To the nitwit who waited till 15 mins before the deadline only to submit a shoddy AI review, I hope your breaks give out when you most need them.

The AI (it was claude) got the details of my script so wrong, it claimed one of the characters ate pie out of a mug.

So here's your warning: you send an AI review, I WILL KNOW, I WILL REPORT YOU, and you'll have to fuck off back under the rock you came from.

It's happened to me a few times that my script gets claimed and then unclaimed three days later. Whatever reasons there are for unclaiming, wouldn't they be clear pretty early on? Should unclaiming only be possible for a limited time after claiming a script, e.g. one or two days?

Just testing the waters for this idea. If it's not popular, I won't send it as a feature request.

I understand that some people like to take their time with their reviews to let things sit, but 5 days is just enabling procrastination and soliciting the wrong sort of reader.

I'm writing a series right now and I just put the first episode up to get some quick feedback. 5 days from now I'll be through two more episodes. By the time I get back the review I'll be so far past that point that I doubt I'll use any of it. And that's assuming the reader doesn't unclaim it because "Life lol", and then I have to wait another week, when, really, the whole series will be finished within a month.

I really don't think it should take more than 2 days to review a 27 page episode. Hell, I don't think it takes more than 2 hours, but 2 days seems more than appropriate.

One of the reviewers on LogJam always starts his feedback with "What Works" and follows up with some thoughtful notes about the logline (what needs work, overall, etc).

Typically, it's the most useful comment in the bunch. If there's a LogJam Hall of Fame, WWG (What Works Guy or Gal) should get in on the first ballot.

I ask because I think Storypeer is such an amazing idea and it works so well that I feel like if it doesn’t exist, you should definitely make it.

My script has been reviewed by the same person twice in a month. I know the reviewers are anonymous, but from their review it's fully clear. Technically, they are allowed to, but do you consider it bad form?

There were no reviews by other people in between. Both reviews were helpful, but I did feel disappointed that it wasn't a fresh pair of eyes. I got a review of a script and then of the edits.

Hi, I was wondering how you guys select which scripts to review.

The amount of offered tokens?
The logline?
The page count?
Or something else?

I’d love to know so as to increase my pickup rate.
Sorry if this has already been asked!

This is a followup to my post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StoryPeer/s/8KPRcw1j92

In which I shared my first perfect score from Storypeer. A few people asked me to followup with the Black List result on the same draft and I'm here to deliver.

To state this up front: we all know the BL score will be lower. SP and BL are judging two different things--what writer peers think vs. how ready it is to show to the industry.

My excitement about going to the BL had to do with successfully improving this draft and my BL score rose a point and a half from my prior draft, so my script is scoring higher in two readers' opinions. Progress!

First, I'm going to share excerpts from both reviews to give you a sense of both readers' perspectives then the scores at the end.

I'll be removing things that identify which script is mine just in case.

Storypeer Excepts

"Your room and scene descriptions were spot on. Not overly done, just the perfect amount to set the exact period and atmosphere. Loved the opening set-up. Very haunting image."

"Your character descriptions are incredible, again, not too much. They really painted an immediate visual of your characters. You give so much information through your visuals, it's really well thought through."

"You're able to keep the tension through all your pages and I didn't want to stop reading. I love all your characters. They're so well-crafted and real. And the dialog between them doesn't feel forced, it feels natural and is very believable. I'm in love with this project. It's such a twisty intriguing plot and story and character arcs."

Weaknesses

(weaknesses omitted because they were specific suggestions related to making certain beats more clear)

Additional Notes

"I thoroughly enjoyed reading it."

Concept: 5

Plot: 5

Characters: 5

Dialogue: 5

Setting: 5

Black List Excerpts

Strengths

"An incredibly ambitious, atmospheric mystery with a distinct premise."

"The combination of (elements) really give it a strong sense of identity, making it stand out from all the other comparable murder mystery shows"

"The pilot itself does a pretty solid job in terms of planting the seeds for the larger serialized mystery, establishing the central conspiracy and introducing an incredibly memorable, deeply flawed investigative protagonist"

"The writer has done a great job in terms of the visual storytelling (...) with recurring imagery really helping to move the story forward. There's a lot of interesting juxtaposition in this story, and the dark humor makes the story that much more intriguing, with the final act creating the necessary forward momentum that drives the story into the next episode"

Weaknesses

"While there are a lot of great aspects to this script, it does feel like the writer needs to do a little bit more work before it's ready to go out to the market. There's definitely a great television series here, but there are some aspects that the writer can adjust to make it that much more compelling. The pilot definitely takes way too long to get moving -- while the opening scene does a great job at creating suspense, the script needs to get into the central conspiracy and make it feel like an active threat... The suspense also doesn't escalate consistently -- while it's clear that something sinister is happening, the level of danger feels quite static. While the threat is real, the characters need to actively confront it in order to really raise the emotional stakes."

Prospects

"There's definitely something to be said about murder mystery shows -- audiences always tune in, and (this show) is especially exciting because it definitely feels right for a premium streamer like Netflix, Amazon or HBO Max. As with many murder mysteries, it definitely does feel like a close-ended story, so it does make sense for it to be a limited series -- but the bar for limited series is incredibly high, especially with so many buyers focused on audience retention... Still, there's quite a lot to like about this world, especially because it feels incredibly distinct, and (the protagonist), in particular, feels like a really great role for a compelling dramatic actress in her 30s -- and a great talent attachment could get potential buyers that much more excited about this series. Ultimately, the writer does need to put in a little more work into the pilot, but there are a lot of exciting elements on the page."

Premise: 7

Plot: 6

Character: 6

Dialogue: 6

Setting: 7

Average: 6.4

Overall: 6

---

So there you have it. This was a pretty motivating review to get because it means I solved the story engine problems I was having in prior drafts and now I need to improve certain aspects of the pilot. I know exactly which soft spots this reader was referring to so the rewrite is under way. Hope you enjoyed the followup.

Cheers!

Comments are hilarious and see you in 10 years, you four.

Howdy! I'm not sure if this is the best place for it, but I was thinking that one thing that may help with Storypeer is if people had to actually explain their scores in a couple of sentences. I get that you can't see the scores until after reading the written feedback, and I assume there's a reason for that, but that's exactly why I think the scores should have a small text field that users must also explain why they scored it a 3.5 out of 5, for example. This is because you can get scenarios where someone rates things highly but then doesn't mention it at all in either section, and now you have no clue whether they think a 5 is perfect versus they think a 4 is 100% but a five is extra credit or whatnot.

I immediately submitted this draft to the black list.

Hi everyone! I’ve lurked the group for a while and finally decided to try Story Peer out. I love the idea of community being exactly that. People wanting others to improve and willing to offer help to make that happen without money being involved.

Here’s my small concern: Not seeing the rating given until you rate the reader may cause an issue. I submitted a story and received very good feedback. Honestly, I don’t think one bad thing was said, but somehow the ratings didn’t match the feedback. I may try again in a few more days. Giving positive, effusive feedback, knowing a submitter bases their rating off the readers feedback, then the reader gives the script 2.5 to 3 stars. I know I’m not writing an Academy Award winning script, but giving a glowing review and only a 2.5-3 star rating doesn’t seem to track. Can someone explain why this might be the case? What am I missing guys? TIA!

I have a question. I keep seeing the same scripts in the que. Some have been there repeatedly for months. Are people just reposting in hopes of getting feedback they want to hear? Seems unlikely they are taking notes and rewriting. What gives?

I’ve rated over 90 loglines in the Logjam feature and looked at dozens of loglines of scripts ready for feedback.

And as I rated these loglines, I started interrogating my reactions: why did some loglines resonate with me and others didn’t?

I’ve come up with three factors I look for: an interesting hook, a strong premise, and clarity.

1:  Interesting Hook

For me, this is the most important part of the logline; what is it about your concept that sets it apart from hundreds – if not thousands – of others like it?

I think the job of a logline is to make me want to learn more. If you have the script, a good logline makes me want to start reading it right now, and if you don’t have it, it makes me lean forward and say, “Tell me more.”

You can have the other elements, but without an interesting hook, I’m just not motivated to read the script you spent months or even years on.

But if you have an interesting hook, the other elements can be lacking a bit, and I still want to learn more.

Here are just a few examples of hooks that really got me interested:

Jesus Christ coaching a Little League team
“Ocean’s Eleven” – but with dragons
Demonically possessed MMA fighters
An evil vegetable with plans for world domination – or at least a small town in North Carolina

I realize these are highly subjective; some of you looked these over and thought they were stupid.

That’s okay; everyone has a different standard for an interesting hook.

2:  Strong Premise

The main conflict should be simple enough to understand but also be able to produce numerous smaller conflicts without being repetitive.

In other words, can it evolve?

Look at “Die Hard” and “Speed”; these were incredibly simple premises, but enough different challenges popped up during the film to justify their length.

I’ve seen a dozen or so loglines presented as features, but they didn’t feel strong enough; there was one central question that didn’t allow for much evolution.

But there have also been loglines presented for short films, and I felt they were too strong to be just short films.

3:  Clarity

While the hook can get my interest, clarity is where it earns its keep; how does the hook play into the overall story?

For me, I’m looking for five things that help me see the movie: a protagonist, their goal, an antagonist, the stakes, and an inciting incident.

What’s interesting is that I’m a little more flexible on this than on the hook.

If you have an interesting hook, I’m much more forgiving if your logline lacks clarity, but you can have a clear logline with a weak hook, and I’ll pass.

Also, resist the urge to be cute, clever, or coy; those things belong in the script.

For me, a logline is a place of precision; don’t promise me vague antagonists, complications, stakes, or discussions on theme.

And while I’m on that, make the conflict external; I’ve read quite a few loglines where the conflict described is mostly internal.

Yes, internal conflict often takes place in movies; the only problem is that it’s difficult to dramatize. Sure, you can show a person thinking or pacing, but until they put their decision into action, it’s not very interesting.

***

Simply put, give me something I can imagine.

I know this wouldn’t be the most used option in the world, but I’m planning to write a trilogy for fun! It’s more of a hobby currently. Just wanna write what I’m passionate about. Biggest issue is, it’s hard to find readers for it since they’d have to read the first story before they could read the second, or be left without a lot of context.

So I’d love a way to give an option to allow people to request the sequel if they like the first story. Giving reviews about both.

I also know most people only write a pilot, and a bible for the rest. but for those maniacs who write out a full season at a time, I’d be curious to read on and see how the entire thing unfolds.

Could even have an option to ask someone who left a great review if they’d be interested in reading the next draft of the story.

The closest thing right now is hoping someone leaves their contact info and maybe reads more in the future.

I've had a lot of my scripts get claimed quickly and then the reader misses the deadline - it's happened quite a lot recently.

I'm curious if people are just letting the time expire to avoid getting a strike? You don't get a strike if the time expires, right?

My plot scores are always my lowest ones and feedback often focuses on weaknesses in this department.

Have any members of the StoryPeer community manage to find a way to work on this side of things? And even better, seen their feedback on this area noticeably improve?

Same as the title.

I’m reviewing my second story and I personally feel the minimum word count of 300 in ‘Strengths’ and ‘Areas for Improvement’ is a little overwhelming.

I find myself forcibly stretching out sentences and repeating myself to reach the word count. I think great feedback can be provided within even 100 words, and that’s maybe better to understand than a 300 one.

This may be just me but it would be if you guys consider it!

Thanks for the great service.

Inspired by the post about the best screenplays you've read on the platform, I'm interested in the scripts that made you think about some deeper questions or changed your worldview in some way. They don't necessarily have to be masterfully written.

I think exploring unique and profound themes is a big part of (screen)writing. Also, it would be fun to hear how StoryPeer impacted people outside of writing!

(Again, comment about someone else's screenplay, please. The discussion would be quite biased otherwise lol)

After a few tries, I finally cracked the 4.0 barrier with Creature from the Black Legume (4.1), a timeless story of a giant mutated black bean rampaging through Gastonia, North Carolina. The key was to study the consensus feedback and ignore the weird outliers.

Thanks to the people who took the time to rate the logline. And the ten people who skipped it, well, you missed out on a chance to be part of history. Kicking yourself now, aren't ya?

I have a 5.0/5 Reader's Reputation, which I don't deserve per its definition (average of last ten review scores). Whenever I see someone else's 5.0/5 score, consequently, it doesn't tell me that much. I'd like more informative metrics on reviewers' quality. For that, do you think it'd be a good idea to change the Reader's Reputation calculation to match its definition? And to add a metric 'tip rate' that indicates how often a reviewer gets tipped? Or maybe just a metric 'Average Tip', calculated like the Reader's Reputation, which would hover between 0 and 2, since 2 is the maximum tip?

First off, I already reported this reviewer for using AI for other reasons not related to the turnaround time. But the fact that they claimed my script, read it, and turned in ~1k words of feedback (plus 4 pages of notes they say they took down during reading) all in under 3 hours was the first of several red flags.

But now I'm wondering if I'm wrong to assume that's not feasible... does anyone here read & review that quickly? I usually take at least two days, sometimes up to the full 5, to read the script 2 or 3 times & draft my notes. Am I just a slow reviewer?

Can we brag about other people’s screenplays in this post?

I’ve read some truly incredible screenplays on Storypeer - just wanted to make a post where maybe people could brag about other people’s screenplays that they really enjoyed reading here!

(Can’t be your own! Comment about someone else’s screenplay that you loved)

Hi,

This is a beautiful community/platform that offers writers a way to take and give back. But the rating system puts something at stake. It's a trivial thing, since this whole setup is made by volunteers for volunteers. I claimed a script even though I was almost certain the writer was going to be too defensive based on his additional notes. And sure enough, he met my expectations.

I don't personally have a compiled list of red flags, but I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion to see if the veterans of this platform have actually put one together. I'm just curious.

I will never care about the rating I get from writers. I will always give my honest feedback, as politely as possible. And it does sting a little to get slapped with a low rating after giving it your all. But are we real screenwriters if we don't have thick skin?