Do we need a war chest?

I haven't even tried AdBrite; it never occurred to me. cuz i r stoopid. I might try a test buy there when I get my next bit of cash, haha, and report back. Or has anyone else advertised there?

I like this idea. I don't know how much I'd be able to contribute, though...my income from my site is pretty abysmal right now, and I don't make enough in my day job to divert any funds.

As far as the logistics go, it seems you'd need a trusted individual( to handle the actual purchasing and administration of ads, as well as a way to collect the funds. I know we've used ChipIn in the past as a good way to gather donations from a group, because it allows you to set goals, deadlines, and see the progress bar move as donations are gathered. It might work well here.

It's also worth mentioning that there are good free or low-cost ways to promote these sites. I know a lot of us are in or near urban centers -- MeiLin, Irk, and Char in Portland, myself in Birmingham (AL), Anna in London. It means a bit of printing cost and some footwork, but working up a good WFG flyer and posting it around town could be a good way to draw in some readers.

I think there are plans to do something like this (not necessarily with fictionpress specifically) once the WFG redesign is complete. There was definitely some discussion in the WFG forums...

If someone does a pdf of a flyer, I can print them off (I work for a weekly newspaper and printing press, after all) and take a few up to a few of the brick and mortar book stores where I know that there would be interested readers. I've been planning on doing that with Black Mask & Pale Rider, so if someone might have something I can print off and zip up there, gimme a shout. Addy is blackbowman (at) gmail (dot) com.

WFG? No.

My vote is very much against that. You need only visit my listing there to see why. You'll notice the huge disparity between the single editorial review and the reader reviews (one of which was done by a professional reviewer who is vastly more well-read and experienced than the editor), as well as my position on TWF. I am one of the weblits that WFG would like to close the gate on, despite the quality of my work. I feel I was treated unprofessionally and I am sure they have damaged my prospects. I will not participate in promoting them, and I'd prefer other people did not on a personal level as that would be negative promotion for me, and on a larger level, (since I can't imagine I'm alone) negative promotion for other good writers who they've similarly badmouthed without allowing even a comment section allowing rebuttal on the same page.

In fact I do not suggest we all get behind any one gateway site at all. There is no such thing as objectivity in reviewing, so a diversity of viewpoints is crucial to the health of the field, and it is unwise for us to help any one gain too much power in case they abuse it (as I feel WFG did in my case). They are just human, after all. If we want to advertise collectively we should create our own collective. (DN does this but there's no reason not to create a broader collective.)

Sorry to sound a sour note, but what happened happened and I continue to suffer the detriment.

Okay, good points. The staff at WFG aren't always the greatest.

I was considering the problem that none of us individually have the financial power to advertise on the sites that seem the most likely to have potential readers on. (Large numbers of readers = large advertising prices).

I mentioned WFG merely because it's the biggest of the current directories and if we don't send them to a directory where do we send them? The whole point is to get potential readers to sites where they can find stuff they want to read.

I do agree with you that ideally we don't want one entry point, but multiple. I hesitated to suggest creating our own directory only because people seem to freak out at the suuggestion and wibble that we're "splitting the community". I mean really? What?

Many online communities have multiple directories and rallying points. They don't collapse or fly apart. And the ones we have aren't all that.

Muses' Success is unattractive and annoying to navigate.

WFG seems to hack some people off (including me sometimes but at least I can find my way round it).

I don't really like the layout on the Web Fiction Directory.

Anyway directories are brilliant for link building and none of the current ones gets masses of traffic. This ironically means there's plenty of room for someone to come in and take the prize.

The problem with DN promoting itself is that I would have no incentive to join in because I don't host here and am very happy with my current webhost, so my moving is unlikely. Whatever site we create or pick shouldn't be host specific.

I would definately support the idea of a new directory or even a social networking site similar to Goodreads but for weblit instead of dead tree books.

Hmm... another long post gone off at a tangent. So I'll just reiterate my main points. (Sorry for repeating myself - it's for clarity)

Individually we don't have the oomf to try and grab readers from the (tbh pretty dire - have you ever been to fictionpress? *shudders*) site that has over 24k unique visitors and over 260k pageviews a day.

If we're serious about getting more people into the weblit reading community in general we need to seriously consider how to get at least some of those readers to look outside the box they are in. (Once they're in the community we can look at getting them into our work specifically.)

However if we do decide to act as a group where do we send them to?

Becky

What about ErgoFiction? While it's not a directory, they do have several good introduction posts to weblit and webfiction in general, and the tone is, in my opinion, conducive to new readers.

I don't agree at all. (And I wish I hadn't edited out the paragraph in my previous post where I explained why not because I knew someone would suggest it).

I like ErgoFiction well enough I guess (though I don't visit often) but I think it's not so good for that purpose. It's an ezine for the community but not for getting people into the community.

Articles about why you should read webfiction won't change anyone's opinion - even the undecided. It's just like telling instead of showing in fiction itself. You need to actually get them to a story they'll like.

And yes it's moving towards excerpts and short stories but I still don't feel it would do the job since it will never list everything. That's not what it's for.

It needs to be somewhere that can act as a place readers can easily find a story in their favoured genre to go and read. ErgoFiction is too limited for that purpose. (Unless you can argue why it isn't).

Becky

Good points.

So what we need is something that does this?

Potential workflow:

1. User sees ad to Gateway X
• User doesn't click
• Or: Ad interests user. User clicks through. Go to step 2.
2. Landing page provides info on weblit
• User exits site
• Or: User is interested, go to step 3.
3. Below the fold, user can select genres they're interested in.
4. Site returns listing of 5-10 of the top weblit works in the selected genres.
5. Each listing includes an about-blurb, an excerpt and a link to click through to the work's main site.
• User doesn't like what they read, they go to next excerpt or exit site.
• Or: User likes the excerpt, clicks through to a main site. New weblit reader in the making.

Agreed re ErgoFiction. Jan has ambitions to build some sort of single organization of weblit writers and readers. To me that smacks too much of something monolithic.

Elizabeth Barrette and a whole bunch of other people are putting together a site sometime that they intend as a hub for crowd-funded work in general. I read the list of ideas and I was amazed, until she told me how much consultation it was the product of. See here. The only thing is... last I heard... it doesn't exist yet. Elizabeth's approach is to wait until the will is there.

Maybe a little more impetus from our end can kick that will over into critical mass.

That link doesn't seem to be working, Karen.

2. Landing page provides info on weblit

You mean, general info? "Hey there's all this great stuff here!"

That page is EXTREMELY important in that case. Should be written, or at least vetted, by a pro copywriter.

I think 3. should be above the fold, maybe arranged around the 2. blurb. To an avid reader, the name of their genre is a selling word.

4. Site returns listing of 5-10 of the top weblit works in the selected genres.

Top weblit works, determined how? Popularity? Reviews? Ratings?

Excerpts, excellent idea.

BTW I think such a website should use the term "weblit." I see it continuing to gain traction as a descriptor for professional, or aspiring professional, work.

One idea I've had is "Daily Weblit" which features one weblit per day with a professional-quality review and excerpt. The trick is the review, as some reviews are, haha, not promotional. Perhaps professional description is a better term. And some testimonials.

Helps if I get the link syntax right. Try it again.

Working now. Fav'd for later reading. Time to get to work now.

As far as determining the top weblit works, maybe a combination of the three -- some algorithm that takes into account a voting system, reviews, as well as traffic stats? I don't know right off the top of my head. Reviews are, of course, subjective: one reader will hate what another adores, and even reviewing styles differ -- some reviewers are more lenient while others are more brutal. A 5-star rating system is probably more valid, but people typically will rate something 4 or 5 stars when it really deserves a 3, and most people won't give a work a 1 when it actually deserves it, because they don't want to appear mean.

Traffic stats, on the other hand, would mean the most popular sites would get the most exposure and that makes it hard for lesser sites to get exposure. On the other hand, if the objective of the site is to get people interested in weblit, then that's okay. Once they're interested in the medium, then we can work on getting them to other less popular sites.

I don't think that the last bit is really practical. Besides it's exclusive and leaves new stuff which isn't popular yet out in the cold. Better to return a random list of five or ten.

Which raises another question. We're trying to avoid Gatekeepers but we equally probably don't want to list anything as badly written as "My Immortal" (yes I know it's fanfiction but trust me there are people who write *almost* as incoherently in original fiction). Do we vet for coherency or just include a warning that we don't vet?

See you when you're back, GG! Just one little comment: I think voting and traffic stats are redundant, i.e. traffic stats are a vote.

Make that two: Reviews are most useful when readers are familiar with the reviewer's tastes. I remember there was a movie reviewer who worked for a local paper when I was young who was absolutely reliable: if he liked a movie, I could be certain I would, too. I was devastated when he retired. That works the other way, too: there are some reviewers who if they hate a work, you're guaranteed to like it. Useful either way!

What needs to happen is for a group of dedicated reviewers, the people who do them regularly and frequently, to further refine their craft by studying from a pro or two, and then amass their own stockpiles of reviews and develop reputations this way. I can see some people on WFG starting to do it, but it would be nice if they had their own site, away from the more casual and less careful reviewers there. Let them have their own site and each person live or die on how readable/useful their reviews are. It's part of the whole raising of quality we need to do.

One of the reasons Elizabeth hasn't gotten going is me. *blush* I offered to do some dev work and then got caught up in finishing book one. I'll get on that.

Becka wrote, "Do we vet for coherency or just include a warning that we don't vet?"

Hmmm... Well if we don't vet, I don't think we need to warn people that we don't. They will assume we don't, I think, unless we say we do.

There perhaps should be some very basic criteria in terms of competence in the English language, cleanness of copy, navigability and tolerability of website... criteria that anyone who is the slightest bit competent, dedicated and sane can meet.

MeiLin, you and Elizabeth are both perfect for this, as per the old saying, "If you want something done, ask someone busy."

I second the 'not just the top weblit' comment as those at the top are likely to remain there leaving everyone else - new or old - behind. Perhaps a top weblit of the week, or day, depending to the coding logistics involved.

Perhaps doing reviews could be a 'payment' option for those low on cash? X reviews equals Y dollars? Or perhaps everyone involved needs to do a certain number of reviews to get in the door. It would also help to make us more aware of all the authors out there. I know I haven't had time to browse more than a few stories and wouldn't know where to send readers looking for certain types of stories.

I think the general warchest idea is a good one, we just need to work out specifics & get the numbers for the $$$. (ie number of people so the $$ aren't so high per person)

It's a good idea, but one with a huge problem. The reviewers who are building up reputations on the WFG are themselves weblit authors. On a site like WFG this doesn't matter, because it's a social site. Anyone can post a review. It's not perfect, but with a bit of thought it could become the Yelp or Goodreads of the weblit world. (So could the other two, but none of them even seem to be trying).

On a more formal review site it is an issue. Setting up such a site would be easy as long as you could entice the reviewers in. Therein lies the problem:

There's a conflict of interest. If most or all of this theoretical site's reviewers are weblit authors they will have to exclude their own work from the review pool or risk the entire site being viewed as tainted with self-promotion. No one is going to want to do that.

There are probably remedies to this problem - disclosure notices worked for "The Fix" when it reviewed TTA's own titles - but it requires some thought.

Becka

Ah, what a polite way you have of saying, "Incestuous as heck." The problem is that people who are interested in weblit enough to write... are interested in weblit enough to write. And we all want to be buddies and that leads to conflicts as well.

The people who like just to review, however, are out there. The dead-tree world has them. In the meantime, yes, it will take thought. The issue is not even necessarily honesty: it's credibility.