No Wiki Page.

Well... if you want to correct it, I'd assume you'd have to create a new page and delete the section about CHYOA on the lit page... not sure if the latter would be of advantage.
 
I know that I first discovered this site purely be accident. As far as the Internet goes, it's fairly obscure.

But basically it would be first come first serve to who writes the wiki page(Other people editing later). Which seems like a whole can of worms because at some point, there is going to be someone who is like "These are the best authors" and someone else being like "No, two different opinions cannot coexist on the Internet!"

So, probably to whoever feels like they should write a little blurb about it, it's probably better to just stick with mentioning what are some notable stories because they definitely are ranked in the top slots, rather than something like "I think this person is better than this other person." That's just the way I'm thinking about it though.
 
Auraicide said:
there is going to be someone who is like "These are the best authors" and someone else being like "No, two different opinions cannot coexist on the Internet!"
Click to expand...
Well, Wikipedia articles should be free from opinions at all but offer neutral information.

So I think that such a page should mainly introduce the differences to other story sites like
- Storytelling in "choose your own adventure book" style
- Possibility to contribute to other stories
- Game Mode features
- Immersion feature
- Possibility to publish chapters instead of whole stories
(What else?)
 
gene.sis said:
(What else?)
Click to expand...

I figure we have to address the CHYOO days as part of the site's origin. So:
  • Originated as a LitErotica service under the name CHYOO.
  • CHYOO was neglected for a long time and had numerous problems (no cookies, no email verification, easily hacked, etc.).
  • In January of 2014, a massive (and still undisclosed) problem caused CHYOO to be put on lockdown, preventing any degree of use.
  • Even after the lockdown was lifted, many site features were unusable, requiring users to hack the site just to use it normally.
  • In response, one user created a substitute (though not the first substitute in CHYOO history).
  • Said substitute was initially planned as an overhaul of CHYOO, but separated into CHYOA when the LitErotica administration failed to respond.
  • All stories not lost to errors and all users were brought over to the new URL.
Not sure how much we want to include for the history, but that's a rough outline of the whole thing.
 
Kaitou1412 said:
I figure we have to address the CHYOO days as part of the site's origin. So:
  • Originated as a LitErotica service under the name CHYOO.
  • CHYOO was neglected for a long time and had numerous problems (no cookies, no email verification, easily hacked, etc.).
  • In January of 2014, a massive (and still undisclosed) problem caused CHYOO to be put on lockdown, preventing any degree of use.
  • Even after the lockdown was lifted, many site features were unusable, requiring users to hack the site just to use it normally.
  • In response, one user created a substitute (though not the first substitute in CHYOO history).
  • Said substitute was initially planned as an overhaul of CHYOO, but separated into CHYOA when the LitErotica administration failed to respond.
  • All stories not lost to errors and all users were brought over to the new URL.
Not sure how much we want to include for the history, but that's a rough outline of the whole thing.
Click to expand...

The 2.0 version of Chyoo launched in 2003 as I found the site about two weeks before it went to the new version. 2.0 was technically in permanent beta with many listed new features never actually implemented.
 
Not sure about references about CHYOA's history. What could you state as reliable sources? Maybe some web whois and alexa stats...

mindtheMILF said:
Should sites that CHYOA is connected toward also be added.
I believe there is a search engine that connects us to two other sites.
Click to expand...
Actually, I disagree... IMO that search engine should rather appear independent, not favoring any of the sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top