The Lavender Question:
Twilight knows there is nothing better than having someone recommend your story. However, when you recommend something, you're doing it for the person that you are recommending to rather than the author you are recommending. Before we can recommend something, we ask ourselves:

Is this story respectful of the time of a general audience?

To answer the question, we consider whether the story is:

Correctly Submitted
Failure to follow submission guidelines will get your story auto-rejected without a reading. Admins have limited time, so we need your help to keep things running smoothly.

- To submit your story, put it in the proper incoming folder based on word count. Read incoming folder descriptions for details.
- Unless your submission is labeled as self-contained, all stories it is based on (i.e. prequels) must be in the library before we can review it. Please submit stories in the order a reader should read them.
- Incomplete stories can be submitted, provided the plot has gotten beyond the inciting incident. We reserve the right to ask for more of a story to be written before delivering the final verdict.
- Resubmissions with nothing changed will be rejected outright. If we quote a section of your story in a rejection, it should not look the same the second time.
- Spamming the incoming folder will result in all your submissions being rejected for this opening. Incoming folder space is limited, and so we set a limit on the number of stories a user can submit each opening. Check the relevant opening announcement post for the current opening's caps.

Also, note there are certain types of stories that we do not review at this time:
- Canceled or on hiatus stories. Note that we consider incomplete stories that have not been updated within 6 months of submission to be on hiatus.
- Short story collections. Note that site rules forbid breaking individual chapters out into their own stories.
- Poetry. However, stories written in verse (i.e. the Iliad, ballads) may be submitted

Presentable
The spelling, grammar, and formatting should not distract from the story itself. A reader wants to read a story, not to decode a story.

- The story should be free of consistent spelling/grammar errors.
- Typos should be sparse or non-existent.
- Wording should be clear and concise.
- Formatting should be consistent and eye-friendly.
- The story description should be error-free.

If a story is hard to read or has a distracting amount of typos, expect to be told to clean it up before we can accept it.

Accessible
A reader should be able to understand what is going on.

- The story should give the reader enough context to follow the action and characters.
- Sufficient description should be present to establish the setting and characters.
- Canon characters should be in character unless reasonable explanation is given.
- The story should be internally consistent.
- Crossovers and AU side stories should be sufficiently self-contained to be followed without familiarity with non-MLP source material. For our purposes, "MLP source material" consists of all episodes of MLP:FiM and all EqG movies. Stories based on the comics or book series should not require the reader be familiar with any elements unique to those sources to understand what is going on.

So long as a story is not a sequel, anyone familiar with only MLP:FiM and EqG should be able to follow the story as is without outside information.

Engaging
A story should grab the reader's attention and be enjoyable to read.

- The story should establish its premise and appeal reasonably quickly.
- The conflict, if present, should be both significant and challenging to the characters.
- Should conflict be intentionally absent, the focus of the story must be strong and coherent enough to hold the reader's interest.
- Pacing should give the action enough time to sink in while not dragging events on past their welcome.
- Recap of the events of the canon show should be kept to a minimum.
- The story should contain little to no filler.

In general, an admin should not feel bored while reading.

Unique
A story should have something that sets it apart from the rest of its genre. The more prevalent a genre is, the more we will scrutinize it.

- Clop: Twilight's Library does not approve clop. We approve stories containing clop. We need something more than titillation: clop that has a good plot (not that kind of plot), good characterization, is well written, is funny, or makes us go Daaaw. And while you're at it, make sure you research how anatomy works.
- HiE: check a list of the standard cliches. The more boxes you check, the harder the sell.
- Romance should be flavored by the unique personalities of its couple and their circumstances. Public Displays of Affection (kissing, snuggling, exc), the use of "marefriend" by the narrator, and an "I love you" on their own are not enough to give a relationship meaningful content. Give us some chemistry.
- Sad should show characters dealing reasonably with believable circumstances that happen to be sad. To write to tug at the reader's heartstrings without considering the characters is not sad. It's forced.
- Comedy should be fresh and followable. Random for the sake of random is not funny. Pop cultural references are a dime a dozen.

We understand that technically everything has been done before, but that does not mean your story can paint by the numbers.

Tasteful
Stories must be respectful to the sensibilities of a general reader as well as the subject matter they are covering.

- General gratuity will be subject to a closer look. Though niche topics such as your super-special awesome OC, hyper-detailed weapons, or padded ponies may appeal to some, stories still need enough substance to entertain a non-enthusiast . Niche elements should not take the focus from the underlying story or be present in such a way that they become discomforting.
- Clop between an adult and an underage pony will not be accepted. Rape will not be accepted unless it is actually sympathetic to the victim, and is actually handled as the traumatic, life-altering event it is. Incest typically has enough of a squick factor to get a story rejected as well.
- Stories that are mean spirited towards their subject matter, especially when they pertain to real people or their OCs, will not be accepted.
- Sensitive issues should be treated in a fair and respectful manner to all parties involved.
- Gratuitous gore is right out.

Functional

Sometimes an admin might find an element not listed above that still takes them out of the story. If this happens, they may reject with an explanation of what problem they found and why it prevented them from enjoying the story.

Alternatively, a story may have a few problems listed above but through stylized execution or some other circumstance ends up working anyway. In this case, admins have the discretion to approve a story that is highly enjoyable despite its flaws.

If you have questions about the submission process, please check out the group front page, which contains the full process. Should you have questions about your story's rejection, please contact the admin who posted the rejection via PM. General questions about the group should be PMed to Twilight's Automaton. If you have any other questions or concerns about these standards, feel free to post below and we'll do our best to answer your questions.

3453682 Looks like my stories making it in are out of the question.
From what I can tell, getting in must indicate that the story is of a high quality, so I'll be sure to look out for stories that get accepted here in the future. Though, hypothetically speaking, if I were to submit a story and it is rejected, what kinds of advice do you give for problems with the story, aside from the obvious grammar mistakes? Any examples of how it works?

3453725

If a story is rejected, an explanation gets posted in this thread.

3453742 Oops. I must have missed that.
Thanks for pointing it out.

3453725
A rejection post must explain what it was that ultimately lead the admin to reject the story. Due to time restrictions, they are not obligated to give specific suggestions, but we try to do so anyway. And, of course, should you have questions, you can always PM the rejecting admin to request additional information.

3453682 I like these. I like them a lot.

I like you too.

3453892

Yeah, I'm good with them too. It's a lot more cohesive, well organised, and easy to read than mine were, but is still pretty much what the standards were, just better defined and tweaked.

--arcum42

3453682 Not bad, not bad. It could be a very good adjustment.

3453892
B-baka... *blush*

3454446

3453682
The Adrenalatic One approves of this post.

3453682

Starting with the assumption that the pair is an item without explanation leaves the reader out of the loop.

Could you elaborate on this one?

I was planning to submit a story that mentions two characters are dating in the long description and taking it from there. The story is sparse on details of how exactly they hooked up, only that they haven't been dating that long. Is this reason enough for rejection?

3454680

The story is sparse on details of how exactly they hooked up, only that they haven't been dating that long.

You're misunderstanding this... You aren't required to write 150k word background story about how characters met to justify ~1k of fluff.

Show us that the characters are a couple through their interactions or something like that.

But of course; there isn't an universal answer to this, since different authors handle this differently. We still prefer to deal on individual basis rather than generalize things...

~Twi

3454680
After everything that has been said so far it seems to me that if the characters truly act as though they're in love, you'll be fine, but if they are just two ponies that call each other 'marefriend' and happen to snog every few minutes, you're in trouble.

3454707
Thanks.

3453682

- Crossovers and AU side stories should be sufficiently self-contained to be followed without reading non-MLP canon source material.

You used my suggestion.

3454680
Mostly what everyone else said, but I agree I could be clearer on that point. I'll see if I can polish it up a bit.

3454865
Indeed

3453682 Excuse me, but there's a story I'd like to submit in the (currently-locked, my timing sucks... >.>) Incoming folder. Having read the standards a few times, I am skeptical about doing so, however. Should I have an admin look at it prior to the folder being unlocked or something, or must I wait and twiddle my thumbs and update the story? I said the last bit because it's an ongoing, incomplete work, and also happens to be a re-write of an earlier trainwreck I did.

3527289
The point of the incoming folder is to have admins look over a story for quality. If you believe you have done everything in your power to make your story meet our standards, then by all means keep an eye out on this forum for "folder opening" announcements and toss your story in the proper folder when it opens. Admins do not pre-screen stories before they are submitted. That would be redundant with what we do already.

If you feel your story is not up to standards but have a goal of getting it in, you may wish to get an editor or pre-reader to double check your work.

3527303 Ah. Alright, I can manage that. Fixing the mistakes of a previous trainwreck sure ain't easy, but it is worth it. I read your Seven Deadly Fics blog, and I quite liked it. I'll keep it bookmarked for future reference.

Incoming folder space is limited, so there is a maximum of 2 submissions to the complete under 20k/incomplete under 10k folder and 1 submission to the complete over 20k/incomplete over 10k folder per person per incoming folder opening. Please respect your fellow authors by leaving room for everyone to have their stories looked at.

Since the incoming folders fill up pretty quickly (I understand it has been even quicker in the past, but still about 50 times faster than they can be evaluated, as of last opening), I wonder how it's a good idea to allow multiple submissions at all. If it was limited to "one story per submitter, period", wouldn't that give more authors a chance to put their best foot forward?

This would obviously be good for the authors who would otherwise not make the submission cut-off. But it would also be good for the Library itself, because -- all else being equal -- the top efforts of 60 submitters is likely to be of higher overall quality than the top two of each of 30 submitters.

3695169

The issue here is that it's kind of hard to say "sorry everyone but you can only submit one thing". It'll be aggravating to try to pick one item to submit. There is always the off chance that same submitter won't make it to the next opening and will have to wait even longer to submit something else. Also a good majority of what get's submitted isn't even from the authors of stories, it's sometimes just random people. Sure there may be a level of fairness involved in limited submits even further, I've been here long enough to remember when there was no limit and a few people could fill up the folder so fast (course back then we also didn't close it ). You make a fair point but, I'm gonna be honest, getting anything submitted into the incoming has really come down to luck. You usually just have to be lucky enough to catch it on a day when it's open. Back when we were a smaller group this problem never occurred. Now, though, we are one of the biggest groups on the site (which could be seen as both a burden and a blessing). Also, it would be pretty easy to get around a one submission rule if you use multiple accounts.

Though you may have a valid argument, I don't see us changing the system anytime soon. It works and has been working for quite some time now.

3707812
Yes, it is mostly down to luck. That's why I think the system ought to try to spread that luck to as many people as possible.

In utilitarian terms, the incremental happiness someone will gain from being able to submit 2 stories rather than 1 seems to be rather less than the happiness someone else could get from being able to submit 1 story rather than 0.

Giving twice as many the opportunity to submit would not double the total happiness, because, as you say, it would be a burden for the first submitters to select only one thing to submit. But still, it is virtually certain to increase total happiness -- what about how aggravating it is for someone who doesn't get to submit at all?

3708091
This is really the wrong way of looking at it. The goal of Twilight's Library, after all, is not to make authors happy, but to serve as a sort of stamp of approval of stories of some minimal level of quality. It is meant to help the audience decide whether or not to read a story.

Is having only one story submitted per person likely to result in a higher hit rate? Or are people who submit two stories every time likely to submit good stories every time, and thus make it more likely that the library will be admitting more high-quality stories, rather than handing out rejections?

The latter is much more likely; people who are motivated to pay attention and submit their stories on time are probably better writers on average than those who don't, because they have a greater degree of conscientiousness. Thus, it actually is to the advantage of the library to operate in this manner.

Indeed, I suspect that if you look at submissions, people who submit two things, the odds are very good that either both stories will pass, or both stories will fail.

If you want more stories to be perused, the correct thing to want is to want more contributors who can go through the stories and reduce the turnover time on them.

3709730

The latter is much more likely; people who are motivated to pay attention and submit their stories on time are probably better writers on average than those who don't, because they have a greater degree of conscientiousness. Thus, it actually is to the advantage of the library to operate in this manner.

You say that, but you didn't have to reject "An Epic for Gilgamesh" FOUR times.

There is nothing more infuriating than someone who resubmits a story that was rejected once without changing what was called out the first time.

-Lumino

people who are motivated to pay attention and submit their stories on time are probably better writers on average than those who don't, because they have a greater degree of conscientiousness.

Somehow I can't see submitting frequently and writing quality actually correlating all that well. In fact I suspect a lot of quite good authors don't even bother to try to submit anything at all, because they've gotten to a point where getting publicity by getting into well-regarded groups is no longer much of a priority for them.

3709778
Well, if they don't change it, it should be easy to reject it immediately, should it not?

3709836
Does anyone actually keep track of this stuff? If so we could test the hypothesis.

It is probably true that many of the better writers don't even bother, though this raises the question of whether or not we're incorporating the best stories here. It would be interesting to see how many RCL and Pony Fiction Vault stories aren't in Twilight's Library.

3709836
For me, it would depend on the qualifications. I am interested in seeing if I can revise my one-shot to the point that it would be accepted here (I've actually been putting that off for several months. I need to get on that
!) but I don't know how I would feel about Twilight's Library if I knew that I already far surpassed their qualifications.

If getting a story accepted was no biggie, then I would see little reason to care, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to try for something a little heavier. It's not about the recognition for me, but a means to improve myself using a specific standard.

In that regard, a note to Twilight's Library: Do. Not Fucking. Lower. Your. Standards!

3709919 Well, I wasn't trying to say that I feel these authors know they're so good that everything they write would automatically get in. I certainly don't feel that. I've had several recent pieces that I'd be a bit surprised if they got in here! I still feel that having a piece that qualifies for the library is at least something of an honor.

But I don't sit and wait, eager for the next chance to submit. I feel like I have enough followers, and enough attention for my stories from them, and it's not really fair for me to "steal" a spot from an up-and-coming author who has no followers and who may well be just as good as I am, and deserves the extra attention.

3709928

But I don't sit and wait, eager for the next chance to submit.

I've been procrastinating on revising a one-shot and plan on trying to get it into the library just for the sake of self-improvement, but It's not like I'm hanging on it. I think we are the same in that respect.

I feel like I have enough followers, and enough attention for my stories from them, and it's not really fair for me to "steal" a spot from an up-and-coming author who has no followers and who may well be just as good as I am, and deserves the extra attention.

This is where we differ. I think of myself as in competition with everyone, and will give no quarter. This might change once I publish a bit more than I have, but as for now, I'm only interested in promoting myself. I mean, I'll help other authors, but I'm going to do whatever it is that I can to promote my own work.

3709952 Well, uh, not to brag, but by the time you get as many followers as I have, you may feel differently about it.

3709730

This is really the wrong way of looking at it.

It was the way Mayhem Darkshadow argued, which is what I responded to. I can equally well argue from the audience perspective.

Is having only one story submitted per person likely to result in a higher hit rate?

Yes, definitely. It is obvious that a randomly chosen submitter's second choice is NOT statistically likely to be better than another randomly chosen submitter's first choice. Getting as many first choices as possible into the submission folders cannot but increase overall quality.

Or are people who submit two stories every time likely to submit good stories every time, and thus make it more likely that the library will be admitting more high-quality stories, rather than handing out rejections?

I see no reason at all to assume that. Who gets to submit when the folders are open is a matter of random chance, and to a certain extent who is willing and able to camp out on their F5 key at the right moment in time. I see no reason why the latter quality would be correlated with the ability to recognize and/or produce quality stories.

If you want more stories to be perused, the correct thing to want is to want more contributors who can go through the stories and reduce the turnover time on them.

That is a different discussion. I'm speaking about how to make the most efficient use of the reviewing resources the group has at any given time.

3709954

I very well might. That contest a while back was about the time I actually started communicating with people on this site, and I've been writing most of my work without posting any of it.

My primary goal is to simply improve my writing skill, but becoming popular is a secondary objective. If I were to ever actually achieve that, I'd probably be far more apathetic towards my own self-promotion.

3709960

Yes, definitely. It is obvious that a randomly chosen submitter's second choice is NOT statistically likely to be better than another randomly chosen submitter's first choice. Getting as many first choices as possible into the submission folders cannot but increase overall quality.

Oh no, it can very easily lower quality. You see, most people don't write well enough to get their stories into Twilight's Library. Increasing the overall number of submissions will inevitably result in an increased number of rejections, once you have a sufficiently large population of writers.

Moreover, as I noted, chances are good that someone who submits one story which gets accepted is more likely to have their other submission accepted as well, and the same applies to someone whose story is rejected. While the odds of acceptance/rejection are about 50-50 in the present pool, which would mean you'd expect 25% to have both accepted, 25% to be both rejected, and 50% to have one accepted and one rejected, in reality I'd wager that the vast majority of the time you either see both rejected or both accepted. Why? Well, the cause is that they aren't independent trials - basically, if someone is good enough to write a story which gets accepted, or has good enough taste to submit a story written by someone else which gets accepted, then chances are good that the other story which they submit will be accepted as well. Likewise, if they lack the necessary talent for their best story to make Twilight's Library, then their second-best story is highly unlikely to do so as well - not only is it likely to be worse than their first pick, but they aren't of the calibur necessary (or don't have good enough taste) to get into Twilight's Library.

I will note that of the stories which I myself have submitted, the only story I've had rejected for non-technical reasons was Rainbow Dash Gets An Abortion, which wasn't written by me and is, well, a very controversial story, being black, black comedy (I personally enjoy it, as do some other writers, like bats, but the folks here did not). I've submitted, in addition to my own stories, a number of stories written by other folks, and all of those stories (plus all of my stories) have been accepted, save for the technical rejections on two (one was a poetry collection (which was what lead to questions establishing the "no poetry" rule), the other one was on hiatus). My overall acceptance rate, thus, is somewhere in the realm of 80-90%, depending on whether or not you count the technical rejections or not. That's unlikely to be due to chance, given I've submitted somewhere on the order of 15-20 stories. And because this is iterative, it means that I've gone through stuff and at this point am well down into the double digits of "Nth pick" and yet I'm still picking out good ones (though in all fairness, some of the stories were written after I started submitting stuff here, so it isn't quite so low, and I spent several cycles early on submitting other folks' stories rather than my own).

Thus, you'd expect no better results from people submitting only one story than people submitting two stories, because the people who submit good stories are likely to submit two good stories, while the people who submit bad stories are likely to submit two bad ones. Indeed, you are most likely to see inferior results, because there are fewer good submitters than poor ones in the general population per the 80/20 rule and Sturgeon's Law.

I see no reason at all to assume that. Who gets to submit when the folders are open is a matter of random chance, and to a certain extent who is willing and able to camp out on their F5 key at the right moment in time. I see no reason why the latter quality would be correlated with the ability to recognize and/or produce quality stories.

The window of time has been pretty large - it certainly isn't a matter of seconds, and in the last case, it was more than an hour. In fact, it might have been close to three, if I recall correctly. In any case, it was a pretty generous window of time, and we were given plenty of warning ahead of time that the folders would be opening - it wasn't like they just randomly opened them in the middle of the night.

According to my count, 48 stories in the last go-around were rejected, out of a total of 90 stories. That would mean that the rejection rate was (somewhat north of) 50% (about 53%).

If a larger number of submitters creates a better hit rate for stories, then we would expect that the extremely long window (where they let in 90 entries) would result in a higher hit rate. However, for the previous set of stories, only 49 out of 100 (a 30+30 window, and a separate 40 story window) were rejected, which would be a somewhat lower rejection rate, though the difference is not statistically significant. These are slight overestimates of the rejection rate in both cases, as stories were accepted/rejected during the window of time when the folders were open, which would suggest that the actual rejection rate was somewhat lower as there were slightly more than 90/100 stories submitted each of those times.

The evidence suggests that allowing more authors to submit their stories does not, in fact, result in an improved success rate, and it is also worth noting that keeping the window open for longer also resulted in submissions being closed for over 8 weeks, whereas previously, when they opened it up in a 30+30, and then a subsequent 40, they went through 100 stories in a month - suggesting that leaving it open for a longer period of time resulted in a lower rate of processing, possibly because there was less possibility of quickly clearing out the queue.

One thing I would recommend is that the library avoids doing a super large submission thing like they did last time; it is clear that admitting 90 stories for consideration simultaneously slowed things down a lot more than biting off things in smaller chunks did previously; when there were fewer submissions, the rate of submissions cleared per unit time went up.

3709960
Incidentally, what stories are you hoping to submit, anyway? Both of your stories appear to be clop; are you trying to submit stories written by other folks, or are you an alt of someone and just forgot to switch accounts when you posted here? Or do you have as-yet unposted stories you want to submit?

If you're planning on submitting stories on behalf of others, it might be worth posting recommendations over in the recommendations thread; while I'm not sure if they actually check it very often, it is worth a shot, at least.

3709778

Oh my god I totally forgot about that story

3710025
If A is one randomly chosen submitter's second choice and B is another randomly chosen submitter's first choice, then of course it is possible that A is better than B. But it is not more likely than B being better than A.

The only way "let 30 random people submit two stories each" would give higher overall quality than "let 60 random people submit one story each" is if we assume that F5 campers are inherently better at finding good stories than other prospective submitters. I don't see any reason for such an assumption.

If there's no convincing argument that "some people get to submit one each" will lead to LOWER quality than "half as many people get to submit two each", then I think the utilitarian argument about making more submitters happy ought to govern.

3 hours may be a "pretty large" window to you, but I am pretty sure most FIMfiction users are regularly asleep for longer than that. Many will have jobs or other activities that force them off-line for longer than that, too. There's simply no reasonable basis for assuming that people who're not able to F5 every other hour until the the folders open are innately "less serious" or "less motivated" or less what-have-you about their suggestions -- let alone that they will be worse judges of quality.

Restricting submission privileges to people who are better judges of quality WOULD improve the output, assuming there were a way to do that. But that is something entirely different from restricting it to "the first 30 people to react after the folders open".

3711549
Did you even bother to read my post? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

1) People who submit good things are more likely to submit more good things.

2) People who submit bad things are more likely to submit more bad things.

3) Ergo, the only thing which reducing the number of submissions will do is increase the number of different people submitting stuff.

4) In the general population, there are more bad submitters than good submitters (80/20 rule, Sturgeon's Law, ect.)

5) Ergo, increasing the number of submitters will not increase the quality of submissions, and if it is sufficiently enlarged, is likely to lower quality of submissions.

We have experimental data suggesting that doubling the number of stories allowed to be submitted at one time did not have a positive effect on the hit rate.

The only way "let 30 random people submit two stories each" would give higher overall quality than "let 60 random people submit one story each" is if we assume that F5 campers are inherently better at finding good stories than other prospective submitters. I don't see any reason for such an assumption.

Except, as was pointed out, they announced in advance that they would be opening submissions. This was done days in advance, sometimes weeks in advance. We knew ahead of time. This means that anyone could be here at the appointed hour.

So saying "F5 campers" is just wrong. I knew when submissions would open and I arranged to be awake when they were, and it is pretty easy to just have Twilight's Library set in your feed so when your feed starts getting a bunch of stories added to Twilight's Library (as evinced by your feed rapidly rising up to double digits) you will know that submissions are open without even needing to check the forums beyond knowing that they'll be opening on a certain day around a certain time.

You clearly don't understand utilitarianism, either, otherwise you wouldn't try to invoke it inappropriately. I already pointed out that you were incorrect in your assessment here (you're looking at it the wrong way entirely - Twilight's Library is ultimately a tool for readers, not for writers) and ergo you were looking at it backwards.

If you "respond" to someone else without actually reading their posts, you are wasting their time.

3711852
Your point (5) does not follow from the preceding ones. If the population consist of 20% people who submit only good things and 80% people who only submit bad things, then both strategies -- "select 30 random people and get 2 submissions from each" or "select 60 random people and get 1 submission from each" -- will result in an expected 20% good stories and 80% bad stories.

Thus the worst imaginable outcome from switching to one-story-per-submitter is that nothing changes. On the other hand, it is entirely imaginable that it will lead to higher story quality, if your assumption that everyone who has one good story to submit also has two happens to be wrong.

3712372
3711852

ENOUGH!

Your pointless bickering has gone on quite long enough. Take it to PMs or chew on your gums, because I don't want this topic filled with two people arguing semantics.

-Lumino

3712402
This isn't military, so please refrain of yelling at the discussion participants.
The discussion got out of hooves, yes, but there are better ways to deal with situation like this. For instance, asking participants nicely to take discussion to their PM's.

Not even in Rage Reviews mods are going that far.

If you need to play a "bad guy", please do so somewhere else.
~Twi

3453682
Relevant question: are short story collections allowed as submissions? That is to say, if someone had written a collection of, say, three short stories, could those be submitted? What about ongoing collections of short stories, where a writer continually adds new short stories to the collection over time?

3742162
Anthologies are rather difficult to judge in our current format. This is especially true of collections in which the stories bear little to no relation to each other. Our standards are built around judging singular front to back continuous plots. While in theory we could apply said standards to each story in an anthology in turn, we are still left with the problem of how to give the entire thing an up or down. You cannot add individual chapters to groups, after all, and quality can vary widely between each piece.

In short, I can raise the question in the staff forum, but I doubt we will have an answer for you before folders open tomorrow.

In the meantime, I would pose a few questions of my own: should an author wish to submit a set of unconnected stories with an unknown variance in quality, what would they expect out of the judging process? What would a ribbon on such a collection signify? More bad than good? One standout story carrying several mediocre ones? Conversely, if you were a reader searching for collections to peruse, what would you expect from a story collection with our ribbon?

And then, of course, there are the pragmatics to consider. Should an admin deem a collection not suited for the library, what kind of rejection statement could balance both the admin's limited time vs the author's desire to know how their collection might be improved if the disjoint between stories renders blanket statements difficult? Is it fair to allow an author to chuck 10-20 of their own short stories into the folder at once by virtue of packaging when everyone else must go two by two?

Again, I do not recall any definitive answer ever being decided on, but there is enough potential trouble there for me to suggest holding off submitting anthologies until we can give the matter a proper official look and figure out how to do it properly if at all. My gut tells me that it is going to be similar to our poetry verdict: ipso facto, the library is simply not set up in such a way to handle them gracefully. However, we will ultimately have to see what everyone else has to say to know for sure.

3742162 3742422
If I may make a suggestion; any anthology chapter that the author is particularly proud of or is especially liked by the readers could be republished as a oneshot. Unless of course there's a related site rule I don't know about.

3742583
While that would certainly make things cleaner on our end, I cannot help but wonder if that that would go against the site's "don't repost old stuff as a new story" rule. I know it is generally relaxed for significant rewrites, but this would be more of a repackaging, which would be much harder to justify to a site mod.

EDIT: Yea, no go. From the faq's story rules:

Things not to post:
...
-The same story twice.
-Rewrites of an old story posted as a new story. You are free to edit your existing story, but you may not post it as a new submission.
-Multiple chapters of stories as separate stories.

3742606 Figures

Never bothered to read the rules for authors because I can never muster the motivation to actually write something. (despite having truckloads of ideas)

3742606
3742583
The other issue is that, frequently, said collections contain stories which are there precisely because they cannot be submitted as their own thing, primarily for being too short, which is precisely why they're in said collections in the first place in many cases.

Anyway, makes sense. I was mostly asking for future reference and as something which needs to be discussed.

One thing that might be worth keeping in mind is whether or not the collection is "complete" or not - a complete collection is likely easier to judge than something which just gets random stories thrown into it continuously. But on the other hand, something which continuously gets added to is not worse by its nature.

I don't really know if I hold the answer, though; there are some such collections which are full of excellent stories, and I have a couple myself, which is why I was asking.

3453682

- Gratuitous gore is right out.

Er, define? Because what if a story has gore in it because of a few reasons like an injury or a war story.
Or if it's a crossover where gore is prevalent in the crossover material?

Is it so long as the gore is needed or the norm in the setting, then it's allowed in? Because I've read some pretty gory stuff but did not distract from the story because it only gave the gore in short bursts despite its brutality.