Chapters....the unfair advantage

[SimonDoom]

I've had a look at the SF-F toplist since that category is my "home turf", and I'm shocked. That Tefler guy alone seems to occupy a majority of the spots, and even my best standalone work, with a frickin' 4.87, has no chance in Hell to ever crack that list, not with a 4.88 cutoff. I'm not easily discouraged, but that's enough to make me bite a few sizable chunks out of my desk.

That's crazy. A 4.87 in the Exhibitionist and Voyeur category would put you in a tie for number 2 on the all-time top list -- second only to a chapter, of course.

 

[RejectReality]

Sci-Fi & Fantasy has always had a high end toplist. I don't think it's ever crept much below the current cutoff, regardless of the number of chapters, which has likewise always been high.

You've never been able to get on page 1 with anything less than 4.90.

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, I was referring to the chaptered story list as being called the unfinished story list because chapters are not complete stories.

I understood that, but this thread reminded me that I have an incomplete story posted.

I am gradually going through my list of submissions and changing older chaptered or part-works to a single entry. My latest changed story, currently in my signature, is now 13 Lit pages.

It will reduce the gross number of my stories posted but after the first 100, who cares what the total is?

 

[Blind_Justice]

That's crazy. A 4.87 in the Exhibitionist and Voyeur category would put you in a tie for number 2 on the all-time top list -- second only to a chapter, of course.

Too bad that Voyeurism is the one fetish I can not write about. Won't be much fun only doing audio description.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

They certainly do have an advantage in the areas being discussed in the thread. The tendency for a chapter story to decline in views and rise in score ( save for the final chapter, which tends to buck the trend to some degree ) causes those middle chapters to have high scores that bump other stories out of the toplists.

When there are 5, 10, 15, or 100 of those chapters, it hides a lot of other stories from readers, and harms author visibility.

The suggestion has long been to treat serialized series as a whole for the purposes of toplist inclusion. That means that the 40 chapter story occupies only one spot on the toplist, instead of the 20-30 it might now hold. That opens up a huge swath of territory for other authors to gain new readers — including other, less known writers of chaptered stories.

It also creates a space for readers to find new favorite authors.

That same rising score effect causes monthly contests to disproportionately favor chaptered stories, which in turn affects what stories end up in the yearly awards. Middle chapters can bump one-shots and completed serials from these contests, and can win many times for the same ongoing story.

Having a series represented by its average or mean, rather than each individual chapter, opens up the same territory as in the toplist. It's also frequently argued that chapter stories should not even receive consideration for such awards until they are completed. The awards should be for stories, rather than pieces of stories, and that requires the story to end. ( at least, until the characters return for a sequel )

I have argued for this type of scoring for years--one composite score for the entire story. Each vote counts equally. Readers can of for each chapter, but all votes for all chapters get pooled together and divided by the total number of votes. Chapter stories will still have an advantage, but each story will only occupy on space in the lists instead of all the spaces.

 

[NotWise]

Too bad that Voyeurism is the one fetish I can not write about. Won't be much fun only doing audio description.

"The sound of his nakedness was deafening."

 

[Timewarp10]

Being a new author on the site, I am not sure I fully understand the point being made here. Some stories do naturally fall into chapters, but I agree that each should also 'stand alone'. I have received requests from readers calling for further chapters of my stories. It can be difficult to resist! I prefer writing a stand alone short story if only because simply adding chapters means it loses the story line. It becomes a story without structure. I'll have to think about it.

 

[ttvttp]

Being a new author on the site, I am not sure I fully understand the point being made here. Some stories do naturally fall into chapters, but I agree that each should also 'stand alone'. I have received requests from readers calling for further chapters of my stories. It can be difficult to resist! I prefer writing a stand alone short story if only because simply adding chapters means it loses the story line. It becomes a story without structure. I'll have to think about it.

Talking about which becomes more popular, chapters or one shots. The point being made by some is that there should be two different hall of fame lists so both can be represented without chapters taking over. I also have real problem with someone attacking authors who feel the need to write 100+ chapter stories.

 

[SimonDoom]

Being a new author on the site, I am not sure I fully understand the point being made here. Some stories do naturally fall into chapters, but I agree that each should also 'stand alone'. I have received requests from readers calling for further chapters of my stories. It can be difficult to resist! I prefer writing a stand alone short story if only because simply adding chapters means it loses the story line. It becomes a story without structure. I'll have to think about it.

The point is this. Stories that have many, many chapters tend to get higher ratings as the story proceeds. Later chapters get higher scores because the only people still reading and scoring the story are those that really like it. This phenomenon skews the scores higher for chapters than for standalone stories. So they can't really be fairly compared.

This phenomenon creates a problem for toplists because the toplists become full of chapters, and they crowd out standalone stories. Moreover, in some cases, many, many chapters of the same story appear on the list.

The result is that authors of standalone stories feel like their stories have no chance of competing against chapters. There's something a little silly about a toplist of 250 stories being full of dozens of chapters from the same story. It also disserves readers because when they look over toplists they don't see as many stories to choose from. Why would anyone care that Chapter 97 of a series of over 100 chapters has a 4.85 rating? All that tells you is that non-fan readers have been weeded out. So both readers and authors are dis-served by this phenomenon.

 

[humannature]

I'm glad to see that other people notice these challenges. I'm both a reader on this site and a writer (under another user name to keep things tidy).

As a reader, I find that the toplists are more or less unusable any more, for two reasons. First, they're deluged by people who are writing Chapter 78 of some story or another, and that doesn't interest me as a reader. I'm not going to see Chapter 78 of a story and say, 'hmm, that synopsis looks interesting. I'll go find Chapter 1.' Nobody's going to do that. So the chapter formats are actively inhibiting readers from enjoying the site.

The same problem is true for the "New Stories" feature, too. I like to check out the new stories, and it seems like half the stories are Chapter 8 or something. I'm looking at the first page of "New Stories" right now and I see a Chapter 40, Chapter Chapter 34, Chapter 26, and Chapter 30, as well as numerous stories that are continuations. Overall, 39 of the 74 stories on the first page of "New Stories" are continuations, and that's not serving the readers well.

As an aside, I posted a story a while back that got really good reviews, and when they did the monthly awards I thought that I might win it for my category. The monthly awards aren't a big deal and don't get much coverage, so I'm not overwrought about it, but it's fun to get some recognition. It turns out that my standalone story was ranked something like .01 points lower than the winner, which (I kid you not) was something like Chapter 170 of some author's odyssey. That person may be a fine writer, but ... come on. My story had far more reads, more comments, far more votes, and far more favorites. But it lost to Chapter 170 and the handful of people who voted for it. I don't think that serves authors or readers well.

From a writer's perspective and a reader's perspective, the second problem with the "toplists" are that they reward cheating. Unlike the person who posted this thread, I AM a stats geek. A while back, I saw a weird pattern when posting my stories as soon as they hit the toplist, and so I started tracking a few suspicious things. At least three of the story categories are dominated at the top by people who actively cheat on the scoring. They downvote new stories and cast fake votes for their own stories, and they do so in great volume. I have one scumbag author dead to rights and absolutely know that he rampantly cheats at high volume, and I'm tracking two others to confirm them. At some point I may out them all. But regardless of individual guilt, the result is that the toplists (or at least the top part of them) do not reflect the best stories, but rather reflect the egos of the people who are most willing to cheat.

Once you get past the top 25 or so, I don't think the cheating occurs with regularity, but the top 25 is basically nothing but electronic warfare. That hurts the readers, the legitimate authors, and the site itself.

So how do we fix it? I don't like to complain without offering a solution, so here are my proposed solutions.

First, don't include anything but Chapter 1 of a story on the toplists. Or give subsequent chapters their own toplist if that's feasible. If a story is good enough, Chapter 1 will appear on the toplist. I can understand a desire by an author to "announce" a new chapter of a story, so maybe having their own toplist is the way to go. I guess I can live with the pollution of the "new stories" list, because I understand why an author wants to announce a new piece of work, even if it's Chapter 170.

Second, don't allow anything beyond Chapter 20 or some reasonable length. Having a 50 or 100 or 200 chapter "story" is not reasonable in the format of this site. If you have an 800,000 word Gilgamesh, get it organized into 20 parts. Alternatively, you could have a multiplier on each subsequent chapter that lowers the rating for ranking purposes. The scoring could be something simple like (Score*0.99^N) that downgrades every subsequent chapter. This would also disincentivize people from vomiting out 100 chapters just to ratchet up their scores.

Third, have a more sophisticated scoring metric to confound cheaters. It's very easy to fabricate fake votes and drive your story up, and to downvote other authors' stories. That's a problem that can't really be solved, and the scoring system itself is reasonable. But develop a weighted formula that takes into account the number of votes cast per month, reads per month, the number of favorites per month and the date of publication as well. (See my formula concept below.) Features like favorites are harder for the cheating authors to manipulate, and if the formula is kept secret that will also make cheating more difficult.

Fourth, have some sort of extinction curve to disincentivize a story from 2006 being the top story in a category for a decade. This is usually the result of author cheating, and even when it isn't, it stagnates the site. There's an easy answer to this, in my opinion. Note that I mentioned above that a scoring metric should have more factors such as votes cast, reads, and favorites. If you create a formula to calculate rates on a monthly basis and then create a degradation factor to downweight votes and reads and favorites over time, then at some point the older stories will fall off because they've already been read. I realize that one could then argue that the "best" stories won't be on top, but who cares? Right now, the top stories are generally Chapter 28 of something or they're the result of cheating. The goal is to give readers exposure to really good stories, and tangentially to spur authors (old and new) to continually create high quality work. I'd be glad to help come up with an exact formula that would be easy to implement.

(Steps down off of soapbox.)

 

[ttvttp]

Seeing a story has 78 chapters makes me more interested in a story and yes I would look into starting it from the beginning. I don't use the toplists because I want to form my opinion on whether to read something based on the description and not because of ratings.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As a reader, I find that the toplists are more or less unusable any more, for two reasons. First, they're deluged by people who are writing Chapter 78 of some story or another, and that doesn't interest me as a reader. I'm not going to see Chapter 78 of a story and say, 'hmm, that synopsis looks interesting. I'll go find Chapter 1.' Nobody's going to do that. So the chapter formats are actively inhibiting readers from enjoying the site.

In my experience, when I post new chapters, some readers do go back and check out the earlier chapters. Certainly not all of them, but it's not nobody.

The same problem is true for the "New Stories" feature, too. I like to check out the new stories, and it seems like half the stories are Chapter 8 or something. I'm looking at the first page of "New Stories" right now and I see a Chapter 40, Chapter Chapter 34, Chapter 26, and Chapter 30, as well as numerous stories that are continuations. Overall, 39 of the 74 stories on the first page of "New Stories" are continuations, and that's not serving the readers well.

Presumably it's useful to those who are following serial stories, though?

Second, don't allow anything beyond Chapter 20 or some reasonable length. Having a 50 or 100 or 200 chapter "story" is not reasonable in the format of this site. If you have an 800,000 word Gilgamesh, get it organized into 20 parts.

Some folk like to write stories in many parts. Some folk, apparently, like to read them; if somebody's Chapter 50 makes it into the toplist, it probably has at least 10,000 reads in order to meet the minimum vote requirements. It may not be my thing or yours, but it doesn't have to be.

Sure, it'd be easier for me to find the stories I like if we banned series beyond 20 chapters. It would also make things easier for me if we banned Incest/Taboo, Loving Wives, and all the other categories I don't read. But my chaff is somebody else's favourite; I would rather get rid of scoring and toplists altogether than start restricting what can be posted here simply because the scoring system leans towards stuff that isn't my bag.

Alternatively, you could have a multiplier on each subsequent chapter that lowers the rating for ranking purposes. The scoring could be something simple like (Score*0.99^N) that downgrades every subsequent chapter. This would also disincentivize people from vomiting out 100 chapters just to ratchet up their scores.

Would it, though?

The most prolific author on this site also has the lowest story scores I've ever seen. Clearly he's in it for the pleasure of writing what he enjoys, not for ratings. From what I've read of the longer chapter stories, I suspect a lot of those authors are in it for the same reason - they've found something they enjoy writing.

A person would have to be amazingly petty to go to the trouble of writing 100 chapters just to make a Literotica toplist. If there really is somebody so sad as to do that... I say we let 'em. Consider it a charity and a public service; we're probably saving them from finding some more obnoxious way to get validation.

Third, have a more sophisticated scoring metric to confound cheaters. It's very easy to fabricate fake votes and drive your story up, and to downvote other authors' stories. That's a problem that can't really be solved, and the scoring system itself is reasonable. But develop a weighted formula that takes into account the number of votes cast per month, reads per month, the number of favorites per month and the date of publication as well. (See my formula concept below.) Features like favorites are harder for the cheating authors to manipulate, and if the formula is kept secret that will also make cheating more difficult.

Number of reads tells you virtually nothing about the quality of a story, only about whether it's in a popular category, whether it has a catchy title/tagline, and whether it happened to post at a good point in the new stories stream. Votes and favourites tend to correlate with reads. Under this approach you'd likely find that all the "best" stories came from Incest/Taboo.

Fourth, have some sort of extinction curve to disincentivize a story from 2006 being the top story in a category for a decade. This is usually the result of author cheating, and even when it isn't, it stagnates the site. There's an easy answer to this, in my opinion. Note that I mentioned above that a scoring metric should have more factors such as votes cast, reads, and favorites. If you create a formula to calculate rates on a monthly basis and then create a degradation factor to downweight votes and reads and favorites over time, then at some point the older stories will fall off because they've already been read.

We already have a 12-month and 30-day toplist for each category, for people who want to see new stories. What does this proposal achieve that those don't already cover?

 

[humannature]

Seeing a story has 78 chapters makes me more interested in a story and yes I would look into starting it from the beginning. I don't use the toplists because I want to form my opinion on whether to read something based on the description and not because of ratings.

That's fair. But out of curiosity, why? To me, it's a sign that the author is disorganized and/or doesn't have a plan for the plot.

 

[SimonDoom]

First, don't include anything but Chapter 1 of a story on the toplists. Or give subsequent chapters their own toplist if that's feasible. If a story is good enough, Chapter 1 will appear on the toplist.

The first chapter almost NEVER is the highest rated. It often is much lower rated than others. So doing this wouldn't give readers the useful information they need to I.D. stories they like.

Second, don't allow anything beyond Chapter 20 or some reasonable length. Having a 50 or 100 or 200 chapter "story" is not reasonable in the format of this site.

What do you mean "don't allow"? You mean if they try to submit Chapter 21 they should be banned? That's a terrible idea. Many people may not read Tefler's 100+ chapter series, but many do, and he has tons of fans. People love his stuff. Combining the chapter would make them overly long.

Fourth, have some sort of extinction curve to disincentivize a story from 2006 being the top story in a category for a decade. This is usually the result of author cheating, and even when it isn't, it stagnates the site.

I don't see why a great story from the past should be eliminated from the list. There are multiple lists. The "all-time" list should showcase work that truly is "al-time."

 

[KeithD]

I was going to post to a couple of points being brought up on this, but . . . waste of breath . . . let them eat cake mode in effect.

 

[humannature]

In my experience, when I post new chapters, some readers do go back and check out the earlier chapters. Certainly not all of them, but it's not nobody.

Oh, sure. I was obviously exaggerating for effect when I said nobody. But your statement is true of single-post stories as well. I get a bump in readership rates in all of my stories when I post a new one. I'm willing to bet that readers going through the "new stories" list are notably more likely to select a new story than a subsequent chapter of an existing story. In fact, we can easily see that in the number of reads that each posting gets.

What that tells us, then, is that readers find subsequent chapters less appealing overall. As a business, this web site should recognize that having 50 percent of postings being subsequent chapters is not what their readers are looking for. And then atop that, there's the known perverse effect that the stories that generate less interest end up with higher scores as a result.

Presumably it's useful to those who are following serial stories, though?

I'm actually curious about that. I don't post multi-chapter stories for the most part. Do people reading a serial really find the new chapters on the "new stories" listing? That seems like a needle in a haystack. I would think that they follow the author and then check to see whether the author has posted a new chapter. The "following" feature works well for that.

I would question whether the "new stories" feature is useful for people who are breathlessly waiting for Chapter 8 of a story. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Some folk like to write stories in many parts. Some folk, apparently, like to read them; if somebody's Chapter 50 makes it into the toplist, it probably has at least 10,000 reads in order to meet the minimum vote requirements. It may not be my thing or yours, but it doesn't have to be.

I agree that people may have different writing styles or tastes, and that's fine, but the simple truth is that readership goes down with every subsequent chapter, which means that scoring goes up. As other people have noted in this thread, high-number chapters get artificially inflated scores since the title filters out new readers, and that misleads the reader about which stories are "best". (And yeah, yeah, I understand that people have different tastes, but if I see a 4.7 I'm going to give that story more consideration than a story that's a 4.4.) If you want readership and feedback - and some ego stroking - it's an easy strategy to split your story up into multiple chapters. I'm not saying that all authors do it for that reason, but I'm sure that some do.

Sure, it'd be easier for me to find the stories I like if we banned series beyond 20 chapters. It would also make things easier for me if we banned Incest/Taboo, Loving Wives, and all the other categories I don't read. But my chaff is somebody else's favourite; I would rather get rid of scoring and toplists altogether than start restricting what can be posted here simply because the scoring system leans towards stuff that isn't my bag.

I think some sort of scoring is necessary, both for author feedback and so readers can do some sort of filtering of potential reads. The site should want to steer readers toward "better" stories rather than schlock. (Looks down at your next comment about the prolific author and shares a knowing look.)

And I don't really care about differences in reads across categories, because some are naturally way bigger than others and they have different audiences. Stories don't really compete for reads across categories, but they compete ferociously within categories.

What particularly bothers me is situations like this: go look at the Top 250 stories in the Exhibitionist category. By my count 41 of the top 250 stories are parts of one continued story that is currently at 77 chapters. The person may be a fine writer and I have no ill will against him/her, but ... seriously? This is not good for anybody. That person's stories are getting far fewer reads and favorites than other stories in the category that were posted at the same time. That story is a small niche market, and yet it's blocking the exposure of 40 other authors who have stories with more broad appeal. Some of those chapters on the first page are officially the top 50 of all time in that category, and they've got 15 favorites or less in a year. That's ludicrous. (Again, I'm not disparaging that particular author and have never even read their work - it's the system that's the problem.)

Authors are writing for free, so the warm and fuzzy feeling of getting reads and feedback is worth something to most of them. Eliminating toplist listing for subsequent chapters is the best thing for readers, for the site, and for 95 percent of authors.

Would it, though?

The most prolific author on this site also has the lowest story scores I've ever seen. Clearly he's in it for the pleasure of writing what he enjoys, not for ratings. From what I've read of the longer chapter stories, I suspect a lot of those authors are in it for the same reason - they've found something they enjoy writing.

I've formed a theory that the most prolific author is sending coded terrorist messages through those stories. I'm kind of joking. Kind of. Maybe. If we really studied those stories, I bet we can break the code because there's a clear and identifiable pattern to those stories. (Grin.)

Back to the topic, that's fine if an author likes writing and posting. Presumably we all do. That's why we're here. But there's a flaw in the system that dramatically rewards posting multiple chapters over posting a single chapter. I (and others) are just hoping to level the playing field.

A person would have to be amazingly petty to go to the trouble of writing 100 chapters just to make a Literotica toplist. If there really is somebody so sad as to do that... I say we let 'em. Consider it a charity and a public service; we're probably saving them from finding some more obnoxious way to get validation.

(Shrug.) People have egos, and my analysis of cheating has identified some amazingly petty authors. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some authors are using that strategy, and I'd actually be shocked if none were. The challenge is that these centi-chapter authors and the cheating authors (see below) are blocking readers' access to other deserving authors.

I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about a 10 chapter story. That's not out of reason. If you want to write 100 chapters, that's fine. But it should be treated as one story, not ten or one hundred. That's why they're called chapters.

Number of reads tells you virtually nothing about the quality of a story, only about whether it's in a popular category, whether it has a catchy title/tagline, and whether it happened to post at a good point in the new stories stream. Votes and favourites tend to correlate with reads. Under this approach you'd likely find that all the "best" stories came from Incest/Taboo.

I would respectfully disagree to some extent. I would hope that better stories would be more widely read. You're correct, of course, about differences across categories and that's just a market issue as I noted earlier in this multi-chapter post. But within a category, I would certainly hope and expect that the stories that are more interesting - or which draw more interest based on their plot, title, or synopsis - would get more reads.

I like the overall feedback concept that Literotica has with ratings and votes and favorites and even comments, because it gives me a lot of feedback about a story. If it's got a lot of reads and a low score, I know that the premise was good but the execution wasn't. If it's got relatively few reads and a high score, I know that it's either a better story than the title suggests, or (ahem) I know that it's Chapter 30 and it's only being scored by its fans, so I should discount the score. (One exception is the cheaters, which I'll address below.)

I just find it odd that the toplists - which dramatically affect readership and exposure - aren't based on that entire feedback system, but are instead based on the one measure that it easiest to corrupt.

We already have a 12-month and 30-day toplist for each category, for people who want to see new stories. What does this proposal achieve that those don't already cover?

A reasonable expectation among readers is that the toplists reflect good stories that are worth reading, and that it will give exposure to top authors. The current system has two fatal flaws in that regard. First, the system only bases the rankings on the voted score, which gives a huge advantage to subsequent chapters (and to cheaters). If you look at the combined feedback of reads and favorites and votes on the top 250 stories, it's clear that there's a lower interest by readers in subsequent chapters of stories. Yet those chapters knock stories off the top lists that have more appeal. That's not good for readers and it's not good for the site, and it's not good for the authors whose stories are getting short shrift.

The other issue is the cheaters, which is my pet peeve. I've had stories that have made the first page of the toplist, and as soon as that happens, bam bam bam - the score gets hammered down dramatically until the stories drop off. That's not critical feedback, it's sabotage, and it's being done so some sleazy author can get more reads and stroke his ego by claiming that he's got a top-ten story or whatever.

And yes, I like stroking my ego in this way too, but the difference is that I'm not going to cheat to do it. Most authors won't, which is why the cheaters have such a big advantage.

So what happens, if you pay close attention and are a stats stracker, is that a high-rated story does well until it's got enough votes to get on one of the short-term toplists. It then gets hammered down immediately with a cluster of low scores for no logical reason. If it still has a high enough score to make the first page of the all-time toplist after hitting 100+ votes, it then gets hammered down again. This is not good for readers, for the site, or for legitimate authors. It's just cheating, and I have a fundamental opposition to cheating.

So...long answer there. I respect your opinion, and if these things don't bother you, that's your business. But from my perspective (and presumably others'), it's very annoying to work hard on a story and then see your exposure get cut down or have your feedback look less positive for wholly artificial reasons. My proposal would level the playing field a bit for all authors.

(And I really wish the site would ban the cheaters. They're bad for everybody.)

 

[humannature]

The first chapter almost NEVER is the highest rated. It often is much lower rated than others. So doing this wouldn't give readers the useful information they need to I.D. stories they like.

The first chapter is the most accurate score. Subsequent chapters' scores are artificially inflated. Let's rank stories according to their most accurate score.

What do you mean "don't allow"? You mean if they try to submit Chapter 21 they should be banned? That's a terrible idea. Many people may not read Tefler's 100+ chapter series, but many do, and he has tons of fans. People love his stuff. Combining the chapter would make them overly long.

I think you mean that it's a brilliant idea.

Or if you don't like the idea as stands, let people post their 100 chapters but don't score them and/or don't list them on toplists. I'd be fine with that. The problem is that Chapter 100 gets a higher score purely because it's Chapter 100 and not because it's better.

I don't see why a great story from the past should be eliminated from the list. There are multiple lists. The "all-time" list should showcase work that truly is "al-time."

I think it depends on a couple of factors.

From a purely literary perspective, I agree with you. A great story that holds up should continue to hold up and get exposure.

From a standpoint of website viability, it's not a good idea to have visitors come back repeatedly and see the same stories year after year. It's costing the site readership whether they know it or not.

And lastly, my experience is that some of the older stories that are ranked highly are not legitimate scores. That's not an indictment of all of the older stories by any means, but the cheating by a few authors is rampant and deprives readers of seeing new stories. A graceful exit of older stories from the toplist would go a long way toward reducing cheating, or at least the long-term impacts of cheating. It's an unfortunate compromise that is necessary because a small number of authors are jerks.

 

[humannature]

After my long monologues, I should also step back and note that this is a fantastic site overall. It's a great way to write stories and have people actually read them and give you feedback. My suggestions are merely proposing a way to make it even better.

 

[TxRad]

That "Cluster of low scores" is not the author exactly but the fans or a group of fans. Also the same thing is happening on the favorite authors and stories lists so they won't help you any either.

How does an author who hasn't posted a story in 7 years stay in the top 10 of the favorites list?

 

[humannature]

That "Cluster of low scores" is not the author exactly but the fans or a group of fans. Also the same thing is happening on the favorite authors and stories lists so they won't help you any either.

How does an author who hasn't posted a story in 7 years stay in the top 10 of the favorites list?

That's a good point, and I don't know enough about those dynamics. I would trust your observations if you've seen it.

Your last point is something that got me started on this whole thing. After seeing some very suspicious things a few years back, I started tracking the scores of a particular author who is still visiting the site (based on bulletin board activity) but hasn't posted a story in years. His stories consistently rise in score - many, many stories - even when they're not on a top list. How does a story that's not on a top list get enough votes every month, and enough votes that are consistently higher than the story's ten-year average, to consistently increase its score? And this happens with a very large number of that author's stories.

Since I'm a stats guy, I also set and tracked a control group of other authors who also haven't posted in years and had stories with similar scores. Their stories behaved exactly as expected - they'd stabilized in scores so some went up a little and some went down a little, but they overall remained about the same. In contrast, this one particular author sees increases - and often large increases - consistently in those same types of stories. In his case it can't be fans because he hasn't posted new material in years, and his stories' scores are rising broadly across numerous categories. There's a zero percent chance that he's not using an automated system to cast fake votes.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The first chapter is the most accurate score. Subsequent chapters' scores are artificially inflated. Let's rank stories according to their most accurate score.

I disagree. The first chapter score and the stand-alone story score have the same fundamental flaw in common - you have zero idea how many views are actually reads right through, so the rating is floating over an undefined base (but at least they have that in common), and is therefore not "accurate" at all.

You could argue that the episodic chapter stories are closer to having a more "accurate" score simply because you can reasonably assume that views is roughly equivalent to complete reads, thus you have a firm foundation for the scoring system.

This assumes a score can be accurate and meaningful - I think maybe it can within a single writer's body of work, as an assessment of that writer's relative quality; but as a comparison of my stuff with the next writer's content? Of no use at all - different categories, different readers, nothing is apples and apples.

 

[RejectReality]

Splitting the new stories list is a fair point. It should probably be one list for one-shots and chapter 1s, and a second for continuing serials. There's already tabbed navigation on the comments/popular lists on the hubs page. So the technology is there to have a tab to separate these stories as well.

Would be a great boon to some categories where large numbers of stories are posted every day — especially for people who post one-shots in those categories.

Knowing what's a chapter is a stickier wicket. That really requires all the new code that's being designed to do exactly what we're talking about here, cleaning up the toplists. The automated code to detect serials worked quite well, but it still had flaws. ( Prior to the new infrastructure buggering it ) That's what's being worked out behind the scenes, I'm sure — as well as author controls for same.

 

[SimonDoom]

My suggestions are merely proposing a way to make it even better.

This site has many peculiarities, and a host of things that people would like to fix. Many times, though, the fix might be worse than the problem. I think that's true generally about any fix that involves a restriction on what people can do, such as banning anonymous posting, or your suggestion about capping many chaptered stories. People like reading long stories -- why deprive them of that ability? You deprive the site of something that makes it attractive to people. Tefler has a big fan base for his 100+ chapter series. If the site got rid of chapters 21+, he'd leave the site, and so would his readers. There's no sense in that.

The other point you have to consider when you think site functions is that readers matter more than authors. From the site's standpoint it would be foolish to do something that is more "fair" to the authors while depriving readers of functions and features they want.

To TxRad's question, why authors stay on favorites lists, it's because popular stories continue to pick up views and favorites at a healthy clip, and their authors continue to pick up followers even if the authors aren't active.

 

[ttvttp]

That's fair. But out of curiosity, why? To me, it's a sign that the author is disorganized and/or doesn't have a plan for the plot.

I would much rather a really long story than a very short one.

 

[SimonDoom]

T It's costing the site readership whether they know it or not.

.

I think you have to be careful about making assumptions like this. Not just you, but me too, and everyone. I don't think you really know whether this is true or not. It might be. But my guess is it's not.

The site does refresh. There are view and score toplists for all time, for one year, and for one month. I personally like knowing there's an all-time list, though I dislike the prevalence of chapters on it. That list would have less value to me, not more, if it removed old stories.

I think the right solution is to have separate lists for chapters. This would be the way to be fair to authors and provide the most helpful information to readers.