The summary as warning.

[burntcopper]

Oh, fic headers. may you ever reign as great big honking neon signs of 'DO NOT CLICK. YOU WILL REGRET IT. TRUST ME.'

Because, yeah, there's all those writers you only learn by dint of experience not to click on, because either you just didn't know how bad they could be, the ones who write subject matter you're never in the mood for, or you don't get on with their writing style (cs_whitewolf, who some love, I can see how they're technically good, but it's like Dickens. Cannot read), or some could be good, solid competent writers if they could reign in their impulses (laurab1, who has interesting ideas and the first bit's good if a little sugary but never knows when to stop), or some who are gradually learning and you've seen they've got better but write really interesting summary hooks so you always click, if a little trepidatiously (ru_salki99, getting better all the time but always that wee bit disappointed. and several phonetic spelling mistakes.).**

But, oh, headers. The lovely, lovely list of 'never, ever click'.

Spelling mistakes - When you can't get it right in the advert, we're not about to buy the product.
Not beta'd, with either couldn't be arsed or didn't have time - there is always time. and professional writers need editors.
Character names mispelled - do you even *watch* the show? (if it's a book fandom, even *worse*)
BDSM/Dark/Rape - there are very few writers I ever trust to get BDSM right. And considering yours truly is mostly a vanilla person, and if I can spot what's wrong? And dark is not what you think it is, sweetie. There is fic with not a damn ounce of blood spilt or bruising that is darker than you could ever hope to write. Rape? Never, ever a good idea.
OFC/OMC - We're reading fanfic, sweetheart. Not original.
OFC/OMC, Not A Mary Sue, Promise! - run away. even further.
'and they meet a strange girl' - Hello, Mary Sue, how nice to meet you!
high on pixie sticks! - take ownership of your own fic. It's not the sugar's fault. Admittance that you were drunk at the time, or 'er, I think I watched too much Blade Runner/Dynasty', is on the other hand a guarantee that it's probably amusing.
lol, giggle, excessive punctuation of any sort - oh hell no.
Please read and review! - we don't bother with beggars.
My first fic! - camouflage is much better. Don't try to pull the sympathy vote.
23/? - ...you don't know where it's going even by *now*?
user/author name contains 'spike' or is _insertnamehere_malfoy / the cool, 'edgy' character in a fandom - No, NO, UNDER NO BLOODY CIRCUMSTANCES. Especially to be used when said fandom's day is a wee bit passed. The only way you get me to click is if I know you from Adam.

Any I've missed?

**I know there's probably plenty of people who have issues with my writing, what little there is of it. If you want to tell me my faults, feel free - no-one ever really leaves 'good here, but you really need to work on this' feedback - I'm interested to know, and considering I'm quite used to my betas ripping my work to shreds, any critique is good critique as far as I'm concerned. I have a skin like a rhino.

ETA, 04/03 : ...I could've compared cs_whitewolf to Michelangelo, Scorcese, Hardy, the list goes on for people I can see are damn good at what they do but don't particularly like their style. OPINION. MINE. MY JOURNAL. And did you miss the bit where I said I *always read* the other two? I've left bouncy feedback on the fic of theirs I liked, and occasionally leave concrit. And yes, I do always use specific examples when citing anything, good or bad.

Comments

[celievamp.livejournal.com]

the killer for me is usually the dread words '... and hilarity ensues' or similar. AVOID.

[random-c.livejournal.com]

'high school'

[munchkinott.livejournal.com]

Meaningless ratings systems (e.g. wombat or pudge). Injoke, cliquey - GTFO!

Pointless warnings. Especially the stating the obvious award for stupidity in slash fiction warning: 'contains m/m (f/f)'

[flatlanddan.livejournal.com]

I'll admit to be slightly scared to click on fic written by people with numbers in their name...

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

23/? - ...you don't know where it's going even by *now*?

Actually I run from anything that says 1/99, and even further from 94/99 About 20's my absolute limit.

[lalumena.livejournal.com]

Oh grief, yes. Some headers and summaries make you want to run screaming in the opposite direction.
Never, ever venture over to ff.net. Because then you get treasures like:
SPOLIERS for 2x12-13, so don't read unless you have watched the final. SERIUSLY. King Richards magical ring of love takes Marian to the future instead of heaven. How will she deal? And what will Robin left to believe?
or
Robin Hood BBC Season 1/2 done as a Musical. Some things are different some are the same. Songs from different Musicals. (The sole chapter features High School Musical). Ack.
I'd definitely agree with you on the critique front. It's great when people enjoy what you've written but helpful to know where you can improve.
(Sorry about the random comment...)

[miss-zedem.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of the points you make - headers frequently put me off reading, mostly for the reasons you say. I've developed a pretty good radar for when I'm going to end up reading a thirteen year old's fantasy, although sometimes I click the link anyway, and invariably end up going o_O

The only thing I don't agree with in this post in fact is the naming names at the beginning - I hope you left concrit on those writers' fics before denouncing them in public like that? If you don't like their stuff, fair enough. We all have people we avoid. But actually naming them in a rant about bad!fic? Bit harsh...

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

Whilst I agree in great part with your general observations, I do wonder why you chose to focus on these three writers? I ask this because I think we all know that there are far worse examples of fanfic out there, and I would venture a guess that those are what you are pointing towards in your 'lovely, lovely list of 'never, ever click'.' I find it odd that you criticise one for being like Dickens and one for going on when they perhaps should have been more judicious in editing. I agree with the previous poster that I hope you left concrit for them along those lines explaining why you feel this way. Dickens is certainly not to my taste either, but he is to many people. It may be that the writing style of that author isn't to your particular taste, however, there is nothing inherently wrong with that piece of fiction. As far as a fic running on too long and the author not knowing how to rein themselves in, I would wonder if that's just a sign that improvement in editing is required as the criticism isn't directly related to the writing style or content. 'Getting better all the time' is also not exactly a description I'd relate to badfic, but rather a competent writer who is improving.

We all know badfic is out there and we all see dire examples at times. I'm a bit surprised that you chose these three authors and posted in this manner about them.

[morgynleri]

*studies the post for a long moment*

First, you have an error in word usage in the paragraph naming names. It should be "rein in their impulses", not "reign in their impulses" - like using reins on a horse, not the reign of a monarch. Also, you misspelled misspell - two s's, not one - and I only caught it because my spell-checker caught it when I was typing this up.

Second, naming names is gauche, and horribly rude in what amounts to a third-party post. Talk to them directly, mention general problems with stories (and not just theirs), but don't do this. It's really not going to win you any brownie points.

Third, let's go down your list - some it I will agree with, some I will not.

1. Spelling errors - well, yes, I'll agree with that, if it's errors, not error. One is acceptable, and reasonable, more than that is forgetting spell-check.

2. Not beta'd - if you're posting without sending it to a beta reader, don't advertise it, and do your editing before you post it to a community or archive. It's more the mention of lack-of-beta, I would hope, that's the problem here?

3. Character names misspelled - or place names, or other words specific to canon. If it's a show, and there's more than one acceptable spelling of the name, I can grit my teeth and read it, and then leave con-crit with links for researching canon-appropriate spellings. If the author won't learn, then I avoid.

4. BDSM/Dark/Rape - see below, this needs separated out.

4a. BDSM - Know the author before-hand, or the person recommending the story. Otherwise, I'm leery, because, as you said, it can be difficult to pull off. On the other hand, I know some authors who can pull it off, and damned well, at that. I'll read them. And recommend their stories. And if someone doesn't know me, I don't expect them to necessarily listen to me on that.

4b. Dark - It's too broad a category/warning. Like "general". It gives no actual idea what's there. I tend to ignore it, and base my thought on clicking on more specific stuff.

4c. Rape - This is a subject that has to be treated carefully and well-written, and preferably non-graphic (for me; I won't speak to the opinions/reactions of others). And there's as much emotional to it as there is physical, and it's the emotional that makes or breaks the story. But it can be done, and often the author will have a specific (one hopes!) reason for including it in the plot.

5. OFC/OMC - name them. In the summary, in the character listing, in the pairing listing. It's a fault I have to get over. And, I don't care if there's an original character, so long as it's well written. I know of a number of people who write/read fanfic with original characters. Just. I get worked up about this one, and it's a hot-button, and we'll leave it at that for now, yes?

6. Ditto #5. And don't say they're not a Mary Sue, because you'll convince people that they are, without giving the character a chance to speak for him/herself.

7. "and they meet a strange girl" - not automatically a Mary Sue. Often, yes, but not always. Though if that's about all the summary is, I might not click because the summary isn't enough to catch my attention. Different reason.

8. "high on pixie sticks!" - Um. I don't want to know what your state of mind was while writing it unless I'm your beta-reader, and need to know so I don't actually go "what the *expletive* were you thinking?"

9. lol, giggle, excessive punctuation - well, yeah. It is a distinct turn-off on a story for me, as well.

*continued in reply, as this is too long to post as one*