As a reader how do you use the rating system?

[EmilyMiller]

Yes, ANOTHER rating thread.
I got a comment tonight on my latest story and he listed all the things he really liked about the story. That's it. He ended by stating he rated it a 3/5*. Which got me wondering. How do you approach the 1-5 star rating system?
When I have been rated at work, annually, the companies I have worked for, have used a 1-7 scale or a 1-5 scale with 4 and 3, respectively, being the baseline. I've never thought of someone using this system here.
I read 4-8 stories a week here. I rate all of them. Comment on most.
I have always started at a 5 on Page 1, Line 1. After that, it's up to the writer to keep me at a 5. I try to discount things that aren't to my taste, such as anal, or an occasional homophone switch, and not let that sway my opinion on the final piece. If I enjoyed it, that's my baseline. 5 stars, all day long.
How about you? Do you use 3 as a baseline and let the work increase or decrease your rating? Or start at five and work down as necessary? Or some other thought process?

Turning this round. Where I can discern voting patterns (mostly only when there is a handful of votes at the beginning). They seem to be mostly 5s or 1s and not a lot in between. I feel 5 is a like button and 1 a hate button.

I suspect most readers approach it that way.

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

Turning this round. Where I can discern voting patterns (mostly only when there is a handful of votes at the beginning). They seem to be mostly 5s or 1s and not a lot in between. I feel 5 is a like button and 1 a hate button.

I suspect most readers approach it that way.

Em

Oh and i get comments from people who say they couldn’t read beyond the first two paragraphs and which close with 1*.

It’s so far from anything scientific that it’s laughable really.

Em

 

[alohadave]

The problem with the rating system, as with all similar such 5 star review systems, is that anything other than a 5 is seen as containing a failure of some kind. Hell, if I do a Meet with one of my students and it asks me to rate it afterwards, Google then wants an in-depth assessment of just what went wrong if I don't give it a 5. I understand that Google want to improve their system (actually, I don't believe that - I believe they just want to make me think they care, but that's another story), but the whole set up breeds the conception that anything less than perfection is failure. Of course, the whole point of grading is that the median score is a 'pass', and above that is 'above average', but that only seems to work in the academic environment now, and even there I'm finding increasing pushback from students for whom pass is increasingly seen as fail unless it includes distinction. Gripe over.

This is huge in the retail world. Every place that has those customer surveys, if you don't score everything a 9 or 10, the employee and store are penalized as poor performers.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I didn't say it lacks sexual content, just that it doesn't contain explicit scenes.

I think many readers will fail to see the difference. Many use the stories only as a wanking material, so sexual build up without explicit scenes probably doesn't work for them, especially in that category, but maybe that is just my opinion.

I finally realized the crucial significance of the "H" tag and understand what you all have been bitching about. This realization only deepens my disdain for this system.

Indeed. I have been bitching about the rating system a lot, but mainly because some stories will fail to reach the audience because of it. That glaring red H attracts the eye, there is no doubt about it. I've also realized that the position on all time top lists is very important too, as daily number of views increases by a ratio of 5-10 if the story is in top ten (at least it did for my story in SciFi/Fantasy category)
It is quite frustrating to realize how faulty the ratings are as a measure of story quality, yet you still can't stop fretting about them, because they are quite important when it comes to your story reaching the audience. Oh, well...

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I see your point and, yes, this is an easily-skewed popularity contest, but it is what it is.

The alternative, of course, is judges. Impartial ones. And enough of them to read every story in a timely fashion. Competent ones - and that scares me more than anything else, for what resonates with an MA in English Literature is quite possibly not something I'm going to get interested in. And this panel is paid for how?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

If you think this, what's your explanation for the range of scores you see in any writer's list?

When I go look at a writer's list, I see a band of scores, and you can quickly see where that writer sits in the grand scheme of things. For example, I've got around 110 separate chapters/stories. One is rated above 4.90, but it's only got nine votes, so it's a nothing. I've then got pretty much the same number of stories in each of the six decades down to 4.30, then a dozen or so below that.

This means that readers are giving me a range of scores mostly between 4 and 5, with some 3s - I know I've got 2s and 3s, because I've seen them arrive. And I'd have to say, in the context of my own story list, that the ranking of those stories, with only a few exceptions, pretty much aligns with my own perception of each story's quality (relative only to my own story list, not relative to anybody else's).

If, as some people seem to think, readers are only awarding fives or ones, then those score bands wouldn't exist - they'd all be skewed to 4.90 or higher, or down around 2.00 (whatever the maths is). But they're not. Which tells me that readers overall, those that vote, do so with their own criteria, and that criteria is most likely across the whole range of five - erring on the 3 - 5s, because I also believe that most readers who bail on a story because it is crap, and really is only worth a one or a two, don't bother to vote, because they're gone from the story in the first minute. They're not wasting their time by umping to the end and voting.

I think it's highly likely that most readers (and noting that most readers aren't writers), don't apply the same criteria to scores that most AH aficionados do. We're the odd ones out, I reckon, thinking that all readers think the same way we do.

Everything tells me that, overall, the differences in scores, the ranges that we do see, are telling us something. The thing is, some folk don't like what that something is. But that's an issue for their story writing, it's not an inherent fault in the scoring system.

I can't claim that I can speak meaningfully about your own scores and why they are as they are. I would need to read your stories and take into account the categories, the sexual themes etc. to form an opinion. I do agree with some things you said, but there is one inconsistency in the way readers act, as I see it. Some just give an automatic 5 to the author they like. Others want to be objective and rate the story on its merit. But when they rate a story, they act as if 3 is average, 4 is good and 5 is excellent, at least that is my impression, judging by the comments I have seen on my own work and some other stories that I've read. It could be that I am completely wrong here, as my sample isn't nearly big enough. Anyway, to get to the point. I believe that those same readers, when choosing the story to read, still discriminate by the presence of red H (maybe not in LW, but elsewhere I believe it is so), even if the story rating of 4 is quite good by their own rating system. It is an inconsistency in their own internal reasoning that is probably unconscious. I am of course guessing many things here, but it is an impression I formed over time.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I see your point and, yes, this is an easily-skewed popularity contest, but it is what it is.

The alternative, of course, is judges. Impartial ones. And enough of them to read every story in a timely fashion. Competent ones - and that scares me more than anything else, for what resonates with an MA in English Literature is quite possibly not something I'm going to get interested in. And this panel is paid for how?

I agree, definitely. There is no way for the scores to be anything but a result of readers' voting. But there is a way to make it better. A few months back I proposed a color system along with scores. Get rid of the damn red H which acts as an artificial threshold for many readers and gives them the impression that anything below 4.5 isn't worth reading. Instead, the site could use a color system with low rated stories being colored in, let's say, very pale red color that increases in intensity with rating. Let the readers decide where their threshold lies, optically. I am very certain it would lower their limit significantly, as there would be no glaring transition anywhere - no more glowing red H to say that the story of 4.5 is worth their time and a story with 4.49 isn't.

 

[HordHolm]

I agree, definitely. There is no way for the scores to be anything but a result of readers' voting. But there is a way to make it better. A few months back I proposed a color system along with scores. Get rid of the damn red H which acts as an artificial threshold for many readers and gives them the impression that anything below 4.5 isn't worth reading. Instead, the site could use a color system with low rated stories being colored in, let's say, very pale red color that increases in intensity with rating. Let the readers decide where optically their threshold lies. I am very certain it would lower their limit significantly, as there would be no glaring transition anywhere - no more glowing red H to say that the story of 4.5 is worth their time and a story with 4.49 isn't.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that simply getting rid of that red H would enable quite a lot of angst to dissipate...

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

As a reader, I use the rating system as it is presented to me. The five stars underneath a story don't ask me whether I think the story was good or bad. It also doesn't ask me to rate the author's writing prowess. It simply asks me how much I liked what I just read.

Now, I know that this can be quite frustrating for authors, as they have no way of knowing whether that one-star vote they just received was because they wrote the whole thing on their smartphone without bothering to switch the keyboard-layout to include punctuation, or because the reader simply disliked the theme of an otherwise well written story. But as long as Lit presents their voting system the way they do, I think both reasons are perfectly valid.

And I think that's intended.

 

[alohadave]

I agree, definitely. There is no way for the scores to be anything but a result of readers' voting. But there is a way to make it better. A few months back I proposed a color system along with scores. Get rid of the damn red H which acts as an artificial threshold for many readers and gives them the impression that anything below 4.5 isn't worth reading. Instead, the site could use a color system with low rated stories being colored in, let's say, very pale red color that increases in intensity with rating. Let the readers decide where their threshold lies, optically. I am very certain it would lower their limit significantly, as there would be no glaring transition anywhere - no more glowing red H to say that the story of 4.5 is worth their time and a story with 4.49 isn't.

All that does is gives people more to anguish over. People are still going to want the higher colors, and having a lower color is no different than having a lower score.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I agree, definitely. There is no way for the scores to be anything but a result of readers' voting. But there is a way to make it better. A few months back I proposed a color system along with scores. Get rid of the damn red H which acts as an artificial threshold for many readers and gives them the impression that anything below 4.5 isn't worth reading. Instead, the site could use a color system with low rated stories being colored in, let's say, very pale red color that increases in intensity with rating. Let the readers decide where their threshold lies, optically. I am very certain it would lower their limit significantly, as there would be no glaring transition anywhere - no more glowing red H to say that the story of 4.5 is worth their time and a story with 4.49 isn't.

I could live with that.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

All that does is gives people more to anguish over. People are still going to want the higher colors, and having a lower color is no different than having a lower score.

There would be no apparent threshold, like there is now on 4.5 rating. People could decide where their own thresholds lie. The color system is redundant, of course. I suggested it only as a better alternative, if Lit still wanted some kind of optical differentiation between stories.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that simply getting rid of that red H would enable quite a lot of angst to dissipate...

Absolutely. I tend to be skeptical of most proposed changes in this forum, but this is one that has always made sense to me. It would eliminate a lot of angst AND it would reduce some of the gamesmanship over voting.

It's another change, however, that probably will not happen.

 

[Fl_maledad]

Chances are if I read until the end it is getting a 5. I don’t judge anyone if I don’t get into their story, I still think it is awesome that you all write your deepest and sometimes darkest desires for us to read and get turned on doing so. I have found that I like a good seductive story the most. All kinds of topics. Keep giving us awesome stories to read!

 

[Fl_maledad]

I don’t give 1,2 or 3 ratings. If I don’t like, I just go to another story. Glad I don’t have many turn offs when it comes to stories. That helps me enjoy a wide variety!

 

[ElectricBlue]

I vote based on how much I liked the story. Often, I don't vote until the next day. If a story sticks with me and I'm still mulling over aspects of it, it gets a 5. If I remember liking it and a particular scene or character sticks with me but not the overall story, it gets a 4. If I remember liking it but can't recall specifics beyond theme, a 3 is awarded. If I didn't care for it, it gets a 2. If something irritated me in the wrong way and that irritation sticks with me, it gets a 1. (It should be noted that a story can irritate me and stick with me and still get a 5 if the irritation is about an especially good villain or conflict told within the story. That's irritation in a good way.)

I don't think I've ever given a story a 1 or 2 vote.

I think people have been far too generous with their ratings of my stories. I can see them as being a fun read, but not thought provoking or the kind of stories that stick with you after you read them. They are rambling disjointed fluff with a fun climax.

This is how I reckon most readers vote - using the 1 - 5 range and applying their own criteria, and skewing it above the 3 = Average mid point by not giving/bothering with 1s and 2s. This adequately explains the ranges one sees in a writer's catalogue (as per my long post above).

That is, readers are NOT giving only 1s and 5s as so many writers seem to think, and the result is thus an indicator of sorts. My only niggle is that votes are only coming from a very small sample of readers, the one percent. One can only assume they're representative of the bigger swarming mass of readers - but they're all we've got, and at least they vote...

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Chances are if I read until the end it is getting a 5. I don’t judge anyone if I don’t get into their story, I still think it is awesome that you all write your deepest and sometimes darkest desires for us to read and get turned on doing so. I have found that I like a good seductive story the most. All kinds of topics. Keep giving us awesome stories to read!

Trust me, we all crave readers' comments. Tell us what you liked, what you didn't like; tell us what you think was done well and what wasn't. Those authors who would get offended because of some criticism are quite rare in my opinion. The rest of us thrive on feedback.

 

[Fl_maledad]

I definitely comment when I like something a lot. If I don’t like it, it usually means it doesn’t click that internal emotion I look for when I am reading lit. So I rarely comment on what I didn’t like, because it is more about an emotional connection to a story. The best ones are the ones that surprise me by pulling me in and pushing my boundaries in a way I wouldn’t have chose. It is my favorite feeling, developing a new passion for a topic that was before reading a story, in tapped!

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I thrive on feedback, provided that’s it’s constructive and reasonably polite. Hateful, pus-filled bile, not so much.

 

[KeithD]

One skewing element to the voting system here that I've observed is that many of the readers who favorite a story don't actually vote a rating. They presume going the one way doesn't disadvantage the story by not voting the usual 5 that this would most likely provide.

For years, since a system update added the rating to what the reader could see on the list, I've advocated just dropping the red H and let the rating speak for itself to the reader. Obviously site management is either not listening or doesn't care. It would seem to be a simple fix.

 

[SimonDoom]

For years, since a system update added the rating to what the reader could see on the list, I've advocated just dropping the red H and let the rating speak for itself to the reader. Obviously site management is either not listening or doesn't care. It would seem to be a simple fix.

I agree with you. If you have a 4.5, having a red H conveys no additional information of any meaningful kind, either as an "award" or as a way to help readers find your story. But the site probably believes that because it's an established feature that both authors and readers expect they don't want to take it away.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

A talented reader who dedicates weeks to perfecting their initial work, only to receive a score under 4.5, two thousand views, two comments, and two favorites, is likely to vanish, never to return.

Good point. I can actually testify that I basically stopped writing because I found I am not getting enough of the only payment I require - some honest feedback from readers. My scores are good, great actually, but that is not what motivates me to write.
Sometime ago, Simon put forward what I thought was an excellent idea - a blog feature for authors on Lit. It would be a way to get what we crave, to add the fuel to our motivation to write. Regardless of the fact that Lit owners don't really give a damn what we want or think, the fact that the idea was not welcomed by many people on AH testifies to a certain resistance to change here. To ANY change, really, judging by other, similar topics.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Good point. I can actually testify that I basically stopped writing because I found I am not getting enough of the only payment I require - some honest feedback from readers. My scores are good, great actually, but that is not what motivates me to write.
Sometime ago, Simon put forward what I thought was an excellent idea - a blog feature for authors on Lit. It would be a way to get what we crave, to add the fuel to our motivation to write. Regardless of the fact that Lit owners don't really give a damn what we want or think, the fact that the idea was not welcomed by many people on AH testifies to a certain resistance to change here. To ANY change, really, judging by other, similar topics.

I agree with this.

I think any serious author would be foolish to expect too much of Literotica. It's existed for years as a sex and kink positive online entity with a very specific focus on smutty nonsense, as can be easily seen by majority of its forums. The design of the website has never and likely will never change, and it isn't a private club. Literally anyone can waltz in and write whatever the hell they please, and vote however they wish. I don't regard this website as anything more than it is. An entertaining pastime. A place to showboat true talent and receive honest criticism and feedback? That's wishful thinking.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I agree with this.

I think any serious author would be foolish to expect too much of Literotica. It's existed for years as a sex and kink positive online entity with a very specific focus on smutty nonsense, as can be easily seen by majority of its forums. The design of the website has never and likely will never change, and it isn't a private club. Literally anyone can waltz in and write whatever the hell they please, and vote however they wish. I don't regard this website as anything more than it is. An entertaining pastime. A place to showboat true talent and receive honest criticism and feedback? That's wishful thinking.

This is true for 95% of the content or so. But there are stories that are trying, and I would say succeeding at being something more than simple smut. One should not have spectacular expectations from writing on Lit, but things COULD be better than what they are at the moment. There is a way for us to get more feedback. There is a way for readers to have a better and faster way of communicating with authors. It is a win-win really.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't believe that is the case. In my view, it seems more likely that they simply do not have sufficient time due to the immense pressure of maintaining and operating such a large site single-handedly.

That is a common assumption, one many people here believe in. I don't.
During all my time here, I have never, ever seen them weigh in on any topic we started here, even in the topics they started themselves, and among the plethora of silly and fun topics, or even those where we ended up arguing aimlessly, there were still some topics where we seriously debated and made some good points. Replying to a thread once a week, let's say, couldn't possibly demand that much time... You know, just to let us know they do read and maybe care about the things that plague us. No, they are simply being practical. After 25 years of experience with authors and readers, they simply realized that we will keep writing stories even if they completely ignore us, and I can't really blame them for taking that approach, as it is clearly working. About the way things are moderated and ran, we simply don't know anything for sure. All anyone here knows comes from a comment or two Laurel made years and years ago. Even if we take her at her word, things could have changed five times over in all these years.