The Trivial Thing Is 33% Done!

I would just like to commemorate the fact that my first novel is over a third of the way done!  Yay me, only a few weeks to go....

How to Use a Computer Program to Write a Novel

I have a few stories coming out in the coming weeks and months, but in the meantime I’ve been keeping busy with my human enhancement theory for using computer algorithms to write books.  I asked in my last post, “Why not?”  It’s a good question, so I’m taking my own counsel.  This will unfortunately be kept largely abstract, since I’ll be using a pen name and don’t care to reveal it here, but I’d like to provide some concrete numbers to go along with my hypothetical work-in-progress.

So I was able to follow my general plan for generating text from public domain works based on selecting sentences that contain certain keywords and then “rewriting” those sentences by automatically replacing nouns, verbs, and adjectives with synonyms.  However, rather than generating the text on a paragraph by paragraph basis depending on the specific idea I wanted to capture in each paragraph, I found it just as effective and less time consuming to let the text in a paragraph determine the keyword for the next paragraph, going on in a long chain of connected thoughts.  So I start the program with a keyword, but then the program selects a keyword from the paragraph generated by the original keyword to generate the next paragraph, from which another keyword is selected, and so on.  So the technical part is done, and performs pretty well as far as my expectations were concerned.  In its current state, the program generates about 15,000 words an hour.

Of course, a lot of this is incoherent, fraught with typos, and makes reference to characters and settings that have nothing to do with the story I’d like to tell.  So the hardest part has been the rewrite, as was expected.  I’m about a fourth of the way through the text right now (toward a goal of 50,000 words), and I’m going at a pace of about 2,000 words per hour.  At this rate it should take me about 25 hours to finish, which is longer than I’d expected, but still half the time it would take me writing normally (at 1,000 words per hour).  And that’s without counting all the editing I’m getting done as I go.

So far I’m enjoying the process of figuring out who the characters are, what their conflicts are, and then seeing what happens to them and what surprises pop up along the way.  It’s stretching me creatively as I go, straining to make connections between the otherwise unrelated snippets of text, incidentally a uniquely human feat as I pointed out in my last post and also came across in a recent article.  So again, computers can go a long way toward helping us as humans, but as for exercising the creativity to write the book itself – that’s more of a stretch.  The real question is whether using a computer in this human enhancing way results in books that anyone wants to read.  All I can say for now is that I think it’s great, so we’ll see if anyone else feels the same way.  I’m planning to publish it on Amazon by the end of December.

Welcome!

Welcome to my new home!  I will be keeping track of my works-in-progress here and posting updates as I find time.  Make yourself at home.

Should Writers Be Worried About Being Replaced by Robots?

I've noticed a recent trend in the media/blogs on the topic of artificial intelligence (AI).  There have been positive posts and negative posts, but basically the debate is on whether or not improving AI algorithms is going to result in the self-destruction of humanity....  On that, here's a good article.  Don't get me wrong, I think there could definitely be unintended consequences, and accidents will certainly happen.  But as for the computer itself deciding it needs to exterminate the human race in order to serve its own best interests...I think it's unlikely.  But that's what people seem to be worried about.

What's funny to me though, is that even the people who are generally supportive of advancing this kind of technology end up running down the same path.  I read a post from Hugh Howey on the ramifications of AI in the writing world, and he posed the question, "How could computers ever learn to be creative?"  I get that he was just making a point, but to me that's the entirely wrong question to be asking.  What's interesting about it is that it appears that much of the research at least as far as creative writing is concerned is basically asking that same question: how can we get algorithms to BE creative.  It made me think of the "Fundamental Theorem of Biomedical Informatics."



It seems doctors used to have the same conundrum (some still do...).  No matter how advanced computers get, and no matter how much things we used to do start to get automated, when it comes down to it, having computers replace people entirely is almost always a bad idea (in my opinion).  Because they can't think for themselves, they can't be creative, and they can't foresee every possible scenario, it's always better to have humans deal with the human decisions.  Doctors should do the doctoring.  Computers are great at making a process easier, by doing the mundane everyday things that actually inhibit a human's ability to make decisions--and I say, the more of that stuff they can take care of the better.  But it works best when it's enhancing the human's ability to do his job, not replacing him.

Which brings me back to writing.  Howey mentioned in his post that there are already tools out there to automatically generate names, plot points, and so forth.  Writers are already using these, and no one considers their works to have been written by a computer.  I don't think the question should be about whether or not computers can be creative (or psychopathic...), but whether they can help people do their jobs better.  The technology is already there, and as has already been amply noted, algorithms are already being used to generate text for news reports and sporting events and in other areas.  What amazes me is that it's not already being used to help writers write faster and better.

Here's a scenario (using current technology, not future): say you already have written a novel or two.  You've even written a detailed outline of your third novel, but haven't started writing yet.  You've got some modest coding proficiency and some basic knowledge about natural language generation (from the Internet...), and you decide you've probably got a detailed enough outline to be able to determine the general theme (in a keyword or two) of every major paragraph in your story (for an 80,000 word story at 25 words per paragraph on average, say 3200 paragraphs).  You take each keyword, run it through every sentence in your previous two novels and pick one at random that contains that keyword (or a synonym), then run the sentence through a loop that replaces the nouns, adjectives, etc. in it with synonyms, then generate two or three more sentences based on those synonyms (or hypernyms, or hyponyms) following the same process.  Do that for all 3200 paragraphs and suddenly you have an 80,000 word rough draft.

This is obviously going to give you quite a bit of garbage, but that's what the rewrite is for.  You can go through and pull out the stuff that doesn't make sense, add in foreshadowing events, etc.  The point is you can make that part of the algorithm as complicated as you want.  Better output will require more sophisticated techniques, and methods will naturally improve over time, but once it's up and running, you've got a novel written.  Aside from having to spend some more time on the outline and rewrite than you probably normally would have, you've completely skipped the part where you actually write that first draft.  And once it's set up you can use it over and over and over....

Some would probably argue, rightfully so, that this takes much of the fun out of the writing experience (as well as much of the quality...).  I totally agree with that.  After all, the reader is going to have to stretch their brain to make connections between many of the individual sentences.  But your outline guarantees that there is an overarching plot line, and the human brain is designed for filling in the gaps to get from A to Z (and it doesn't hurt that readers seem to have lower and lower expectations of writing quality).  And what's fun about it for the author, is that the computer didn't write that plot, didn't create those characters.  You did.  You can still come up with fascinating characters, put them in amazing places, and tell a riveting story about them.  With the surplus of story ideas most writers have, I would think this would be a dream machine for many.  They can still plod through personally writing the stories they're passionate about, but why not take that wacky side idea and throw it in the generator, just for fun?  Why not publish it when it's done (with a pen name if they're worried about that).  With how many writers rely on getting as many novels published as quickly as possible in order to pay the bills, I think this will come sooner rather than later.  Again, I'm surprised it's not already here.

Top Ten Words for Bad Writing

Editors and critiquers tend to find overly expressive ways to describe just how bad they think someone's writing is.  Here are some over-dramatic (in my opinion) ones I've noticed.  Definitions are from Google:

1.) clichéd - showing a lack of originality; based on frequently repeated phrases or opinions

2.) hackneyed - lacking significance through having been overused; unoriginal and trite

3.) trite - overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness

4.) doggerel - comic verse composed in irregular rhythm

5.) bawdy - humorously indecent talk or writing

6.) mawkish - sentimental in a feeble or sickly way

7.) disingenuous - not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

8.) maudlin - self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness

9.)  drivel - silly nonsense

10.) dreck - rubbish; trash

So if you ever feel the need to write that over-the-top review, you've got plenty of descriptors to choose from.

Updated SFWA Markets Acceptance Rates

It's been about 9 months since I posted my list from The Grinder of SFWA-qualified short fiction markets' acceptance rates, which mean this is probably a good enough time for an update.  Again, this is based on the previous twelve months (from today) and excludes markets The Grinder had listed as closed and those with sample sizes fewer than 5.

Publisher	N	Acceptance Rate	Mean Response (days)
Nature Science Fiction Flash Pro Payment	73	20.55%	47.49
Daily Science Fiction	940	8.51%	22.23
Escape Pod	198	7.07%	28.75
AE: The Canadian Science Fiction Review	78	6.41%	96.73
Cricket	40	5.00%	85.35
Beneath Ceaseless Skies	273	4.40%	30.02
Crossed Genres Magazine	361	4.30%	66.63
Flash Fiction Online	338	3.25%	24.52
Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show	390	3.08%	47.37
Grantville Gazette: Universe Annex	33	3.03%	39.09
Analog Science Fiction & Fact Science Fiction	208	2.88%	150.48
Apex Magazine	493	2.43%	33.07
Asimov's Science Fiction	551	2.18%	46.34
Writers of the Future Contest	260	1.92%	86.24
Tor.com	265	1.89%	144.89
Fantasy & Science Fiction (F&SF)	547	1.64%	24.32
Strange Horizons	866	1.50%	15.02
Nightmare Magazine	173	1.16%	3.65
Clarkesworld Magazine	956	1.05%	3.04
Buzzy Mag	465	0.86%	45.75
Cicada	118	0.85%	49.82

It looks like things have stayed pretty similar to how they were 9 months ago, with Nature, DSF, AE, Cricket, and Beneath Ceaseless Skies shuffling a little but staying toward the top.  Escape Pod and Apex jumped up quite a few places, but Grantville Gazette: Universe Annex plunged to the middle and Strange Horizons, Buzzy Mag, Clarkesworld, and WotF stayed in the single digits or lower, with Cicada still at the bottom.

A Writer's Definition of Success

I saw a post from Brad R. Torgersen the other day on his definition of success, and I really liked it--not so much his definition itself, but the idea of having an iterative list of key markerstones that define what you are working towards, your own definition of success.

So here's mine (at least for now).  Completed steps are marked with an "X" (to be updated soon...):

Success (for me) = ...

(X) ...first short fiction sale.

(_) ...first professional short fiction sale.

(_) ...final SFWA-qualifying professional short fiction sale.

(_) ...first professional novel sale.


Once I've accomplished these key markers I think I'll feel a lot more confident about promoting my writing and there will be more point to working towards things like increasing readership, improving sales, etc., at which point I'll likely need to make a new list of goals.  But for now, I think these four "short-term" goals will keep me moving in the direction I'd like to go.

Is My Writing Improving? Observed Vs. Expected

A couple of months ago I got a little frustrated with my progress in my writing, having what appeared to me to be a lengthy lull in publications.  This got me thinking about probabilities and how many submissions I should have to make for each acceptance, etc., which is something I've written about at length before.

But one thing that occurred to me was that it would be nice to have some kind of metric on an ongoing basis so I could see how well I'm performing compared to the expected number of submissions required for each acceptance.  So I think this is pretty cool: as I've noted before, The Grinder posts acceptance rates, which can loosely be used to approximate a submission's probability of acceptance for a given market.  Summing up these probabilities over time gives a rough indicator of how many acceptances should be expected during that time, which can then be compared to the actual number of publications that occurred.

Here's my "over-under" for the past two years since I started submitting to science fiction markets:

Year	Quarter	Subs	Exp	Obs	Exp (Yr)	Obs (Yr)	Obs-Exp
2012	Q4	9	0.6359	0
2013	Q1	9	0.6796	0
2013	Q2	8	0.9949	1
2013	Q3	4	0.1591	0	2.4695	1	-1.4695
2013	Q4	1	0.025	0
2014	Q1	9	1.108	1
2014	Q2	3	0.3819	0
2014	Q3	10	0.9089	1	2.4238	2	-0.4238
Total			4.8933	3

The "Subs" column is the number of submissions I made to science fiction markets during each quarter.  The "Exp" column is the sum of the acceptance rates for all the markets I submitted to during each quarter.  The "Obs" column is the actual number of publications I had during each quarter.  So based on the submissions I've made so far, I should have had four stories accepted for publication.  I've had three, which puts me below the expected value for the average writer who logs submissions on The Grinder.  However, subsetting it by year, that one missing publication can (in my mind) be attributed to the learning curve that I went through that first year of submissions.  The "Obs-Exp" column captures the difference between the observed and expected values for each year, which I'm calling the over-under.  My over-under for the first year was -1.4695, which put me a whole publication behind where I should have been.  But in my second year, my over-under was only -0.4238, meaning I actually hit my target of two publications based on the markets I submitted to.  Which means I've improved as a writer (either in the writing itself or in selection of better fitting markets for the stories submitted).

I think this is a really good way to measure improvement in writing performance over time.

Now I just have to exceed the expectations long enough to make up for that missing publication....

Science Fiction Art Markets

On a sidetrack, I decided to look at what science fiction markets accept art submissions, and it ended up being more complicated than I expected.  This list is by no means comprehensive, but I think it provides a decent sample of the speculative art submissions opportunities and pay rates out there right now:

Market	lower	upper
Fantasy Scroll Mag	$10	$15
Unlikely Story	$10	$25
Wisdom Crieth Without	$10	$40
Pithy Pages	$15	$15
Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine	$20	$100
Body Parts Magazine	$20	$20
Electric Spec	$20	$20
Strangelet Journal	$20	$20
The Colored Lens	$20	$20
Lackington’s	$25	$40
Scigentasy: Gender Stories in Science Fiction	$25	$25
Nameless Magazine	$30	$150
Strange Horizons	$50	$80
Apex Magazine	$60	$60
Perihelion Science Fiction	$60	$60
Uncanny: A Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy	$60	$60
Daily Science Fiction	$75	$75
Shimmer	$90	$90
Clarkesworld Magazine	$200	$200
Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show	$200	$400

I pulled these from The Grinder on September 26, 2014, and winnowed the list of all pro and semi-pro science fiction markets from 115 down to these twenty after excluding all markets that did not have art submissions guidelines clearly posted on their website, did not post specific pay rates, and/or did not accept electronic submissions.  Not as long a list as I was expecting, but a good starting point.

MarketWants: Criteria for Flash Markets

I'm doing pretty good--already on step 3 from yesterday's post:

I reviewed the submissions requirements for the three previously selected flash fiction markets (Nature Futures, Daily Science Fiction, and Flash Fiction Online), and then I combined them by taking the most restrictive criteria for each market. So excluding the obvious points (has to be fiction, no fan fiction, no erotica, etc.), there were a couple of notable requirements for each market. Fortunately, each restriction still fell within the guidelines for the other markets:

Length: 850-950 words (Nature Futures)
Content: "should be 'hard' (that is, 'scientific' SF)" (Nature Futures); "a well-written story is a must" (Daily Science Fiction); "strong, interesting characters, plot, and (to some extent, at least) settings" (Flash Fiction Online)
Inclusions: "fond of character-driven fiction" (Daily Science Fiction); "Humor? We take it" (Daily Science Fiction)
Exclusions: "second-person point of view has a hard time running our gauntlet" (Flash Fiction Online)

So in general, the guidelines call for an 850-950 word well-written 'hard' SF story with interesting characters, plot, and settings that may be character-driven and/or humorous and that is told in first or third person.

Done.

MarketWants: Aspirations

Alright, so that last sale up-adjusted my ambition a tad (whether it's realistic or not is irrelevant...).  As I think I've noted here before, I've been haphazardly looking for a writer's group/community/anything to try to help me get more engaged in my writing and in the science fiction community, but there just didn't seem to be anything that tantalizingly tempting out there to make it worth the effort.  I participated in Critters for a few months, but ultimately felt like its quota requirements for critiquing were taking too much time away from my own writing.  I checked out Absolute Write a couple of times, but there's just nothing there that grabbed me and made me think "I want to be part of this."  Maybe it's because it feels like it's stuck in the 90s (Critters has that going for it as well, though it was improving towards the end).  Then the other day I came across Codex, which is probably not much different from the other groups, but the one thing that really stood out to me was that I recognized a lot of the authors listed as members.  Plus there's that whole mystical restricted access component.  Anyway, so I set a goal to get one pro sale so I could qualify for membership (seems consistent, seeing how it's been my goal to get 3 SFWA-qualifying sales for "pro" status anyway).  I recognize that the group is likely to either be a disappointment or just not somewhere I'd like hanging out very often, but it gives me a nice short-term goal that carries me forward toward my other goals.

Which brings me back to MarketWants--my original project of analyzing pro markets to optimize my submissions.  I ended up deciding that was way too ambitious, and not as essential once The Grinder became operational, but with my narrowed focus on publishing just one pro story, I think a narrowed focus on a select few pro markets is warranted.  So here was my plan:

- Select 5-10 SFWA-qualifying markets with sufficiently high acceptance rates and sufficiently low wait times;

- Subset the selected markets into 2-3 categories to maximize my ability to re-submit works to multiple markets;

- Analyze submissions criteria of categorized markets to identify necessary attributes for stories to be submitted to each market category;

- Randomly sample previously published stories (about 30) for each market to identify the most common features of accepted stories, and then combine those common features in a way that would enable me to hit all top attributes in each category;

- Write 3-4 stories for each market category meeting acceptance criteria for each market in each category and incorporated top attributes for each market in each category;

- Resubmit to other markets in each category as necessary

I understand that that's a lot more specific than it needs to be (though I'll admit I hadn't reasoned all that out until I just barely wrote it), and the purists would probably say, "Forget all that!  Just write better stories!"  But I really do better when I work within clear boundaries.  Besides which, I'm gonna love crunching the numbers....

Whether or not this is successful is anyone's guess at this point, and knowing my past history with such projects it probably has a slim chance of even surviving to the submission stage, but it'll give me something to work on in the meantime.  Oh, and lest anyone think it wouldn't even survive the first step, I've actually already taken the first two:

Using did a sort in The Grinder filtering down to just SFWA-qualifying markets with average response times less than or equal to 46 days (this allowed me to keep Nature Futures, which has the highest acceptance rate).  This gave me 12 results, which was a little above the 5-10 I wanted, but I knew I'd be excluding some.  I excluded Fantasy & Science Fiction because it doesn't accept electronic submissions and Grantville Gazette: Universe Annex because they have weird guidelines and I'm not sure they actually qualify for SFWA (I haven't found the gumption to look into it very far).  Then I excluded Asimov's, Buzzy Mag, Clarkesworld, and Strange Horizons for having acceptance rates lower than 2% according to The Grinder (up to 50 submissions to get published is a stretch).  This left Apex Magazine, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Daily Science Fiction, EscapePod, Flash Fiction Online, and Nature Futures.  I then broke those six markets into two categories: three markets for flash fiction (DSF, FFO, and Nature), and three markets for longer short stories (Apex, BCS, and EP).

And there you have it.  So next steps will be to look at the submission guidelines for the three markets in each category and put together a requirements list.  Then I'll sample the stories and look for common attributes, which I'll add to the list.  And after I finish all that work, all I'll have to do is write the stories....

My Amazon Author Page

I now officially have an Amazon Author page:

www.amazon.com/author/carlgrafe

Which I happen to think is pretty cool.

The Colored Lens: Autumn 2014 is Live

I'm extremely happy to announce that my story "The Right Decision" has been published in the Autumn edition of The Colored Lens.  This one was anything but a sure thing until literally a few days before it was published, so definitely exceeded my expectations.

The Cord #4

The fourth and unfortunately also the last:

I've actually had this one most of the way done for a while, but I couldn't bring myself to go through the hair pulling tedium of inserting the word bubbles (I actually lost the original script, so it's totally different than what I drew it to be, and it's been long enough that I have no idea what my original intent was...oh well).  And when it gets to the point that you spend an entire summer avoiding a project, it's time to pursue something else.  I still plan to regularly post drawings to The Cord, they just won't be comics, or anything else that might require word bubbles.

New SFWA Market: Haikasoru

Don't have much to say about this one.  Other than that I'm still not sure how to pronounce the name.  Besides which, since it appears to be strictly a book market and not a short fiction market, I won't worry about it for now, but good to know new markets are becoming available....

What Is a Story?

I read what I thought was a really useful article today.  It probably seems like common sense, but I seriously needed this kind of information when I started writing almost two years ago (and still need reminders of today).  I'd get comments on my stories like "This isn't a story," and I of course would get all indignant and mentally insist that a story is whatever I say it is.  It's totally true though: a story has to be more than just a beginning, middle, and end to work.  And as much as I hate it, it's not whatever I want it to be.  I don't get to just write whatever I want and let whatever happens happen, at least not if I want people to read it and actually like it.  Whether I like it or not, there is a "contract," though I don't necessarily like that term for it.  It's just a recognition that readers have certain expectations that you can't get away with neglecting, and I think this article does a great job of clearly describing what the most fundamental of those expectations are.

Third Six Months Statistics (Three Months Late...)

Yeah, so, I just barely realized that I never posted the results of the third six months of my foray into science fiction writing.  That would be referring to the period from November 2013 through April 2014....  It's been a busy summer.  But yeah, I haven't done so well at keeping up with things; not my writing, and much less my blogging about my writing.

So this should be fairly succinct:

From November 2013 through April 2014 I again only finished three more stories (see Second Six Months).  I submitted eleven times to nine markets (twice to Daily Science Fiction, twice to UFO Anthology, and once each to 713 Flash, Electric Spec, Escape Pod, Fantasy Scroll Mag, Nature Futures, Perihelion Science Fiction, and Plasma Frequency).  My submission to Perihelion Science Fiction, "Peanut Butter and Pork," was the only story that was accepted for publication.  Only one rejection included personalized comments (713 Flash).  The average response time for the third six months was 15 days (likely because since using The Grinder I've deliberately starting choosing markets with shorter response times).

Well, now that I look at it, that second half-year wasn't as bad as I thought it was.  Hopefully this next six months will see another publication or two (and a timely write-up...).

Disingenuity

I have failed at keeping up here the past few months.  I almost said "utterly" failed, but I think the abyss lying between this entry and April conveys the utterness of the failure well enough.  Anyway, to try to kickstart things a little, some thoughts on the word "disingenuous."  I've decided it's my least favorite word; I mean, I actively despise it.  I've noticed it used repeatedly for years, and it always grated on me, though I never put into thought why.  But the other day it dawned on me: when used, it's almost always ironically hypocritical.  I'll leave it to you to muse on the reasons why.  Happy Fourth!

Perihelion SF 12-APR-14 Update is LIVE

My short story "Peanut Butter and Pork" went live today at Perihelion Science Fiction!

The Cord #3

A few weeks behind, but it's here....

New SFWA Pro Markets Additions

Crossed Genres and Head of Zeus have been added to the list of SFWA-qualified markets.  I'm not familiar with either, but an increase in markets means an increase in probability of pro publication, so I'll take it.

On a side note, I've decided not to pursue my in-depth analysis of what kinds of submissions the various pro markets say they want.  Lately I've found myself perusing The Grinder when I want to find such information, and though its search capabilities are certainly limited-at-best at present, I think it'll get better and better going into the future.  In any case, I will continue using the MarketWants tag for entries that deal with parsing out what various markets are looking for, but I won't be doing the comprehensive analysis I had originally envisioned.

Eight months ago.

Yeah, another reason for my decision not to pursue this project is that I actually failed to pursue it a long time ago.  There a number of reasons for this, including lack of time, other interests, etc.  I think I've just subconsciously come to the conclusion that my time is probably better spent writing stories, working on my comic, and other projects that I'm just starting to think about actually implementing.  But more on that in the future....

Random News from Six Months Ago

The other day I belatedly noticed that my story in Mad Scientist Journal was featured in the SF Signal last fall ("featured" meaning mentioned...).  One of those things that probably would have been cooler if I'd noticed six months ago....  But still cool!

The Cord #2

Week 2, comic 2.  So far so good....

The Cord #1

I'm trying out my hand at comics....  Mostly so I can keep up on drawing, but who knows.  I'm adding the link to the Wordpress site (no good comic templates in Blogger) to the Outlet menu, and it is at (dun dun dun...):

thecordcomic.wordpress.com.

Or just click the picture:

Which Markets Are Most Likely to Accept Your Work?

So I'd heard The Grinder referenced a couple of times on different sites, but I never got around to checking it out until today.

And it's hecka cool.

Basically it's the freeware replacement for Duotrope, giving writers a way to compare markets based on statistics reported by other writers.  I'm tagging this post under MarketWants because The Grinder basically tells you which pro markets want more submissions.  As a matter of course one of the primary statistics reported on the site is the acceptance rates for the various markets.  Which makes it easy to rank them (based on reports over the past 12 months as of 2/8/2014, with markets The Grinder identified as "closed" and markets with sample sizes fewer than 5 excluded):

PUBLISHER	N	Acceptance Rate	Mean Response (days)
Nature	74	21.62%	36.47
Grantville Gazette: Universe Annex	25	8.00%	67.28
Daily Science Fiction	906	7.28%	21.62
Cricket	15	6.67%	106.8
Beneath Ceaseless Skies	196	6.63%	38.15
AE	67	5.97%	104.4
Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show	275	5.45%	59.88
Analog Science Fiction and Fact	121	4.96%	163.97
EscapePod	149	4.70%	29.51
Flash Fiction Online	205	3.90%	34.84
Asimov’s Science Fiction	396	2.53%	57.95
BuzzyMag	282	1.77%	45.36
Strange Horizons	739	1.22%	16.31
Clarkesworld Magazine	746	1.07%	3.42
Writers of the Future Anthology	187	1.07%	85.37
Apex	332	0.90%	18.88
Lightspeed Magazine	409	0.73%	3.55
Cicada	43	0.00%	94.49

I was totally surprised (CAVEAT: the samples these numbers are based on are by no means random, and are likely heavily influenced by self-selection bias; that said, it's a whole lot better than nothing).  Nature published more than 1 in 5 of the manuscripts they received last year (they publish once a week, and The Grinder reported that 16/74 got accepted, which means it represents about 16/52 = 31% of all stories published last year; not bad!).  I have to admit, I hadn't really considered submitting to Nature because they state in their guidelines that their stories are "usually commissioned," but I doubt that any writers working by commission would come to The Grinder to report that their work was accepted....  Who knows, but the takeaway for me is, I'm going to start submitting to Nature.   Another surprise was the Grantsville Gazette: Universe Annex.  They published 1 out of every 12 or 13 submissions.  The sample size is somewhat small compared to other markets (N = 25), but this is a market I didn't even know existed (Grantsville Gazette--not Universe Annex--is also listed in The Grinder with an acceptance rate of 0%; I wasn't even considering them for my MarketWants analysis because of their quirky rules).  So anyway, it's useful information, if nothing else. Daily Science Fiction and Beneath Ceaseless Skies are good bets, as is Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, which surprised me at better than 1 in 20.  Analog, EscapePod, Flash Fiction Online, and Asimov's follow close behind. Another big surprise was that Strange Horizons, Clarkesworld, Apex, and Lightspeed are such longshots (about 1 in 100).  I've submitted to all four of those markets (several of them multiple times) because I thought they were better bets than premiere markets like Asimov's, Analog, or Intergalactic Medicine Show.  Meanwhile, I wrote off the Writers of the Future Anthology because I thought the odds were weighted way too much against you to make it worth the effort.  It beats or matches the acceptance rates of 3 out of the 4 1-in-100 markets I've been submitting to.  I was just totally, totally wrong. This is exactly what makes a site like The Grinder so valuable.  It strips all the distractors and red herrings away, letting you see just the bare numbers.  And it increases your chances of publishing by about 20 times.