[Sticky] New Results Categories! Introducing DQ and Rejected With Comments

@axeminister 

Wow! Time sure flies! Likely an attribute of the Copernicus Time Compression Principle we’ve all been experiencing inside the gravity well of the Covid Wormhole. 

Posted by: @axeminister

Extra! Extra! Read all about it:

https://writersofthefuture.com/writers-of-the-future-taps-kary-english-as-new-first-reader/

(I'm not really so old I remember those times or anything. Just sounded like a fun thing to write)

Thanks! Good choice on the extra extra

I'm sure I'm dating myself, but I did stand on a street corner and yell those words over and over until I ran out of papers.  

They were a nickel apiece at that time.

@storysinger Well, the good thing about dating yourself is that you don't have to worry about you running around behind your back.  

Gotta say, even a general idea as to what's wrong with a story is a pearl of great price to people trying to figure out where the hiccup in a story is.  Being able to focus on Failure to Launce, for example, is tremendously helpful.  Appreciate the extra work you folks are putting into providing that sort of help to new writers.

Repeating my offer here - if anyone with a RWC would like feedback shoot me a DM and I’ll take a look. 

@storysinger 

Posted by: @karyenglish

Hey, all,

Q1 results will be coming out soon, and I'd like to make you aware of two new categories for WOTF judging.

 

Disqualified - We've instituted this category to let entrants know when they've submitted something that we can't consider because it violates the contest rules. Since this is our first trial of the DQ option, we're only using it for the following situations:

• You left your name on your entry.
• Your entry exceeded our length limit.
• Your entry was not in English, or was in a format or genre that the contest does not accept. Mostly this means poetry, screenplays, scholarship essays, erotica, excessive profanity, children's stories, or stories that don't contain a speculative element.

 

Rejected With Comments - One of the most frequent requests we get from entrants is that they want more feedback. They want to know why their entry was rejected, or why it stopped at HM. We've heard you, and we'll be rolling out a new Rejected With Comments category, starting with Q1 and progressing over the next several quarters.

 

If you receive a Rejected With Comments letter, it means your story showed promise, but was held back by one or more issues mentioned in the letter. You will not receive comments specific to your story. Instead, the letter will contain a list of things that hold stories back, and you'll need to evaluate your entry to determine which item(s) may have affected your story.

The current RWC categories are:

• Failure to Launch - your opening went on too long, was too unfocused, or did not engage us
• Didn't Stick the Landing - your ending was weak or didn't fit the story
• Content issues - too much violence, sex, or profanity
• No speculative element - your fantasy or sci-fi element was not present, introduced too late, or was insufficient
• Your story was for children - We're OK with YA, but you sent us something for middle grade or lower
• Politics and Religion - Your story depended too heavily on real-world politics, was better suited to a devotional market, or spent too much time trying to advance a particular religious or political agenda

You may have noticed some overlap between DQ and RWC, so let me unpack that.

 

RWC means "We liked it, but..."

DQ means "Absolutely not."

 

RWC means "Ok, a few too many f-bombs here," or "please scale back that sex scene."

DQ means "Do you know any words that don't start with f?" or "0.o - WTH did I just read? Whatever it was, don't submit it again."

 

RWC means "You sent us a nice haunted house story for 4th graders."

DQ means "You sent us a picture book for four year-olds."

 

In short, RWC is fixable, for the most part. DQ is not.*

 

In terms of quality, RWC stories are somewhere near the border between HM and R. If you've been getting straight Rs, RWC will help you fine tune your craft so you can hit that HM mark. If you've been frustrated that you can't get more than HM, RWC will help you figure out why.

 

For Q1, the RWC category is small, fewer than a hundred stories, and mostly for Failure to Launch. We expect to use RWC more heavily in future quarters.

Cheers,

Kary

 

* Except for your name. If you get DQed for leaving your name on it, fix it and resubmit it.

I haven't been on the forum in a while and just noticed this. I'm excited about it because it helps to know whether your story is fixable or not. 

I'm curious about the various categories.  I've looked around a bit, but I'm not sure I have a full grasp on things.  I'm new here, so I apologize for the somewhat naive question.

From looking around, it seems the categories are:

1.  Disqualified,
2.  Rejected,
3.  Rejected with Comments,
4.  Honorable Mention,
5.  SHM, which I think means Silver Honorable Mention?
6.  Semi-finalist, and
7.  Finalist

Is that correct?  Please let me know if I've gotten something wrong.

Additionally, I understand that thousands of submissions are made every quarter.  And I believe I read that there are eight finalist stories that are chosen.  Is there a rough number that fall into the other categories?  For instance, is there a particular number of Honorable Mentions or an estimate of how many are typically handed out each quarter?

Thank you for any help.  I know all of this information is probably available somewhere; I just haven't managed to find it while browsing around.

Posted by: @jo-b

Additionally, I understand that thousands of submissions are made every quarter.  And I believe I read that there are eight finalist stories that are chosen.  Is there a rough number that fall into the other categories?  For instance, is there a particular number of Honorable Mentions or an estimate of how many are typically handed out each quarter?

Honorable Mentions are 5-10% of entries. As a very rough explanation, it means a story was good enough to finish (most aren't), but there were issues that kept it from being a Finalist contender.

Silver Honorable Mentions are rare. They're extremely close, probably publishable, but a flaw holds them back.

A Semi-Finalist is a story that Jody believes is good enough to win; but she only gets to pick 8 Finalists, and there are 8 better stories this quarter (in her opinion). As compensation, she writes a critique, explaining how she thinks it could be even better. (That means you can't resubmit this story.)

A Finalist is one of the top 8 for the quarter. A Winner is one of the top 3 from these 8.

That was a wonderful explanation, thank you.

Here's to next quarter and hopefully I'll at least earn some comments. 

@james1721 I hope you do even better than that. You never know - bottom line is, keep writing, keep learning, and have fun.

When you get a non-acceptance email, how do you know the difference between a disqualification, a rejection, and a rejection with comments?  

The reason I ask, is that I received a rejection email that included a general list of reasons why a story doesn't make it.

In some ways, I'm encouraged that this might be an RWC.  It is a rejection, it does have comments, and has an encouraging tone.  Then down at the bottom it says, "... see if you can revise it to suit the Contest's guidelines."  That makes me think it is a disqualification.

Any guidance on how you know where a story rates in the non-acceptance categories?  I didn't know, until recently, that you can revise and resubmit a story in a subsequent quarter.  I'm trying to decide if this one is worth revising.

Thanks,

Mark

@markwilx what was the exact wording? Feel free to DM me if you don't want to share it publicly.

@ease Thanks.  I'll send it to you DM.

Posted by: @martin-l-shoemaker

↑

Honorable Mentions are 5-10% of entries. As a very rough explanation, it means a story was good enough to finish (most aren't), but there were issues that kept it from being a Finalist contender.

Silver Honorable Mentions are rare. They're extremely close, probably publishable, but a flaw holds them back.

A Semi-Finalist is a story that Jody believes is good enough to win; but she only gets to pick 8 Finalists, and there are 8 better stories this quarter (in her opinion). As compensation, she writes a critique, explaining how she thinks it could be even better. (That means you can't resubmit this story.)

A Finalist is one of the top 8 for the quarter. A Winner is one of the top 3 from these 8.

That is extremely helpful to know.  Thank you for the detail and estimates.

Thank you @karyenglish for letting us know about these changes. Having had great success  in MA creative writing classes, some of the stories of which I submitted here only received rejections. I haven't submitted since 2020 until recently and I look forward to either winning ? or reading what I am missing for this contest (general sense). Thank whoever is responsible for these changes.

~ LoyalRam

Thanks for explaining - I always wondered what percentage of submissions received an HM.

Hi there, I’m new to writers of the future and just received my first feedback from the last quarter. My story was disqualified with three listed possible reasons for me to discern. Now, don’t get me wrong I am in no way disputing, and am actually extremely grateful for the amount of time and effort that goes into replying to everyone, but I am really confused and I’d love to figure this out so I won’t make the same mistake in the future. 

I checked my submission and my name wasn’t included on the manuscript. The story hasn’t been published anywhere. The word count was under 5000, it was written in English, and the last possibility was due to incorrect format or genre. My story is set in a secondary world, that is completely fictional, and I thought the title and the first paragraph was enough to give it away at the start… but maybe not? Though I continued to develop the secondary world throughout the story, the piece doesn't contain magic or science fiction elements, could that be why? I’m stumped. And feeling a little foolish. I’d love to be able to learn from this and apply it to the story and to future work but er… yeah I can’t figure it out. 

Has anyone else had similar issues and have aaany suggestions with something I’m missing? 

Posted by: @bon

↑

I checked my submission and my name wasn’t included on the manuscript. The story hasn’t been published anywhere. The word count was under 5000, it was written in English, and the last possibility was due to incorrect format or genre. My story is set in a secondary world, that is completely fictional, and I thought the title and the first paragraph was enough to give it away at the start… but maybe not? Though I continued to develop the secondary world throughout the story, the piece doesn't contain magic or science fiction elements, could that be why? I’m stumped. And feeling a little foolish. I’d love to be able to learn from this and apply it to the story and to future work but er… yeah I can’t figure it out. 

The guidelines need to be revised, which is a work in progress. Slush readers tell me that a secondary world with no speculative elements is not counted as speculative for this Contest. The guidelines need to explain that more clearly, so I feel your pain. It might have been an excellent story for a different market. A non-spec secondary world is closer to historical than to speculative.

Also keep in mind that the spec element needs to be consequential. Dragons in the distance don't make it spec. Dragons in the distance that cause characters to turn aside might make it spec, even if we never encounter them, because they affected the story. That would be a judgment call for the slush reader.

Thanks @martin-l-shoemaker for your comment. I suspect this: "Also keep in mind that the spec element needs to be consequential" may be the thing that could be clarified. How do we know for sure our speculative element is consequential? And what does it mean to be consequential? It would be super to receive further instructions regarding this [and I'm thinking this sort of thing is coming up a lot, especially at the first reader stage]. I'm also aware that the competition is stiff and that the anthologies are of high quality. I really enjoy reading the stories that make it into the anthologies. Anyway, I thank all of the people who are behind the scenes making this contest the best it can be. Much appreciated!

@martin-l-shoemaker Thank you so much Martin, your response was extremely helpful. I understand now why my entry was disqualified. I won't make that same mistake again. I'd be lying if I said the outcome didn't smart a bit, but there is one good thing, my future submissions can't get a worse result haha. I'm not sure if I'll revise the story or submit a different one for this quarter, either way though, I have the knowledge now to make sure it fits the criteria so thank you for your time in clarifying that for me!

Posted by: @physa

↑

Thanks @martin-l-shoemaker for your comment. I suspect this: "Also keep in mind that the spec element needs to be consequential" may be the thing that could be clarified. How do we know for sure our speculative element is consequential? And what does it mean to be consequential? It would be super to receive further instructions regarding this [and I'm thinking this sort of thing is coming up a lot, especially at the first reader stage].

Analog has a rule which I think is a good guideline (paraphrased): If you can remove the spec element and still tell the same story, it's not consequential. I sent Analog a story about bootcamp on the Moon in the future. They rejected it because they felt the same story could've been told on Earth in the present.

After three rwc's in a row I wonder at its effectiveness. Is it designed to make getting HM harder? 

Instead of a list of possible reasons for rejection, can it be narrowed down to the actual reason for the R?

@storysinger -- I think the effectiveness of RWC is very limited.  It means only one thing -- your story is worth revising.  I got an RWC.  Other than the generic list of 'reasons for an RWC' I was left to guess what needed to be revised.  I made some revisions, resubmitted, and got an HM.  Like a rejection, an RWC tells you nothing else about why your story was not good enough.  I think RWC means, 'if you do a good job revising this you'll probably get an HM; if you hope to be a finalist, move on to the next project.'

To me it is a shame that professional writers review our work then don't even provide so much as a checkmark off a list of, "common reasons the story didn't make it."  What a terrible waste of their time!  I'm an engineer in the aerospace & defense industry.  Imagine if all our engineering tests were rated pass or fail.  It'd be like running a pressure test on a fuel tank without having pressure sensors on it.  "We'll it didn't blow up on the test stand; let's put it on the rocket and see how it does under the forces of thrust, 'cause, what could go wrong?"  Yeah, we'd still be in the middle ages if we did engineering like publishing.  I guess that's why fantasy is so popular!  🙂

Mark

@markwilx I could be wrong, but I don't believe that stories at the RWC level even make it to the "professional writers." Doesn't WotF use slush readers like most other contests/publications?

Of course, that doesn't mean your post about not receiving even a specific item of feedback isn't valid. It could also be that when they read if they identify one of those things, then they don't need to continue further.

Imagine if you received guidance about one issue and revised and resubmitted only to receive another RWC for a different one. Ultimately, it's a time issue. It may seem like a waste or unfair to you, but having read slush myself I understand the reasons. They received thousands upon thousands of submissions.

Think of it this way. As an engineer, I'm sure you see or hear all kinds of suggestions or questions from people about how things are done. They may seem completely reasonable from their viewpoint. But, you, having insider knowledge as an engineer know that it just doesn't work like that and there are many reasons.

Your comparison is very apples and oranges as well.

@undreamedages I don't know if WotF culls the slush pile or not.  It would make a lot of sense in explaining how they go through so many entries.  Regardless, even one comment from one slush reader would be helpful -- as you said, even if the form says, "there may be additional issues not identified."  That one comment would be valuable, even if there are other issues not identified.  Assume you're RWC'd for bad grammar.  You fix that then are RWC'd for a poor hook.  An author serious about evaluating feedback would improve substantially over time with feedback like that.

Yes, as an engineer I've had a lot of comments "off base" from people not in my field.  One asked me why we haven't sent a camera into a black hole.  You see, I do a lot of educational outreach in elementary schools.  When you explain why, if they pay attention, they develop a deeper understanding of science and technology.  They grow.

In school, we have letter grades.  In sports there are betting averages.  In any profession, there are raises.  These are all metrics used to evaluate.  I don't see this as apples and oranges.  I'm not taking about how an evaluation is reported (very different in engineering, yes), I'm taking about if evaluation is reported (that's a simple yes/no - not apples and oranges).  Publishing is one of those very rare areas where you get a simple pass/fail with no comment.  (Even in school classes that grade P/F the teacher will generally tell you why they failed you.) 

Compared to its peers, I applaud WotF.  They at least rank you from:  DQ, R, RWC, HM, SHM, SF, F, W.  That's really quite unusual in the industry.  Again, I applaud it.  But the why is missing.  Yes, you get a letter grade from WotF, but no why you got that grade.  I've been DQ, R, RWC, and HM.  In all of them, even the good one, no why.

One of my HMs was a flash fiction I slung out in an afternoon.  No joke.  I thought it was utter crap, but I was determined to submit that quarter.  My planned entry wasn't ready.  The planned entry, tailored from reading winners in the anthology and painstakingly edited, submitted the next quarter was R.  I don't know why my crappy entry landed an HM and my laborious entry was spurned with an R.  No clue.

Not only do I not have what it takes to be a winning author, I can't even comprehend what it takes.  I still love writing tho.

Mark

Posted by: @markwilx

↑

@storysinger -- I think the effectiveness of RWC is very limited.  It means only one thing -- your story is worth revising.  I got an RWC.  Other than the generic list of 'reasons for an RWC' I was left to guess what needed to be revised.  I made some revisions, resubmitted, and got an HM.  Like a rejection, an RWC tells you nothing else about why your story was not good enough.  I think RWC means, 'if you do a good job revising this you'll probably get an HM; if you hope to be a finalist, move on to the next project.'

To me it is a shame that professional writers review our work then don't even provide so much as a checkmark off a list of, "common reasons the story didn't make it."  What a terrible waste of their time!  I'm an engineer in the aerospace & defense industry.  Imagine if all our engineering tests were rated pass or fail.  It'd be like running a pressure test on a fuel tank without having pressure sensors on it.  "We'll it didn't blow up on the test stand; let's put it on the rocket and see how it does under the forces of thrust, 'cause, what could go wrong?"  Yeah, we'd still be in the middle ages if we did engineering like publishing.  I guess that's why fantasy is so popular!  🙂

Mark

RWC is a nice addition, but is just a broad category of why the story was rejected, if a category is even known. My last story was simply flat out rejected, so I've never received a RWC to read through it. My understanding is this is performed by slush readers.

The real treasure of WotF is the HM-SF, which the majority of contests don't bother with. These are still rejections, but the scale helps a writer understand that their work/pros are good. The story was read through and needs some holes fixed.  I would have given up on writing in 2020 if I didn't receive an HM from WotF. The flat out rejections were piling up and I didn't know how to help my writing.

SUGGESTION FOR WOTF: I would prefer a breakdown category of the HM level, rather than of the R level (Stop doing RWC and/or add more guidance at HM+ level). I'm used to Rs, but find it hard to understand why a story is HM. I've sent more HMs to readers to help find out what I missed than Rs.