litphoria

I don't find this necessaray. With the ability to add a description to each of your interests, you can easily state, in the case of Foot Play... "I like receiving massages tongue cleaning.." it serves enough to say you enjoy 'light' to 'medium' footplay, but not the hardcore footplay that I will not describe in this post. IMO, I don't think this is necessary, unlike Giving and Receiving.

Completion of the post: Nobody has the same meaning of 'Light' 'Medium' 'Heavy' as well. To some people, Light BDSM is just a collar and spanking. To others, it involves more. So, its more accurate to just add a description of what you expect out of that interest.

Yeah, the description lets you take care a lot of the nuance to your interests, but you'll still see people trying to add stuff like face fucking or hardcore oral when really we just need the one interest: oral sex and let you specify how much you like it and to what severity. F-list has more of an issue with this, where a lot of interests get like four or five versions with various "intensity", like hyper waterspots.

The BDSM interest and some other vague still is likely to get blown away and replaced with more specific stuff, too.

IMO, when BDSM disappears, I'd see it more as Inspirations then trait. An Inspiration that sets things like Collar, Humiliation, Bondage, Submission, Sadism (when giving), Masochism (when giving) ...

wow. Brain farts in the previous post o.o

well, if you have inspirations, and a LIght BDSM, Medium BDSM, and Heavy BDSM inspirations all become very popularly used, can a profile be searched for based on being associated with the Light BDSM inspiration? Of is the Inspiration actually used in a different way and isn't linked to a profile at all, like an Interest is.

I want to kind of toss my thoughts in here - this one's a bit complicated to me.

I agree that giving each level of intensity its own interest (soft vore hard vore blueberry muffin vore) leads to excessively bulky/messy looking profiles, but being able to specify how you feel about multiple intensities is a very useful thing, too. I'm wondering if there's some way that we can still do that.

A very-brainstormy concept that came to mind was - say someone puts Light Vore into Mandatory, and Extreme Vore into Will Try. The profile may only display the one in Mandatory - but when you expand it, it displays both entries (and of course mentions that Extreme is a Will Try). That way, you get a complete look at their feelings on that topic.

Or this might all just play in with organize interests through associations (litphoria.com) somehow, too.

Since my issue is pretty much the same as in Forced/Willing, I will just paste the comment for reference:

Okay, in the light of what we do hear often enough about people already being turned away from Litphoria based on the complexity of profile creation and knowing that (by simple calculation) this is going to ad tonne of work to the profile creation - my question is, just how is this going to be handled not to make it one big bother? I won't deny that some people will find this of big use, but I am not entirely agreeing we can afford the cost associated with something that, for the most part, is not a make-or-break when it comes to searching and communicating needs (we still have Contexts). I firmly believe this suggestion is pretty much trying to push into the system more data than it is worth it, and the negative effects of such (time spent setting everything up) is going to be problem on user's side. Especially since we all know how the goal was, ideally, to have a whole ton of interests, and that means a whole lot of clicking and setting up. We already have a lot of it, as mentioned above and in some chat conversations.

I agree this adds more detail than is worth reading or configuring.

In addition to that though, severity is going to be hard to understand clearly. What's light or moderate or severe foot play? Where does thing X I like leave me? What does another person mean when they're into moderate foot play or moderate sex or moderate BDSM? Is their idea of moderation the same as mine?

Ultimately I only find answers to these things by reading the context, which makes such a configuration option redundant if I only know what it means after someone tells me what it means.

The main thing with this is not adding a replacement for the context. It is meant to help you search and compare, like other parts of the profile, and other such suggested additions.

In this sense, it would let you find everyone who is into playing hyper vore or whatever without having to just find everyone into vore and then going through their profile to see if that it entails hyper. In much the same way, this would also prevent us from issues you can find on similar sites, where they duplicate an interests once, twice, three, four times with various severities. That would not be manageable either if we had a lot of interests, on top of just looking messy.

I agree at the same time though that it may not add a lot of value for some people and it may introduce a lot of clicking. Having some way to set a sensible default (or just making the default sensible to being with) and then fine tuning them much after profile creation may be the only solution there, aside from just avoiding the functionality all together.

I agree at the same time though that it may not add a lot of value for some people and it may introduce a lot of clicking. Having some way to set a sensible default (or just making the default sensible to being with) and then fine tuning them much after profile creation may be the only solution there, aside from just avoiding the functionality all together.

If it gets through, however, it ends up ramping up the complexity of a profile and expected (or perceived expected) amount of work to be put into it. We already struggle with it, so the value of every new thing introduced should be tremendous for what effort it requires, and I am very hesitant to agree this is an example of such.
There is also the thing mentioned by Velus, where severities are not clearly defined, and attempt to explain that definition will actually make you go back to the step where you check everybody who likes given Interest, because you can't have a slightest idea if somebody won't see your Mild as Extreme, or your Heavy as Mild. And making a global definition for every single interest is pretty much unrealistic.

With respect to difficulty of profile creation, Lit is currently easier to get any level of profile created than F-list, from those that are short and to the point, to everything selected, configured, and filled out. Granted that F-List has a huge number of things to select from, and not being better than F-List would be pretty bad. But then, you get much more for your time spent on a Lit profile with searching of Traits and indications of Trait preferences.

I think this has been suggested and accepted as a new feature, but being able to create a new profile by copying an (any?) existing profile would greatly reduce the time required for profile creation. Also, if that were implemented, then Lit might also provide profile archetypes that could be selected as the starter profile.

The point is, it isn't necessarily worth limiting features because we don't yet have a way to construct complete profiles really quickly, even though various improvements are already planned. And in this case, if the "amount or severity" always defaults to what would be the generally accepted level anyway, such as 'average' or 'normal' or some middle ordinal value, then there is no additional work required unless you elect to make edits to this value for specific Interests. In any case, given that this suggestion is already 'accepted', it could be prioritized after the changes that will help speed profile creation. I would love to be able to set severity or amount levels on many interests.

With respect to difficulty of profile creation, Lit is currently easier to get any level of profile created than F-list, from those that are short and to the point, to everything selected, configured, and filled out. Granted that F-List has a huge number of things to select from, and not being better than F-List would be pretty bad. But then, you get much more for your time spent on a Lit profile with searching of Traits and indications of Trait preferences.

Given that the sentiment of Litph having it harder than Flist comes from a lot of people using Flist, is rather sound to assume there is something that makes it harder for at least suitably big population to be heard. Which might be result more of how many different things have to be taken care of, than the sheer amount, I am not sure - I know that in general, yes we do have a lot of things to do on a profile, but yes, we are getting improvements to speed and intuitiveness of it.
Which hopefully will make it enough.

Given that the sentiment of Litph having it harder than Flist comes from a lot of people using Flist, is rather sound to assume there is something that makes it harder for at least suitably big population to be heard.

Not saying this isn't valid, just consider that people coming from F-list are used to how F-list works and how F-list creates profiles. It being different, at all, would be enough for some people to consider it difficult or not worth while.

I remember my first time on f-list. The massive wall of things to go through was overwhelming and took a long time, but it was 'simple'. Just very time consuming, especially with having to express traits and things in description text, or making up the equivalent of RP Ideas in BBC code. You just can't convince me that making a full equivalent profile on both sites is easier on F-list, unless copy/paste is involved. Since I first came to Lit before the more recent changes, the first time on Lit was more difficult than it is now, by far, so I don't know if some people are referring to Lit back then, or Lit now. Now, I would say Lit is far easier for simpler profiles, or serviceable profiles, and no more time-consuming than F-List for a 'Platinum' complete profile. If people are still saying Lit is 'harder', I don't know what to say except that maybe second profiles on F-list can be based on an initial one, and they forgot what a pain it is to make that first one? shrug

Litphoria is not F-list. It is what makes it so brilliant, it does not try to clone the others but rather to improve upon them. Yes, its difficult at first because there's a learning curve, but once you learn how things work in here, creating a profile is just so ... Painless. I don't want to create profiles on f-list anymore because of Litphoria. I've been considering the thought of just putting a litphoria link on my f-list profiles roflmao.

^ good idea. I haven't been back to Flist since I came to Lit, not that Lit has exactly fulfilled my RP quotas, but I've just not been motivated to go back to Flist for some reason.

After some evaluation we’ve decided not to implement this.

There’s two reasons why: it increases profile complexity without proportionate benefit, and that benefit - describing severity - doesn’t work very well in practice.

Each person’s consideration of what exactly counts as “mild” or “severe” for an interest is going to be deeply personal, and will vary heavily from person to person. One person’s severe for something may just be another person’s mild. This makes it doubtful that just saying a severity or an amount is actually going to communicate anything worthwhile.

Since it doesn’t seem like this will actually work out in practice and isn’t worth the cost, this suggestion is declined.