AO3 News

Comment period open for FAQ and ToS

Published: 2014-04-21 12:59:23 -0400

Banner by Diane with the outlines of a man and woman speaking with word bubbles, one of which has the OTW logo and the other which says 'OTW Announcement'

Our Content Policy workgroup has been at work on some FAQ updates and Terms of Service (ToS) changes for the Archive of Our Own which have now been approved by the OTW Board. This post begins a two-week open comment period so that AO3 users can leave feedback on these changes before they are added to the current ToS and FAQ pages.

The ToS changes are mainly small wording changes that reflect the way AO3 features have evolved from the time in which the document was originally drafted. There is one policy change that will not make a significant difference in our practices but may be of particular interest to users, which is our adoption of a DMCA policy similar to that of Wikipedia's. It takes fair use into account, but also provides us with more protection in case we are threatened by copyright trolls.

We will take feedback into account until April 28, 2014. If there are no further changes approved by the Board as a result of the feedback, the updates shown below will be added to our Terms of Service. We will also update our FAQ pages.

1) New DMCA Policy

In PDF format
In Rich text format

2) New Terms of Service Changes

In PDF format
In Rich text format

3) New ToS FAQ changes

In PDF format
In Rich text format

Q&A on the DMCA

What is the DMCA?

The DMCA is part of US copyright law, 17 U.S.C. §512. Compliance with the DMCA protects us from money damages in any case where someone posted infringing content on the Archive or Fanlore, as long as we took down that content when properly notified about it.

Our current rules will largely be unchanged, though our procedures will change somewhat. We will still decline to remove noninfrining, transformative works. We already ban copyright infringement, such as posting large, nontransformative chunks of a book, and for the Archive, Abuse already tells users to remove infringements. If they don’t comply, Abuse will disable access to the infringing work. A user who repeatedly posts infringing materials may have their account permanently suspended (terminated).

Why would the Archive want do this, if it is going to continue looking at fair use?

To put it briefly, having a DMCA policy makes it easier to shake off trolls. For copyright owners/businesses just interested in demanding thousands of dollars, it’s not worth sending us threatening letters if we have a DMCA policy, since we are protected against money damages.

Doesn’t the DMCA require websites to take down content regardless of fair use?

That’s how most providers, most of the time, implement it, because that’s the cheapest way to do it, and most providers don’t have ideological commitments to fair use that outweigh their desires to save money. Wikipedia, however, has a DMCA policy and a commitment to fair use, and follows the policy we propose. We believe that we can remain committed to fair use while providing a streamlined way to address true infringements.

Comment

Fandom nonfiction: seeking feedback

Published: 2013-03-13 15:28:47 -0400

The Board’s decision on meta has sparked a great deal of conversation, externally and internally, and we appreciate the detailed comments many people have left. Over the course of internal discussions among the affected committees, we've determined that "fandom nonfiction" is a more useful term than “meta” to explain the kinds of works covered by the Board vote. We invite your feedback on these proposals. We will be collecting feedback for two weeks, and then will incorporate that feedback into a policy for Board approval.

Ultimately, we will handle many different kinds of fannish creativity through a work type system. However, while we hope to make progress on this later in the year, we do not have a definite timeframe for work types. In the interim, creators may choose to wait until work types are implemented or to use the additional tags to categorize their works in order to facilitate the transition to work types.

Important note: there are many key issues relating to the implementation of work type categories. We are only beginning to brainstorm on the technical aspects. If you give us feedback about what you want from the specifics of work type now, before we have a proposal on the table, we may miss it when we get into the technical aspects. So while we welcome your feedback, we ask that you focus it in this post on the general issues of policy: what we will host and what abilities administrators ought to have with respect to mislabeled works. Just by way of example: "Abuse should be able to recategorize a textual work from fiction to nonfiction" is feedback within the scope of the current proposal. "Visual art should be divided into digital, hand-drawn, and other" is not within the scope of the current proposal, though we will seek more input on these types of issues as we continue to develop the work type plan.

That said, here is a very general outline of what we are thinking:

(1) When creators post a work, some type of general "work type" selection will ultimately be mandatory, as choosing a rating and a warning or warnings are now mandatory. This will probably refer to functional file characteristics like text, video, and audio, but may also incorporate a fiction/nonfiction divide. Once the work types are available, as with ratings and warnings, our basic policy will be to defer to the creator's categorizations.

(2) Other aspects of work type will likely be optional/user-defined, possibly with autofill/some predetermined options that will not be exclusive. Again, our basic policy will be to defer to the creator’s categorizations.

(3) We may auto-detect some work features such as the presence of an image or image tag, the way we currently auto-detect word count.

(4) Where the AO3 already provides specific features for a particular kind of content—specifically, fanwork searches, bookmarks, and challenges—we will ask people to use those features for that content.

Your feedback on these general principles, as well as the more specific issues addressed below, is welcome.

How will existing works fit into this scheme or be moved into this scheme?: This is a technical issue that is not yet resolved. On the policy side, no one will be penalized for having posted a work that, because of the implementation of work type, is technically "mislabeled" as a result of the transition. However, we may try some automated solutions for detecting work type and/or ask creators to change a work type when they posted before work type was introduced. Part of the transition may thus be to automatically set work type based on the presence or absence of certain tags or other work features, then notify the creators and allow them to change the work type if the automated process made a mistake. Once work type is implemented, the current proposal is that administrators will have the ability to correct an obvious miscategorization of work type (that is, a case that is not borderline even after deference to the creator) if the creator fails to respond to an inquiry after a reasonable time.

We want to have definitions that can be reasonably explained and enforced by our dedicated volunteers. Our policy is to default to respect creators’ own characterizations of their works, and that will remain the case. Abuse will, however, be able to request the removal of or remove particular works when they are clearly beyond the scope of fandom nonfiction, just as Abuse can currently make other Terms of Service-related determinations in appropriate circumstances.

Draft FAQ additions:

Q: Is nonfiction allowed on the Archive?

A: Fandom nonfiction is allowed. Where we provide a specific function (search, bookmarking, challenges) we will ask you to use the specific methods we provide for those activities. In addition, as an archive whose goal is preservation, we want permanent, nonephemeral content. To the extent that your content is designed to be ephemeral, such as liveblogging episode reactions, it should go on a journaling service and not the Archive.

Q: What falls within the definition of fandom nonfiction?

A: Fandom nonfiction can be discussions of fannish tropes, commentary on fandoms, documentaries, podcasts about fandom, explanations of the creative process behind a fanwork or works, guides for fan-created gaming campaigns, or many other things.

However, the nature of the Archive and the limitations of our resources mean that, while we will endeavor to host as much fannish content as possible, we need to put some limits on allowable works. In particular, the Archive is not a journaling service and it is not designed to host ephemeral content.

We will, in general, defer to the creator’s characterization of a work as fandom nonfiction as long as it has a reasonably perceptible fannish connection, either to a specific source or to fandom in general, and takes the form of an independent, nonephemeral commentary. For example, an analysis of or commentary on multiple fanworks is nonfiction meta (and must comply with our other policies, including our harassment policy). An essay on a particular character's narrative arc in canon or of the interaction between film and comics versions of a source is also meta.

We understand that, as with many things, there are hard cases at the edges of categories, but we nonetheless need some limits in order to keep the Archive manageable for our hard-working volunteers as well as for other users.

Q: What about a fanwork search?

A: Please use our search functions for this rather than creating a separate work.

Q: What about a recommendation for a single fanwork?

A: Please use our bookmark/recommendation function for this; many creators also welcome discussion in the comments to the work, which is another appropriate place for such commentary. As always, while criticism of a fanwork is not itself harassment, content must comply with our other policies, including our harassment policy.

Q: What counts as a recommendation versus a more general discussion or analysis?

A: Please use your judgment on the best way to categorize a commentary. Our general policy is to defer to creators.

Q: How does the harassment policy apply to reviews?

A: The Terms of Service state “When judging whether a specific incident constitutes harassment, the abuse team will consider factors such as whether the behavior was repeated, whether it was repeated after the offender was asked to stop, whether the behavior was targeted at a specific person, whether that target could have easily avoided encountering the behavior, whether the behavior would be considered unacceptable according to normal community standards, etc.” This policy applies to reviews. Again, criticism of a fanwork, even harsh criticism, is not itself harassment. Calling a creator evil or wishing harm to them are potential examples of harassment.

Q: What about a fanwork prompt?

A: Please use our challenge function for this.

Q: What about a letter to someone I've been anonymously matched with for a challenge?

A: Since this content is designed to be ephemeral/nonpermanent, please put it on your profile, which can be edited to include your preferences.

Q: What isn't fandom nonfiction?

A: The examples are potentially limitless, but here are some examples that we believe, based on our experience so far, do not qualify as fandom nonfiction and should not be posted as a work:

  • episode transcripts and other non-transformative fandom material;
  • primarily autobiographical or non-fandom-related essays (e.g., essays on bike lanes, even if they contain a single reference to a fannish source);
  • general complaints about behavior towards a particular creator (e.g., a post stating that a work was deleted due to lack of feedback);
  • suggestions that other fans contact the creator through email or other social networks;
  • a single word or pairing name repeated hundreds of times;
  • offers and giveaways.

As with all works, we presume good faith on the part of our users, and ask that you do the same for the fans who make up our Support and Abuse teams.

Q: How will “ephemeral” be defined?

A: Please use your best judgment; our general policy is to defer to creators in cases of doubt. However, episode reactions of the type ‘OMG SAM’S HAIR OMG OMG. DEEEEEEEEEEEAN’ are likely to be appropriate for journaling services and not for the Archive. Ephemeral content is generally meant to be read at a particular time: for example, a message about a particular challenge or a reaction meant to be read while or just after a particular episode airs.

Proposed Terms of Service changes

The current ToS says: "Repeated identical posts in multiple places, e.g., a large number of identical comments promoting a website, will also be considered spam regardless of commercial content."

Proposed: "Repeated identical or nearly identical posts in multiple places, e.g., a large number of identical comments promoting a website, will also be considered spam regardless of commercial content."

Rationale: clarifying that small differences between posts will not be enough to take a series of posts out of the "spam" category. A creator who posts 25 different fanworks in quick succession as part of moving their output onto the Archive is not spamming, nor is a creator who posts 10 different drabbles (100-word stories), but 10 rapid-fire works with minimal content of any kind might be spam.

Current ToS:
K. Ratings and Warnings

Proposed:
K. Ratings, Warnings, and Fanwork Types

...
[new 5.] Fanwork types

It is our policy to defer to creators' categorizations, but we reserve the right to recategorize a fanwork type.

A manual recategorization decision made by the abuse team is appealable through the ordinary abuse appeals process.

A manual recategorization of a fanwork will not result in suspension of a user's account, unless it is a repeated pattern for a single user, in which case it may be treated as grounds for a suspension. Moreover, if a creator unilaterally reverses a manual recategorization, without agreement from the abuse team, that will be treated as grounds for a suspension.

Related FAQ additions:

Q: What do you mean by recategorizing a fanwork type?

A: For technical reasons relating to how our database is planned to evolve, we need for archive administrators to have the ability to change a work type where it is clearly appropriate (e.g., a review essay or fanvid mistakenly or inadvertently categorized as textual fiction). Because work type will be a new addition (and we may create new categories over time), we understand that users won't necessarily go back and change the work type on previously uploaded works. Inaction on already-existing works will not be grounds for any penalty for users, even if we do later ask that the work type be changed to reflect what it is. People will also make mistakes when work type is in place. Once work type is in place, our general policy when a recategorization is clearly appropriate will be to ask the user to recategorize the work, and change the work type if we receive no response. In addition, our general policy is to defer to the creator's choices in borderline cases.

Q: What do you mean by a manual recategorization?

A manual recategorization is an individualized determination that a specific work has been miscategorized, made as the result of a specific complaint. In terms of the transition to work types, we may automate work type detection for existing works, notify users, and ask them to change the work type if the automated process made a mistake. This automatic process would operate outside the abuse process, not as a manual recategorization.

Q: Will you recategorize or remove other tags, such as relationship tags?

A: Because our Abuse and Support resources are limited, and because different people interpret tags in many different ways, we don’t think that we can fairly enforce rules about relationship or other tags. We encourage users to engage with each other on these issues.

Comment

Sneak Peek: Our Shiny New Header!

Published: 2013-02-12 13:13:52 -0500

As we mentioned in our August newsletter, super coder Sarken and the rest of AD&T have been working hard on a redesign of the AO3 header. This new header will include drop-down menus to make site navigation easier. We're excited about our new header and we'd like to give you a little sneak peek before it goes live!

Presenting: the new header!

This is what the new header looks like without any expanded menus:

Note that the new header does not in any way affect the organization of the dashboard. The header will not affect the layout of any other pages either.

To make it easier to navigate the site, the header has four main drop downs: Fandoms, Browse, Search, and About. For example, clicking on "Fandoms" will show you this:

The "Fandoms" menu is organized by media type. Clicking on a media type will lead to the media type's main listing of all fandoms that belong to that media type. "Browse" and "Search" offer ways to look for content by works, people, bookmarks, tags, and collections - options that are available on our current header but which will now be condensed into two menus. The "About" menu will have links to the blog, the FAQ, and the volunteer page. These four main menus are available to all users.

To sign in, look to the top right corner of the page:

Clicking on "Log In" in the upper right corner will show the log in menu - now a drop down menu, instead of a menu that goes across the top of the page.

If a user is accessing the site from the homepage or from other pages (such as a parent fandom page), there will be an option to access dashboard features:

Clicking on "Hi, [user]!" shows a menu for users to get to specific areas of their dashboard without having to go to their main dashboard page. This menu will not include everything on the dashboard page, just the options shown here: My Dashboard, My Subscriptions (#), My Works (#), My Bookmarks (#), My Collections (#), My Sign-ups (#), My Assignments (#), My History, and Preferences.

Links with (#) will only show up if a user has something saved or uploaded under that link. For example, if a user has fourteen bookmarks uploaded, the link will read "My Bookmarks (14)". If a user has no bookmarks, "My Bookmarks" will not show up. The same goes for subscriptions, works, collections, sign-ups, and assignments. "My History" will only show up if you have history enabled under your preferences.

The header will also be visible on the mobile layout:

As we can see here, the "Fandoms" menu has the exact same options for mobile users. The mobile header reflects the new header; mobile users will have access to the same menus and options as desktop users.

How you can help us

We've been making sure that this header works without Javascript. However, to make this new header as accessible as possible, we'd like feedback from users who use screen readers and other assistive technology. If you're willing to help us out, please contact Support.

When do we get it?

We're hoping to roll out the new header by the end of February. Stay tuned for further details when it goes live!

Comment

Public Feedback for AO3 Terms of Service FAQ

Published: 2012-11-25 15:14:53 -0500

The Content Policy workgroup is presenting a set of proposed changes to the Archive of Our Own’s Terms of Service and Frequently Asked Questions. These are largely clarifications and changes made to deal with functionality as the Archive has developed. This post marks the start of a two-week public comment period. The Content Policy group will track any comments or questions made here and will then evaluate if further revisions need to be made.

The content change files are available in either a FAQ revision PDF and and ToS revision PDF or a FAQ revision doc file and ToS revision doc file format and will show proposed changes to the language at different points in the document.

The proposed changes do not include any discussion of meta, which is still under review by the Board. This document is mostly a matter of language cleanup and putting the answers to some common Support questions in the AO3’s FAQ.

Comment

Introducing the Category Change Workgroup!

Published: 2012-10-28 15:32:25 -0400

Hello, this is Sole G., the Category Change workgroup lead, and I'd like to introduce the workgroup, talk a little about our goals, and ask for some initial feedback from all of you as fellow fans and users of AO3.

The Category Change workgroup was created to address a long-standing debate, both internally and externally - that is, whether or not the current Fandom Categories in the Archive are the best possible browsing solution. Our goal is to take a look at the current categories and how they work and see what other options we can come up with that might be more effective at representing different fannish traditions, aiding fandom browsing, and reflecting the diversity of the Archive.

While we are taking previously held discussions into account, we are analyzing the issue from scratch and trying to find new perspectives. We are looking at the Fandom Categories framework and analyzing it from every possible perspective - even considering whether or not they are necessary at all or how the browsing experience can be changed to better reflect the needs of our users.

The most heatedly contested categories are 'Anime & Manga' and 'Cartoons & Comics & Graphic Novels'. To begin with, this division strikes some fans as artificial, since they are all either forms of animation or different traditions of comics under geographically- or culturally-determined names. Naming those two categories explicitly also implicitly leaves out other traditions, such as manhwa, manhua, bande dessinée and historieta. In addition, the inclusion of all different East Asian comic traditions under 'Anime & Manga' is inaccurate, as well as culturally insensitive.

Concerns about 'Music & Bands' and 'Celebrities and Real People' have also been raised, again citing the artificial division and the confusing categorization of albums and bands side-by-side. Other issues that have been brought up are, for example, multimedia fandoms, audio-based sources, folklore and mythology fic, etc.

We're looking for a solution that balances complex, sometimes competing, factors such as diverse fannish traditions, user behavior (current and potential), and ease of browsing.

Since this is a task that involves the purview of several different committees, a workgroup consisting of members of all involved committees has been formed. These committees are:

  • Accessibility, Design & Technology (AD&T), due to the certain possibility of changes in the AO3 code being required, and the potential impact on design, user experience and archive browsing.
  • Internationalization & Outreach (I&O), since one of the issues with the current Media Categories is related to the different boundaries between media categories international fandoms have.
  • Tag Wrangling (TW), because tag wranglers are in charge of categorizing fandoms, and any changes will have direct impact on tag wranglers' procedure and workload.
  • Support, since any change in the categories will involve responding to users' concerns.

This workgroup was developed by I&O and then backed by all of the involved committees. Each committee then chose their own representatives from among their interested staff members. While several of the Category Change staffers are also tag wranglers, a tag wrangler volunteer was recruited as well in order to directly represent the interests of that volunteer pool.

One of our top priorities is to maintain a healthy, fluid communication with the Archive of Our Own userbase, so we want to start gathering feedback as soon as possible. If you have any opinions, feedback, suggestions, knowledge or ideas, you can either leave a comment on this post or you can contact us through the Category Change contact form. We don't see the emails used when you post guest comments, and you can request that any feedback that you send through the contact form be archived anonymously in OTW workspaces so that your name and contact information are only visible to members of the workgroup and not to all staff and volunteers.

We are particularly interested in answers to these questions:

1. Do you currently use the Media Categories in order to browse the Archive? If yes, then how do you do it? For example, are you generally looking for a specific fandom or do you browse the different pages to see what fandoms are listed on the site or to find new ones? What are your usual routines? If you want to find a specific fandom on the archive for the first time, how do you do that? How do you find fandoms by more casual browsing? Don’t be afraid to be as specific and detailed as you want; details and step-by-step descriptions are really useful to us.

2. What issues have you run into with the current media categories? Are there fandoms that aren't listed where you might have expected them to be? Are there other problems you've noticed with fandoms being either grouped with or separated from one another in a way that's not ideal?

3. How would you like to see the categories and the media/fandom pages be improved? What's your vision of a better way to find, browse, and organize fandoms? We're open to all kinds of ideas, not just different names for the existing categories.

Please feel free to comment and brainstorm, and also to discuss and engage with each other. We're very interested in hearing what you think, and thanks in advance for your feedback!

Mirrored on the OTW blog. Find related news by viewing our tag cloud.

Comment

The future of OpenID on the Archive of Our Own

Published: 2011-05-01 12:20:15 -0400

In common with most sites out there, we were keen to offer an OpenID login option when we started out, to ease the burden of juggling yet another username and password. Unfortunately, also in common with other sites, we found that OpenID created as many problems as it solved. We regularly receive Support requests from users who can't log in because of some problem with their OpenID provider, or because their provider has changed their authentication code unexpectedly. We've also had ongoing problems persuading OpenID logins to persist (the 'Remember Me' option often doesn't), as well as a lot of confusion from users about exactly what an OpenID account on the Archive actually was.

Not many of our users are taking advantage of the OpenId option: out of 16,119 users, only 383 have an OpenID set. Of those, only 73 use OpenID as their sole login option (the rest have a password as well). Despite the small number of users involved, OpenID issues are one of our most regular types of Support request! We feel that the amount of work involved in keeping our code functioning with OpenID and in supporting users with it outweighs the amount of added value it brings to our users, and we're strongly considering phasing out OpenID logins for accounts altogether. (This is in line with other sites such as 37 Signals.) If you have concerns or questions about this, then please do comment to this post.

If you're currently using OpenID and you want to switch to using a password login, just select the 'Forgot password' option. This will send out a temporary password - log in with your user name and this password, and you can set a permanent password.

One reason so few users have OpenID logins for the site is that the way our accounts work mean it's only really a password replacement (you still have to give us an email address and a user name, and we can't really offer the kind of OpenID features adopted by sites such as Dreamwidth). So, OpenID accounts aren't offering anything super useful compared to regular accounts. However, we do like the idea of offering more flexible ways to use the Archive, and retiring OpenID account logins doesn't mean we've abandoned this aim.

One area where more flexible authentification options would be useful is comments. We know that some people don't have much use for the features of an Archive account, but do want to use the Archive for reading and commenting. We think it would be very handy for them to be able to leave comments without creating an account or leaving a name and email. So, we're currently looking into the omniauth plugin, which would allow people to sign in via other sites such as Twitter, Foursquare, Google apps, etc in order to leave comments. This isn't a change we'll make immediately - we want to do some more research into different options and the privacy implications first - but we think something like this would offer our users more flexibility going forward.

As always, we welcome feedback from users about features you would like to see on the Archive! Feel free to comment on this post or get in touch via our Support and Feedback form to let us know what you think!

Comment

Commenting happiness - brainstorming!

Published: 2010-10-17 17:43:24 -0400

There have been a few discussions around the last few weeks about commenting on the Archive of Our Own, and while we have some ideas of our own for improving and encouraging more feedback in general, we would love to invite more ideas from all of you!

Some of our current plans:


  • basic performance improvements to the comment form so it works quicker :)
  • a "kudos" feature that lets a reader indicate (with an optional one-line comment) if they enjoyed a story, complete with happy icon:
    logo-hearts-6


  • adding more nifty stats including # of downloads, and referring pages in the last month or so (so author can see if they were recced somewhere)

  • "badges" for heavy commenters (possibly with bonuses for commenting on older stories)

  • marking stories on the Reading History page as commented-on or not, allowing you to sort by this status

  • an option to reply to multiple comments at once

  • a "private" comment option to send comments just to the author

  • Adding an option to send an invite to people who comment without an AO3 account.

  • This is a more general feature: an optional "tip of the day" that will show the first time you come to the archive on a given day, which might point you to a new feature, suggest creating a new bookmark, or suggest posting a comment on a read story.

Do you have other ideas? Thoughts on these? Let us know what would make commenting more fun, or what other kinds of feedback you would like to get on your works!

Comment

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens

Published: 2010-09-13 07:33:26 -0400

We're celebrating the birthday of our shiny shiny servers! One of the most important and most exciting things about the Archive is the fact it represents the amazing achievement of fandom pulling together to generate the investment and expertise needed to create a true home of our own. Since September 2009, fandom has owned the servers, and the OTW is committed to making those servers a safe space for the fannish community.

Owning the servers is awesome, but just as important is what we use those servers for! We aim to make the Archive a welcoming place for fans not just because fandom owns the servers, but because the Archive is built by fans, for fans and has lots of awesome features which make a better experience for readers and creators. During our birthday party, Archive staffers and users have been talking about our favourite features - check out our list below and comment to let us know you what you love the most!

Here are a few of our favourite things!

Zooey, AD&T Chair: I LOVE the History feature! It keeps track of everything you view on the Archive, and records the date you viewed it and whether it has changed since. I am incredibly lazy about bookmarking fic, so this is totally a killer feature for me - when I think 'what was that awesome fic I read?' I can look back and find it. We're planning more features for this in future - I can't WAIT till we add the filtering option so it's easy for me to find a specific work without browsing through the whole list.

Astolat, coder: OMG advanced search! It is a little bit tricksy and we are still working on the GUI for it, but there is nothing not awesome about just being able to do: "tag: merlin/arthur (explicit|mature) words: >1000" and suddenly you have JUST THE STORIES you want.

Sidra, coder: Download as epub! You can browse the archive inside stanza on your iPhone and when you find something *poof* it's offline and ready to read. And when you get to the end, there's a link which takes you right back to comment. Super cool!

Enigel, coder: Tags! (Also known as "wuzzles".) Tags and the way they tie into browsing: I'll be reading a John/Sherlock fic and then I can use the tags to hop to the Sherlock (TV) listing, and then follow the Crossover tag and maybe pick up a new fandom... It's a never-ending link-hopping dance. :D

Yueix, user: Favorite feature so far is being able to read whole works (multi-chapters) as one continuous story.

bingeling, designer: I love the Archive simply for being multi-fandom. Whenever I'm in the mood to read something that's not my main fandom I simply check what the Archive has to offer and most of the time I'll find something. Pre-Archive it was always quite a bit of work to actually find the fic. If it wasn't your fandom, you didn't know its infrastructure. Thanks to the Archive I now always know where to start looking. ♥

Helka, kääntäjä: Minusta on hauskaa, että niin moni pieni fandom on edustettuna Arkistossa. Yli 5500 fandomia! Joissakin fandomeissa on tuhansia tarinoita, joissakin vain yksi ainokainen, mutta jokainen tarina on arvokas. Voin mennä fandom-listaukseen ja selata vaikkapa kaikkia kirja-fandomeita, tai sitten voin etsiä jotain tiettyä fandomia etsintä-toiminnolla. Ja joka päivä Arkistoon tulee lisää tarinoita! \o/

lorax, user: Favorite archive feature by FAR is the challenge sign up features. I did remix through the auto sign up this year, and it's fantastic and keeps everything so easy to find. I'm really looking forward to seeing how yuletide uses the challenge sign up through the site this year, if they do.

Julia, Übersetzerin: Ich halte das Eigene Archiv jetzt schon für eine wunderschöne, nützliche Sache, aber was es für mich auszeichnet ist dieses Gefühl, dass nach oben hin alles offen ist. Dass durch die Vorschläge der Nutzer gepaart mit der Reaktionsfreudigkeit der Programmiererinnen zusammen Stück für Stück ein Archiv entsteht, das in der Summe seiner Teile dann doch verdammt revolutionär ist -- besonders, weil es im Moment erst einen Bruchteil seines Potentials zeigt.

mlle, user: My favorite feature is the little symbol box next to each work. It tells me at a glance whether or not a fic has anything in it I want to avoid. Priceless.

X-parrot, tag wrangler: As a hopelessly pedantic author, I love that whilst replying to a comment, I happen to notice I'm missing yet another "the" in my latest chapter's final paragraph, I can hit "edit" and instantly put that to rights!

Christie, user: I love the freedom to post anything and the great search :D

Anne-Li, Support staffer: I love that it is central, you don't have to look at a gazillion places to find (good) fic.

Derry, user: My favourite feature is the ebook download! I can stuff my PRS full of juicy, glorious fanfic with just one click!

Tai, tester: My favourite thing is the Reading history - I don't have to muck around bookmarking stuff I want to read and then wondering where I put it, just open the page and come back to it at leisure.

theliterator, user: Here's what I love the most, which is what I'm using right now. The importer.

zelempa, coder: I am still discovering new features so what I love in advance is this blog post.

Alison, tag wrangling committee: My favourite is ALL the features.

Share some of yours!

We currently have nearly 9000 users on the Archive, who between them have posted more than 100,000 works, in over 5500 different fandoms. We figure this means we are making lots of people happy! Let us know in the comments to this post what you enjoy about the Archive!

Comment


Pages Navigation