Story code/search wish list

[Switch Blayde]

I copied the following from another thread:
 
> while I'd sometimes like to see "or" and "not" code
> options - "mF or mf" and "anal not gay" come to mind - most of the
> problems I have are stories that deserve a code but don't have it.
> Things like "post-apoc" and "time-tr" come to mind. Maybe there should
> be an "unofficial codes" mechanism, so users can tag them.
 
Since Lazeez reads what we say in this group, I thought it would be a good way to share our thoughts with him on SOL's story codes and search engine.
 
I second Dem Gnomes' desire for having "or" and "not" options in the search engine. I guess the "Category Exclusion Preference" addresses the "not", but I'd sure like to see the ability to have an "or" added. If I had my druthers, and if I could only have one, I think I would prefer it to be "or" rather than the current "and". For example, I may code an incest story with "incest" to warn or attract people, but not include the code for the specific type of incest (e.g, "mother", "daughter", etc.) because I don't want to give away the plot or there are two many (maybe there should be a "mult" added like we have in the "age/gender" category). So if someone searched on "incest" and "mother" they wouldn't find one of my stories that contained that if it was coded "incest" but not "mother". If the search used an "or" it would be found. However, to have both options would be better -- the "and" needed to fine tune searches. To implement the "or" capability, maybe we can have two check-boxes next to each code (one being "and" and the other "or"). Of course the search engine would have to change to use it.
 
I don't agree with the suggestion to have an "'Unofficial codes' mechanism so users can tag them." One of the strengths of SOL's search is the standardization of the codes. If you allow authors to create their own codes (which will allow them to create their own versions of existing standardized codes), what will the reader have to search on with any consistency?
 
As to the codes themselves, Dem Gnomes suggested the addition of "post-apoc" and "time-tr".  Someone else in the other thread suggested "teen" (actually he thought there used to be a "teen" code).
 
And then there are the codes we believe are confusing or don't agree with. For example, "college" was mentioned in the other thread as referring to both college and high school. I believe this to be wrong and there should either be two codes ("college" and "high school") or the "college" code should be changed to "school". And personally, I don't think the "2nd POV" code should exist. The main reason being I haven't found a single story coded as "2nd POV" that was actually written in second point. So what good does it do to have the code?
 
So what else would you like to tell Lazeez about SOL's story codes and search engine?
 
In this post, the following were mentioned:
 
1) "and", "or", and "not" capabilities.
2) new codes such as "teen", "post-apoc", and "time-tr"
3) confusing codes such as "college".
4) unnecessary codes such as "2nd POV".
 
Switch

---

Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> because I don't want to give away the plot or there are two many

Is this one of those weird numbering systems that goes "one, two,
many?"

> To implement the "or" capability, maybe we can have two
> check-boxes next to each code (one being "and" and the
> other "or"). Of course the search engine would have to
> change to use it.

There's really not any point in doing so. If the codes were gonna be
messed with, there are better things that could be done. Searching on
two single codes independently will do the job being requested.

> I don't agree with the suggestion to have an "'Unofficial codes'
> mechanism so users can tag them." One of the strengths of
> SOL's search is the standardization of the codes. If you allow
> authors to create their own codes (which will allow them to create
> their own versions of existing standardized codes), what will the
> reader have to search on with any consistency?

I don't believe this is what was meant, but rather that readers could
flag the missing codes that were applicable for a story.

> As to the codes themselves, Dem Gnomes suggested the
> addition of "post-apoc" and "time-tr".  Someone else in the
> other thread suggested "teen" (actually he thought there
> used to be a "teen" code).

Post-Apoc and Time Travel codes exist. Stories that were written
before Laz added the codes don't usually have the codes on them,
though.

[Switch Blayde]

The Black Knight allegedly wrote:

> Is this one of those weird numbering systems that goes "one, two, many?"
 

It's the same as "Mult" in the "Age/Gender" category. If you think that's weird, speak to Lazeez.

> Searching on two single codes independently will do the job being requested.
 

Too many combinations. The "or", especially with an "or/and" combination, will be much more effective.
 
As I said in the subject, it's a wish list -- food for thought.
 
Switch

 
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:52:19 -0700
> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list
> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

---

Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out.

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> It's the same as "Mult" in the "Age/Gender" category. If you think
> that's weird, speak to Lazeez.

Actually, I wasn't clear... does "two many" in such a system represent
some number at least equal to six (two times 'many') or at least equal
to
nine (adding 'many' to the previous answer)?

> Too many combinations. The "or", especially with an "or/and"
> combination, will be much more effective.

Again, I don't see the reason. The category search function is really
more useful as a directed random story suggestion tool. Maybe if y'all
remember the codes for a story, but can't remember anything else about
it, it could help finding the story, but seldom do stories actually
have all their applicable codes marked...

But the point is, if trying to find stories using the category search
is a problem, it's because y'all don't understand it.

> As I said in the subject, it's a wish list -- food for thought.

Yeah, but the point is that Laz has limits on his time, so it's
counter-productive to request pointless changes. 'or' functionality on
the search is pointless... it can be done by simply leaving off the
optional term.

[Switch Blayde]

The Black Knight allegedly wrote:
 

> so it's counter-productive to request pointless changes. 'or' functionality on
> the search is pointless... it can be done by simply leaving off the
> optional term.

Obviously we disagree. I believe adding "or" is not pointless and would make for a much more directed search. The way you use the Category Search (for random story selection) isn't the way *everyone* uses it. I use the story codes primarily to find stories.
 
Did you ever wonder why Google has both "and" and "or" options in its search? It makes the search more robust.
 
So at least two of us in this group believe having "or" and "and" capabilities in the search engine would be helpful. So as of now, it's two for it and one against it.
 
As to your "many" comments "to make it clearer," satirical comments don't deserve a reply.
 
Switch

 
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:14:10 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list
> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com
>
>

---

Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. Check it out.

[Dem Gnomes]

The Black Knight wrote:

> Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:

> > To implement the "or" capability, maybe we can have two
> > check-boxes next to each code (one being "and" and the
> > other "or"). Of course the search engine would have to
> > change to use it.
>
> There's really not any point in doing so. If the codes were gonna be
> messed with, there are better things that could be done. Searching on
> two single codes independently will do the job being requested.

BK, I think maybe you don't understand exactly how popular SOL is. I
just ran a search for nc+cheat, and got 317 results. I switched nc
with coer and coer+cheat returns 183. The union of those, which would
be the result of querying for "cheat and (nc or coer)" would be
somewhere at or below 500 stories. (Below if a story was coded with
both nc and coer, so it was in both lists.)

And that's an example taken from the stories that ARE NOT the "bread
and butter" stuff. If I was trying to do something with pedo (1020) or
inc (4645) it would be worse. The problem with having a popular site
is that eventually (like, right now) you have a site that has a metric
shitload of stories - any query you run is likely to return a bunch of
results, that you have to manage.

> > I don't agree with the suggestion to have an "'Unofficial codes'
> > mechanism so users can tag them." One of the strengths of
> > SOL's search is the standardization of the codes. If you allow
> > authors to create their own codes (which will allow them to create
> > their own versions of existing standardized codes), what will the
> > reader have to search on with any consistency?
>
> I don't believe this is what was meant, but rather that readers could
> flag the missing codes that were applicable for a story.
>

That was my first inclination. I wouldn't mind adding tags for stories
that were missing them (some of the bknk stories, for example, are
just tagged MF).

But then it occurs to me that there may be some justice in allowing
user provided tags. Amazon has been experimenting with this, too. I
think there's a couple of pretty obvious codes that could be added,
like "do-over" as a sub-species of the time-tr code.

Another one that strikes me springs from the Literotica feedback
system - of public blurbs attached to the text. In the "Loving Wives"
category, there is this enormous pressure on any story with a male
protagonist that discovers his wife/gf is cheating. While a code of
"FEEL MY WRATH, VILE HARLOT!!!" might be too long, maybe users could
add "macho" or "revenge" or something. :-)

> > As to the codes themselves, Dem Gnomes suggested the
> > addition of "post-apoc" and "time-tr".  Someone else in the
> > other thread suggested "teen" (actually he thought there
> > used to be a "teen" code).
>
> Post-Apoc and Time Travel codes exist. Stories that were written
> before Laz added the codes don't usually have the codes on them,
> though.

Yeah. I haven't suggested adding any tags (except for user-tags above)
since my biggest gripe at the moment is incomplete coverage of the
existing tags.

To contribute some positive value to the thread - and thanks, Switch,
for starting it - I'd like to see these (all in category search - I
don't use the advanced search):

- CLASS-MATCH: include some kind of "anything in the class" for the
sub-typed codes. This is pretty obvious if you go by the subdivisions
in the categories query as it stands - Laz has done a fine job of
getting the related ones together.

Example: "class('MF')" would include MF, mf, mF, Mf.

- AUTHOR-NAME: include "(not) author= "

Example: "cheat and not author='Just Plain Bob'" might be the only way
to find anything by DG Hear.

- NEGATION: include "not with code=..."

Example: "anal and not class('gay')" would find boy-girl anal

- DISJUNCTION: include "class=A or class=B"

Example: "cheat and (nc or coer)" would be my example from above

- FAMILIAR: I would LOVE for SOL to tell me, in search and on various
display pages, if I've read a story before. (I know about the "check
mark", but that's a CSS thing dependent on my browser remembering
visits - I want SOL to remember things for YEARS, not a couple of
days).

Example: "author='Just Plain Bob' and not read" would return whatever
he's written that I haven't read.


Dem Ever-So-Helpful Gnomes

[AW]

I would like to see a way for an author to differentiate among codes
that are intriinsic to, or pervasive in, a story and those which may
represent smaller aspects of a story. It would also be nice to
identify codes by chapter. In that way an author could do his/her
duty in issuing the appriopriate warnings without implying that an
entire story is about a certain activity.

Also, Dem Gnomes wrote:
>- FAMILIAR: I would LOVE for SOL to tell me, in search and on various
>display pages, if I've read a story before. (I know about the "check
>mark", but that's a CSS thing dependent on my browser remembering
>visits - I want SOL to remember things for YEARS, not a couple of
>days).

I second that. It's an excellent idea.

AW

> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009

[Switch Blayde]

AW wrote:
 
> I would like to see a way for an author to differentiate among codes
> that are intriinsic to, or pervasive in, a story and those which may
> represent smaller aspects of a story.
 

I agree. Sometimes codes that aren't intrinsic to a story are put in because of fear of squicking a reader. It would be good for the reader to know that.

 
> It would also be nice to identify codes by chapter.
 

I don't agree with this one. As an author, I'm thinking of the whole story, not individual chapters. To do what you suggest would make chapters mini-stories.

 
> I would LOVE for SOL to tell me, in search and on various
> display pages, if I've read a story before. 
 

Me too.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:21:20 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: autumn...@aol.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

---

Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry Check it out.

[bondi beach]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Switch Blayde <switch...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It would also be nice to identify codes by chapter.
 

I don't agree with this one. As an author, I'm thinking of the whole story, not individual chapters. To do what you suggest would make chapters mini-stories.

the author can always put a note at the beginning of the chapter. i've  done that.

bb
 

[Dem Gnomes]

I've seen several authors bend over backwards for "squick" codes - I
think "Moghal" wrote a story about a kid with Aspbergers going to
college, and had a rape scene in one chapter that I swear he wrote
more warning and "I had to put this in because it was important to the
story" text framing that one chapter than story prose.

I get that squick avoidance was one of the driving reasons for the
codes, but I just don't care - I don't get squicked by much, and I'll
either suck it up and keep reading, or I'll stop immediately, but I
won't waste any time railing against an uncaring internet.

That said, I can certainly see value in chapter-by-chapter coding.
First, because half the authors on SOL promise that they'll update the
codes as the story goes along. (Count the number of I&I stories with
one introductory chapter, but with a whole paragraph of codes.) Doing
chapter-by-chapter coding would accomplish this.

At the risk of making an "implementation suggestion" instead of a
requirement, if the system presented a union of all codes, then
authors that only want to provide "whole-story" codes could just enter
all their codes with chapter one, and then nothing for all the rest.

And if the chapter-by-chapter coding was complete for each chapter
(i.e., every chapter is coded "MF" when the characters have sex, but
there's only two chapters with "dog" and one chapter with "anal") then
we could have one of those "tag cloud" systems where the tags that
showed up in each chapter were shown bigger than the one-offs.

I think this is a pretty good idea, probably not hard to implement,
and it has a lot of upside - one of those "if you build it they will
come" things. Authors used to doing story only coding would not see a
difference, but as authors started adding codes on a chapter basis,
the data would get richer.

Dem

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day people,

OK, I can see a lot of reasons why you think chapter by chapter codes
is good, but think about how much extra space this will take up on the
server and how much harder the search engine will be and have to work
to handle this. Let alone the extra work for Laz to set it up. I don't
see it happening and it isn't needed, explained further below.

As an author who does longer stories, I can see the chapter coding
concept will
immediately break down in two ways:

1. Authors not interested in doing every damn code already applied for
each chapter they post, so they'll end up not using the chapter by
chapter system or only enter the new codes for that chapter.

2. Authors who write longer stories and post them as one posting
instead of chapters, they'll only do the one lot of coding for the
whole story, so you lose the whole benefit you seek.

A similar result to what you want can be reached by having two basic
code pages, one is main codes that apply to the majority of the story
and the other is minor codes that apply to only a small part of the
story (say less than one third). The Minor codes section can be used
by the author to identify any area of concern that's a minor part of
the story and it can show in a way like this - Mf, slow, rom, coer,
(minor) Ff, rape - This would indicate a long romantic story of a slow
seduction of several chapters which has one lesbian rape scene that's
important to the plot development, or something similar.

This also makes it a lot easier for the author while giving you a much
better indication of the real situation.

Ernest

[Switch Blayde]

Hey Dem,
 
How would the search work if codes were by chapters? Would you get a list of all chapters that meet your criteria? That's a significant change because you'd get chapters in your result rather than story titles. Or would the search engine have to combine all codes (for all the chapters) before doing the search and then give you the list of stories that have the selected code(s) in any chapter of that story? I guess it would have to do that anyway when listing the stories on any of the screens that do that.
 
As to listing the codes in an in-progress story, I've seen it done two ways. One is the author says in the synopsis he'll be updating the codes as he goes along. In the other, the author says codes represent the entire story. I believe the first is done when the author posts before completing the story and really doesn't know what all the codes will end up being. In the second, the author finished the story (or at least a draft of the entire story) and decided to post by chapter instead of all at once.
 
I don't like reading in-progress stories because if I like the story I want to read it to the end and find out what happened. Well, a similar situation could occur if codes are listed by chapter. If a story starts out one way and takes a turn, I'd like to know that up front. For example, in "His Friend's Mother," the story begins with a consensual relationship with a woman and her young son's friend. It's 100% consensual unless you believe it's always rape when an adult has sex with an 11-year-old boy. But in future chapters it gets into blackmail and non-consent. So if the codes were not listed up front, someone could be enjoying the story and -- bam! -- I hit them with a "blackmail" and "non-consent" chapter which they may not want to read. To me that's like reading an in-progress story that doesn't end.
 
As to people being squicked, I once got a rather nasty email from a reader because I didn't have the "rape" code listed. I listed the story as "non-consent" and "blackmail." There was a very brief scene where the woman was dragged by her hair and thrown over the side of a couch. She was held down by a woman while a man took her from behind. Yes, that's rape. But not in the context of the story. You see, she was being blackmailed and would have done it anyway (hence the "non-consent" and "blackmail" codes). The physical nature (rape?) of that scene was put in simply for effect. I didn't consider it a rape story so I didn't code it as rape. The reader disagreed rather adamantly.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:58:58 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: the_gnomes...@yahoo.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Dem Gnomes]

Replies interspersed below.

Deadly Ernest wrote:
> G'day people,
>
> OK, I can see a lot of reasons why you think chapter by chapter codes
> is good, but think about how much extra space this will take up on the
> server and how much harder the search engine will be and have to work
> to handle this. Let alone the extra work for Laz to set it up. I don't
> see it happening and it isn't needed, explained further below.
>

First, disk space is cheap. Deja Vu Ascendancy, that horrible
brobdingnangian behemoth, the biggest erotic story in the freaking
world, is now 15 megabytes. That's one photo on a crappy 5mp camera.

Second, the issue of how much time/effort it represents for Laz is
utterly meaningless. The whole point of the thread is to come up with
suggestions for Laz, which he can then ignore at his pleasure. He
doesn't need our help to say "no," and he might say "yes."

> As an author who does longer stories, I can see the chapter coding
> concept will immediately break down in two ways:
>
> 1. Authors not interested in doing every damn code already applied for
> each chapter they post, so they'll end up not using the chapter by
> chapter system or only enter the new codes for that chapter.

Yes. I expect that to be the default behavior at first. I mentioned it
earlier. Especially those authors for whom SOL is a secondary posting
site.

The ray of hope for me is that authors who are "SOL first" posters may
start using the system, especially if it is somehow easier, or if
there are extra benefits from using it. I honestly don't know what
those extra benefits would be, other than the examples I've mentioned.
But lots of people are smarter than me, so I'd expect some synergy
someplace.

I would expect that "the codes I used before" would either be the
default for a new chapter, or would be available as a button-press to
initialize the list.

> 2. Authors who write longer stories and post them as one posting
> instead of chapters, they'll only do the one lot of coding for the
> whole story, so you lose the whole benefit you seek.

That's just a one chapter story, right? So the chapter codes are the
story codes, or vice versa.

> A similar result to what you want can be reached by having two basic
> code pages, one is main codes that apply to the majority of the story
> and the other is minor codes that apply to only a small part of the
> story (say less than one third). The Minor codes section can be used
> by the author to identify any area of concern that's a minor part of
> the story and it can show in a way like this - Mf, slow, rom, coer,
> (minor) Ff, rape - This would indicate a long romantic story of a slow
> seduction of several chapters which has one lesbian rape scene that's
> important to the plot development, or something similar.
>
> This also makes it a lot easier for the author while giving you a much
> better indication of the real situation.

I think you mean it might make it easier for *you* - which is fine. My
idea was predicated on authors posting a chapter a day, or whatever.
The assumption is that the "minor codes" can be computed as the set of
codes that don't apply to every chapter, and the data entry would be
simpler - the "chapter codes" would be entered with each chapter text,
whereas an edit to update the "story codes" (minor or major) would
require a separate action after the chapter upload.

Switch Blayde wrote:
>
> How would the search work if codes were by chapters? Would you get a list of all chapters that meet your criteria? That's a significant change because you'd get chapters in your result rather than story titles. Or would the search engine have to combine all codes (for all the chapters) before doing the search and then give you the list of stories that have the selected code(s) in any chapter of that story? I guess it would have to do that anyway when listing the stories on any of the screens that do that.
>

I'd expect that the "searchable story codes" would be the union of (1)
any "story-wide" codes, (2) the individual chapter codes. So if
chapter 11 had a "bananas" code, and I searched for "bananas" I'd get
a story list entry for "The Gang's All Here - Carmen Miranda's Juicy 3-
way" (or whatever).

How the story presents its codes should probably change. I'd like to
see the codes, as well as the synopsis, on the "story page" - the one
with all the chapter links. Either the codes could be marked as
"major, minor, chapter" or the chapter codes could hang next to the
chapter links. That's a screen layout issue.

>
> I don't like reading in-progress stories because if I like the story I want to read it to the end and find out what happened.
>

For me it's the other way. I've been a subscriber for a while now, and
I've pretty much reached "The End of the Internet" as far as stories
go. In-progress stories are my only hope. :-|

>
> As to people being squicked, I once got a rather nasty email from a reader because ... The reader disagreed rather adamantly.
>

Fuck 'em. Maybe all the serious authors should get together and demand
a "black list" button for readers. Whenever some total ass-hat sends
you feedback like that, you can simply black list them and they would
be forevermore banned from reading any more of your stories.

Dem Callous Gnomes

[Dem Gnomes]

Dem Gnomes wrote:

>
> How the story presents its codes should probably change. I'd like to
> see the codes, as well as the synopsis, on the "story page" - the one
> with all the chapter links. Either the codes could be marked as
> "major, minor, chapter" or the chapter codes could hang next to the
> chapter links. That's a screen layout issue.
>

While I'm making suggestions not related to story coding and search,
I'd like to see the chapter footer (where currently are Home, My
Library, Top, Bookmark Next Chapter links) include a "<Storyname>
Index" link, like the top does.

I'd also like both header and footer in the chapters to include a
"<author>'s Page" link, to save me having to click on the Index to get
to the "<author>'s Page" link on that page.

Dem Off-topic Gnomes

[The Black Knight]

Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:
> BK, I think maybe you don't understand exactly how popular
> SOL is. I just ran a search for nc+cheat, and got 317 results.
> I switched nc with coer and coer+cheat returns 183. The union
> of those, which would be the result of querying for "cheat and
> (nc or coer)" would be somewhere at or below 500 stories.

Yeah... but the point is that why would y'all want a BIGGER search
results listing? That would make it harder to locate a specific story
(as one person has claimed using the search for) and doesn't seem to
be useful at all...

> And that's an example taken from the stories that ARE NOT
> the "bread and butter" stuff. If I was trying to do something
> with pedo (1020) or inc (4645) it would be worse. The problem
> with having a popular site is that eventually (like, right now) you
> have a site that has a metric shitload of stories - any query
> you run is likely to return a bunch of results, that you have to
> manage.

And this is why 'or' searches aren't much use in this case... it gives
increased results, rather than more manageable ones.

> there is this enormous pressure on any story with a male
> protagonist that discovers his wife/gf is cheating. While a code of
> "FEEL MY WRATH, VILE HARLOT!!!" might be too long, maybe users
> could add "macho" or "revenge" or something. :-)

no need. any story that has the code 'wife' without 'wimp' should
qualify there... (many older stories are likely missing the 'wimp'
code.)

> Yeah. I haven't suggested adding any tags (except for user-tags
> above) since my biggest gripe at the moment is incomplete
> coverage of the existing tags.

Best to remain with defined codes, to make things consistent.

> - CLASS-MATCH: include some kind of "anything in the class" for the
> sub-typed codes. This is pretty obvious if you go by the subdivisions
> in the categories query as it stands - Laz has done a fine job of
> getting the related ones together.

Well, I would like to see the cheating codes (cheat/wife/cuckold/swing/
etc.) lumped into one, to make it easier to avoid them... that seems
useful.

> Example: "anal and not class('gay')" would find boy-girl anal

Exclusionary search is already available.

> - FAMILIAR: I would LOVE for SOL to tell me, in search and on various
> display pages, if I've read a story before. (I know about the "check
> mark", but that's a CSS thing dependent on my browser remembering
> visits - I want SOL to remember things for YEARS, not a couple of
> days).

Never happen. It would require the site to track individual readers'
reading patterns for more than 24 hours, something Laz has stated
he will not do.

> Example: "author='Just Plain Bob' and not read" would return
> whatever he's written that I haven't read.

That should be easy... just go to his author page. Nobody reads his
stuff...

[Fox Garcia]

he's looks to me like 53,000+ downloads on the first page alone. Stories 1-10 out of 502 ...somebody reads him. take that number times 50 pages he's got ballpark 2.5 million downloads...how many do you have, out of genuine curiousity?

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day People,

A couple more comments.

1. Tracking Stories

I don't know if there is a limit to the section, but you can always
add a story to your library and that will remember which was the last
chapter of that story you read. Thus serving this need.

2. Hard Drive Storage Space

Yes storage space is cheap now, but it still takes money to buy the
new drives, which is a big expense when working on a very limited
budget as Laz is. I'm sure he'll hapiily accept donations towards new
hard drives.

I don't know if Laz is renting space on a hosting service drive or
space in their computer or space in their computer room for his
computers. In either case adding hard drives is a lot more difficult
and expensive than doing it to a computer at home. In the first two
you have to pay the host service for the staff to do the work for you.
In the second you have to coordinate with them and then pay them to
allow you on site or do the work for you. And that's assuming you just
put an extra drive in.

After the new hard drive is in you have to then make changes to the
rest of the system to see it's accessed and used as you want by the
various parts of the software. Unless you copy everything from an
existing drive and just swap them over - another cost in time and
money.

So this is a lot more expensive than it appears at first.

3. Chapter Codes
The two points I made in my earlier post would mean those stories do
NOT have codes by chapter, as is the intention of chapter codes, and
thus would lead to a lot of follow up complaints about the author NOT
doing chapter codes - a no win situation for everyone. Also the idea
of having a list of prior codes also requires the author to remove the
codes that aren't applicable to the new chapter - far too frequently
they'll just be left up and you'll get a growing list that has more
and more codes not relevant to that chapter.

4. Minor Codes

Yes, having a minor codes page would be easier for me, as an author
and as a reader, as it would be easier for every other author and
reader.

One point to keep in mind about making this easy, we already have a
number of people mentioning complaints of authors not listing all
codes, and also lots of discussion by authors on mentioning codes that
are minor aspects of the stories - usually relevant to only one
chapter. The current situation is authors either over code and people
complain that the story has only one short rape scene when they were
looking for the life of a rapist, or they under code and they get and
unexpected short rape scene. The use of minor application codes would
provide a way to deal with both those situation.

Any time a story or chapter is posted the author has to go through the
codes page and amend them or confirm they're still correct. This is to
allow for new codes to be added, but they're added to the single list
for the story not an individual chapter as that would be too
troublesome. Many authors, like me, put all the codes up at the start
for different reasons - I do it so I don't have to remember them
later, but I complete the story before posting, even when posting
chapters per day. With some of my stories (and some of Caz's - see
below why) I'd love to list some codes as being minor as they're there
only to avoid people getting upset at very minor aspects of the story.

Another point is when you make it too much trouble for an author to
post to SOL by giving them too much administration they'll either just
ignore the administration they don't like or not post here at all. So
keeping the author admin down is beneficial all around. I can speak
authoritatively on this as my cousin Caz is not that computer literate
as regards html. He likes reading stories at SOL but has a real issue
in getting his stories ready for posting. He was on the point of NOT
posting any more stories to SOL because of having to do the admin and
preparation work required when I offered to do that for him. He passes
the stories and or chapter to me as he wants them posted, I convert
them to plain html, and then work the Submission Wizard for him, and
the readers get to see the story at SOL. They also appear at ASSTR and
Writer's Block, and he was prepared not to post at SOL due to the
level of extra work for the bigger stories. Even I sometimes get upset
at the amount of time spent doing the admin on posting the stories as
putting a story up at SOL (after being converted to html) is still
double that of ASSTR and Writer's Block. You don't want to add to it
much lest you lose some authors.

regards,

Ernest

[Switch Blayde]

I have a few comments:
 
1. The Black Knight's point is valid that you could get too many results with the "or". I'm thinking his approach for doing multiple searches with the current system is okay. He's definitely a much more experienced SOL user than I.
 
2. Disk space is an issue. Laz has considered eliminating the detail TPA scores in order to save disk space (something I would hate).
 
3. I still like the minor codes idea. A question to all:  What if we listed them as minor codes in the synopsis? This way the search engine wouldn't be affected yet the reader would be made aware of a potential squick, even if it's only in passing.
 
4. I still don't like the chapter codes for many of the reasons already stated.
 
Switch

---

Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.

[Deadly Ernest]

I like the idea of listing minor codes in the synopsis, sadly not all
readers read the synopsis and still send nasty grams about being
squicked when it wasn't in the codes. If we can all agree to accept
this and Laz happily accepts and puts up a notice that we'll be doing
this, I can see it working most of the time. I don't do it now as it's
not an accepted or approved practice at SOL.

> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009

[TheDarkKnight]

On Apr 24, 4:52 am, Deadly Ernest <ernest.bywa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of listing minor codes in the synopsis, sadly not all
> readers read the synopsis and still send nasty grams about being
> squicked when it wasn't in the codes.
>

"...not all readers read the synopsis..." Seriously? I would never
read a story without checking the synopsis first. Time is limited (so
many books, so little time), and even writers I really like sometimes
come up with tales that might not interest me. So, extrapolating from
my survey results, I would say that everyone reads story descriptions.

Okay, maybe not everyone, but DE, are you really concerned with
readers who complain about being squicked and admit that they didn't
bother to read the description? Those seem like the lunatic fringe,
and should be easily ignored. Of course that's easy for me to say, I
think I've only gotten two or three complaints from all of my stories,
and that was when I made a priest and nun the object of one of my
flash stories.

My real problem with putting minor codes or squick warnings in the
synopsis is that I often use up my 500 characters just trying to
describe my story. A poster only has essentially three ways to
attract readers to a newly posted effort: title, story codes, and the
description, so I try to make mine as...well, descriptive as I can.
In the age of Twitter, I guess 500 characters is quite generous, so I
probably shouldn't complain.

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day TDK,

I agree with your concerns in the last paragraph and it doesn't really
worry me if people read the synopsis or not. But I've seen too many
people in various threads here bitching about people sending them
nasty grams for minor crap like that and how it makes them consider
giving up writing, so it is (in my book) a concern to keep in mind.
I'm all for a minor codes page, after all, I suggested it. Regarding
the size of the synopsis, I often have an issue fitting it in too the
500 characters.

Ernest

[The Black Knight]

TheDarkKnight allegedly wrote:
> "...not all readers read the synopsis..."  Seriously?  I would never
> read a story without checking the synopsis first.  Time is limited (so
> many books, so little time), and even writers I really like sometimes
> come up with tales that might not interest me.  So, extrapolating from
> my survey results, I would say that everyone reads story descriptions.

I tend to go even further than that...

For example, when writers indicate that their story is incorrectly
coded (as in missing applicable codes) not only do I use the synopsis
to try to determine whether or not to bother with the story, but I'll
check the author's other stories to determine if there's any way to
identify in advance what the story is gonna contain. Or I may just
email the writer and ask... that can have mixed results, too...

But I definitely think that all applicable codes[1] should be listed
on a story somewhere. If they're there for the reader to see, before
downloading, then any reader who chooses to complain because he chose
to read it even with advance warning is at best semi-literate and not
worthy of concern.

[1] Basically any action which is graphically described and has an
associated code counts as 'applicable'.

[Switch Blayde]

I've been playing with the Category Search and I think I am changing my mind again. Since you can sort the results many ways, the larger number of results isn't that much of a concern. For example, if you sort by score who cares what the bunch of stories at the end are? And if you sort by date, and have read most of the stories like Dem has, who cares about the old ones?
 
So, getting back to the original request of having "and" and "or", and thinking back to my Philosophy Logic class in college, I believe "and" and "or" may not be the correct terminology for what I would like. I believe it should be:
 
"All of these codes" ("and")
"Any of these codes" ("or")
 
So if I wanted a story that must have "mF" and "non-consent" and preferably "blackmail" and/or "mind control" it would be requested as:
All of these codes = "mF", "non-consent"
Any of these codes = "blackmail", "mind control"
 
Stories having:
mF, non-consent, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would match
mF, non-consent, blackmail, etc. -- would match
mF, non-consent, mind control, etc. -- would match
mF, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would NOT match (missing "non-consent")
MF, non-consent, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would NOT match (missing "mF")
mF, non-consent, etc. -- would match
 
This could be accomplished by having two rows of check-boxes next to each code. One would be for "All of these codes" and the other for "Any of these codes".
 
Switch
 

---

From: switch...@hotmail.com
To: storie...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Story code/search wish list
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:41:05 -0700

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day TDK,

I tend to agree in principle on your comments about the codes,
especially about them being there to see before reading. However, to
my mind, there's one hell of a difference between a story with fifty
or sixty sex scenes and one is a rape or similar and that same story
having forty rape scenes and a story with ten sex scenes with three
rape scenes. In one case the rape is the bulk of the story while in
the other two the rape is a minor aspect - currently the codes do NOT
provide a way to indicate any code as a major or minor part of the
story and the rape code in the first case above could upset some
people who are seeking rape scene after rape scene while it may turn
off people who don't want a story of rapes but would have let the
single scene slide if they hadn't seen the code at the start. It's a
damn hard call to make either way and taking space in the synopsis to
explain things like that leaves less space to describe the actual
story.

Personally, I read story descriptions before I decide to read a story,
but there are some squicks that will make me skip by a story without
reading the synopsis at all. Except with a couple of real big squicks
(like necro, snuff, and some bodily function ones) for me, just a
single squick isn't enough to make me skip, but two squick codes is. A
story with a single gay scene wouldn't worry me, but I've no interest
in one that's predominately gay; thus any story with MM gay has to
have a other codes I do like and a damn good synopsis before I'll try
it as it would be a prime indication that the main sexual activity is
MM - while a story with just MM but not gay would be an indication of
a gay scene as a minor aspect of the story and most scenes aren't MM.
Having a minor code page for indicating these secondary codes would
make this a lot easier, and the choice to code major and / or minor is
always with the author.

Regards,

Ernest

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day Switch,

I'm not sure what experience you've had with Booleans, but most search
engines run on Booleans - you can find a lot about them in various
wiki articles. They mainly work on expressions of AND OR NOR NOT
LIKE; they also process each search item in order.

If there's an OR command in there, it will run the sub-list against
the first OR choice and make a second sub-list, then re-run that same
sub-list for the next OR choice and add it to the second sub-list
before displaying the new combined sub-list.

Essentially, most search engines look for certain criteria with a true
or false response, and they list the true responses. They also work
very much like mathematics with expressions inside and outside the
brackets - and how they convert from English expressions depends on
how the search engine is constructed. For example:

A or B = lists anything in the database with a match on code A and a
match on code B - needs to find one code to list.

C and D = lists anything that has both codes against it - needs to
find two codes to list.

For example, a search on A + B + C would progress as such:

Check database for anything with a TRUE match on A - make a sub-list;
Check sub-list for anything with a TRUE match on B - make a new sub-
list;
Check sub-list for anything with a TRUE match on C - make and display
final list.


However, you can also do a bracket type search:

C and D and (A or B) will list everything with code C plus code D and
either code A or Code B - needs to find three codes to lists.

Your example would read as (in this case):

mF and non-consent (blackmail or mind control)

This would require a true response on mF PLUS a true response on non-
consent plus a true response on either blackmail or mind control; that
is a definite match on the first two and either one of the last two -
a match of three to be listed. The other codes can be anything.

How the search engine will actually perform on the database will
depend a lot on how it's constructed, take a clook at the set up for
an advanced search on Google to see what I mean.

regards,

Ernest

On Apr 25, 12:20 am, Switch Blayde <switch_bla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been playing with the Category Search and I think I am changing my mind again. Since you can sort the results many ways, the larger number of results isn't that much of a concern. For example, if you sort by score who cares what the bunch of stories at the end are? And if you sort by date, and have read most of the stories like Dem has, who cares about the old ones?
>
> So, getting back to the original request of having "and" and "or", and thinking back to my Philosophy Logic class in college, I believe "and" and "or" may not be the correct terminology for what I would like. I believe it should be:
>
> "All of these codes" ("and")
>
> "Any of these codes" ("or")
>
> So if I wanted a story that must have "mF" and "non-consent" and preferably "blackmail" and/or "mind control" it would be requested as:
>
> All of these codes = "mF", "non-consent"
>
> Any of these codes = "blackmail", "mind control"
>
> Stories having:
>
> mF, non-consent, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would match
>
> mF, non-consent, blackmail, etc. -- would match
>
> mF, non-consent, mind control, etc. -- would match
>
> mF, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would NOT match (missing "non-consent")
>
> MF, non-consent, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would NOT match (missing "mF")
>
> mF, non-consent, etc. -- would match
>
> This could be accomplished by having two rows of check-boxes next to each code. One would be for "All of these codes" and the other for "Any of these codes".
>
> Switch
>

> From: switch_bla...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Story code/search wish list
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:41:05 -0700
>
> I have a few comments:
>
> 1. The Black Knight's point is valid that you could get too many results with the "or". I'm thinking his approach for doing multiple searches with the current system is okay. He's definitely a much more experienced SOL user than I.
>
> 2. Disk space is an issue. Laz has considered eliminating the detail TPA scores in order to save disk space (something I would hate).
>
> 3. I still like the minor codes idea. A question to all:  What if we listed them as minor codes in the synopsis? This way the search engine wouldn't be affected yet the reader would be made aware of a potential squick, even if it's only in passing.
>
> 4. I still don't like the chapter codes for many of the reasons already stated.
>
> Switch
>

> Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.

> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.  http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009

[Switch Blayde]

> In one case the rape is the bulk of the story while in the
> other two the rape is a minor aspect 
 

Certain codes demand more attention than others. I believe rape is one of them. Look at the movie ratings. When there's a rape scene, "rape" is always listed. One movie that comes to mind is "Death Wish." Charles Bronson's wife and daughter get raped in the beginning, but the story is really about how it affects him and how he gets revenge. Yet "rape" would definitely be listed to warn people like my wife who can't watch a rape scene.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:29:05 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: ernest....@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

---

Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.

[Switch Blayde]

> I'm not sure what experience you've had with Booleans
 

This has to do with "truth tables" in my Philosophy Logic class (philosophy, not mathematics). Remember, we're talking about 40 years ago.
 
I was remembering that if you said "x or y" and both existed, it would not prove true. The "or" meant one or the other, but not both.
 
So I thought "all of these codes" and "any of these codes" would be simpler and more straightforward.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:49:40 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list
> From: ernest....@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com
>
>

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> This has to do with "truth tables" in my Philosophy Logic
> class (philosophy, not mathematics). Remember, we're
> talking about 40 years ago.

I took formal logic courses in both Phil and Math (and it was covered
in many CS courses) and truth tables were covered every time...

> I was remembering that if you said "x or y" and both existed, it
> would not prove true. The "or" meant one or the other, but not
> both.

That's an exclusive 'or' (XOR for the computer inclined).
Traditionally, 'or' has been taken to mean 'at least one proposition
is true.' In every branch of logic, this is the case. (Rhetoric logic
treatments may be the exception, I don't know those courses too well.)

> So I thought "all of these codes" and "any of these codes" would
> be simpler and more straightforward.

If codes were stored as a standard bitmap format, 'any of these codes'
is easy... generate the bitmap for the query codes, then a simple AND
with each individual story bitmap would return a non-zero bitmap for
any story meeting the criteria. (The addition of a NOT on the query
would allow screening out codes. This is actually the basis for my
previously-mentioned 'hidden codes' suggestion... basically each user
could set a 'squick list' which would filter on the hidden codes, and
the visible codes could be used for selective searches, finding
stories revolving around coded content.)

Of course, this requires a (likely) different implementation than SOL
currently uses.

'all of these codes' is straightforward, and produces the most
restricted (and thus most useful) list of results.

[Switch Blayde]

> That's an exclusive 'or' (XOR for the computer inclined).
 

That's it! Thanks. Like I said, it was too many years ago. But I should have known that from my programming days (which I guess were also too many years ago [sigh]).
 
Switch
 
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:41:41 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

---

Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out.

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day Switch,

General logic, philosophical logic, and computer logic are NOT always
the same thing. The way the computers try to handle the BOOLEANS is to
express them in standard English in a way that will yield one of two
results YES / NO or TRUE / FALSE expressed within the system as a 0 /
1 option (computers are binary). If I ask you to get me a roast beef
or a ham sandwich for lunch you will buy only one sandwich which will
be roast beef if they have it, failing that a ham sandwich. if I say a
roast beef and a ham sandwich I expect two sandwiches, one of each.
That's how the BOOLEANS in computers work too.

So, if I ask for x or y and both existed I'd get a TRUE answer.

If I ask for x and not y and both existed I'd get a FALSE answer.

If I ask for x and y and both exist I'd get a TRUE answer, but if only
one exists I'd get a FALSE answer.
...........

This part of the discussion reminds me of an Isaac Asimov mystery
story where a fellow who never lies is accused of stealing some
valuable assets and he keeps saying "No, I did not steal the cash or
the bonds." The whole story revolves around the possible ways the
assets could have been stolen if he didn't take them until someone
asks "Did you steal the cash AND the bonds?" He goes red faced and
reminds them the discussion is all confidential before leaving. This
is another aspect of A or B but not both being converted to A and B
together.

............

Back to search engines, a good search engine will allow you to set up
a few parameters so you could do something like:

(A + B + C) + (D or E or F or G) this requires the first three plus
any one or more of the others to be matched and listed - that is four
items.

(A or B or C) + (D or E or F) requires a match of either one of the
three in each bracketed group but must have one from each group - that
is two items.

(A + B + C) - (D or F or G) requires a match of the first three but
also none of the last three -- the minus symbols represents the NOT
command here.

Hope this helps a bit,

Ernest

On Apr 25, 1:38 am, Switch Blayde <switch_bla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what experience you've had with Booleans
>
> This has to do with "truth tables" in my Philosophy Logic class (philosophy, not mathematics). Remember, we're talking about 40 years ago.
>
> I was remembering that if you said "x or y" and both existed, it would not prove true. The "or" meant one or the other, but not both.
>
> So I thought "all of these codes" and "any of these codes" would be simpler and more straightforward.
>
> Switch
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:49:40 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> > From: ernest.bywa...@gmail.com

> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009

[Dem Gnomes]

Deadly Ernest wrote:
> G'day People,
>
> A couple more comments.
>
> 1. Tracking Stories
>
> I don't know if there is a limit to the section, but you can always
> add a story to your library and that will remember which was the last
> chapter of that story you read. Thus serving this need.
>

Or, a computer could do that FOR me. And since a computer is already
looking up the stories and transmitting them to me in various forms
(text, lists of stories, etc.) I'd like that computer, which happens
to be the SOL server, to take care of that routine, repetitive, simple
task. It's what computers are for, no?

> 2. Hard Drive Storage Space
>
> Yes storage space is cheap now, but it still takes money to buy the
> new drives, which is a big expense when working on a very limited
> budget as Laz is. I'm sure he'll hapiily accept donations towards new
> hard drives.

And I make one, every year. :)

>
> So this is a lot more expensive than it appears at first.

No, it isn't. It's a cost of doing business, and if your hosting
provider is telling you this, you need to find another one. If Lazeez
were some high-school kid in Jakarta getting by on free hosting and
the handful of rupiah that his folks gave him every month, then he
might have problems. But he's not. He's running a real business, with
real money, and this is part of that.

There are, according to an "empty search", about 21,000 stories
currently. Assuming 1mb of storage per story, that would fit into a
program my current provider (single data point, here) offers for
$50USD/month. To put it another way, that's 12 subscribers. I frankly
don't believe ANY argument that is predicated on disk space.
(Bandwidth - that's another story.)

> 3. Chapter Codes
> The two points I made in my earlier post would mean those stories do
> NOT have codes by chapter, as is the intention of chapter codes, and
> thus would lead to a lot of follow up complaints about the author NOT
> doing chapter codes - a no win situation for everyone. Also the idea
> of having a list of prior codes also requires the author to remove the
> codes that aren't applicable to the new chapter - far too frequently
> they'll just be left up and you'll get a growing list that has more
> and more codes not relevant to that chapter.
>

Apparently, we've dismissed the idea of allowing readers to provide
codes. I think that's a mistake - the whole "Web 2.0" thing is about
letting readers do work for free.

But if authors have a choice among (1) not doing chapter codes (whole
story only codes); (2) starting their chapter codes with a copy of the
codes from the story, or from the last chapter; or (3) starting the
chapter codes with an empty string, I really don't believe that the
outcome is guaranteed to be chaos. It may be that all authors are
lazy, and (1) is the only road ever taken. But I suspect not.

In thinking about it, chapter codes would allow for a "warn me"
function. Given that users have their "permanent exclusion list" of
codes, this would throw up a big caution sign when a chapter was coded
with stuff they hate. The "rape" code we've been talking about, might
show up at the top of the chapter with "WARNING: This chapter is
tagged 'rape', which you have indicated you don't like. Make a
decision."

My point here is that the chapter codes, which I originally thought of
as kind of a "hack" to get around having to program support for major
vs. minor story codes, offer some real value in themselves, and don't
seem to have much in the way of downside, since authors have to "opt
in" to use them.

> 4. Minor Codes
>
> Yes, having a minor codes page would be easier for me, as an author
> and as a reader, as it would be easier for every other author and
> reader.

I disagree. My point about it being easier for you was based on an
assumption about how you post your stories. If you post the whole
story at one time, after having written and edited it in advance -
let's call this "post when done" - then you are using a particular
model. That model contrasts with, say, "post when drafted" and with
"post by chapter".

Cmsix, for a specific example, is presently rewriting his "John and
Argent" story. That makes him now an example of the "post when
drafted" style - the story has been available in its prior form for
years, but now he's editing it for style.

All of those writers who put "I'll update the codes as the story
progresses" are examples of the "post by chapter" model, since they
are implicitly saying that they DON'T have the story done, and they
expect it to evolve.

If you're doing post-when-done, then you've got your whole story and
you just want to get it online. In that scenario, you know everything
there is to know about the story, and don't expect (or want) to come
back to "fix" it. So you want to minimize the work needed to get it
online. That's why I think that a "minor codes" page or sub-form is
easy for you.

But if you're doing post-when-drafted, or you're doing post-by-
chapter, then you aren't using the website the same way. Cmsix is
having to "edit" the individual chapters. The chapter-at-a-time guys
are having to "add" more chapters. And that means that their time is
spent on the "chapter" pages of the website, not on the "whole story"
page. That's why I think that chapter codes might be easier for them,
and might be more likely to stay up to date.

>
> One point to keep in mind about making this easy, we already have a
> number of people mentioning complaints of authors not listing all
> codes, and also lots of discussion by authors on mentioning codes that
> are minor aspects of the stories - usually relevant to only one
> chapter.

I agree, at least with the not-all-present complaint. That's why I
suggested reader coding.

Frankly, I don't see the "minor" coding as directly related to the
search function. I think the value is more in the "deciding to read
this" function. So I am happy to guess, based on the synopsis, which
codes are minor.

But I understand that some people get wrapped around the axle about
certain codes, and if "minor" helps them to read a story that they
might not otherwise read, then by all means let's have it. It's not
like "minor" codes and "chapter" codes are exclusive. I thought, and
still think, that chapter codes are a cheap way to collect "minor"
code data. Any chapter code that was not listed in the whole-story
code list is minor.

> Another point is when you make it too much trouble for an author to
> post to SOL by giving them too much administration they'll either just

> ignore the administration they don't like or not post here at all. ...

I agree. There's no reason that this stuff needs to be expensive.
Adding minor codes, or adding chapter codes, should be doable without
much time. Frankly, I think the current coding form - which looks like
the search form - is a mistake. I think that there should be just a
short entry field where you type your list of codes. Most authors are
gonna know them, since they were readers first. (But like those travel
websites with the "calendar" pop-up for dates, there could be a button
that pops up the checklist next to the short field.)


Dem Copacetic Gnomes

[Dem Gnomes]

Interspersed.

The Black Knight wrote:
>
> Yeah... but the point is that why would y'all want a BIGGER search
> results listing? That would make it harder to locate a specific story
> (as one person has claimed using the search for) and doesn't seem to
> be useful at all...
>

I don't want a "bigger" listing, I want a SINGLE listing. Anything
that I do to refine the search, I only want to do once. I don't want
to search on nc+cheat, and then scan the list, and then search on coer
+cheat, and then scan the list. I want to search on (nc|coer)+cheat,
and scan the list ONCE. Or whatever. Maybe I'm sorting by date, maybe
I'm further adding codes until I get a manageable set. But I don't
want to have to do it twice, or more.

>
> no need. any story that has the code 'wife' without 'wimp' should
> qualify there... (many older stories are likely missing the 'wimp'
> code.)

Ayup. And "searching for nothing" is hard to do - you don't know if
the nothing is meaningful, or if the author just forgot. Letting the
users add their own tags might solve this.

(Frankly, I'm not a big believer. I haven't noticed that the tags on
amazon are particularly useful. But every once in a while, it shows me
a connection to a really cool product. So I'm also not convinced of
the lack of value. I think that this winds up being a function of the
users. The users on Literotica, for example, seem like they would be
low-value - every cheat+not(revenge) story would get "wimp". I don't
know if that's true at SOL, too, since I haven't seen any user forum.

> > - CLASS-MATCH: include some kind of "anything in the class" for the
> > sub-typed codes. This is pretty obvious if you go by the subdivisions
> > in the categories query as it stands - Laz has done a fine job of
> > getting the related ones together.
>
> Well, I would like to see the cheating codes (cheat/wife/cuckold/swing/
> etc.) lumped into one, to make it easier to avoid them... that seems
> useful.
>
> > Example: "anal and not class('gay')" would find boy-girl anal
>
> Exclusionary search is already available.

How? The only exclusion that I know of is my "never show these" prefs,
and there is no way in hell I'm going to go chasing through my user
prefs just to run a single search.

(FWIW, my example above of "anal and not gay" was not a lifestyle
choice, it was an example of how I'd code a search for boy-girl butt
sex.)

>
> > - FAMILIAR: I would LOVE for SOL to tell me, in search and on various
> > display pages, if I've read a story before. (I know about the "check
> > mark", but that's a CSS thing dependent on my browser remembering
> > visits - I want SOL to remember things for YEARS, not a couple of
> > days).
>
> Never happen. It would require the site to track individual readers'
> reading patterns for more than 24 hours, something Laz has stated
> he will not do.
>

This sounds suspiciously like a political and not a technical issue.

[Dem Gnomes]

Switch Blayde wrote:


> 3. I still like the minor codes idea. A question to all: What if we listed them as minor codes in the synopsis? This way the search engine wouldn't be affected yet the reader would be made aware of a potential squick, even if it's only in passing.

I *want* them in the search engine. Maybe a user wants to stroke with
a rape fantasy: "stroke and rape" Or maybe they squick: "... and NOT
(rape)" Either way, keep 'em searchable.

DG

[Deadly Ernest]

On Apr 25, 5:08 am, Dem Gnomes <the_gnomes_of_zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Deadly Ernest wrote:
> > G'day People,
>
> > A couple more comments.
>
> > 1. Tracking Stories
>
> > I don't know if there is a limit to the section, but you can always
> > add a story to your library and that will remember which was the last
> > chapter of that story you read. Thus serving this need.
>
> Or, a computer could do that FOR me. And since a computer is already
> looking up the stories and transmitting them to me in various forms
> (text, lists of stories, etc.) I'd like that computer, which happens
> to be the SOL server, to take care of that routine, repetitive, simple
> task. It's what computers are for, no?
>

Which is what the individual's Library at SOL does, the one I'm
referring to - it keeps track of the stories you've read just click on
'add to my library.'

In several threads Laz has already said he refuses to do automatic
individual tracking beyond a day for fear those records may be misused
by government stickybeaks. So any tracking you want requires you to
hit an icon and tell SOL you WANT it tracked. The best place is the
'your library' section I referred to.

> > 2. Hard Drive Storage Space
>
> > Yes storage space is cheap now, but it still takes money to buy the
> > new drives, which is a big expense when working on a very limited
> > budget as Laz is. I'm sure he'll hapiily accept donations towards new
> > hard drives.
>
> And I make one, every year. :)
>
>
>
> > So this is a lot more expensive than it appears at first.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a cost of doing business, and if your hosting
> provider is telling you this, you need to find another one. If Lazeez
> were some high-school kid in Jakarta getting by on free hosting and
> the handful of rupiah that his folks gave him every month, then he
> might have problems. But he's not. He's running a real business, with
> real money, and this is part of that.
>
> There are, according to an "empty search", about 21,000 stories
> currently. Assuming 1mb of storage per story, that would fit into a
> program my current provider (single data point, here) offers for
> $50USD/month. To put it another way, that's 12 subscribers. I frankly
> don't believe ANY argument that is predicated on disk space.
> (Bandwidth - that's another story.)
>

Hosting services charge on disk space and bandwidth usage, at least
they do down here and what I've seen in ads for other countries. Raise
the disk space and you can also see the bandwidth rates vary as you go
into a different service group. But the main point of the discussion
on disk replacement costs is the fact it is REPLACEMENT costs, he
currently has disks he's using and any major increase will mean the
installation of extras (with the associated changes to the software)
or the copying and replacement of existing disks - both of which do
incur a cost in time and money.

I've not yet heard of a single hosting service that does replacement
hard drives, imaging, and data updates for free - all of them charge
you for it. When you run a business you can either do things the
expensive way or the cheap way or somewhere in between. You can charge
to make a big profit or next to no profit. Laz has chosen a low
operating cost profile anything extra comes at a price. Sure, there's
a lot more he could do, and that would mean a lot higher membership
price. At present most of his time is donated to SOL.

This is NOT a personal attack, but if you think you can do better and
cheaper, nothing is stopping you setting up in competition. I'm sure
you'll find it's a lot different to what you think it is.

BTW What constitutes a cost of doing business varies between all
businesses and all managers. Some see multi-million dollar salaries
and kickbacks to big bosses as a standard business cost, while others
see such things as costly and excessive perks.

> > 3. Chapter Codes
> > The two points I made in my earlier post would mean those stories do
> > NOT have codes by chapter, as is the intention of chapter codes, and
> > thus would lead to a lot of follow up complaints about the author NOT
> > doing chapter codes - a no win situation for everyone. Also the idea
> > of having a list of prior codes also requires the author to remove the
> > codes that aren't applicable to the new chapter - far too frequently
> > they'll just be left up and you'll get a growing list that has more
> > and more codes not relevant to that chapter.
>
> Apparently, we've dismissed the idea of allowing readers to provide
> codes. I think that's a mistake - the whole "Web 2.0" thing is about
> letting readers do work for free.
>

And the whole web 2 concept has proven a failure in as many places as
it has successes. Personally, I do NOT want readers second guessing
what I want associated with my stories. We already have enough trouble
with nut case readers screwing authors over with the scoring system,
and now you want to allow them to apply codes. Hell, even the greatest
web 2 success story (wiki) have placed restrictions on who can make
changes and have a process of checking people out first.

> But if authors have a choice among (1) not doing chapter codes (whole
> story only codes); (2) starting their chapter codes with a copy of the
> codes from the story, or from the last chapter; or (3) starting the
> chapter codes with an empty string, I really don't believe that the
> outcome is guaranteed to be chaos. It may be that all authors are
> lazy, and (1) is the only road ever taken. But I suspect not.
>
> In thinking about it, chapter codes would allow for a "warn me"
> function. Given that users have their "permanent exclusion list" of
> codes, this would throw up a big caution sign when a chapter was coded
> with stuff they hate. The "rape" code we've been talking about, might
> show up at the top of the chapter with "WARNING: This chapter is
> tagged 'rape', which you have indicated you don't like. Make a
> decision."
>

The same can be done with the existing capability of placing a warning
at the start of the chapter in question or even in the chapter end
notes attached to the previous chapter.

The existing system allows you to update the story codes for the whole
story as you post a chapter, but the change affects the one entry. The
stated wish list is for a different set of codes for each chapter,
which means adding and removing codes as you post each chapter - ie
more work than just adding an extra that isn't there. For example
chapters one to six are plain MF sex while chapter seven has only a
couple of MM rape scenes and all later chapters have plain MF sex
again. Going the chapter route you have to remove all the MF related
settings for chapter seven and enter the MM rape ones, then remove
them for chapter eight and put the MF ones back. A lot more effort
than just noting all the codes first time up or just adding the MM
rape when you post chapter seven.

When I posted Rough Diamond, story finished and set to make a
different chapter available each day. I put up all the codes at the
start as that was the easiest option. The keystone of all good
administration and management is to Keep it Simple and Stupid to make
it easy to do and use. The more adjustments needed later the less
simple it is.

>
>
> > One point to keep in mind about making this easy, we already have a
> > number of people mentioning complaints of authors not listing all
> > codes, and also lots of discussion by authors on mentioning codes that
> > are minor aspects of the stories - usually relevant to only one
> > chapter.
>
> I agree, at least with the not-all-present complaint. That's why I
> suggested reader coding.

Which I doubt many authors would support due to concerns about abuse
like the scoring is abused at times.

>
> Frankly, I don't see the "minor" coding as directly related to the
> search function. I think the value is more in the "deciding to read
> this" function. So I am happy to guess, based on the synopsis, which
> codes are minor.

I can see having the minor codes not searched would be an acceptable
process as long as they're displayed with the synopsis.

>
> But I understand that some people get wrapped around the axle about
> certain codes, and if "minor" helps them to read a story that they
> might not otherwise read, then by all means let's have it. It's not
> like "minor" codes and "chapter" codes are exclusive. I thought, and
> still think, that chapter codes are a cheap way to collect "minor"
> code data. Any chapter code that was not listed in the whole-story
> code list is minor.
>
> > Another point is when you make it too much trouble for an author to
> > post to SOL by giving them too much administration they'll either just
> > ignore the administration they don't like or not post here at all. ...
>
> I agree. There's no reason that this stuff needs to be expensive.
> Adding minor codes, or adding chapter codes, should be doable without
> much time. Frankly, I think the current coding form - which looks like
> the search form - is a mistake. I think that there should be just a
> short entry field where you type your list of codes. Most authors are
> gonna know them, since they were readers first. (But like those travel
> websites with the "calendar" pop-up for dates, there could be a button
> that pops up the checklist next to the short field.)

I agree to a certain extent, but a tick box form is a lot easier to
use and a sure way to remind the authors of what codes are listed
instead of relying on their memories. I know when i uploaded one of
Caz's stories it was only going through the check list that reminded
me of one code that related to a very minor aspect of the story that
would have squicked some people, and thus code coded as I'd forgotten,
until I saw the code itself, that he had that scene in the story.
>
> Dem Copacetic Gnomes

I think we're both coming at this discussion from two widely different
viewpoints on a couple of issues and may never agree on some of them.
Having run a small business in the past I know how little costs and
issues can quickly escalate and how important it is to avoid any cost
that can be avoided, especially when on a tight budget.

[The Black Knight]

Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:
> > I don't know if there is a limit to the section, but you can always
> > add a story to your library and that will remember which was the last
> > chapter of that story you read. Thus serving this need.
>
> Or, a computer could do that FOR me. And since a computer
> is already looking up the stories and transmitting them to me in
> various forms (text, lists of stories, etc.) I'd like that computer,
> which happens to be the SOL server, to take care of that
> routine, repetitive, simple task. It's what computers are for, no?

Except that would require SOL to store information about individual
users' reading habits for more than 24 hours, and I understand Laz was
only willing to compromise on user privacy for that limited period.

Now, maybe readers could opt-in to having their information saved, and
that could work... but then there's the issues involved in saving all
that data. Remember, as far as memory is concerned, there is a lot
more than just story data taking up space... blogs, user info, user
preferences, author's pages, the various site pages.. all that takes
up room..

And if y'all want a computer to remember stuff for y'all, there's a
simple solution: don't clear your history on your browser - let YOUR
computer remember.

> He's running a real business, with real money, and this is part of that.

Actually, SOL is Laz's hobby, not a business.

> Apparently, we've dismissed the idea of allowing readers to provide
> codes. I think that's a mistake - the whole "Web 2.0" thing is about
> letting readers do work for free.

There's too much room for misuse with allowing users to add codes...
people can maliciously add inaccurate codes, and just add inaccurate
codes through incompetence (like coding anything Mf as 'pedo' because
they believe that's the definition) or meaningless (non-standard)
codes.

> Frankly, I think the current coding form - which looks like the
> search form - is a mistake. I think that there should be just a
> short entry field where you type your list of codes. Most authors
> are gonna know them, since they were readers first.

Except many authors don't know the exact codes without looking at
them... if there was a text-entry field, it would need to be error-
checked to ensure that the standard codes were used, and then there is
the case-sensitive nature of the codes... it's really less work to use
check boxes.

[The Black Knight]

Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:
> The users on Literotica, for example, seem like they would be
> low-value - every cheat+not(revenge) story would get "wimp". I don't
> know if that's true at SOL, too, since I haven't seen any user forum.

Uh, a cheating story where the guy cheated on doesn't want revenge
would automatically qualify it... 'wimp' means just putting up with
the cheater.

> How? The only exclusion that I know of is my "never show these"

Well, that is the simplest way to do it.

> This sounds suspiciously like a political and not a technical issue.

Yeah. And? Y'all might not care about user privacy, but y'all don't
get to decide on things that affect other people adversely.

[Switch Blayde]

> I *want* them in the search engine. Maybe a user wants to stroke with
> a rape fantasy: "stroke and rape" Or maybe they squick: "... and NOT
> (rape)" Either way, keep 'em searchable
 

If, in this example, rape is a minor code, then it's not a rape fantasy. A reader searching for a rape story would be disappointed. If it was a rape story, then the code wouldn't be minor. I don't want to read rape stories. But if a rape enhances the story, I'm in. For example, I like the movie "Death Wish." Not because of the rape scene, but everything that follows. So I wouldn't want to have "not rape" in a search keep me from finding that movie (story). But if I see "rape" as a minor code, I may still read the story (because it isn't a rape story). But someone like my wife, who can't watch (read) rape scenes would know to stay away from it.
 
[snipped from another of your recent emails]

 
> Apparently, we've dismissed the idea of allowing readers to provide
> codes. I think that's a mistake 
 

As an author, I would hate for someone other than myself to change anything about my story. In "His Friend's Mother," I do not consider there to be a rape in the story. Non-consent, yes. Rape, no. (Some would argue "non-consent" is rape, and it is, but not in the context of the "rape" code which I believe is a much more violent form of non-consent). The person who emailed me thought otherwise. Why should he be allowed to interpret *my* story in a way *I* didn't intend and add the rape code? Why not let readers change the synopsis if they believe it would "help" other readers? or the story title?
 
Switch
 
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:32:07 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: the_gnomes...@yahoo.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[The Black Knight]

Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:
> I *want* them in the search engine. Maybe a user wants to stroke with
> a rape fantasy: "stroke and rape" Or maybe they squick: "... and NOT
> (rape)" Either way, keep 'em searchable.

No need. If someone wants rape fantasy, they don't care if it's a
minor part of a much bigger non-rape story, that's not what they're
looking for. And any user who is squicked by seeing a synopsis
containing the word 'rape' needs a shrink more than he needs online
porn. But either way, if minor elements are identified clearly, they
would allow readers to avoid those squicks, and would free up the
searchable codes to be used solely for identifying major/central
content.

[Switch Blayde]

> Frankly, I think the current coding form - which looks like the
> search form - is a mistake. I think that there should be just a
> short entry field where you type your list of codes. Most authors
> are gonna know them, since they were readers first.
 

As someone who ran a worldwide data organization in a Fortune 100 company, I'm a strong believer of data standardization. It's one of the strengths of SOL's search mechanism. If you let authors come up with their own codes or spelling of codes, such as the way ASSTR does it, you're asking for disaster.

Switch

---

Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. Check it out.

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> As an author, I would hate for someone other than myself to
> change anything about my story. In "His Friend's Mother," I do
> not consider there to be a rape in the story. Non-consent,
> yes. Rape, no. (Some would argue "non-consent" is rape, and
> it is, but not in the context of the "rape" code which I believe is
> a much more violent form of non-consent).

Unfortunately, SOL is kinda vague on this. It defines 'rape' as Self-
explanatory.

Perhaps someone should suggest Laz tighten up the definition...
typically, it has historically been used to describe any non-con
action that goes beyond the limits of all the other non-con codes
(like coercion, blackmail, drugs, and so on not being rape) but
anyone just using the legal (ie: what some would consider the
'self-explanatory' definition) some of these actually are rape.

> The person who emailed me thought otherwise. Why should
> he be allowed to interpret *my* story in a way *I* didn't
> intend and add the rape code?

Well, given the current laxity of the definition, maybe he was right.
Maybe people who would consider the scene 'rape' and are
squicked by rape would be better served if it was listed as a code.

Unfortunately, for it to work, there would need to be some minimum
number of readers required to independently add the same code,
then a 'reader poll' asking "Does the following activity occur in this
story?" receiving a high percentage of positive responses before a
code is added. Maybe with some predetermined (but undisclosed) amount
of time between each 'nomination' and poll response, to
prevent malicious false claims. Or maybe just tracking user info on
who suggests and votes for the codes, so they can be blacklisted
if (when) it turns out that someone has falsely flagged a story.

> Why not let readers change the synopsis if they believe it
> would "help" other readers? or the story title?

Well, considering how misleading some synopses are, that might
not be such a bad idea. </sarcasm>

[Switch Blayde]

As to supplying "minor" codes, it just dawned on me that I will sort of be doing that in my current story (if I ever get it finished). Part of the synopsis contains:
 
There's violence in the story, but it's not a story about violence. It's a story about intimidation, fear, humiliation, and how much emotional trauma a person can endure before doing something desperate.
 
So I'm basically defining a minor code of "violence."
 
SOL's definition of the violent code is: "Violence in the story, not necessarily of sexual nature."
 
Based on that definition, I should be coding (major) the story as "violent" because there's quite a bit of it in the story. But as the author, I reserve the right to state explicitly (by not including the code) that it's not a story ABOUT violence. My definition differs from SOL's, but that's my perogative. Will I piss people off? Probably, but at least I mention it in the synopsis. Do I want a reader to use SOL's definition and add the "violent" code? Absolutely not!
 
Switch
 

---

Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry Check it out.

[just-this-guy]

Allowing readers to code authors' works would just create an author
exodus from SOL.
Who knows better how a story should be coded than an author?
If there is a "deficient" author, readers can try to straight him out
with kindly worded corrective emails
or as most people prefer "flame him" and deride his parentage.

BK is very right. Readers will spitefully miscode stories. There's
problems enough with scores. Why give the readers one more power for
authors to complain about?


As far as individually coding chapters? No, thanks. I'll code the
entire story up front. If I'm posting chapters 6 thru 8 at one time,
I just want to post them and not detail what each chapter contains
regarding codes. Readers already know the codes reflect the story in
its entirety and also know that every chapter will not contain certain
code elements. It seems to be a pointless change (IMO).

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> I reserve the right to state explicitly (by not including the code) that
> it's not a story ABOUT violence. My definition differs from SOL's,

> but that's my prerogative.

The codes aren't there to tell people what a story is about, they're
there to warn readers what it contains. Like the ingredient listing on
food labels.
The story may not be peanuts, but if it contains them, people should
know.

> Will I piss people off? Probably, but at least I mention it in the synopsis.

Well, that's a good point. The problem is if writers start thinking
that way about coding, but fail to warn readers in any way... then
things can get ugly, and the authors involved deserve it. Better to
just (until and unless the system ever changes to distinguish between
content-present and content-central) correctly code stories for
everything that happens.

[Switch Blayde]

TBK,
 
Good point about the ingredients. I went back to my notes where I keep a list of codes that I'll post with the story. I was going to add "violent" to the list but it was already there. So I guess I had expected to code it correctly and the info in the synopsis was actually to counter the code. I've been writing this story for some time and don't remember everything.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:56:48 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

---

Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. Check it out.

[Lazeez Jiddan]

On 23-Apr-09, at 5:13 PM, Switch Blayde wrote:

In this post, the following were mentioned:

I've been following this thread and I think it's time to respond. First I'll address the few points:

1) "and", "or", and "not" capabilities.

While this would make the categories search more versatile and more powerful, it won't necessarily make this any more useful.

Honing in on one particular story using the categories is not exactly easy, nor the best way. The categories page is meant to enable users to find stories that they will generally like. It was never, ever designed to find particular stories. Adding the 'or' flag would only enlarge the result returned.

Making an interface that allows everybody to use the 'and' 'or' and 'not' flags is a nightmare. A field for query entry would be used by the few users that have programming backgrounds, leaving it completely useless for the vast majority.

One of the strengths of the site is simplicity.

2) new codes such as "teen", "post-apoc", and "time-tr"
3) confusing codes such as "college".
4) unnecessary codes such as "2nd POV".

2nd point of view code was meant basically for my own usage. I put it in to make it as a flag that I could use for 2nd POV stories. I put it in for few and removed from the few submissions that were tagged as so when it didn't apply. However, my tight schedule doesn't give me enough time to check all stories and use the code. My helper doesn't have the time either, so the code is of less use.

Other issues:

Retaining story access data for long time, it is actually partially available for premier members on opt-in basis, but it's not used for much at this point. I do have plans to make it more useful in the future. Currently the budget doesn't allow for it.

Drive space is an issue (anybody doubting the cost, check the cost of server-grade SAS drive cost. I have my own servers colocated at a hosting facility).

Bandwidth cost and processing power are issues (having to check each story found against a long list of read stories for each query and each page fetch is not a light duty thing when there are thousands of people accessing the server.)

Off-site backup is an issue when shuttling around large amounts of data over the net (current database size is over 10 GB).

Readers tagging stories is a no-no. I'm having problems already with the scoring system. Authors often complain about people giving them a 5 or lower (yes a 5). Anything else that gives readers more power over the authors' stories will give me a bigger headache. Many don't seem to think about this much, but I have evidence that people from other story sites make frequent attempts to drive authors away from SOL using the scoring system to vote down stories and using the feedback system to insult authors. So I won't give any such people another avenue to sabotage things. Another downside of this is spoilers in reader submitted tags and codes.

Free-form author tags are nearly useless for search. Tag standardization is key. Many authors and a lot of the readers have no idea what the codes are for really, imagine an unlimited set of codes - how useful is that for searching? you have to guess what code the author may have used and the author has to guess what the readers may expect. And that also expands the amount of data to keep.

Chapter codes: They're useless for the site. The main entity on the site is the story, not the chapter. Finding a chapter with the sought codes is a waste of time if another chapter of the same story contain the readers squick codes. Would somebody read a chapter and skip the rest of the story? Having one set of codes representing the main entity is the key.

Major and minor codes have merits, but also entails a price on the processing and searching side and user interface side. I'm on the fence for this one.

So, to recap:

Minor/Major codes - Maybe when I have time in the future

Chapter codes - no

Boolean options - no

Reader Tags - no

Reader data retention - optional, and role to be expanded

I hope that addresses the issue. If I missed a point let me know :)

[Switch Blayde]

Laz, thanks for the input. I have two comments.
 
"Boolean options - no".
 
You say "A field for query entry would be used by the few users that have programming backgrounds." But I wasn't thinking of the reader creating the boolean expression. I guess I thought your software would. What I was thinking was two check boxes next to each code. One box would be for codes that MUST be present ("and") while the other box would be for codes that MAY be present ("or"). So in the following:
 
[x] [ ] MF
[x] [ ] non-consent
[ ] [x] blackmail
[ ] [x] mind control

This request states: the story MUST have "MF" and "non-consent" codes and either or both "blackmail" and "mind control" codes. Today if all four codes were checked and the story didn't have either the "blackmail" or "mind control" code, it would not be displayed in the results. Therefore, it would take two independent searches. One with "MF" and "non-consent" and "blackmail" and another one with "MF" and "non-consent" and "mind control."
 
So the reader isn't searching for a specific story, but a certain kind of story. I thought the Category Search was intended to do that. And yes, it should return more results, but that's the point. With all the neat sorting options, that shouldn't be a hinderance for the reader.
 
But if building the interface for this is a nightmare, it's probably not worth doing. I think only 3 or 4 people contributed to the thread so it must not be important to most people.

 
"Minor/Major codes - Maybe when I have time in the future"
 

You say "but also entails a price on the processing and searching side." I didn't think the minor codes should be used in the search. However, I believe Dem Gnomes did. The reason I didn't was simply because if it was, they'd be just like the major codes. My thought was that after the search was done (on the major codes) then the reader would see the minor codes and say to himself, "Okay, I don't like rape stories, but rape is listed as a minor code so it's not a rape story. Hmmm, do I want to read it?"
 
Just some food for thought.
 
Switch
 

---

From: laz...@gmail.com
To: storie...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:44:28 +0300

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> You say "but also entails a price on the processing and searching side." I didn't think the

> minor codes should be used in the search. The reason I didn't was simply because if it

> was, they'd be just like the major codes.

They'd still have to be there for story exclusion purposes, if nothing
else...

[Switch Blayde]

The Black Knight wrote:
> They'd still have to be there for story exclusion purposes, if nothing else...
 

I thought the purpose of the code being "minor" was that it wouldn't be used to exclude. Back to my "Death Wish" example. Let's say as a reader I exclude rape stories (stories with the "rape" code). The rape scene in "Death Wish" was instrumental to the plot, but it wasn't a rape story. So let's say the author flagged it "rape" as a minor code. What you're saying is that it would be excluded because of the minor rape code.
 
If that's the case, I do not see any need for the minor code. It could drive an author nuts trying to figure out which codes are major and which are minor. Why put the author through that if there's no difference between coding something as minor or major?
 
Switch

 
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:24:10 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> If that's the case, I do not see any need for the minor code.
> It could drive an author nuts trying to figure out which
> codes are major and which are minor. Why put the author
> through that if there's no difference between coding
> something as minor or major?

As an example, I can only use my own preferences... so here goes:
I dislike typical 'swing' stories, as most are written solely for
those
who are into the lifestyle. So generally, I don't read them. If it
was
a minor part of a story (two of the characters experiment with
swinging, in a much bigger story) it wouldn't bother me, so if it
was marked as 'minor' I'd give the story a try. (I don't have
exclusion
preferences set, and I probably wouldn't bother with including
'swing' in them if I did.) However, I REALLY don't care if the Mb
part of a story is minor or major, I want to avoid it in all cases.

But to your point, that's why there's a 'override exclusion settings'
option... perhaps it could be expanded to two boxes, one to allow
minor codes to not cause stories to be excluded, and one to allow
major codes to not trigger the exclusion.

Besides, in another aspect of the problem... the search functionality
should only return stories with major content of the codes being
searched on. But a person`s squicks are unlikely to be influenced
by how prevalent they are in a story.

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day Lazeez,

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. As you probably
know from the posts I agree with with most of what you say.

Searches
I can see a value in the NOT search capability. In the existing
Category Search form each code has a box beside it, if it had two
boxes one for INCLUDE and one for EXCLUDE (the NOT capability) it
would then be automatically providing an OR capability on the other
codes if they're aren't marked. Yes, the same effect can be achieved
in the current process through the Category Exclusion Preference page,
but this means I need to go to that preference and make sure it has
the EXCLUDE preferences I wish to run today, and they often change
from day to day. You may wish to have the exclude capability on the
search as a Premium Membership capability only. Any category not
ticked as INCLUDE or EXCLUDE is automatically an OR category.

This would work on Switch Blayde's example like this:

Ticking EXCLUDE for the unwanted exclude categories only would list
every story with the remaining wanted categories in the one search,
while a tick in the INCLUDE of any category would cut out any story
without that code. All others would be listed.

Although this would improve the search capability by reducing the
number of searches some people have to do, I not sure how hard this
is too implement or how much it would be used used by others, but I
know I'd use it when doing searches.

Minor Search Codes
I envisioned this as being a case of an additional tick box on the
codes page for each code, ie each code has two tick boxes MAJOR and
MINOR, the author ticks what's appropriate.

When I suggested this I did NOT envision them being searched at all,
just listed with all the codes in the story summary. That way the
reader would see they were a minor issue and then make up their mind
about a possibility of being squicked. In this process the minor codes
would be filed in a string data field linked to the story the same way
the synopsis is and not searched at all.

Another way this could be addressed would be to have the data storage
for the minor codes be stored and link as a duplicate of the existing
code storage service and searched in a similar manner, but ONLY when
someone runs the search with a request to search the minor codes. This
would be handled by the search page either having two tick boxes per
code (MAJOR and MINOR) or by a single box marked CHECK MINOR CODES AS
WELL.

However this is done it's definitely a case of 'for the future when
you have time.'

Thanks for the hard work you put into SOL.

Ernest

[Switch Blayde]

> it would then be automatically providing an OR capability on the other
> codes if they're aren't marked.
 

I don't agree with this idea. First, it puts too many codes in the search; or else it requires too many codes to be excluded.
 
Second, I like the difference between "and" and "or". For the "and" codes in the search (like we have today) all must be present for the story to be selected. The advantage of the "or" code is that if it's not there it doesn't exclude the story from being selected. So, bottom line, I much prefer the "or" to be implemented than the "not" especially since we already have a mechanism for excluding. The advantage of the "or" is that it requires fewer searches to find what you're looking for.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:25:23 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: ernest....@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Tim Merrigan]

You're neglecting that most of the search engines I've used for looking
for stories are not case sensitive, so can't distinguish between mF, Mf,
mf, or MF. (Which is mildly annoying when I'm looking for Mg stories
and get stories about British sports cars.)

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: switch...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Story code/search wish list

> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:41:05 -0700
>
> I have a few comments:
>
> 1. The Black Knight's point is valid that you could get too many
> results with the "or". I'm thinking his approach for doing multiple
> searches with the current system is okay. He's definitely a much more
> experienced SOL user than I.
>
> 2. Disk space is an issue. Laz has considered eliminating the detail
> TPA scores in order to save disk space (something I would hate).
>

> 3. I still like the minor codes idea. A question to all: What if we
> listed them as minor codes in the synopsis? This way the search engine
> wouldn't be affected yet the reader would be made aware of a potential
> squick, even if it's only in passing.
>

> 4. I still don't like the chapter codes for many of the reasons
> already stated.
>
> Switch
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.

> <http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it
> out.

> <http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009>

--

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan

[Tim Merrigan]

The Black Knight wrote:
> Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
>
>> As an author, I would hate for someone other than myself to
>> change anything about my story. In "His Friend's Mother," I do
>> not consider there to be a rape in the story. Non-consent,
>> yes. Rape, no. (Some would argue "non-consent" is rape, and
>> it is, but not in the context of the "rape" code which I believe is
>> a much more violent form of non-consent).
>>
>
> Unfortunately, SOL is kinda vague on this. It defines 'rape' as Self-
> explanatory.
>
> Perhaps someone should suggest Laz tighten up the definition...
> typically, it has historically been used to describe any non-con
> action that goes beyond the limits of all the other non-con codes
> (like coercion, blackmail, drugs, and so on not being rape) but
> anyone just using the legal (ie: what some would consider the
> 'self-explanatory' definition) some of these actually are rape.
>

For example, I have yet to see a mind-control story coded as rape,
though some are coded non-con. By a strict definition, though the
victim may appear to consent to all outward appearances, in fact she has
no say in the matter. Some would even say that was a more heinous rape
than a blatantly violent sexual assault.

>> The person who emailed me thought otherwise. Why should
>> he be allowed to interpret *my* story in a way *I* didn't
>> intend and add the rape code?
>>
>
> Well, given the current laxity of the definition, maybe he was right.
> Maybe people who would consider the scene 'rape' and are
> squicked by rape would be better served if it was listed as a code.
>
> Unfortunately, for it to work, there would need to be some minimum
> number of readers required to independently add the same code,
> then a 'reader poll' asking "Does the following activity occur in this
> story?" receiving a high percentage of positive responses before a
> code is added. Maybe with some predetermined (but undisclosed) amount
> of time between each 'nomination' and poll response, to
> prevent malicious false claims. Or maybe just tracking user info on
> who suggests and votes for the codes, so they can be blacklisted
> if (when) it turns out that someone has falsely flagged a story.
>
>
>> Why not let readers change the synopsis if they believe it
>> would "help" other readers? or the story title?
>>
>
> Well, considering how misleading some synopses are, that might
> not be such a bad idea. </sarcasm>
>
>

[Tim Merrigan]

My coding of stories is after the fact, though they will always contain
some Mg, I don't know till after I've written them what else they'll
contain, and I certainly don't know what will be in chapter 20, before
I've written chapter 1.

[The Black Knight]

Tim Merrigan allegedly wrote:

> The Black Knight wrote:
> > Perhaps someone should suggest Laz tighten up the definition...
> > typically, it has historically been used to describe any non-con
> > action that goes beyond the limits of all the other non-con codes
> > (like coercion, blackmail, drugs, and so on not being rape) but
> > anyone just using the legal (ie: what some would consider the
> > 'self-explanatory' definition) some of these actually are rape.
>
> For example, I have yet to see a mind-control story coded as rape,
> though some are coded non-con.  By a strict definition, though the
> victim may appear to consent to all outward appearances, in fact
> she has no say in the matter.  Some would even say that was a more
> heinous rape than a blatantly violent sexual assault.

I only recall one mc story where the main character was charged
with a sex crime. (The 'control' was only temporary, and the 'victim'
retained knowledge of what happened.) I don't recall if it included
the 'rape' code or not.

Usually, though, 'rape' (for story coding purposes) has been
restricted
to stories involving assault (legal definition - use of physical force
or
threats thereof) as part of the act, although it's typical that the
'threat'
part of the definition usually is only classed as 'rape' when there's
a
weapon involved, as threat of unarmed force is sometimes classed
under 'coercion'.

MC stories are a difficult issue... certainly there seems to be two
distinct sub-classes among them... stories where the 'victim'
retains awareness, but is unable to express a lack of consent -
and usually explicitly gives consent against her will - should
probably be classed as 'rape'... although no such 'rapist' could
ever be convicted of a crime. The other type, where the 'victim'
is 'modified' to the extent that she willingly consents is tougher.
Such stories are certainly not what anyone would normally
consider 'rape', and the main character would never even be
charged, let alone convicted. Still, maybe some (especially
man-hating lesbian feminist types) would consider them 'rape'
stories. This is another reason why the code should be better
defined.

[Tim Merrigan]

Switch Blayde wrote:
> The Black Knight wrote:
> > They'd still have to be there for story exclusion purposes, if
> nothing else...
>
> I thought the purpose of the code being "minor" was that it wouldn't
> be used to exclude. Back to my "Death Wish" example. Let's say as a
> reader I exclude rape stories (stories with the "rape" code). The rape
> scene in "Death Wish" was instrumental to the plot, but it wasn't a
> rape story. So let's say the author flagged it "rape" as a minor code.
> What you're saying is that it would be excluded because of the minor
> rape code.
>
> If that's the case, I do not see any need for the minor code. It could
> drive an author nuts trying to figure out which codes are major and
> which are minor. Why put the author through that if there's no
> difference between coding something as minor or major?
>
> Switch

There is a difference. To use your "Death Wish" example, the "minor"
codes could be used only in exclusionary searches, for people like your
wife, but not in inclusionary searchers so someone looking for rape
stories wouldn't be disappointed in finding what amounts to a revenge
story with a rape scene. (And don't ask me how that would be (computer)
coded.)

> > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:24:10 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list
> > From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> > To: storie...@googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> > Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> > > You say "but also entails a price on the processing and searching
> side." I didn't think the
> > > minor codes should be used in the search. The reason I didn't was
> simply because if it
> > > was, they'd be just like the major codes.
> >
> > They'd still have to be there for story exclusion purposes, if nothing
> > else...
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it
> out.

> <http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009>

[The Black Knight]

Tim Merrigan allegedly wrote:
> There is a difference.  To use your "Death Wish" example, the "minor"
> codes could be used only in exclusionary searches, for people like your
> wife, but not in inclusionary searchers so someone looking for rape
> stories wouldn't be disappointed in finding what amounts to a revenge
> story with a rape scene.  (And don't ask me how that would be
> (computer) coded.)

It would be trivially easy. Presumably there would be two DB fields
(one
for major codes, one for minor... call them fields sc1 and sc2,
respectively)
that contain the code entries. Searching for content would be done by
searching only field sc1, subject to exclusions. Exclusions would
involve
the content of sc1 or sc2.

[Tim Merrigan]

Switch Blayde wrote:
> > it would then be automatically providing an OR capability on the other
> > codes if they're aren't marked.
>
> I don't agree with this idea. First, it puts too many codes in the
> search; or else it requires too many codes to be excluded.
>
> Second, I like the difference between "and" and "or". For the "and"
> codes in the search (like we have today) all must be present for the
> story to be selected. The advantage of the "or" code is that if it's
> not there it doesn't exclude the story from being selected. So, bottom
> line, I much prefer the "or" to be implemented than the "not"
> especially since we already have a mechanism for excluding. The
> advantage of the "or" is that it requires fewer searches to find what
> you're looking for.
>
> Switch

When I first started using SoL's category search engine I assumed it was
using an OR parameter, and checked all the categories I wanted included,
thus often getting no results. I like the idea of "must have" and "may
have" check boxes, though all unchecked categories are automatically in
the "may have" category. My example: I want Mg stories, I don't care
whether they're consensual or not, or what the non-sexual relationship
is between the man and the girl, so, once I figured out Lazeez's non
standard definitions of "pedo" and "lolita", I'd check "gi", "pedo",
"lolita", and (all of the possible male relationships), not realizing
that, by doing so, I was excluding everything that didn't include that
specific combination of codes. So, I think what I would actually want,
of the available codes (what I actually actually want are Mg, mg, and bg
codes), (gi + (pedo or lolita) + (brother or father or cousins or grand
parent or uncle or Doctor/Nurse or Teacher/Student or Babysitter) - (MM
or mm or Mb or mb or bb))

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it
> out.

[Switch Blayde]

> You're neglecting that most of the search engines I've used for looking
> for stories are not case sensitive
 

But SOL is. All you do is check the appropriate box.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:52:35 -0700
> From: tp...@ca.rr.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list
>
>

[Switch Blayde]

Tim wrote:
> I don't know till after I've written them what else they'll contain, and
> I certainly don't know what will be in chapter 20, before I've written chapter 1.

I don't know all the codes up front either. I keep a list of them as the story progresses along with my other notes. But I complete the story before posting even one chapter so I can list all the codes at once. For someone like you, who posts chapters as you complete them, you have to update the story codes whenever a new one appears in a new chapter.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:31:50 -0700
> From: tp...@ca.rr.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list
>
>

[Switch Blayde]

Tim wrote:
> (what I actually actually want are Mg, mg, and bg codes),
 

I once discussed the lack of "b" and "g" age/gender codes with Lazeez. I wrote a story with a girl under 12 but there was no way to discribe the relationship. I ended up coding it as Mf and gi (girl). His reason for not having the "b" and "g" in the age/gender was simple -- there would be too many options.
 
This is the thread to make your wishes known though. Personally, I think the Mg, Fg, Fb, etc. codes should be there. But I don't have to maintain the site.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:21:58 -0700
> From: tp...@ca.rr.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Dem Gnomes]

Lazeez Jiddan wrote:
> On 23-Apr-09, at 5:13 PM, Switch Blayde wrote:
>
>
> > In this post, the following were mentioned:
>
> I've been following this thread and I think it's time to respond.
> First I'll address the few points:
>
> > 1) "and", "or", and "not" capabilities.
>
> While this would make the categories search more versatile and more
> powerful, it won't necessarily make this any more useful.
>

Disagree. I wouldn't have asked for it if I hadn't thought it would
make it more useful.

> Honing in on one particular story using the categories is not exactly
> easy, nor the best way. The categories page is meant to enable users
> to find stories that they will generally like. It was never, ever
> designed to find particular stories. Adding the 'or' flag would only
> enlarge the result returned.

Yes, adding "or" will increase the size of the result set. As I
pointed out to Dark Knight a few days ago, that has the advantage of
converting TWO or THREE result sets into ONE (admittedly larger)
result set. Which I can then filter, or sort by date, or whatever.

If a story involves sex between a professor and a student, is that
"coll+MF" or "coll+Mf"? Did the author code her as "f" because the
professor has power, or maybe she's smart and made it to college at
17? Or as MF because she's 18?

I want to sweep 'em in - MF or Mf - and then deal with 'em. I *want*
the larger - but singleton - result set.

>
> Making an interface that allows everybody to use the 'and' 'or' and
> 'not' flags is a nightmare. A field for query entry would be used by
> the few users that have programming backgrounds, leaving it completely
> useless for the vast majority.

Send me the source to categories.php, plus whatever it includes. I'll
do it. (Free, no obligation, and I'll even use the same coding style
as you :-)

>
> One of the strengths of the site is simplicity.
>

I slightly disagree, here. I have also used ASSTR and Literotica, and
both of them are "simpler" than SOL. There is a tree of things you can
click, and that's ALL. Simple.

I much, much, *much* prefer SOL, where there is no tree. The strength,
IMO, is power, not simplicity.

Compared to ASSTR, there are <somebody's> collections - which might be
universes, but not really, there are "new stories", and there is a
disorganized, poorly operating search engine, versus the existing SOL
engine, which is good.

Compared to Literotica, there is a "by author" function and a "by
major category" function. And there's eleventy-seven kinds of pay-for-
porn, I guess.

SOL matches the "new stories" and "by author", because how freaking
hard is that, really? And it wins hands down on the search engine. It
doesn't win because the search is "simple," though. It wins because
"Wow, I can search for multiple tags! Sweet!"

Unfortunately for Dark Knight (I think?), he can't search for "cheat
and not(wimp or cuckold)", and there's no "cheat and vengeance-is-
mine!" tag option. :(

> > 2) new codes such as "teen", "post-apoc", and "time-tr"
> > 3) confusing codes such as "college".
> > 4) unnecessary codes such as "2nd POV".
>
> 2nd point of view code was meant basically for my own usage. I put it
> in to make it as a flag that I could use for 2nd POV stories. I put it
> in for few and removed from the few submissions that were tagged as so
> when it didn't apply. However, my tight schedule doesn't give me
> enough time to check all stories and use the code. My helper doesn't
> have the time either, so the code is of less use.

I hate 2pov so much it's in my exclusion list. I LOVE the fact that
you've got the code for it, and I just wish all such stories were
accurately coded.

>
> Other issues:
>
> Retaining story access data for long time, it is actually partially
> available for premier members on opt-in basis, but it's not used for
> much at this point. I do have plans to make it more useful in the
> future. Currently the budget doesn't allow for it.

Is that the "delete from library/delete from reading queue" thing?

Regardless, I'm willing to help if you'd like.

> Bandwidth cost and processing power are issues (having to check each
> story found against a long list of read stories for each query and
> each page fetch is not a light duty thing when there are thousands of
> people accessing the server.)

SELECT ... (usr.story_id IS NULL) AS read_already
FROM ...
LEFT JOIN user_stories_read usr
ON (story.id = usr.story_id AND user.id = usr.user_id)
WHERE ...
ORDER BY ...

>
> Readers tagging stories is a no-no. I'm having problems already with
> the scoring system. Authors often complain about people giving them a
> 5 or lower (yes a 5). Anything else that gives readers more power over
> the authors' stories will give me a bigger headache. Many don't seem
> to think about this much, but I have evidence that people from other
> story sites make frequent attempts to drive authors away from SOL
> using the scoring system to vote down stories and using the feedback
> system to insult authors. So I won't give any such people another
> avenue to sabotage things. Another downside of this is spoilers in
> reader submitted tags and codes.

I'm surprised that there is that kind of competition for authors. At
the risk of increasing your workload, how many ratings/feedback does a
story get, on average? Are we talking about tens, hundreds, or
thousands of entries?

Would it make any difference if the ability to add tags was reserved
for paying subscribers? (Would it make any difference if the ability
to set ratings were reserved?)

Given that, as I understand it, authors have the option to turn off
ratings, why does any author spend time whining about ratings - as
opposed to turning them off?

>
> Free-form author tags are nearly useless for search. Tag
> standardization is key. Many authors and a lot of the readers have no
> idea what the codes are for really, imagine an unlimited set of codes
> - how useful is that for searching? you have to guess what code the
> author may have used and the author has to guess what the readers may
> expect. And that also expands the amount of data to keep.

Actually, on the subject of user-supplied tags the usual approach is
"this <item> is has been tagged by our users as: A, B, C. Click a tag
to see other <item>s with that tag." (Stolen shamelessly from every
blog's tag cloud, plus amazon.)

>
> Chapter codes: They're useless for the site. The main entity on the
> site is the story, not the chapter. Finding a chapter with the sought
> codes is a waste of time if another chapter of the same story contain
> the readers squick codes. Would somebody read a chapter and skip the
> rest of the story? Having one set of codes representing the main
> entity is the key.

Actually, I'm thinking here of some of the larger stories. If some
hypothetical user <looking around, whistling> wanted a quick stroke
session with, say, SpacerX's 6 Thousand Chapters and Counting (or
whatever it's called), chapter codes would let them maybe find where
the anal or bondage stuff was at.

Remember, while I think some of this search stuff might be useful for
avoidance, I'm mostly interested in finding things, not avoiding them.

> Major and minor codes have merits, but also entails a price on the
> processing and searching side and user interface side. I'm on the
> fence for this one.

Why? Major/minor is one extra <something> in the author's data entry
view, and one line in the story page, and nothing else. Done right,
the search would hardly change at all. (You'd add a column to the hook
table between story and code that indicated major/minor relationship
types, but you'd ignore that on search, or just use it to order or
group the results.)

>
> So, to recap:
> Minor/Major codes - Maybe when I have time in the future
> Chapter codes - no
> Boolean options - no
> Reader Tags - no
> Reader data retention - optional, and role to be expanded

>
> I hope that addresses the issue. If I missed a point let me know :)

Can we get the "story details" expanded by default on the story page?

Also, can you "yellow-ify" more of left part of the rows in the
reading queue that have updated? (Presently, it's just the "Update"
field, which is off-screen when I've got firefox on a skinny monitor.)

Thanks for responding.

Dem Suggestive Gnomes

[Switch Blayde]

I had used the following scenario in a previous post to describe how I thought the "and" "or" should work:

 
> So if I wanted a story that must have "mF" and "non-consent" and
> preferably "blackmail" and/or "mind control" it would be requested as:
> All of these codes = "mF", "non-consent"
> Any of these codes = "blackmail", "mind control"
>
> Stories having:
> mF, non-consent, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would match
> mF, non-consent, blackmail, etc. -- would match
> mF, non-consent, mind control, etc. -- would match
> mF, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would NOT match (missing "non-consent")
> MF, non-consent, blackmail, mind control, etc. -- would NOT match (missing "mF")
> mF, non-consent, etc. -- would match
 

I'm now thinking the last example "mF, non-consent, etc. -- would match" is wrong. If that were to match, there'd be no difference as to how it works today (basically, if all selected items are listed with the story, then the story gets displayed).
 
I'm now thinking that the "or" or "any of these" should be "one or more of these." So in my example, to be displayed, the story MUST have "mF" and "non-consent" and EITHER OR BOTH "blackmail" and "mind control". If it doesn't have either "blackmail" or "mind control" then there is no match.
 
Switch
 

---

[The Black Knight]

Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:
> If a story involves sex between a professor and a student, is that
> "coll+MF" or "coll+Mf"? Did the author code her as "f" because the
> professor has power, or maybe she's smart and made it to college at
> 17? Or as MF because she's 18?

So is there a reason for not just searching on the 'teach' code? (And
there's no way to distinguish through codes high school from college.)
Just leave out the M* part, and add 'het' (or leave it to exclusion to
remove the MM/Mm/Mb teacher/student stories).

> I slightly disagree, here. I have also used ASSTR and Literotica, and
> both of them are "simpler" than SOL. There is a tree of things you can
> click, and that's ALL. Simple.

And finding anything is hardly simple.

> Unfortunately for Dark Knight (I think?), he can't search for "cheat
> and not(wimp or cuckold)", and there's no "cheat and vengeance-is-
> mine!" tag option. :(

I can't be certain about TDK's reading preferences, but I don't think
he wastes a lot of his time reading 'cheat' stories either.

It's very, very rare that I'll bother with ANY 'cheat' story. Maybe if
there were distinct codes for cheater/cheatee... (I can't understand
why anyone WANTS to empathize with a person being cheated on... I
certainly don't like stories where a character I've started
identifying with gets fucked around on, but I can handle a story where
the central character(s) is(are) stepping out on the S.O.(s) who
either never figure(s) into the story or appear just enough to display
'deserving betrayal' behavior.)

> Would it make any difference if the ability to add tags was reserved
> for paying subscribers? (Would it make any difference if the ability
> to set ratings were reserved?)

Some writers (or rabid fans of certain writers) have also exhibited
willingness to 'sabotage' the competition, to allow the writers'
stories
to place higher on the various 'top' lists. Since some of these 'fans'
doubtless have paid memberships, and writers can get comped
memberships, there's no way this would protect the system from
abuse... worse, if tracking were used to identify abusers of the
option,
id a paying member was identified as an abuser and was subsequently
restricted from tagging stories, then imagine the bitching when a
'paid members only' "right" is taken away? Better, if it were
implemented, to grant it to everyone and take it away from those who
show they can't be trusted with it.

> Given that, as I understand it, authors have the option to turn off
> ratings, why does any author spend time whining about ratings - as
> opposed to turning them off?

Being comped a free paid membership depends on a lot of variables,
but turning off scoring requires a (for most writers - JPB may be an
exception) larger amount of writing to qualify. So mostly the writers
who turn off scores are members of two groups... those like cmsix,
rache, and .B who have enough written that they'd qualify for the
free membership even with scoring off and those writers who don't
expect to ever reach the 'comp membership' threshold even if they
left scoring on. (I've noticed that prolific writers seem to turn off
scoring only once they've posted several megs of stories.)

> Actually, on the subject of user-supplied tags the usual approach is
> "this <item> is has been tagged by our users as: A, B, C. Click a tag
> to see other <item>s with that tag." (Stolen shamelessly from every
> blog's tag cloud, plus amazon.)

If it were to be done, the best approach would be to have a link on
the bottom of each story page for "Report missing code(s)" which would
then bring up the checklist. The user checks off the codes that the
author left out of the synopsis/codes. Still, there'd have to be a
number
of restrictions to make this viable, and I doubt it's worth the
expense
of Laz's time to try and accomplish it.

> session with, say, SpacerX's 6 Thousand Chapters and Counting (or

I thought that was Ascending Author that wrote that one...

> > Major and minor codes have merits, but also entails a price on the
> > processing and searching side and user interface side. I'm on the
> > fence for this one.
>
> Why? Major/minor is one extra <something> in the author's data
> entry view, and one line in the story page, and nothing else. Done
> right, the search would hardly change at all.

Done right, the coding would require enabling users to override
exclusions for content, or for minor content, or not... and requires
every search (for users with exclusion preferences who don't
choose to override them) to do even more comparisons to eliminate
stories.

Each query might only add a small increase in demand on the processor,
but considering the sheer number of users on SOL, a
small increase in load as a result of a single request is obviously
gonna explode into something very much noticeable very quickly.

> Also, can you "yellow-ify" more of left part of the rows in the
> reading queue that have updated? (Presently, it's just the "Update"
> field, which is off-screen when I've got firefox on a skinny monitor.)

If y'all are using Firefox already, download the Stylish add-on. Then
tweak the CSS however y'all want. (like setting table widths to
percentages rather than set values, and not having columns go off-
screen.)

[Switch Blayde]

> Just leave out the M* part, and add 'het' 
 

This is a great example. All my stories are heterosexual. Some may have other types, but I've never written, for example, a straight lesbian story (hmmm, "straight lesbian"? Is that an oxymoron?). Actually I think I did once but it's not on SOL.
 
So anyone who does a search with "het" checked will never find one of my stories. That's because the search engine uses the "all" method.
 
I guess the next question asked is why don't I code a heterosexual story as "het"? I always thought it would be reduntant to do so. By specifying "MF" I'm defining the heterosexual relationship. But what I'm learning, is that I need to put in as many codes as possible to get as many search hits on my stories as possible. My philosophy was to minimize the codes to highlight what the story was really about, not have two or three lines of codes.
 
I guess story codes are not so simple.
 
Getting back to the "rape" code, all of the following are considered rape in the legal sense:
- non-consent
- pedophelia
- lolita
- reluctant
- rape
- coercion
- blackmail
- mind control
- hypnosis
- drunk/drugged
- magic (I guess)
- slavery
- an adult having sex with someone under the age of consent
 
So when it comes to story codes, I guess we aren't talking about a legal definition. Maybe "self-explanatory" isn't justifiable here. I've coded stories "non-consent" but never "rape." To me rape is much more physical whereas mine are usually emotional (as in coercision, blackmail, etc.).
 
Switch
 
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:48:50 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Deadly Ernest]

On Apr 28, 2:40 am, Switch Blayde <switch_bla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Just leave out the M* part, and add 'het'
>
> This is a great example. All my stories are heterosexual. Some may have other types, but I've never written, for example, a straight lesbian story (hmmm, "straight lesbian"? Is that an oxymoron?). Actually I think I did once but it's not on SOL.
>
> So anyone who does a search with "het" checked will never find one of my stories. That's because the search engine uses the "all" method.
>
> I guess the next question asked is why don't I code a heterosexual story as "het"? I always thought it would be reduntant to do so. By specifying "MF" I'm defining the heterosexual relationship. But what I'm learning, is that I need to put in as many codes as possible to get as many search hits on my stories as possible. My philosophy was to minimize the codes to highlight what the story was really about, not have two or three lines of codes.
>
> I guess story codes are not so simple.
>

snipped

I'd expect a story coded het to have some fairly graphic sex in it and
no sexual activity that wasn't straight heterosexual; thus lots of sex
with no hint of girl on girl or boy on boy sex at all. Where as MF can
be romantic without any sex or it can include a minor scene of two
girls together. I'm not sure if that's the official way it's meant to
be, but that's my 'self explanatory' explanation.

Ernest

[bondi beach]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Deadly Ernest <ernest....@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd expect a story coded het to have some fairly graphic sex in it and
no sexual activity that wasn't straight heterosexual; thus lots of sex
with no hint of girl on girl or boy on boy sex at all. Where as MF can
be romantic without any sex or it can include a minor scene of two
girls together. I'm not sure if that's the official way it's meant to
be, but that's my 'self explanatory' explanation.

wait a minute, ernest. how come it's ok to have a minor scene of two girls and still be het but can't have a minor scene with two guys? aside from the obvious answer, of course, that most straight guys think two girls together are hot but many are squicked by two guys.

i guess i'm thinking that we all pretty much have "self-explanatory" explanations, which i'm following with interest in this thread, but which also suggests that it's going to be pretty tough to come up with codes that reflect activities we all pretty much agree on.

not that that's a bad thing, either.

bb

[bondi beach]

strike that. you distinguished b/t het and MF. sorry.

so the question is, if MF can have girl-girl action, why not guy-guy action, too?

[Switch Blayde]

Ernest wrote:
> I'd expect a story coded het to have some fairly graphic sex in it and
> no sexual activity that wasn't straight heterosexual; thus lots of sex
> with no hint of girl on girl or boy on boy sex at all. Where as MF can
> be romantic without any sex or it can include a minor scene of two
> girls together. I'm not sure if that's the official way it's meant to
> be, but that's my 'self explanatory' explanation.
 

Maybe because all my stories have graphic sex in them I think of the codes in terms of the sex. To me, if "it can include a minor scene of two girls together" then it should be coded "MF" and "FF" (let's leave the ages out). If we had the minor story code, the "FF" would be minor and the "MF" major. "Romantic" is a separate code meaning something different. To me it's a love story. You can have "romantic" coded with "MF" or "het", or "FF" for that matter. I guess even "MM".
 
So if I understand you, "FF" simply means a story with two females. Let's say it's a story about a mother and daughter coping after the husband's abandonment -- a no-sex story. But if the same story had sex between the mother and daughter the "lesbian" code would be added (or is it "bi-sexual" since the mother had had sex with her ex-husband?).
 
I guess we can all agree on one thing -- each author views the story codes with their own slant, and it's probably different than Lazeez's and the reader's.
 
"Consensual" is another code I never use. I always assume that if it's not any of the others such as "non-consensual" and "reluctant" then by default it's consensual. I have stories that are consensual only yet am missing readers searching on "cons".
 
What I'm taking away from this is that if you want more people to find your stories via the Category Search -- the more codes the better! If someone does a search with the "het" code and I don't have it, I don't get found. If someone else does a search with "MF" (believing it's a heterosexual relationship) and I have "het" coded, it doesn't hurt me.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:51:04 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: ernest....@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[The Black Knight]

bondi beach allegedly wrote:
> so the question is, if MF can have girl-girl action, why not
> guy-guy action, too?

Well, technically if there's girl-on-girl, there should be a ff tag in
there,
but realistically, while there are readers who don't read pure lesbian
stories... (never mind that they miss some great stories that way,
like some of GMW's) there are not likely to be many - if any - who
object to it.
Guy-on-guy, on the other hand, is objectionable to many.

Still, even if there's only four users who can't stand girl-on-girl,
the story should be coded as containing it if it is in the story.
Because y'all sure as hell know that those four will send 150 venomous
diatribes to the author who squicked them.

note: I have no idea of the actual number of users who find female
bisexuality disturbing.

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> I'm learning, is that I need to put in as many codes as possible
> to get as many search hits on my stories as possible.

Well, that's one thing. But really, it's also a matter of allowing
those readers who will dislike your stories to know that without
having to
read them... which should allow your scores to improve, as readers
will self-select more.

> My philosophy was to minimize the codes to highlight what the
> story was really about, not have two or three lines of codes.

No, the idea is to let readers know the content of the story, so they
can avoid what they don't like. (This is actually why minor/major
codes is a good idea... authors can say 'what a story is really
about' with major codes, but allow people to know if they want to
avoid a story with the minor codes.)

> Getting back to the "rape" code, all of the following are
> considered rape in the legal sense:
>
> - non-consent

true.

> - pedophilia

statutory. different felony.

> - lolita

as above

> - reluctant

I'd have to check the definition on that...

> - rape

definitely...

> - coercion

yep.

> - blackmail

no. different felony... (the sex is consentual, even if the consent is
gained through blackmail.)

> - mind control

No. Nobody has either the technology or the mutant powers needed. If
they did, there's no way it would be criminal under the current
statutes. (Granted, if the technology became available, the laws would
likely change to include it.)

> - hypnosis

Not sure about this one... there'd possibly be a crime involved, as
the hypnosis would be likely to be performed in a doctor/patient
relationship, but...

> - drunk/drugged

true.

> - magic (I guess)

No. No law against magic. Other than the laws of physics, that is.

> - slavery

Again, untrue. Master/slave relationships (of the consensual variety)
have nothing to do with criminal behavior.

> - an adult having sex with someone under the age of consent

back to statutory, again...

> So when it comes to story codes, I guess we aren't talking about
> a legal definition. Maybe "self-explanatory" isn't justifiable here.

I think I made that point in my original post. Because lets face it,
there
are some (can't remember the names involved) who have claimed any sex
between a man and a woman is rape... and some would think the use of
the name of a felony would imply the definition of that felony,
and some would think that the historical use of the term in the genre
as a code is the self-explanatory definition.

> I've coded stories "non-consent" but never "rape." To me rape
> is much more physical whereas mine are usually emotional (as

> in coercion, blackmail, etc.).

That would be consistent with how the code has been used in the
past... to define 'rape' as only those 'rapes' that didn't qualify for
a lesser code.

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> So if I understand you, "FF" simply means a story with two females.

I always thought of the age/gender codes as implying sexual relations
occur between the two parties listed (let's leave out whether it was
Clinton's definition for now) but checking the FAQ, there's no
requirement for that. However, FF as a code on a story about a mother
and daughter
whose relationship is purely platonic would certainly be misleading...
even if the FAQ would seem to allow it.

[Switch Blayde]

TBK wrote:
>  always thought of the age/gender codes as implying sexual relations
> occur between the two parties
 

So did I. That's why I thought the "het" code was redundant.
 
And I thought the "cons" code was reduntant because if it wasn't one of the non-consenual codes then it was automatically consenual.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:31:31 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day bb,

I didn't mean to imply MM wasn't acceptable where FF was, I just only
mentioned one option at that point while pointing out a no het code
would permit single gender activities while a het code would exclude
any single gender activity.

Ernest

On Apr 28, 3:17 am, bondi beach <bondi.beach....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Switch Blayde]

> while a het code would exclude any single gender activity.
 

Do the "Sexual Orientation" codes refer to the whole story? For example, what if there was a lesbian scene in the story, but other scenes contained "het" sex. Should you code it with a "les" code because there were lesbians in it and there was lesbian sex? (You'd have to code it as "het" as well.) Or does the entire story have to be lesbian to use the "les" code?
 
And to complicate it, what if a bi-sexual woman has sex with a lesbian? Is that scene considered lesbian because it's FF (but only one partner is 100% lesbian)? What about the other partner who's performing a lesbian act but is bi-sexual or maybe even heterosexual who somehow gets involved with the lesbian? Let's even assume their sexual relationship is the ONLY one in the story. Is the "les" code used for this story even though one of the "FF" women is happily married and not a lesbian?
 
Other than "tg", "cd", and "herm" I don't see any need for the "Sexual Orientation" codes at all (i.e., "gay", "les", "bi", "het"). I guess that's why I never coded them.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:21:36 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: ernest....@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[bondi beach]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Switch Blayde <switch...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> while a het code would exclude any single gender activity.
 

Do the "Sexual Orientation" codes refer to the whole story? For example, what if there was a lesbian scene in the story, but other scenes contained "het" sex. Should you code it with a "les" code because there were lesbians in it and there was lesbian sex? (You'd have to code it as "het" as well.) Or does the entire story have to be lesbian to use the "les" code?

well, i'm thinking that we're presenting more and more evidence that everyone has his or her own interpretation of the codes.

code a story with a straight woman who has a fling with a gay woman as FF. unless the gay woman and her orientation are important to the story, the "les" code probably doesn't apply. change the genders and the same thing applies.

in "summer camp," the women often have sex with each other (and i, for one, am very grateful for that), but unless i'm misremembering, none of the principal female characters (thinking here of mom, susan, gina, kendall, etc., not to mention erin and gina's  little sister) is really gay, or at least is not yet decided. so none of that really rates a "les" code.

bb


 

[The Black Knight]

As far as the 'het' 'les' and 'gay' codes are concerned, here's what
I think they 'should' mean:

het = guy-on-girl activity occurs in the story.
les = hot girl-girl action
gay = two people with cocks have sex with each other

So a story coded "boy, gi, het" means a pair of tweens has hetero
sex...
and one coded "Mf, boy, het, gay" means some adult guy has sex
with a teen girl and a young boy. Also, any story with any of the MM/
Mm/mm codes (or any of the non-existent Mb/mb/bb codes)
should have 'gay'... just to allow less checks on exclusions. Same
deal for the other combinations, just to be consistent... not that I
expect anyone to be interested in excluding them.

[TheDarkKnight]

> > Unfortunately for Dark Knight (I think?), he can't search for "cheat
> > and not(wimp or cuckold)", and there's no "cheat and vengeance-is-
> > mine!" tag option. :(
>
> I can't be certain about TDK's reading preferences, but I don't think
> he wastes a lot of his time reading 'cheat' stories either.
>

Confirmation on that. And, once again, I want to point out to the
group that The Black Knight and TheDarkKnight are different people. I
don;t mind being confused with TBK, but he might find it annoying. To
further confuse the situation (now why would I want to do that?), I
have been using TBK as an editor lately. He's very good, btw.

Maybe I should change my nym. How does "TheLightKnight" sound?

[The Black Knight]

TheDarkKnight allegedly wrote:
> > I can't be certain about TDK's reading preferences, but I don't think
> > he wastes a lot of his time reading 'cheat' stories either.
>
> Confirmation on that.  And, once again, I want to point out to the
> group that The Black Knight and TheDarkKnight are different people.  

I think most everyone in the group realizes Bruce Wayne is not part of
Arthurian legend.

> I don't mind being confused with TBK, but he might find it annoying.

No... I just like making fun of people who can't tell the difference.

> To further confuse the situation (now why would I want to do that?), I
> have been using TBK as an editor lately.  He's very good, btw.

No. Really, I'm not.
/me jabs TDK... trying to get me flooded with requests?

> Maybe I should change my nym.  How does "TheLightKnight" sound?

Well, y'all could try being the Green Knight....

[just-this-guy]

> > Maybe I should change my nym.  How does "TheLightKnight" sound?
>
> Well, y'all could try being the Green Knight....

And for your female author personality how about "Red Knight
District" ?

Plus, every author needs (is required to have) a "Bob" nym so how
about "Knight-ka-bob" ?

[The Black Knight]

just-this-guy allegedly wrote:
> Plus, every author needs (is required to have) a "Bob" nym so [...]

Problem... If anyone uses a combination of 'Knight' and 'Bob' there
are some expectations, including having an impossible to control
temper.

[Tim Merrigan]

Using legal definitions, many of the stories I like could be coded
(cons, rape) since sex with a minor is defined as rape regardless of the
minor's actual consent. I define "rape" as any sexual intercourse in
which one or more participants do not consent.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.

> <http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009>

[Tim Merrigan]

bondi beach wrote:
> strike that. you distinguished b/t het and MF. sorry.
>
> so the question is, if MF can have girl-girl action, why not guy-guy
> action, too?

Because for a significant proportion of the target audience (middle aged
men) a bit of girl-girl action is a turn on, while any guy-guy action is
a serious squick.

My wife, who likes some gay male porn, once pointed out that she
couldn't see what men saw in lesbian porn, that she could understand why
some men are attracted to men, because she is, but couldn't understand
what anyone found attractive about women. Well, the reverse is true
when it's men doing the looking.

--

[Switch Blayde]

> I define "rape" as any sexual intercourse in which one or more participants do not consent.

That's not how I view the rape code (the code, not rape in the real world). I use the "non-consent" code for what you're describing. To me, rape is the violent act of throwing the woman to the ground and her struggling while the guy rapes her. Otherwise why have both "non-consent" and "rape" as codes?
 
Switch
 
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:48:55 -0700
> From: tp...@ca.rr.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Tim Merrigan]

The Black Knight wrote:

> Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
>
>
>> - magic (I guess)
>>
>
> No. No law against magic. Other than the laws of physics, that is.
>

Have to check on that. England repealed theirs in 1948 (passed in "the
burning times"), and I think there are some still on the books in parts
of Africa.

>> - slavery
>>
>
> Again, untrue. Master/slave relationships (of the consensual variety)
> have nothing to do with criminal behavior.
>

It would depend on whether it was slavery role play, as you mention
above, or actual slavery, in which case the slave's consent is not an
issue (and is a separate crime, in the U.S.)

>> - an adult having sex with someone under the age of consent
>>
>
> back to statutory, again...
>
>
>> So when it comes to story codes, I guess we aren't talking about
>> a legal definition. Maybe "self-explanatory" isn't justifiable here.
>>
>
> I think I made that point in my original post. Because lets face it,
> there
> are some (can't remember the names involved) who have claimed any sex
> between a man and a woman is rape... and some would think the use of
> the name of a felony would imply the definition of that felony,
> and some would think that the historical use of the term in the genre
> as a code is the self-explanatory definition.
>
>
>> I've coded stories "non-consent" but never "rape." To me rape
>> is much more physical whereas mine are usually emotional (as
>> in coercion, blackmail, etc.).
>>
>
> That would be consistent with how the code has been used in the
> past... to define 'rape' as only those 'rapes' that didn't qualify for
> a lesser code.
>
>

[Deadly Ernest]

On Apr 29, 1:33 am, TheDarkKnight <hellison...@gmail.com> wrote:
snipped

>
> Maybe I should change my nym.  How does "TheLightKnight" sound?

I think The Knight Light sounds better.

[Deadly Ernest]

What do men see in lesbian porn that's so good, that's simple - four
naked breasts, that's all.

On Apr 29, 8:02 am, Tim Merrigan <t...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
snipped

>
> My wife, who likes some gay male porn, once pointed out that she
> couldn't see what men saw in lesbian porn, that she could understand why
> some men are attracted to men, because she is, but couldn't understand
> what anyone found attractive about women.  Well, the reverse is true
> when it's men doing the looking.
>

>

> Tim Merrigan

[Switch Blayde]

I was looking at the story codes closely, maybe for the first time. There are definitely anomalies. I'll discuss some issues or confusions with codes as I see it.
 
1. The "age/gender" codes, in my opinion, define the sexual relationship between partners. So "MF" is not simply a story about an adult male and an adult female, but defines the sexual relationship. After all, that why there's a "mult" code -- it's multiple combinations such as threesomes, etc. And as stated previously, the "b" and "g" combinations are missing (such as "Mg" and "Fb").
 
2. "Consentual" is redundant. It should be assumed unless one of the "non-consentual" codes is used. I flat out don't see any value in the "consentual" code. And by not including it with my stories, as soon as someone checks it in the Category Search my consentual stories are never found.
 
3. The "romantic" code should be used for love stories -- not "mushy" love stories. Mushy is "overly emotional or sentimental" (per my online dictionary).
 
4. Obviously, based on our previous discussion, "rape" is not self-explanatory. In the context of story codes, I believe it to be a violent act, not just a non-consentual one.
 
5. "Blackmail" states "to force them into the sex act depicted." So for a story to be coded as "blackmail" it has to be related to sex. But other codes (e.g., "slavery") state "sexual or otherwise." So what about a blackmail story that has no sex? Or maybe the codes should only be there for sex scenes so a code like "slavery" should not have the "or otherwise."
 
6. "Slavery" -- my comments on "slavery" are in #5.
 
7. I see no need for "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," and "heterosexual" codes. The "age/gender" codes take care of it. After all, is the reader really interested whether the "FF" sex is between lesbians or bisexual women?
 
8. "Hermaphrodite" -- no problem with the code, but I must mention the first thing that came to mind was the expression "go fuck yourself." LOL
 
9. "Fantasy" should not state in the description that it "applies also to superhero stories" since there's a "superhero" code. Redundancy adds to confusion.
 
10. There's something weird about "time travel" saying "Science Fiction, involving travel through time." Why do we need the "science fiction" part? Is there any other kind of time travel?
 
11. "Robot" has that "sexual or otherwise" statement like "slavery." I guess either all codes should have the "otherwise" or none.
 
12. "Horror" has the "otherwise" word as well. Maybe "blackmail" is the exception and should be changed.
 
13. To me, "ESP" should be part of "paranormal" or "paranormal" should be changed to "spirits."
 
14. I can't figure out what "zoophilia" is used for. Although the description states it's not the same as bestiality, I think it is.
 
15. There seems to be an anomaly with "non-anthro" and "were animal" especially since the "non-anthro" definition includes "for example Werewolves."
 
16. The definition of "cheating" is "one party is cheating on their spouse." I've used cheating when anyone in a relationship is unfaithful (e.g., fiancee, boyfriend, etc.). I don't see it as having to be a spouse. In most U.S. states gays and lesbians cannot get married. But they can surely cheat on their partner.
 
17. "In-laws" is not incest, but I can live with this one for the same reason I differentiate "rape" from the legal sense.
 
18. "Dom/sub" has the "otherwise" word. Also, "dom/sub" is sort of redundant with "Mdom" and "Fdom" but I believe it's justified to have its own code due to the following.
 
19. There are both "S/M" and "sadistic" codes. Why not have a "masochist" code as well? And then do we need the "S/M" code since you can define that by including both "sadistic" and "masochistic"? However, as with "dom/sub", I believe the answer is yes. There's enough of a "S/M" following to justify a separate code. But if you have "sadistic" you should also have "masochist."
 
20. "Gang bang" is defined as "multiple men fucking same woman." There could be gay, lesbian, and other combinations of a gang bang. So it's not just multiple MEN fucking same WOMAN.
 
21. Is there a fine line between "group" and "orgy"? Or is this another redundant code?
 
22. We've already discussed in other threads the unclarity of "interracial" so I won't delve into it here.
 
23. "Big breasts" is redundant since "size" includes big breasts. I wonder if it's wrong for "size" to include big breasts. I've always thought of "size" as a penetration instrument.
 
24. "2nd POV" - Lazeez explained this one in a previous post. I think someone should look at all the stories coded "2nd POV" and Lazeez should remove the code if they are not. You'd know right away if it was written in 2nd POV. I still haven't found one yet, not that I looked too hard.
 
25. We've already discussed the anomaly with the "college" code. There should be a "high school" one as well, or simply a "school" code.
 
26. I have no idea what "transformation" is.
 
Anyway, I'm not proposing a massive change. I simply thought this would be food for discussion and maybe help us code our stories accurately (or at least more consistently) in the future.
 
Switch

[NaughtyShayna]

On Apr 28, 6:25 pm, Switch Blayde <switch_bla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I define "rape" as any sexual intercourse in which one or more participants do not consent.
>
> That's not how I view the rape code (the code, not rape in the real world). I use the "non-consent" code for what you're describing. To me, rape is the violent act of throwing the woman to the ground and her struggling while the guy rapes her. Otherwise why have both "non-consent" and "rape" as codes?
>
> Switch

I know the topic here is story codes, but I have to say from a real-
world perspective, I have to disagree with your definitions here, Mr.
Blayde. ANY time a man tries to force a woman to have sexual contact
with him, whether it is "throwing her to the ground", or getting her
drunk, or slipping her a roofie, or threatening her in any way, it's
rape. I guess I am a little sensitive about this. I had a bad
experience with roofies in college. I wasn't raped, but that was only
because my friends checked up on me. "No means no" was the rule I was
taught as a young girl, and that rule still applies.

Sorry for the rant, but you touched a sore point.

[Tim Merrigan]

There could be Fantasy Time Travel in which the time travel is
accomplished by magic, or is unexplained, e.g. a Connecticut Yankee in
King Arther's Court. Though, if I'm inferring correctly, I agree that
the definition should say "involving travel through time" and leave off
the "Science Fiction"

> 11. "Robot" has that "sexual or otherwise" statement like "slavery." I
> guess either all codes should have the "otherwise" or none.
>
> 12. "Horror" has the "otherwise" word as well. Maybe "blackmail" is
> the exception and should be changed.
>
> 13. To me, "ESP" should be part of "paranormal" or "paranormal" should
> be changed to "spirits."
>
> 14. I can't figure out what "zoophilia" is used for. Although the
> description states it's not the same as bestiality, I think it is.
>
> 15. There seems to be an anomaly with "non-anthro" and "were animal"
> especially since the "non-anthro" definition includes "for example
> Werewolves."

Differentiating between Wolfmen (anthro) and Werewolves (non-anthro)?

Various things (without looking at Lazeez's definition) it could be
switching bodies, or shapechanging, or full t/g, whether magical or
surgical, etc.

> Anyway, I'm not proposing a massive change. I simply thought this
> would be food for discussion and maybe help us code our stories
> accurately (or at least more consistently) in the future.
>
> Switch
>
>
>
>
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox.
> Check it out.

> <http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates2_042009>

[Switch Blayde]

naughtyshayna wrote:
 
> but I have to say from a real-world perspective, I have to disagree with your
> definitions here
 
We're not disagreeing. Remember my other post on what rape in the real world? All of those plus consentual sex with a minor is rape. My distinction was specifically about story codes. If there was no "non-consent" code, then I'd agree with you. But why have both a "non-consent" code and "rape" code when it's always rape when non-consentual? So, for me, "non-consent" is one type of rape and "rape" is another.
 
Switch [not Mr. Blayde]
 
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:50:38 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: naught...@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day All,

my three cents worth in response to a number of posts here.

Rape
In the real world if one participant is NOT fully consenting it's
rape. In the erotic / porn story world rape is forced sex involving
actual violence, be the recipient male or female.

Codes

Consenting and Non-consenting
these are sometimes needed to clarify situations like consent in
domination and slavery stories. Some people consent to be dominated or
made slaves, some are mildly coerced into such situations while others
are forced into them against their will - the consent aspect is
applicable to the stories.

Age/gender codes.
I always took these as referring to the ages of the main participants
and need NOT reflect actual sexual contact. Thus a non sex story with
an adult male and female would be coded MF and no sexual activity
codes. If the intent is to use them for sex only stories, that needs
to be clarified.

In-laws
In some legal jurisdictions, sexual contact with an in-law is viewed
as the same with a non in-law of the same relationship and thus
incest. So sex with a sister-in-law is legally the same as with a
sister. Weird, but that's the law - nearly all laws are weird.

Group - Orgy - Gang bang
I've always understood group sex to be something along the lines of a
threesome, foursome type situation where more than two people
concentrate on being sexually involved with one recipient at the same
time. As against a gang bang where they line up and take turns, also a
gang bang usually involve some coercion or violence and is common with
a group rape; where there's total consent it's usually called
something like 'pulling a train.'

Orgy is where a number of people get together to have sex in the same
room as a number of different partners or groups and may swap partners
or groups during the time as they engage in multiple couplings.

Thus a group may have three people sexually arousing a fourth at the
same time, and then take turns as the recipient while an orgy has
three or four couple getting sexual in different parts of the room
before mixing and matching. A double or triple penetration event would
be a group activity and not an orgy, have two of those going on side
by side and you have an orgy as well.


Transformation
In answer to Switch's question - I've always taken that to refer to
characters that can change their appearance, technically werewolves
would fall into this but it's generally used where the character can
change the size and shape of themselves or their partners; like a guy
that can be a girl in the next minute or make her breasts grow as they
watch, etc.

I fairly certain some of the codes have been added over time without a
major review of them all. Maybe it's time for Lazeez to review them
and check the code definitions are what he means them to mean today.
That's not my call, so I only suggest it for consideration.

regards,

Ernest

[bondi beach]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

bondi beach wrote:

strike that. you distinguished b/t het and MF. sorry.

so the question is, if MF can have girl-girl action, why not guy-guy action, too?

Because for a significant proportion of the target audience (middle aged men) a bit of girl-girl action is a turn on, while any guy-guy action is a serious squick.

well, that's pretty much what i was saying earlier (see below). while i understand the difference, i'm not persuaded that a code which bans male-male but permits female-female makes any sense. but, then, as many on this thread have shown, the codes have plenty of inconsistencies and apparent overlaps.
 

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:17 PM, bondi beach <bondi.b...@gmail.com <mailto:bondi.b...@gmail.com>> wrote:


    wait a minute, ernest. how come it's ok to have a minor scene of
   two girls and still be het but can't have a minor scene with two
   guys? aside from the obvious answer, of course, that most straight
   guys think two girls together are hot but many are squicked by two
   guys.

bb

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> 1. The "age/gender" codes, in my opinion, define the sexual
> relationship between partners. So "MF" is not simply a story
> about an adult male and an adult female, but defines the
> sexual relationship. After all, that why there's a "mult" code
> -- it's multiple combinations such as threesomes, etc. And
> as stated previously, the "b" and "g" combinations are
> missing (such as "Mg" and "Fb").

The definition was all I was talking about. Perhaps there should
be a requirement for a non-platonic relationship added? So a
romance (even one where no sex occurs) between the
participants would qualify, but a story where there is only
friendship would not.

> 2. "Consentual" is redundant. It should be assumed unless
> one of the "non-consentual" codes is used. I flat out don't
> see any value in the "consentual" code. And by not including
> it with my stories, as soon as someone checks it in the
> Category Search my consentual stories are never found.

I suppose one could make the argument that the 'cons' code
should only be used if there are no non-con elements, to
make it easier for readers to find stories that don't contain
any 'flavor' of rape.

> 4. Obviously, based on our previous discussion, "rape" is
> not self-explanatory. In the context of story codes, I believe
> it to be a violent act, not just a non-consentual one.

This is, indeed, the 'classic' code definition as people used it.

> 5. "Blackmail" states "to force them into the sex act depicted."
> So for a story to be coded as "blackmail" it has to be related
> to sex. But other codes (e.g., "slavery") state "sexual or
> otherwise." So what about a blackmail story that has no sex?
> Or maybe the codes should only be there for sex scenes so
> a code like "slavery" should not have the "or otherwise."

Some people object to the idea of slavery, even if it's non-sexual.
Does anyone really expect non-sexual blackmail will violently
offend readers?

> 7. I see no need for "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," and
> "heterosexual" codes. The "age/gender" codes take care
> of it. After all, is the reader really interested whether the
> "FF" sex is between lesbians or bisexual women?

Read my earlier post on this... these tags allow for people to
find (or avoid) stories based on gender pairings, when they
don't give a shit about the ages of the participants. So if I wanted
to find a story with lesbian content, I should be able to search
on 'les' rather than individually on FF, Ff, Fg, ff, fg, and gg.

> 8. "Hermaphrodite" -- no problem with the code, but I must
> mention the first thing that came to mind was the expression
> "go fuck yourself." LOL

My main problem with the 'herm' code is that writers seldom
get the age/gender pairings correct with it. Assuming both
participants of the act are adults, the codes should include
either "herm, MF, FF" if the hermaphrodite has sex with a woman
or "herm, MM, MF" if the hermaphrodite has sex with a man,
or "herm, MM, MF, FF" if two hermaphrodites get it on.

> 9. "Fantasy" should not state in the description that it "applies
> also to superhero stories" since there's a "superhero" code.
> Redundancy adds to confusion.

The superhero code was added later by an author's request, I believe.

> 10. There's something weird about "time travel" saying "Science
> Fiction, involving travel through time." Why do we need the
> "science fiction" part? Is there any other kind of time travel?

Magic.

> 11. "Robot" has that "sexual or otherwise" statement like
> "slavery." I guess either all codes should have the "otherwise"
> or none.

The 'or otherwise' might have been added to apply to one or more of
DB_Story's fembot stories. (Or maybe not, but that would be my guess.
He's the one who requested the code in the first place, IIRC.)

> 13. To me, "ESP" should be part of "paranormal" or "paranormal"
> should be changed to "spirits."

ESP is common in MC stories, and is separate from 'paranormal'
activities.

> 14. I can't figure out what "zoophilia" is used for. Although
> the description states it's not the same as bestiality, I think it is.

Bestiality requires one participant to be human... so a werewolf
fucking a poodle wouldn't qualify for bestiality, but might for
zoophilia.

> 15. There seems to be an anomaly with "non-anthro" and
> "were animal" especially since the "non-anthro" definition
> includes "for example Werewolves."

'were' was added later, again as an author request. daniellekitten, I
believe...

> 16. The definition of "cheating" is "one party is cheating on
> their spouse." I've used cheating when anyone in a relationship
> is unfaithful (e.g., fiancee, boyfriend, etc.). I don't see it as
> having to be a spouse. In most U.S. states gays and lesbians
> cannot get married. But they can surely cheat on their partner.

Agreed.

> 18. "Dom/sub" has the "otherwise" word. Also, "dom/sub" is
> sort of redundant with "Mdom" and "Fdom" but I believe it's
> justified to have its own code due to the following.

There is non-sexual aspects to being a Dom (or a sub)

> 19. There are both "S/M" and "sadistic" codes. Why not
> have a "masochist" code as well? And then do we need
> the "S/M" code since you can define that by including
> both "sadistic" and "masochistic"? However, as with
> "dom/sub", I believe the answer is yes. There's enough
> of a "S/M" following to justify a separate code. But if you
> have "sadistic" you should also have "masochist."

Consider the following codes for a story:
"rape, Mf, sad"
This is completely different from a story with:
"rape, Mf, S/M"
In the first, a sadist rapes a girl. In the second, a girl gets into
S&M, and is later raped. (Or maybe she gets into a S&M
relationship after being raped.)

> 20. "Gang bang" is defined as "multiple men fucking same
> woman." There could be gay, lesbian, and other combinations
> of a gang bang. So it's not just multiple MEN fucking same
> WOMAN.

One man fucking multiple women is 'harem'. (Also, the women
usually have sex with each other in those stories.)

Dunno what it would be called in a purely gay/lesbian variant,
though...

> 23. "Big breasts" is redundant since "size" includes big breasts.
> I wonder if it's wrong for "size" to include big breasts. I've
> always thought of "size" as a penetration instrument.

I'm suspicious that DB_Story was responsible for that one... I'd
commented to him that many writers (incorrectly) used 'BBW'
to describe women with huge tits, when traditionally it means
"disgustingly fat" women. (Of course, I made the comment that
he should've used it on one of his stories, since the SOL definition
of the code doesn't require that, and his female character was
exceptionally tall...)

> 26. I have no idea what "transformation" is.

Think either the 'BimboTech' stories, or any of the ones where
a man is turned (physically and mentally) into a woman.

[Switch Blayde]

TBK wrote:
> > 7. I see no need for "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," and
> > "heterosexual" codes. The "age/gender" codes take care
> > of it. After all, is the reader really interested whether the
> > "FF" sex is between lesbians or bisexual women?
>
> Read my earlier post on this... these tags allow for people to
> find (or avoid) stories based on gender pairings, when they
> don't give a shit about the ages of the participants. So if I wanted
> to find a story with lesbian content, I should be able to search
> on 'les' rather than individually on FF, Ff, Fg, ff, fg, and gg.
> 

Yes, I never thought of that. Good point. I'll have to pay more attention to the codes when posting stories. I've always assumed "FF" and "les" were redundant. They're not. I guess I'll be using more codes from now on.
 
Switch

 
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:15:48 -0700

> Subject: Re: Story code/search wish list

> From: cm0...@hotmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[Dem Gnomes]

The Black Knight wrote:

> > - blackmail
>
> no. different felony... (the sex is consentual, even if the consent is
> gained through blackmail.)

In my state, using coercion for sex makes you guilty of "sexual
assault" (which is how rape is coded). NJ 2C:14-2.c.: (1)The actor
uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain
severe personal injury;

>
> > - mind control
>
> No. Nobody has either the technology or the mutant powers needed. If
> they did, there's no way it would be criminal under the current
> statutes. (Granted, if the technology became available, the laws would
> likely change to include it.)
>

I think we've got that one covered. Apparently some of our lawmakers
are reading SOL. :-O

NJ 2C:14-2.a.: (7)The victim is one whom the actor knew or should have
known was physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally
incapacitated.

NJ 2C:12-1.b: (2)"Mentally incapacitated" means that condition in
which a person is rendered temporarily or permanently incapable of
understanding or controlling one's conduct, or of appraising or
controlling one's condition, which incapacity shall include but is not
limited to an inability to comprehend one's own peril;

> > - hypnosis
>
> Not sure about this one... there'd possibly be a crime involved,

See above.

> > - magic (I guess)
>
> No. No law against magic. Other than the laws of physics, that is.

See above, if they were mentally incapacitated.

In a lot of cases, the existence of both "drugs" and "alcohol" has
caused a generalization of legal statues. The result is that some
surprising configurations are illegal--there was a story that I
*think* was from New Jersey arguing that a girl scout was "mentally
incapacitated" because her "rapist" had the power to buy enough
cookies to send her on the trip. Apparently, he offered to buy more
cookies if she threw in some of her own "cookies" to sweeten the pot.

The prosecutor tried to accuse the guy of inciting prostitution, but
he argued (successfully) that offering to buy the cookies couldn't be
considered prostitution because the cookies were being bought at
market price -- he wasn't asking for a discount, or anything fungible.

So then they argued that buying cookies gave him some kind of power
over her mind. The girl scouts apparently looked at what their sales
figures would be if that argument ever made it into the newspaper, and
slapped them down. So then it turned into "she was mentally
incapacitated by her dream of going to Disney World" (or wherever she
would go if she won the trip).

Sometimes, I love living here just because I get to read the
newspapers. :)

Dem Fugeddaboutit Gnomes

[The Black Knight]

Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:
> > > - mind control
> > No. Nobody has either the technology or the mutant powers

> I think we've got that one covered. Apparently some of our
> lawmakers are reading SOL. :-O
>
> NJ 2C:14-2.a.: (7)The victim is one whom the actor knew or
> should have known was physically helpless, mentally defective
> or mentally incapacitated.

Ok,,, leaving aside the difficulty for a prosecutor to establish this
beyond a reasonable doubt for an accused with MC abilities (and
also leaving aside the very real possibility of (a more effective form
of) jury tampering in such a case... this is only gonna apply to the
non-consensual MC stories... ie: the ones where the controller
just uses motor-control influence. Those where the 'victim' is made
to love/desire the controller wouldn't seem to apply.

> In a lot of cases, the existence of both "drugs" and "alcohol" has
> caused a generalization of legal statues. The result is that some
> surprising configurations are illegal--there was a story that I
> *think* was from New Jersey arguing that a girl scout was "mentally
> incapacitated" because her "rapist" had the power to buy enough
> cookies to send her on the trip. Apparently, he offered to buy more
> cookies if she threw in some of her own "cookies" to sweeten the pot.

Uh, wouldn't he have gone down on stat rape anyway? (And then his
cellmate?)

> The prosecutor tried to accuse the guy of inciting prostitution, but
> he argued (successfully) that offering to buy the cookies couldn't be
> considered prostitution because the cookies were being bought at
> market price -- he wasn't asking for a discount, or anything fungible.

Actually, it would only be if he was paying a premium that it would be
a matter of prostitution. There was no direct money-for-sex equation
there, so... (And haven't I read that story before? Only not the part
where the law gets involved?)

[Dem Gnomes]

Switch Blayde wrote:
> I was looking at the story codes closely, maybe for the first time. There are definitely anomalies. I'll discuss some issues or confusions with codes as I see it.
>
>
>
> 1. The "age/gender" codes, in my opinion, define the sexual relationship between partners. So "MF" is not simply a story about an adult male and an adult female, but defines the sexual relationship. After all, that why there's a "mult" code -- it's multiple combinations such as threesomes, etc. And as stated previously, the "b" and "g" combinations are missing (such as "Mg" and "Fb").

I always interpreted these as being the "ingredients list" for the sex
acts. I think because (back in the day) the codes were all about
avoiding squick, and then slowly changed to advertising contents.

I suggested earlier adding some kind of "any-of-this-lot" search
feature. I'd like to see an "any-mf" and an "any-nc" search option
specifically to address this, and to address your confusion about
coding your stories MF but not coding them "het".

I also have been interpreting "het" as a "genre" rather than an
ingredient -- kind of like "rom".

>
> 2. "Consentual" is redundant. It should be assumed unless one of the "non-consentual" codes is used. I flat out don't see any value in the "consentual" code. And by not including it with my stories, as soon as someone checks it in the Category Search my consentual stories are never found.

Disagree. Especially if people are going to keep insisting that there
is no value in a NOT(foo) search, it's important to have an "active"
code, rather than an "implied by absence" code.

Also, you yourself have neglected to add "het". Does that mean all
your stories are "het," or does it mean you didn't realize that you
could?

>
>
> 3. The "romantic" code should be used for love stories -- not "mushy" love stories. Mushy is "overly emotional or sentimental" (per my online dictionary).

I hereby propose a "dghear" code for mushy stories.

>
>
> 4. Obviously, based on our previous discussion, "rape" is not self-explanatory. In the context of story codes, I believe it to be a violent act, not just a non-consentual one.

I think that rape *IS* self-explanatory. There haven't been any posts
that expressed any other opinion on what the rape story code meant.
Sure, the legal definition of rape is broad. But the a.s.s(.d)
definition really is pretty self-explanatory: throw her down and fuck
her, or catch him/her physically incapacitated and take advantage.

All the other codes are like a rainbow of technically-rape choices.
"How do you want your technically-rape, sir?" "Well, I'd like it non-
consensual, with some drunk/drugged and a side of blackmail."

This, again, is IMO a justification for an any-of-these function, as
well as for "A-or-B" searching.

>
>
> 5. "Blackmail" states "to force them into the sex act depicted." So for a story to be coded as "blackmail" it has to be related to sex. But other codes (e.g., "slavery") state "sexual or otherwise." So what about a blackmail story that has no sex? Or maybe the codes should only be there for sex scenes so a code like "slavery" should not have the "or otherwise."

I'm pretty sure that's a mistake. If the blackmail is a story element,
it should get coded, regardless of what it was. But it should be a
minor code only if the minor blackmail was sexual. (That is, in a 100
chapter story, the sister blackmailing the brother into cleaning the
garage for her isn't code-worthy if it only gets a paragraph in the
story. But the brother blackmailing the sister into a blowjob gets a
mention, even if it's just a para. Assuming minor or chapter codes, of
course.)

>
> 7. I see no need for "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," and "heterosexual" codes. The "age/gender" codes take care of it. After all, is the reader really interested whether the "FF" sex is between lesbians or bisexual women?

I think this is a "thematic" thing. That is, "ff,coll,dru" doesn't
mean "les." But "les" certainly implies "any-ff".

Like "rom" I think this should be a code reflecting a theme, rather
than an act. Although the acts will usually line up behind the theme.

>
>
> 10. There's something weird about "time travel" saying "Science Fiction, involving travel through time." Why do we need the "science fiction" part? Is there any other kind of time travel?
>

Say there was. We still wouldn't want the SF constraint, because no
matter how you do it, if the protagonist is displaced from time, it's
a time-tr story.

>
> 14. I can't figure out what "zoophilia" is used for. Although the description states it's not the same as bestiality, I think it is.
>

Beastiality is when you fuck your dog. Zoophilia is when you buy her
presents?

Sorry. I've got nothing here.

>
>
> 15. There seems to be an anomaly with "non-anthro" and "were animal" especially since the "non-anthro" definition includes "for example Werewolves."
>

I thought non-anthro was for all that Japanese tentacle sex stuff.
Again, somebody way more qualified than me will have to explain.

>
>
> 19. There are both "S/M" and "sadistic" codes. Why not have a "masochist" code as well? And then do we need the "S/M" code since you can define that by including both "sadistic" and "masochistic"? However, as with "dom/sub", I believe the answer is yes. There's enough of a "S/M" following to justify a separate code. But if you have "sadistic" you should also have "masochist."
>

I think this is a difference between behavior and classification. A
rapist that ties a woman up and hits her with a belt gets a "sad"
code, while a man and woman who go down into the basement together and
unlock their cabinet full of whips and chains are going to get the
"SM" code. One is an organized activity, the other is just an
adjective.

>
> 23. "Big breasts" is redundant since "size" includes big breasts. I wonder if it's wrong for "size" to include big breasts. I've always thought of "size" as a penetration instrument.
>

Is it redundant? Strangely, I'm a size-ist in real life (most of my
partners have been exceptionally endowed) but not on SOL. Perhaps
that's because I read cmsix, where all the women have big titties.

Anyway, I had always assumed that size was to bbr as M was to F. Being
a "size queen," for instance, means the same thing in straightsville
as it does in gaysylvania.

>
>
> 24. "2nd POV" - Lazeez explained this one in a previous post. I think someone should look at all the stories coded "2nd POV" and Lazeez should remove the code if they are not. You'd know right away if it was written in 2nd POV. I still haven't found one yet, not that I looked too hard.

Hell, no! I think we should get the suggested-codes thing fixed, so
that I never have to see a 2pov story again. I hate those fuckers
with a passion. (I totally admit: this is a squick, and I never
thought I'd have any squicks.)

>
> 25. We've already discussed the anomaly with the "college" code. There should be a "high school" one as well, or simply a "school" code.

You know, the first story I ever saw with "coll" was coded with bbr
and trans. I assumed that some over-enthusiastic writer was listing
all the implants in the story (coll = collagen). Oops.

Given that we're not posting on usenet anymore, and so we're not
trying to fit everything into 40 characters, I don't think it's
unreasonable to ask for things to be spelled out. Coll vs. college -
three characters.

> 26. I have no idea what "transformation" is.
>
> Anyway, I'm not proposing a massive change.

Is it me, or does anyone else think this is funny? Sorry, Switch, but
"transformation" signifies "a massive change". :->


27. I'd like to see some kind of systematic culture tagging.
Specifically, I'd like to see "india" tags, but there's no reason not
to plan for others. Also, I'd like to see support for language codes.

My reasons for this should be fairly obvious, but:

a. With a database size of 10gb (see laz's earlier post in this
section) he now has to start "envisioning" what the system will be
like at 100gb. And IMO that version of SOL is going to have a metric
shitload of readers from india and china, because that's where 1/3 of
the human population lives.

b. The indian stories that have been posted are tangibly "different."
There are different cultural assumptions, and there are probably
different story codes. I know that "daughter defies family" is a
significant scandal in indian culture. I suspect that a corpus of
indian stories would wind up with a code for that.

c. Tentacoo wape. Outside of japan, did anybody invent this
simultaneously? Some shit is "just plain weird" unless you're standing
on the inside. So rather than classify everything as "just plain
weird," SOL should support non-US/CA/UK/ZA cultures explicitly.

d. There already some authors, and some readers, that are
multilingual. (Me, for instance.) While SOL is presently an english-
mostly site, there's no reason to encourage those authors and readers
to go someplace else for their "порнография".

Dem Codified Gnomes

[Dem Gnomes]

The Black Knight wrote:

> Dem Gnomes allegedly wrote:

> > In a lot of cases, the existence of both "drugs" and "alcohol" has
> > caused a generalization of legal statues. The result is that some
> > surprising configurations are illegal--there was a story that I
> > *think* was from New Jersey arguing that a girl scout was "mentally
> > incapacitated" because her "rapist" had the power to buy enough
> > cookies to send her on the trip. Apparently, he offered to buy more
> > cookies if she threw in some of her own "cookies" to sweeten the pot.
>
> Uh, wouldn't he have gone down on stat rape anyway? (And then his
> cellmate?)

That wasn't the spin. Maybe he was covered under the 4-years
difference part of the law. Hell, maybe she was 18 - I don't know the
upper limit on girl scouting.

> > The prosecutor tried to accuse the guy of inciting prostitution, but
> > he argued (successfully) that offering to buy the cookies couldn't be
> > considered prostitution because the cookies were being bought at
> > market price -- he wasn't asking for a discount, or anything fungible.
>
> Actually, it would only be if he was paying a premium that it would be
> a matter of prostitution. There was no direct money-for-sex equation
> there, so... (And haven't I read that story before? Only not the part
> where the law gets involved?)

The story was funny enough that I'm surprised everybody hasn't read
it. IMO, it should have made the Leno monologue.

Dem Cookie-Monster Gnomes