WTF?

vasaris
2004-01-21 01:39 pm UTC (link)

WTF? This woman has got to be fucking kidding. Most of the archives that I've ever seen that use automated archives don't ask authors to put her stories up... they provide space and bandwidth so that ~~idjits like her~~ writers have a place to put their stories up and fans have a place to go. Often for free for fucks sake. If she hasn't got enough time to load her own stories to such an archive, why the hell should anyone else? *stares, gaping in amazement*

(Reply to this)

	ktnb 2004-01-21 01:54 pm UTC (link)
	Right, because learning enough cgi to actually get the archive to function definitely isn't work. ;) (Reply to this)

	maryavatar 2004-01-21 02:05 pm UTC (link)
	Y'know. I don't really see any wank here. Yes, she's expressing a strong opinion, but it's one a lot of people share. Automated archives are a pain in the arse. I'm both a fanfic writer and an archivist, and I avoid them like the plague. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	melange 2004-01-21 03:51 pm UTC (link)
	If she were complaining about the inconvenience caused by automated archives it wouldn't be wanky. Her claim that people who create automated archives are lazy, and don't deserve her fic is wanky in the extreme. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ingrid
2004-01-21 04:04 pm UTC (link)

I like the speed in which auto-archives get my fic up (because waiting for the archivist to get time to stick them up there can take months), but I'm not crazy about the inability to take them down/edit them -- which the archivists are in charge of, and I'm sure that takes up just as much of their time as putting them up would.

So, it's a more a matter of would you prefer front-end or back-end control. I don't think "laziness" factors in.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	starfish 2004-01-22 01:03 am UTC (link)
	FYI, Slashfanfiction.com allows authors complete control over editing and removing their stories. Brought to you by the lovely ZR and Robin, btw. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	maureenlycaon 2004-01-21 04:10 pm UTC (link)
	Let me see if I get this straight. She's willing to take the time to put her work into HTML or real plaintext form and slap it up on her own website, but not to upload it to someone else's archive herself? I suppose that finding beta's, using a spellchecker, proofreading and writing more than a single rough draft are also too much work for her. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	smo 2004-01-21 04:26 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, she's Anne Rice! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rikoshi 2004-01-21 07:04 pm UTC (link)
	My morning is made. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mpoetess 2004-01-21 09:52 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, I can understand that. If you've already formatted a story in html for your own website, a lot of automated archives will seriously fuck with the formatting unless you do a bunch of search & replace stuff to change real html to automated-for-stupid-users html. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

mpoetess
2004-01-22 02:36 am UTC (link)
*nod* re Word/plaintext. I actually work in plaintext period, for the most part. Only use Word for word counts, and save again in plaintext when I'm done. Then mess with html later, when I'm ready to upload.

And I run an e-fiction archive; I know how obnoxious it is to set up the back end -- and e-fiction is one of the easier scripts to use.

But see my comment to the main post, and the first response to it. If the archivist is *requesting* the story for their archive, the onus of formatting it should damn well be on them, not on the person who is doing them the favor by giving them permission to archive it. I certainly wouldn't be so rude as to contact one of the people whose stories I wanted to archive, and in addition to asking them for permission to host the story, ask them to go to the trouble of signing up with my archive, and formatting the story themselves.
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

diamonde
2004-01-22 04:47 am UTC (link)
If you only use word for word count, I'd suggest notetab. Beauty of a plain text editor, it has a word count function, automatically saves backups, lets you leave multiple files open (and when you reopen the program it reopens all the files and takes you to the same place in the file that you left it), converts to html and is my all-around lovemuffin. And, it's free!
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mpoetess
2004-01-22 05:16 am UTC (link)
Hey, cool, thanks! I shall google and check it out. (I use Word for the quick-and-dirty thesaurus too, but that's just a matter of dropping my word into a blank doc, looking up synonyms to brainstorm with, and closing again.)
(Reply to this)(Parent)

maureenlycaon
2004-01-22 02:30 am UTC (link)
That's why I usually work in Word, and save a separate draft in plaintext. Doesn't take but a few extra seconds to save a copy in plaintext format -- and if for any reason the .doc file gets corrupted, the plaintext file can really save your ass. (Believe me. I know.) I don't consider that a lot of extra work.

Then you can make a copy of the plaintext into HTML-formatted code, and just upload whichever format works best with that automated system. (Yeah, yeah, I know MSWord claims to be able to save a Word file as HTML. You don't even want to know what a filthy mess it creates.)

In any case, like some others have pointed out here, building a back end for an automated upload system is a hell of a lot of work, so there's no need to speak of "laziness". And uploading an author's work for her and making sure the HTML matches that used in the rest of the site is work, too. For most webmasters, fanfiction is a hobby, not a paying job.

If this woman wants someone else to work hard to save her inconvenience, she really should be prepared to pay for it.

(Edited to make more sense.)
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mpoetess
2004-01-22 02:46 am UTC (link)
[aside: the post is up again, and unless she's edited it since it was linked here, she's specifically and very obviously talking about people who requested her stories, and stating that if archivists ask for them, she's happy to say yes, but she's not about to do that archivist's work for them and go upload her own stories. Just doesn't sound wanky to me.]
(Reply to this)(Parent)

*boggle*
feenix
2004-01-21 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Um...yeah. Like writing backend isn't hard as hell. I spent nearly 48 hours last year writing PHP for a TINY archive.

Plus, checking code and stuff isn't difficult? WTF?

Finally, dynamic archives (like FFN) often have more features that are useful (like search), and are usually able to grow better.

Sorry, honey. This isn't the '90's anymore, where you were trendy if you had a Geocities website.
(Reply to this)

rob1
2004-01-21 05:24 pm UTC (link)
Not really seeing the wank on this one either. She's talking about people who ask to archive her stuff. Seems to me if you request permission to archive someone's story and they say 'yes', it's not unreasonable that they would expect you to take care of uploading the story yourself. (That's what I do. It would seem odd to me to request permission to archive and then tell the author 'Thanks! Now, just go to this page, sign up, and then upload your story for me!')

She's not harshing on cgi/php scripting or automated archives, at least, not from what I could see. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

maryavatar
2004-01-21 07:17 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, when I'm asked to contribute to an archive I don't really have a problem with e-mailing an html file: I save all my stuff as html files for my own website anyway. But a lot of automated archives require you to upload plain text files, which means you lose all your italics and bold. That's very annoying if you have a passage you want to emphasise. Personally I loathe reading emphasis as *this* rather than this, so I don't use it.

Also, if you wrote your story in Word with the smart quotes enabled, you have to go back and edit those and the ellipses out. Even using an editing aid like metapad, that's a pain.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

nessa_t
2004-01-21 05:46 pm UTC (link)
I kinda agree with her so i don't really see the wank. If people want the author's story, it is polite to make it easier for them to send over their stuff. Normally i just give my link to the archivist and they put my stories up on their websites. No prob.

But every now and again, they need you to put it up yourself. I just see if it's worth the time and trouble ie if there is enough people in there to see my stuff. Otherwise, i don't bother. End of story. :)
(Reply to this)

senor_pinata
2004-01-21 06:13 pm UTC (link)
OMG the archivists are TEH OPRESSORS by totally forcing her to upload her fic whether she wants to or not!

Oh wait.
(Reply to this)

dunc
2004-01-21 07:07 pm UTC (link)
I like this assumption that the admin's time is less precious than hers. Does she not get enough ego boosting at home?

I've spent something like two months formatting fanfic from text files to HTML (with only half the old stuff) and she can BITE ME. I'd love an automated system, but I have trouble getting my admin to do just enough to get Movable Type functioning. (Not to mention he's been promising an automated system for fic/filks for a while now.) If we were accepting new stuff, I'd learn PHP or whathaveyou in a second, but my archive isn't all that big.
(Reply to this)

lntora
2004-01-21 07:10 pm UTC (link)
Having an automated archive myself, I don't understand her problem at all. I don't go asking people for fics. If they want to put their fics up, however, then they have an option, and I'm glad they can find my site useful in that regard. I think the problem here is generalization on everyone who has an autmated system.

IMO, automated archives give people who don't have money to avoid pop-up laden free sites, time, inclination, or to make their own still have a chance to put their stuff online somewhere.

She needs to be a bit more direct in her complaints. Are all archivists who use an automated system lazy? Fuck no. However, there are lazy archivists who don't have an automated system. That's the reason why they're lazy, because they eventually get tired of having to take a fic, usually from an email, edit and format it, put it up, only to have to edit it because the original author made a slight change. Does this make it right? No, because if they want the story and they want to maintain the archive, then this is the price they'll have to pay. But it's not everybody, for crap's sake.
(Reply to this)

ataniell93
2004-01-21 07:12 pm UTC (link)
Clearly she has never had the experience of turning her fic over to somebody else to upload and seeing how badly they messed it up!
(Reply to this)

mpoetess
2004-01-21 10:00 pm UTC (link)
L's deleted or made the post private now, so I can't see her original wording. I guess for me it depends on what sort of archivist behavior she's talking about.

If you provide an archive for the purpose of giving people a place to post their stories, and it's clear that the responsibility's on them to post or not post as they see fit, then calling such an archivist lazy for using an automated archive is out of line.

If [generic] you are a brand new archivist who just installed e-fiction on your wannabe Writer's Guild site and is now spamming communities and e-mailing individual authors saying "Please let me have your stories so I have enough characterX/characterY stories to make it into the guild / impress people with my site /etc -- then you're asking people to do you a favor, and making them re-code their stuff for you does seem kind of lazy.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

hyenamummy
2004-01-21 10:08 pm UTC (link)
I saw the original post, and it was absolutely more addressing people who say "Hi! I really like your story, ____. Can I have it for my archive? If so, please go here, sign up, and upload it!"
Which I've gotten and, yeah, could irk. I think archivists with autoarchives would be better off making sure they volunteer to upload for the author if the author wishes. Most authors will choose to do it themselves, but there are some who are technophobic/busy/lazy and would feel much happier letting the archivist handle it themselves.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

sarajayechan
2004-01-21 10:47 pm UTC (link)
Because good little website owners do EVERYTHING by hand. In fact, using the keyboard to enter the HTML is so lazy, everyone must go into the computer and write it by hand!

*snicker*
(Reply to this)(Thread)

wolfsamurai
2004-01-22 04:36 am UTC (link)
Binary all the way baby!
(Reply to this)(Parent)

musette
2004-01-22 04:32 am UTC (link)
Right, automated archiving is lazy. Not like, ya know, most professional webdesigners use Dreamweaver or anything.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

katemonkey
2004-01-22 10:59 am UTC (link)
Are you kidding? We walk ten hours to work in blizzards just to get onto our DOS-machines and hand-write out HTML pages in binary, just for you to call us lazy!

And we like it that way!
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:
musette
2004-01-23 06:02 am UTC (link)
Don't forget that the walk is uphill. Both ways. *g*
(Reply to this)(Parent)

amand_r
2004-01-22 09:33 am UTC (link)
I find myself totally mesmerized by your icon.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

katemonkey
2004-01-22 10:58 am UTC (link)
The power of Zorak COMPELS YOU!
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:
amand_r
2004-01-22 08:06 pm UTC (link)
THWAP! THWAP! THWAP! THANK YOU SIR MY I HAVE ANOTHER!
(Reply to this)(Parent)

schneck
2004-01-24 05:03 am UTC (link)
"The pen was too heavy..."

:oP
(Reply to this)