"Short but effective" is my jam. I like this; it's that perfect ratio of tantalizing and explanatory.
That was a nice little read! I loved how you were able to incorrect a little mystery while it still being short, but still good.
+1
I'm feeling really frustrated by this, like there's just one piece of information needed/missing that would make this all come together. Why is there a transcription of an imminently readable scanned image?
Because I was worried people might have trouble reading my purposely wonky handwriting. Sort of an accessibility thing. Does it drag down the article?
It doesn't really add anything, and I don't think the handwriting's bad at all, though others might disagree. Combining the two collapsibles would probably alleviate that. Usually, a collapsible suggest there's something new to be revealed, so when I open the second one and see that it has the same information as the first, with nothing new, I feel a little cheated.
I've gone ahead and combined the two, since you are right about feeling cheated for info.
I'm mulling over deleting the transcript, but I want to see if anyone else has a problem with it.
Anyway, I appreciate your candid feedback. :)
Eh, I wouldn't remove the transcript. I had to reference it when I was reading it the first time to make sure I was getting things right.
The transcript is valuable for translators or those using screen readers. But since for most readers it is distracting, I would recommend moving the transcript to its own collapsible.
Good stuff. Just one tiny nitpick … why is the name of the county blackboxed? Since the names of the park and the state it's in are provided, presumably anyone with access to Google would be able to look up everything else about the park's location.
That's just a stylisitc choice. The park doesn't exist irl, so I felt like obfuscating the exact area in Ohio it's supposed to be in. In-universe, I don't really have an answer as to why. I'll give it some thought on changing it.
Edit: I've gone ahead and changed the blackboxes to a fictional county.
Making up a county that also doesn't actually exist would work just as well for that since readers still wouldn't know exactly where it is. But like I said, minor nitpick, and my +1 shall stand even if it's not changed.
I have to say, coming back here and seeing a fictitious county is really offputting.
Granted, I'm from Ohio, I know these things.
But we don't have places like Latveria in the Foundationverse (Samothrace notwithstanding). There's no real precedent for something like this. Fictionalizing the cemetery is fine, though. Just put it in, I dunno, Washington County. Place is huge. And rural. Anything could be there.
Oh man, seems I can't win huh? I won't lie, I created Drutledge County because I wanted to use it as the future home for any other Ohio based SCPs. I'm from Cincinnati, and I haven't really been too far north, so I don't have much experience to draw from, so I wanted to just make something up.
You are right though, so I've gone ahead and changed it because I'm being needlessly obtuse in placing this thing somewhere. I know you've got other issues with this SCP, but your feedback is really helpful.
I don't think I have any issues with it, not anymore at least. :)
That said, I recommend keeping the name "Drutledge" for future use. Could be a town, could be a number of things. It sounds realistic, but slightly off, perfect for SCP-related things.
I somehow feel like I'm missing the point of the article, like I'm failing to grasp the story that's being told here. Besides this frustrating finickiness and likely lack of understanding on my part, I thought this was well written, and the idea itself was pretty neat, enough to earn my upvote despite my earlier sentiment. You still gotta add tags though.
Trust me, whatever you think the story is, is most likely the story. There's only one piece of information I made purposefully obtuse, and it's really not essential to the overall understanding of the piece. It's short on purpose.
Still, thank you for your feedback, and I'm glad I was able to earn your upvote regardless! As for the tags, I'm certain I'll miss a few, so I want to leave it to the experts.
Euclid, scp, location, portal, extradimensional. Uhh, fack idk
EDIT: Just realized I accidentally created a new post instead of responding to your subpost like an idiot. Please disregard this, thank you.
A nice SCP. I love it, and it looks really good. (Sorry for the late post!)
This does an exceedingly clever job of getting away with the explanatory note because of the implications about the kind of person writing it.
One of my biggest concerns with the note was that most of it was just information already stated in the description, so I tried to include little tidbits here and there to flesh it out further. The inclusion of the note initially stemmed from the fact that I couldn't think of a way for the Foundation to discover this thing without it being a complete coincidence. Afterwords I adjusted the rest to match.
Thanks for reading, and your upvote!
I thought thisd be some cutsey scip and that last fucking line. Hot fuck.
-A perfectly normal human
