I thought of an SCP that was a fly that lived in giant swarms. These flies also could make strands of web like material that they could attach to an object and pull stuff upward. The giant swarms would attach to a single object and they would all pull it. It could also be the size of a horse fly (to be belivable). I was also thinking of using a Dr. Bright refrence like "Dr. Bright is no longer permitted access to scp xxxx regarding the last incident [redacted] along with complaints of sexual harrisment from Dr. Right.
It would need a hook. Then maybe, but (as always) only if the execution was good.
Also, the addendum about Dr. Bright not being allowed access would count as lolfoundation, which would earn downvotes by itself regardless of the quality of the rest of the article.
What he said.
And about Bright, the list of things that Bright is not allowed to do at the Foundation is a joke article that is not accepted/serious canon. As soon as I see the words "Dr. Bright" in that context in a mainlist SCP, I'm gery tempted to hit the downvote.
Everything Hornby said. And
These flies also could make strands of web like material that they could attach to an object and pull stuff upward. The giant swarms would attach to a single object and they would all pull it.
I can't help thinking, "but why"? Granted, it does sound quite anomalous, but it also seems a little random. What do the flies do with the stuff they abduct?
Not a big fan of this one. Something like this would just be an unknown biological life form, which is not necessarily anomalous; it'd be weird, but within our current structure of understanding the world and the assumption that there are physical laws and norms that hold constant. This is the same problem I have with a lot of the "SCP disease" articles as well.
Beyond that, it's not really that interesting. Flys that shoot webs and pull at stuff. Nothing about that makes me want to read more or think about it after I've read it.
As for the last part, please read this disclaimer:
The following advice is entirely based on my personal preferences, which, although not unusual in terms of how articles are generally received, are not official Foundation guidelines and should not be taken as such:
References to the author avatars will make me downvote an article almost 90% of the time, as Hornby alluded to above. Thing is, I can't remember an article in the short time that I've been around that was any good that included them. That's because what makes the articles on this wiki work is the suspension of disbelief that comes with clinical tone and presentation. The detached, cold description gives a heightened sense of reality which is then shattered repeatedly by the weird/terrifying stuff we have here. Goofy characters that spout one-liners, have sex with everything and/or ride SCP-682 like a horsey completely shatter that feel, and quite frankly, IMO, are really fucking stupid.
There are people who enjoy that sort of thing; more power to them. But even they will very, very rarely add specific references into actual SCP articles these days. As a test, go and read SCP-1981, one of the best-regarded articles of the recent past. After you read, ask yourself if it would be improved by adding a note at the end that says "PS Dr. Bright isn't allowed access to SCP-1981 after he tried to stick his dick in it."
Some people add in author avatars as a form of name-dropping, much the same way that people will reference well-known SCPs in their own work. I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, but as a general rule, glory does not reflect around here. Adding in references to popular SCPs or characters will not help your original work one iota; what it WILL do is cause people to scrutinize the shit out of it and look for reasons to downvote as they compare your work to other, probably better stories/concepts.
TL;DR - No, do not add the Bright reference at the end.
Kalinin brought up a great point:
Something like this would just be an unknown biological life form, which is not necessarily anomalous; it'd be weird, but within our current structure of understanding the world and the assumption that there are physical laws and norms that hold constant.
Or in my terms:
If I could get a group of scientists tomorrow and say to the world, "Hey, we just discovered [explain your SCP]," and the world will go, "Oh. Okay," then it's not an SCP.
How about the flys are from another dimension and with the materials they take they make eithor a statue of a being from an alternate world. Or they are trying to make a portal back to their home world and are Sentient.