2001: A Pony Odyssey · 5:02am Dec 8th, 2015
No, I'm not announcing the upcoming publication of an Arthur C. Clarke crossover. Though I do have 4 stories ready to publish. I'm just waiting for the fandom to get all the season finale fics out of its system before I put them up.
Last October, I posted a blog entry to discuss some goings-on at Equestria Daily and celebrate my thousandth story verdict. And today marks number two thousand one. Some thoughts after the break.
First, the current statistics:
2001 total verdicts
35 sent to the sun (permanently rejected, mostly for violations of content guidelines that are too inherent to the story to remove).
1763 sent to the moon (regular rejections where the author is free to revise and resubmit)
93 sent to Mars (still a rejection, but a signal to the author that he's very close and to the reviewers that they only need a spot-check)
110 approved for posting
Most of those, particularly the number posted, are very close to the rates I had 1,000 stories ago, so at least I'm consistent. A few things to note about those statistics, though: That isn't 2,001 total stories. Many of those posted stories were sent to Mars or the moon, many stories have been mooned multiple times... hell, there was one story I sent to Mars five times before I could get the author to tune up a particular aspect of the writing. So those represent well under 2,001 stories, probably closer to 1,700. For another thing, I'm the one who sweeps the queue for a lot of the easy rejections. It helps keep the length of the queue down, which is good for morale, it's expedient, since I'm one of the few who will do multiple stories a day, and it leaves more quality stories for the other pre-readers to enjoy. So just by the nature of my function, I'm going to be skewed toward moon verdicts. The total statistics for the entire blog aren't that extreme.
So what's changed over the years? We used to try to give feedback on every story submitted, at least a little, but that's really trying to do two jobs at once, since there's no direct benefit that brings to the blog. Yes, it would tend to bring up the quality of writing in the fandom by some incremental amount, but there are other places dedicated toward providing help to authors, so it's more efficient to let them do what they do best. It also has the side benefit of putting the onus on writers to seek help on their own, since by offering unsolicited feedback, we were wasting an awful lot of time writing up comments that authors never used. If they're the ones actively seeking help, they're more likely to use it.
The queue quickly shot up to 170 stories, and there was a lot of internal grousing about workload. I was always one of the proponents for more feedback, but it was an untenable position against that kind of backlog, so even I embraced the switch to a yes/no system, though we do allow feedback at the pre-reader's discretion, which I frequently take advantage of. If there's one thing I've really valued during my time in this fandom, it's been helping authors through /fic/, WRITE, Equestria Daily, or private reviews, and I try to keep that up as much as possible.
These days, our queue usually sits between 20 and 30 stories, so I'm getting back into giving at least a little feedback to as many stories as I can, since I'm not so overwhelmed by sheer numbers anymore. It's not a flashy job, but I've enjoyed seeing a lot of stories really shine because I could assist with putting that polish on them.
One other thing that came up recently: Apparently, a number of people have suggested a lower tier of story acceptance. The ones that clear our normal quality check would get solo posts as usual, and ones that made it over some lower threshold would get added to a periodic compilation post, so they'd get less exposure but could still get featured.
I find this very problematic. It's easy to say that we want a story to show skill in every aspect of a story, but to define a lower tier, it's going to be even more subjective. How much poor grammar does good characterization redeem? How big a plot inconsistency is tolerable? That's adding a judgment call on top of a judgment call, and I think it would be exceedingly difficult to maintain a regular standard over all the pre-readers. I mean, I understand authors' desire to get featured, but it'd be a really uneven standard.
Furthermore, I think it'd actually result in fewer quality stories. It's no secret that very few posted stories got accepted on their first try. Most take at least a little touch-up, if not some serious revision. But if all those authors were told instead that we could take their stories as is, or if they wanted to put in more work, they'd have a chance at a solo post, how many would choose the latter option? Not all, to be sure, and if any of the ones we eventually featured had made that choice, it would have cost us one of our better stories, and I think that's a bad thing. On the other hand, the lower bar may encourage more people to submit, and a few of those may go for the next level when told their stories show a lot of promise. Would that be enough of an offset to create a net positive? I doubt it, but it's possible.
So, what do you think? It's an interesting concept, but I believe it would be difficult to implement and possibly counterproductive.
The movie is better anyway.
3601759
You mean you didn't enjoy reading through Clarke's self-congratulatory appendices in the sequels?
3601762 Heavens, that sounds like the most taxing exercise. Kubrick is far superior.
To just about everyone.
The only filmmaker more insane than he was is Werner Herzog.
I think it is a bad idea. The more quality control you do, the more valuable your recommendations become.
Stuff that isn't good enough shouldn't be being featured.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on the lower tier thing.
And thanks for all your work over the years, Pasc. Appreciate it. God knows how many of my fics you've helped with.
The amount of exposure these stories get would be close to none. It'd be similar to the Fallout: Equestria and Conversion Bureau compilation posts which serve more as a mortuary than a spotlight.
Who is going to want to read the lower-tier stories?
Aside from that, I can't see too many people being happy with their stories thrown into the second rate pile, so you're not even appeasing them.
I can't think of a single party that benefits from such a system.
3601797
I tend to agree, but the story updates posts do get more attention that the FoE ones, and I think a lower-tier one would as well, since it's still peer-reviewed, just at a lower level. As to who's asking for it, I don't exactly know, just that it's come up. I'm not sure whether the people asking are predominantly readers or authors.
In any case, I still think it's a bad idea to implement.
See those old queue numbers make me feel bad for cavalier submissions on a whim that I used to do like every month or two for awhile.
3601817 Part of what helped is the rule that an author can only have one story in the queue at a time. I don't blame authors for taking advantage of that. I did, too. I'd often have two in there, sometimes three. But it got out of hand when an author submitted twelve on the same day. Thus the rule was born.
I can't see how lowering the threshold of acceptance standards by any amount could possibly benefit anyone. Being featured on EqD would mean even less than it tends to these days (I only mean compared to 3-4 years ago of course—being featured is still valuable to any writer). Besides, where's peoples' sense of accomplishment if they're being told "good enough" when you honestly believe their work could be much better? Where's their drive to improve?
As Roger said, this would please nobody, least of all those few writers who have put forth a tremendous effort over the years to have multiple stories featured on the site.
Given you're lucky to get a thousand views from EQD anymore, I can't imagine a "Story of the Day" post would only fractionalize that. I more or less agree with Roger, it wouldn't benefit anyone.
I know that EQD's standards for fics are high, but never I would have reckoned with such a gigantic number of rejections.
That was me. I answered to one of Seth's comments, as I discovered the post too late so that he would still see my suggestions, and he answered that he's thinking about making compilation posts for medium-quality stories to give these authors a chance too.
I understand that it would be more work for the pre-readers to set new standards, but I'm also sure you are able to do that with all your pre-reading and, for some, own writing experience that you aquired over the years.
Here are two examples of stories that were rejected by EQD, despite that they are incredibly good already, and that could be in such compilation posts, for orientation:
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/182092/night-mares
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/146025/ill-always-be-here-for-you
For both stories, it left me speechless when I heard they were rejected. It was when I realized that the standards are way too high and should be lowered, to give more authors a chance and for EQD being able to offer more stories.
Accepting medium-quality stories in a special compilation would have lots of benefits for everyone; EQD could offer more content, the authors could get exposition more easily, authors would get more encouraged to write because they have better chances to get known (and this could have a serious, positive impact on how many fics get written here on FIMFiction.net) and on top of that, it still lets the current general system intact as still only the absolute best stories get the single posts and appear in the chapter update posts.
Coming back to the two stories I linked, especially the rejection reason for the second one troubles me, as it's as subjective as it can get and really sounds like the pre-reader was more advicing her to what he would like to read in the story, instead of referring to objective quality standards:
The Abyss was told that her villains in the story need a motive to get her story on Equestria Daily. And here's why this is subjective:
Villains with motives might provide for a deeper story because the motives make the characters deeper, but on the other hoof, villains without motives who are just cruel and enjoy it to see others suffer (or whose motives are intentionally left in the dark) pose a bigger threat and seem more dangerous, because the missing motive makes them unpredictable and also seem quite insane, which gives the story a lot more thrill and suspense and the occasional shudder of fear when those villains do their evil deeds again.
Deep storytelling with villains who have motives or more thrilling storytelling with villains without any apparent motives?
It's a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong in this question, some may like the former kind of stories more, others the latter kind of stories.
And it was The Abyss' decision to write her villains more like the latter, which means, whoever the pre-reader who told her to give her villains a motive was, he made her change the story so that it suits his needs and taste. This was not okay.
Which brings me to the second problem I have with the way of the pre-readers work:
Pre-readers of a site that claims to only accept the very best stories for features should make their decisions by objective standards, not subjective feelings.
Apparently, some pre-readers on EQD have the habit to make the authors change their stories for them, so that they can like them, rather than for maintaining a high-quality standard for the featured stories, which I would call an abuse of power.
This is not right.
3602152 I explained in the blog post why my rejection rate is higher than most other pre-readers. On the whole, I think we post about 1 out of every 6 submissions.
What you're saying about acceptance standards is a common argument, but really, what you're asking is impossible. Think about it. I'll turn the question back on you: if you think there need to be objective standards for writing, then by all means, try to define a set of them.
There are 4 main aspects I look at for a story. The first is mechanics. That's fairly objective. Either a comma is used right or it's not. But how many mistakes are okay? It's not so easy now. Do you allow 10 per page? Why not 11? Why is one amount good and suddenly one more is bad? The next person I ask would give a different number than you. Who's right?
The second is characterization. I don't think anyone can write objective guidelines on what makes for good characterization. There are best practices out there, but still, you have to judge each one on a case-by-case basis.
The third is style, and it works much like mechanics. There are things that are accepted as traits of good writing, and you can see whether those are present in a story, but the same argument comes up: how many slips are okay? Three per page?
The fourth is plot. It's easier to be objective there, because all you're really looking for is that the plot doesn't contradict itself or have faults in its logic.
It's also a common accusation that we reject stories because we don't like them. What's your evidence for this? I don't think you have any, because it's not true. I've certainly approved stories I didn't like. If it meets my standards for quality, I don't care if I like it.
For the two examples you cited, I peeked through our records to see why they were rejected. I didn't see the one for "I'll Always be Here for You." I did find the one for "Night Mares." It was pretty quickly apparent that it needed some editing help. The verb tense wavered back and forth between past and present, there were consistent problems with capitalization in dialogue, the perspective was unsteady, and a lot of the early dialogue in the prologue was flatly expository. I just had a look at some of the newer chapters, and they appear to improve. If the author wants to get a little editing help and try to work in the opening infodump a little more elegantly, he's welcome to resubmit, and he may well get accepted, but that's his business.
Citing specific stories isn't that productive, though. Every story has its fans. I bet there are stories you'd think we'd justifiably rejected that someone else can't believe didn't make it. Who's right? For every story we reject, someone thought it should have been posted. For every story we do post, someone thought it wasn't very good. You can't please everyone.
3604227
I don't know why you're asking so many questions here and what is so hard to understand about "lowering the standards".
How many comma mistakes do you allow currently for the story to get featured? Ten perhaps? Double it and bring the standard for the story being placed in a medium-quality compilation post up to twenty.
That's really an easy thing to do and all that "lowering the standards" is. I don't see the problem here.
Letting OCs aside (whose characterization is entirely dependent on the author anyway, as they are freshly created for a story), the characterization of a specific pony has to be oriented on the personality the pony already has, which we see in the show.
Changes to that personality need an explanation in the story:
A tragic story in which Scootaloo suddenly starts to hate Rainbow Dash and rejects her completely (kinda similar to what you wrote in "He Kindly Stopped For Me")? Needs an explanation to work. Why did this happen? What has Rainbow Dash done to her? What could possibly be so bad that Scootaloo would give up her admiration and idolizing of Rainbow Dash?
And why would Rainbow Dash act like this and do something to her that earns her Scootaloo's hate? That needs an explanation to work too.
That's fairly objective, don't you think?
I actually ask myself why I even have to give you this explanation. Shouldn't you know this, as excellent author yourself (who is by the way much better than me) and as one of the pre-readers?
I'll be honest, I have a hard time believing that you don't understand what I just explained.
And it's the same like what I said about mechanics:
How many slips in style do you allow now? Five per page, perhaps? Well, increase the number of allowed slips to ten per page and lower the standard that way!
Again, what is so hard about simply being less strict?
Did you just flat-out ask me what my evidence for this is when I clearly presented it in my first comment?
A pre-reader (not necessarily you, but one of them did it) rejected a perfectly good and, at the same time, completely subjective idea over which only the author herself has a right to decide if it's done one way or the other, because personally, he liked the other way more and thought the way the author went for is inferior and therefore didn't like that one.
Are you going to ignore this?
So you're pretending that it isn't there?
It's either that or the pre-reader in question has deleted the rejection reason to cover his flank for manipulating an author's story idea.
I can't say much about the grammar stuff (and wouldn't have the time to give the chapters a thorough check on that anyway), however, about the exposition:
That's the same kind of example I used for "I'll Always Be Here For You". There is no right or wrong in regards to exposition. Especially not if we talk about a story that has just started and explains stuff in the prologue to set everything up.
Could he have delved more into it how the war started, how Applebloom, Scootaloo and Sweetie Belle got drafted and how they got their body alterations, to make it more "elegant"? Certainly, but he didn't, and instead, it was his choice to give a quicker overview of what happened in Equestria to give the readers enough info what's going on before getting right to the action where he wanted to have the story.
The story could be written in both ways, but none of these ways is superior to the other, so, how can any pre-reader say that the way he wrote the prologue is reducing the quality and leading to it that it can't be considered "high-quality"?
Based on the prologue alone, I can't see how this reasoning justifies a rejection. If that would have been the only reason for the rejection (and I'm pretty sure you would still reject it if he would fix the grammar stuff, but leaving the prologue unaltered), then this would again be a situation where the pre-reader who rejected it rather imposed his own taste in regards to stories, than maintaining a high standard of quality.
I think it's funny how you say here that he should get some editors if he wants to get it on EQD, while he already has editors, as the Author's Notes right at the end of the prologue state.
Either his editors suck a lot or you overlooked that.
Well, that's what objective standards are there for, am I right? If people can't decide which rejections were okay and which not, then you need to judge the stories based on those objective standards in order to be able to explain them the reason for why the story was rejected. It generates a problem, however, if some pre-readers confuse a subjective feeling of "I don't like this story development" with an objective analyzis of the story's actual quality. That's judging a story based on the pre-reader's taste, rather than on the quality, which happend with "I'll Always Be Here For You" and, I can safely say that after you gave me the rejection reasons for "Night Mares", with that story as well.
3605417
I'm asking questions because of this:
You seem to have misconstrued nearly everything I said, and you either didn't understand what I was asking or avoided answering it. No, we don't have a set number of mechanical mistakes that will trigger rejection. I was illustrating how it would be ridiculous to do so, but that's how you define an objective system. I was not talking about reducing standards at all, just the difficulty in establishing an objective set of them, and yet you couldn't establish any, either. That's exactly my point.
But then you go on to imply that I must be stupid for obviously not understanding what my own standards are and somehow figure that I'm in on a conspiracy to misrepresent or cover up prior rejections because I didn't spot the response to it on a cursory glance through thousands of email messages.
You know what? I'm done. I was prepared to discuss each point you made, but when you're coming into it with the presumption that I'm wrong, dishonest, and don't know what I'm talking about, I don't see a reason to pursue it.
3609391
But you have a method to determine which stories make it on EQD and which aren't, don't you? I mean, you surely don't just go by your gut feelings, right?
I don't know what your exact methods are, but again, if you can be strict with the fanfictions that are sent in to EQD, then you can also be less strict. That's ALWAYS possible.
I answered everyone of your arguments with counter arguments.
So, by implication, you say that I'm in the wrong when I say that fanfictions on Equestria Daily get rather judged according to their own taste than the actual quality by some pre-readers, that some pre-readers intentionally give the authors advice that will make them rewrite the story in a way so that it's to their liking and that those pre-readers have absolutely no problems with basically dictating an author what to write in exchange for a feature and that even despite I brought up a piece of evidence that proofs that this happened?
So, why do you not address my points then? And why do you not explain where I didn't understand what you were asking?
If you don't do that, you seem to avoid answering them because you know that there is a grain of truth in what I'm saying and cause you simply don't know what to answer on that without admitting that things like this happened with the pre-readers.
By just not answering to these points I made, you make it even more look like I'm right with my "presumptions".
And where did I say that you don't know what you're talking about? I said the exact opposite, in fact:
And where did I call you "dishonest"? I said that the fault for you not finding it could also be with another pre-reader than you:
And if I understood this right, it wasn't even you who rejected "I'll Always Be Here For You" with that faulty reasoning, right?
Thanks for all your hard work! You've definitely helped me improve, and I know I'm not the only one.
I agree with you completely on quality standards; having two tiers degrades everthing and everyone involved.