people charged with upholding them:

1. The practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp. the pretence of virtue and piety
2. An act or instance of this

(Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition)

Especially - not exclusively.

>>114262
Neat.

>>114261
Well, e-mail was sent off to Seth about an hour ago, so I guess for all real intesive purposes I've been done here for...fifty-nine minutes? Something like that.

Hmm.

N = R* x f(p) x n(e) x f(l) x f(i) x f(c) x L

Could you please solve that equation definitively?

>>114231

>6 hours later
>"Forgotten"
>MFW
>MFW I have no face

>>114183

In case you hadn't noticed, the best of the fandom by and large isn't all that great. If we didn't accept some imperfections in plot, characterization, pacing, exposition, and (gasp!) grammar, we wouldn't have anything to post.

>The problem deals with punctuation. I should hope a pre-reader could recognize that.

My education was more related to formal language than natural language, so I am in the habit of thinking of punctuation as part of grammar. In my background, grammar is anything related to how one parses text. I would hope we can be mature enough not to quibble over semantics further.

If you want me to directly answer your questions, here:

>Has a pre-reader ever been dismissed for being too lenient with stories submitted to EqD?

No

>Has there ever been an internal attempt at establishing basic guidelines and notably increasing the level of quality required by submissions?

Yes, I believe that was the intent of the Editor's Omnibus.

>why was this story posted before being properly edited?

Because at least one prereader determined that it was good enough to provide a sufficiently entertaining reading experience to a sizable subjection of EqD's audience.

>On the topic of the auto-reviewer, has this program been adopted by the pre-readers as a quick way to do preliminary reviews?

It has not, but some of us are looking into it.

>>114270

>Was there an actual discussion between all of the pre-readers, or did one of them just make a passing comment that a couple of people remarked on how it would be nice before returning to a chat on Nic Cage's lack of acting capabilities?
A bit closer to the latter. Hopefully when more of us have some free time we'll actually get some work done in that regard.

>Is there any actual reason why, or is it one of those "Because it is" things?
Because if we officially announce "Any incoming submissions will be run through this program," every problem someone finds with the autoreviewer becomes a reason to question/appeal a rejection and/or complain. I trust myself and the other ficbox maintainers more than I do a gosh darned robot, cool as it is.

>I can't help but imagine that some of the pre-readers would feel threatened by a program that could conceivably do better than them at the job.
I don't think anyone feels threatened by a program that shows that many false positives. Like I said, it's a neat little thing that can help when we're super busy, but it's not going to replace actual pre-readers.

>>114270

>I can't help but imagine that some of the pre-readers would feel threatened by a program that could conceivably do better than them at the job :|

When you show me a bot that can determine when an author is using purple prose, meaningless nonsensory description, inconsistent characterization, dull openings, terrible pacing, plot holes, and stilted dialogue, then I'll start to feel threatened (actually, I'll probably just want to see the source code and geek out over it).

>>114273
> If we didn't accept some imperfections in plot, characterization, pacing, exposition, and (gasp!) grammar, we wouldn't have anything to post.
Yes, inconsistencies and minor errors are to be expected. Even now I can go through a story I edited several times over (with plenty of help from others doing the same) and still find a niggling comma that has escaped its pen. I usually have to chop off their tails as a warning to the other commas, leaving them as outcast periods, but I digress. However, when a large percentage of dialogue is improperly punctuated, that steps beyond the realm of inconsistency. This isn't some obtuse rule like split-infinitives or the one-thousand-and-one reasons to not use a comma before "and" except when the one-thousand-and-two exceptions occur; it's hard and fast and can easily be seen in any published work.

>Yes, I believe that was the intent of the Editor's Omnibus.
So then the pre-reader should have known the dialogue was punctuated incorrectly, as I would assume that's required reading. Even if it's good for posting otherwise, a single line of "You need to fix this punctuation" and a link would have cleared the problem up like a nuke on a cloudy day. Also, unless my eyes are glazing over, I can't find a link to the Omnibus anywhere on the submission page. Wouldn't it be prudent to have that included with the submission form?

>Because at least one prereader determined that it was good enough to provide a sufficiently entertaining reading experience to a sizable subjection of EqD's audience.
>subjection
>To be forcibly controlled or conquered
That's ominous.

>>114276
Well, the program points out overly long average sentence length, use of adverbs and other points that can be attributed to purple prose, so that's one checkbox on your list.

>>114278

>That's ominous.

Please ignore my Freudian slip. Nothing to see here.

>Also, unless my eyes are glazing over, I can't find a link to the Omnibus anywhere on the submission page.

It's in the rules. Fanfiction submission rule 5. I agree that it should be a bit more obvious, but trying to get Seth to change anything on EqD is a sysyphean endeavor.

>>114281
A Freudian slip is when you say on thing but mean your mother.

Well, then get one of the other blog ponies to change it. They have the ability to edit that stuff, don't they? And isn't the fanfiction submission applet firmly in the control of the pre-readers? It could be added to that, thereby bypassing Seth entirely.

>>114284
>A Freudian slip is when you say on thing but mean your mother.

Bravo.

>>114270
You take that back.

Also, I don't need to email you about the fic, because I figured out which one it was.

On the fanfiction submission:

>Link to Your Document *
>We prefer Gdocs or FimFic. If your story is poorly formatted, it will be rejected automatically.

You do prefer GDocs or FimFic only because they can be well formatted, or for other reasons? (Like: accessibility, readability, etc.)


>Story Tags *
>Select one or more tags that best define your story.
> Normal
> Sad
> Comedy
> Adventure
> Random

Aren't the "Comedy" and "Random" the same thing? I mean, "Comedy" is for funny stories, which make us laughing; "Random" should not be taken, seriously. But for me, it's the same thing. What's the difference for you?


>What Characters are Featured in Your Story? *

Seth told me it only was for the OCs - if there are OCs in our story. I suggest making this more precise.

Also, do we only put the name of the OCs here, or also a brief description?


>Did you read the submission guidelines at the top of the page? *
>If you answer "yes" and your story does not follow the guidelines, it will be deleted without a response.

Iirc, we should say "no", so if our story is rejected, we'll know why. Uh? I thought we got an answer explaining why it's rejected, whatever we've read (or not).

>>114316
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but just because I want to be spiteful, no.

I still believe we should discuss it.

>>114311
I try.


Nic Cage is the only man left on earth! Well, except for you, you're the only other man on earth! Despite the biological impossibility of the situation, do you still try to repopulate the planet with him?

>>114326

Gdocs and FimFic have good formatting and are fandom standards at this point.

Most random is comedy but most comedy is not random. Comedy can make sense and still be funny; random is for things that are inconsistent, odd, ridiculous, or otherwise absurd. If it doesn't make at least some people go 'What the fuck am I reading?' then it's not random.

It's not only for OCs, it's for all characters used. Descriptions aren't necessary.

If you say no to 'Did you read our submission guidelines before trying to submit?', we'll not only delete your fic without explaining, we'll also laugh at you. This is for things like clop and gore, not the sorts of errors that get a rejection letter and a single strike.

>>114332
Thank you!

So, during the Q&Neigh episode three, I thought I remembered one of your (many justifiable) reasons for disliking HiE stories is that a human usually ends up in Equestria by way of a deus ex machina (a random portal to Equestria, for instance).

Were I to have an HiE in which the character is transported to Equestria in a more believable way, would that make you guys any more inclined to pass it? I ask because I'd rather not waste your time if it doesn't have a shot.

>>114345
Dude, why does that even matter? Just write a fucking good story. It's not like EqD will actually make sure your story is good, just look a couple of comments up and read how that's pretty much secondary.

>>114348
You're half right. We will make sure the story doesn't suck, particularly because it's HiE. This is because HiE isn't a very popular genre, so the story would have to be even better to warrant us posting it.

Of course, but you guys won't make the story good, only he can do that and in that process the pre-readers are even involved until they tell him his story sucks.

In all cases, it doesn't matter if goes to EQD because being in EQD is not what made it good.

Do you guys know (good) stories with a bad ending?

(I don't mean the sad ones, like Twilight remembering the death of her friends or alike, neither the bittersweet ones, but rather something like "Discord won a war against Celestia and chaos rules Equestria")

I don't think there are such stories on EQD, because I hardly imagine somebody appreciating a story which ends badly (death of the heroes, victory of the ennemy, etc.), but I want to be sure.

Sorry if my grammar is wrong.

>>114356

There's a good number of those, but if you're looking for reading material...

A chance to plug Gardez? How can any young lady resist?

Two stories I've worked on personally, both on Equestria Daily:

The Glass Blower and The Carnivore's Prayer:

http://www.fimfiction.net/story/37761/1/The-Carnivore%27s-Prayer/The-Carnivore%27s-Prayer

http://www.fimfiction.net/story/3228/1/The-Glass-Blower/The-Glass-Blower

>>114353
Not sure if trying to make a point or just bitching about eqd

>>114359
Here's another good one: Heavenly Turmoil

http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/10/story-heavenly-turmoil.html

Be warned, though, the bad ending is... REALLY bad. Like, to the point where I almost regretted reading it. That's the one thing I don't like about some dark stories. For some reason, if the ending is bad, or depressing, it stops feeling like My Little Pony. Now, I'm not saying that every grimdark fic needs to end on sunshine and rainbows, but this one goes a little too far. It feels more like Tales From The Crypt than MLP. Even if bad th8ings happen, if the ending is nothing but bad things, I hate it. I guess it's just me and my over-inflated sense of justice. I hate it when evil wins, or doesn't get punished. Meh, oh, well. It's still a damn good story.

>>114359
>>114370

Thank you.

>>114370
>>114359

Can we substitute "Bad" for "Dark" when describing endings? It becomes difficult to tell the difference unless there is a whole post to describe it.

>>114380
It's the same thing for me. Bad = Dark imho

>>114396
Your opinion is wrong and you should feel... wrong.

>>114405
What about explaining yourself?

Do the prereaders have any policies, official or otherwise, regarding conflicts of interest? Like, not prereading a friend's story, not prereading a story that they've already read on /fic/, stuff like that?

Do any of the prereaders have any other poni-related hobbies besides fanfiction? Art, music, cosplay, RL meetups, etc?

>>114421
We don't have any official policies, but the majority (and by "the majority" I mean "all") of us will avoid reading stories we'd be biased towards or against.

And we have a whole bunch of hobbies outside fanfiction. I personally enjoy collecting and modding Nerf guns, as well as playing Humans VS Zombies during the school year.

>>114412

At least you said it was in your honest opinion. But waving around big opinions like is like waving a torch in the dark. It's gonna attract everyone from miles around. It'll get the attention of both people willing to defend it and people willing to fight the case that it's bad.

Dark does not equal bad. Poor execution of the genre equals bad, and that's the case with any type of story. But, you are entitled to your opinions. I just like to keep an open mind.

If I'm writing a fic that's set in the years before Luna's transformation into Nightmare Moon, should the other characters be speaking in Old English too like Luna sort of does in Luna Eclipsed, including Celestia? And how should the foals be speaking?

>>114442
If memory serves, the answers are "yes," and "old English."

Quite the challenge. Alternatively you could throw in a disclaimer at the beginning and write everypony normally.

>>114450
>>114442
>Not a prereader

Technically it's faux-Shakespearean English, not "old English" (and Shakespearean's actually considered Modern English, if memory serves). I'd love to see a ponyfic written in old English, but I imagine some parts of the different alphabet may be difficult to display online.

Any, the point of this post wasn't to be a pedant or make stupid jokes, but to point out that there is such a thing as "translation convention" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranslationConvention). While some authors would probably have a lot of fun writing character dialogue like a Shakespearean play, I'm sure most (myself included) would just mangle it horribly, not enjoy the process and output something completely painful to read.

Just use normal English, if that's what you're most comfortable with. We see it all the time in movies and books ostensibly set in ancient times -- even ones about non-English characters.

>>114454
Alright then, thank you. That's a MAJOR relief to hear, because I was definitely getting frustrated trying to write all the dialogue that way.

In case anyone was curious as to what the nightmare that is Old English really looks like:

Old English
Ic wæs mip blodi bistemid

Modern English
I was with blood bedewed

>>114454
Ah, I apologize for my faux pas--I saw the question, but failed to notice which thread it was in.

>>114482
I want to make love to this post.

Related: do you think it's a good idea to write dialogue in Middle English? I've got a fic set in the right time period for it, but as I want it to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, I'm not sure that writing the dialogue to be period-appropriate wouldn't just make things confusing to some readers.

Talking about old English (or alike), don't you guys think that stories on EQD shouldn't be written in purple prose? (Like the Never story, written by shortskirtsandexplosions)

I ask that because, well, you know, EQD wants to draw the largest community possible, and a significant part of it doesn't have English as a mother tongue. Reading stories in "normal" English is more or less doable, we understand the main ideas, etc., but a story written in purple prose is really hard to understand. Imo, only a native English speaker can fully understand what is written, which leads to a loss of interest for the story, from the non-native English speakers.

I understand that a good story, which doesn't contain gore nor r34, should be on EQD, whatever the prose is. But can't we simply recommend authors to write in "normal" English, which is easier to read?

I know that it's in The Editor's Omnibus:

>stick with words everypony can understand.

I barely understand what is written in Never. If ssae had respected this rule, I could have enjoyed the story :/

I guess that "purple stories" are a minority?

>>114510
skirts' writing is definitely borderline purple, and that style isn't for everyone, but the pre-readers really aren't in a position to say that he ought to dumb down his writing for the sake of non-native speakers. That's just silly.

>>114510
Dear sweet baby Jesus, I am not a pre-reader, but I want to say something.

SSnE is but one author, and his style is his own. It is a turn-off to some, like myself. I really, REALLY tried to get into Background Pony, but past the first few chapters, I couldn't take it. Too wordy for my tastes, taking 3 paragraphs to say what he could say in one. But like I said, that's just his style. His plots are great, and he really gets characters. For me, whenever I read his stories, I can't help but pull a Holy Grail:
GET ON WITH IT!!!

Anywho, some like Purple Prose, and if done right, it is quite effective. It's one of those "situational dependent" things. If it works for a story, they'd probably accept it.

I assume. Don't quote me.

Ever...

>>114510
The best and most pleasant way to learn new words is by reading. If there's a word you don't understand, try to infer its meaning from context, or look it up as a last resort. If you're using Google Chrome, this extension (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mgijmajocgfcbeboacabfgobmjgjcoja) will give you definitions for words just by double-clicking them. Don't be so self-defeating!

>>114515
Double-clicking on every two or three words, reading the definition, re-reading the sentence to be sure to understand, etc. takes so much time if I should do it in a ssae story :/ But thanks for the add-on!

Yeah, it's the most pleasant way to learn, but when you have to do it every three words... Takes a lot of time and you don't even appreciate the story.


>>114512
>the pre-readers really aren't in a position to say that he ought to dumb down his writing for the sake of non-native speakers. That's just silly.

Quote from mine:
>I understand that a good story, which doesn't contain gore nor r34, should be on EQD, whatever the prose is.

I hope ssae stories "totally worth it", considering the fact that you've to read purple prose. I guess that's the case ^^

Hey, do you know what is the maximal resolution the cover image can take? Because I've found a few of them that are kinda good, but they've a resolution of 500(widht)x1500(height), or alike.

I've had a story in the queue for two days; is it more likely that the queue is particularly long or that my fic is particularly dry?