What does targeted, sweep-evading, story vandalism look like?

[pink_silk_glove]

More pragmatically, if you think about it, do some basic figuring, a one-vote had a far greater impact on a score than a five-vote. The effects of Ones build up gradually before the score rises, Ones almost immediately drop it.

That's only because the scores here are overinflated. If the average score was 3, a 5 would have the same impact as a 1 for many stories. An outlying vote (a 1 or 5) has more pull the farther away the score is from the vote. So a 1 has far more sway over a 4.5 score than a 5 does, but a 5 has far more sway over a 1.5 score than a 1 does. Since the average score on lit is so high (approx 4.4) 1s appear to 'do damage' to pretty much any story.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

That's only because the scores here are overinflated. If the average score was 3, a 5 would have the same impact as a 1 for many stories. An outlying vote (a 1 or 5) has more pull the farther away the score is from the vote. So a 1 has far more sway over a 4.5 score than a 5 does, but a 5 has far more sway over a 1.5 score than a 1 does. Since the average score on lit is so high (approx 4.4) 1s appear to 'do damage' to pretty much any story.

The average score is 4.4 out of 5, but people are leaving in droves because of low scores? Did I get that right?

And the only way to know you are getting 1 bombed is to obsessively refresh your screen every few minutes so you can catch the votes as they come in in real time and add them to your spreadsheet to track your victimhood.

Yeah, that's perfectly normal healthy behavior. I'm sure hundreds of authors on Lit are doing just that then quitting the site in disgust at the unfairness of it all.

 

[Gamblnluck]

you are sitting there, refreshing (I guess) your screen and taking furious notes over and over? I just want to make sure I'm getting this right. You've not found a way to download the actual data - you are getting the same average score I get, just saving it every few seconds?

And apparently sitting there at 0200 when the stories are released.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

OK - this is willful ‘misunderstanding’ now. I said kiddy porn is an abomination. Maybe you disagree.

No, I don't disagree.

I was using the terminology in reference to those writers who complain about their stories with underage characters getting rejected. Another abhorrent example would be non-con rejections.

 

[Comshaw]

I have no skin in this game. EM cares about ratings. PSG does not. That should have ended here. Yet we have a large number of attacks and defense of each poster.

If it should have ended there, and you don't like where it went, why chime in? You could have "moved on" and ignored the whole deal. Yet you didn't. Hmmmmm...

If I tell you that the sky is green or that gravity does not exist, you don't have to argue with me. Just move on. If you tell me I am wrong, you give power to my statement. Which is the opposite of what you intended.

So we should allow patently false information to proliferate without opposition? We should just keep our mouths shut and allow those who would mislead others to do so? You do understand that's how people, countries and societies get into trouble, don't you? I think a bit more reading on the subject would help you understand the dangers inherent in that position.

Helping each other means that if you make a dumb statement and I don't agree with it, I move on.

Fabulous! That's your right. I see it another way. See my post about for that. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? It's a no to both of those. I ain't a gunna tell you you are wrong. You're not. But neither am I. I expect to receive what I give.

I am here to write, not to discuss politics. I am off social medias for a reason. Too easy for cowards and idiots to spit out craps.
I thought the AH would help me with my writing. I have learned that it will just make me even more pessimistic about the human race.

So write and don't discuss politics, or anything else you don't want to discuss. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you post. BUUUUT if you do, expect to engage in, at a minimum, a conversation. The AH can help you. There are a lot of very good writers here. But it isn't like a school class where you get things spoon fed to you. You need to dig for the nuggets. If you can't pick the gems out of the detritus, perhaps you are in the wrong place.


Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

"I'm not going to get myself involved in the mudfight that is going on here..."

WHAT??? You're going to sit on the fence eating popcorn and watch the rest of us wallowing in the mud? Really? Really, really?? That's, that's, that's so, so mature! We can't have mature! It makes the rest of us look like what we are! No fair!!!


Comshaw

 

[WittyUserName]

WHAT??? You're going to sit on the fence eating popcorn and watch the rest of us wallowing in the mud? Really? Really, really?? That's, that's, that's so, so mature! We can't have mature! It makes the rest of us look like what we are! No fair!!!


Comshaw

I'll bring the beer.

 

[OddLove]

GUYS!!! My latest story was 5.0 with 4 votes, now it's 4.2 with 5 votes. That means I got 1-star bombed by a malicious vandal. I'm a victim of trolling cause my story would never deserve anything less than a 4-star. It's a damn near masterpiece.

I'm angy

 

[MillieDynamite]

Relax, it may get better. Then again, maybe it'll get worse. Who F'ing knows? Either way, it's not the end of the world. I know, because my cat, Cat, refuses to even associate with a dog, much less live with one.

GUYS!!! My latest story was 5.0 with 4 votes, now it's 4.2 with 5 votes. That means I got 1-star bombed by a malicious vandal. I'm a victim of trolling cause my story would never deserve anything less than a 4-star. It's a damn near masterpiece.

I'm angy

 

[SkyBubble]

Except that you're not ignoring me. You're talking shit about me without actually naming me, even when I call you on it. You could not be acting more cowardly.

You're sounding a little paranoid. I've found Emily to be one of the best posters here.

 

[SkyBubble]

I make no excuses for any of the issues that authors face here.

I was imply pointing out that there is more than one reason why they choose to seek alternative sites, beyond ratings being screwed up.

Ratings are one reason. Not the only one. The AI problem is another. And there are other reasons.

The problem is that nobody seems to be addressing these issues.

 

[Comshaw]

I'll bring the beer.

I'll have a Rainier...

Comshaw

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Ratings are one reason. Not the only one. The AI problem is another. And there are other reasons.

The problem is that nobody seems to be addressing these issues.

I believe that there is an inherent tendency by many to automatically point their finger away from themself.

Not intending to discount issues beyond a writer's own control (such as 1-bombs), but if the content of a story is causing a rejection, I don't view those as something that the site needs to address beyond the guidelines already in place.

 

[SkyBubble]

Ratings vandalism is a problem. Laurel and Manu don't seem to see it as one.

False AI positives are a problem. Laurel and Manu don't seem to see it as one.

The site is attracting new authors, which is good, but if they took some measures to address these issues, we wouldn't lose as many authors, which would be even better.

 

[Comshaw]

Ratings are one reason. Not the only one. The AI problem is another. And there are other reasons.

The problem is that nobody seems to be addressing these issues.

Perhaps you should go back and read some of the prior posts. People have addressed the issues you mentioned to the best of their ability. The problem is that the site is the ONLY ONE that has the power to change or correct them, and it hasn't. What is it you would have everyone do that has not already been done?

Comshaw

 

[SkyBubble]

Exactly my point.

 

[Comshaw]

I believe that there is an inherent tendency by many to automatically point their finger away from themself.

Not intending to discount issues beyond a writer's own control (such as 1-bombs), but if the content of a story is causing a rejection, I don't view those as something that the site needs to address beyond the guidelines already in place.

I suspect (with no real evidence) that many of the rejections for AI are caused by programs like Grammarly. If a person follows every suggestion Grammarly makes, it mutes or eliminates the author's distinct voice. The product ends up reading like AI-generated text.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Exactly my point.

Which is?

Comshaw

 

[Bazzle]

Ratings vandalism is a problem. Laurel and Manu don't seem to see it as one.

False AI positives are a problem. Laurel and Manu don't seem to see it as one.

The site is attracting new authors, which is good, but if they took some measures to address these issues, we wouldn't lose as many authors, which would be even better.

It's a % game?

How many stories are published a day?

How many million clicks on all the stories a day?

How many authors are on the forums?

How many genuine Ai stories are rejected a day?

How many genuine authors in the forums are accidentally rejected a day?

How many vibrators have they sold a day?

How many cam girls have been clicked on a day?

The % of each and the money made from the bottom two are the KPI for the site?

 

[SimonDoom]

Ratings vandalism is a problem. Laurel and Manu don't seem to see it as one.

Objectively speaking, how is it a problem? How is it vandalism?

If people are upset to see their scores decline because of malicious voting, OK. I get that. It doesn't bother me much, but if it bothers you I can't tell you not to be bothered by it.

But I can say: it's not objectively a problem. There's no evidence that the site is less successful for it. There's no evidence it's losing readers. It pisses off some authors, but my guess is the majority --including me-- don't care, much or at all.

Is there a significant outflow of disgruntled authors because of this? Not that I can see. Not to the degree that will have an iota of impact on the success of the site.

The site has a lasseiz-faire, open borders attitude toward letting readers come here and vote. It may not be what you want, but it's not objectively wrong or unjust. It is what it is. I personally like it that way. I wouldn't want the site to place any additional restrictions on the ability of readers to vote.

 

[Trionyx]

I'll have Rainier

Brings back memories.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I suspect (with no real evidence) that many of the rejections for AI are caused by programs like Grammarly. If a person follows every suggestion Grammarly makes, it mutes or eliminates the author's distinct voice. The product ends up reading like AI-generated text.

Comshaw

It isn't the use of AI tools such as Grammarly that is the issue. It is how they are used.

Using them to identify a mistake is perfectly fine. Using them to correct a mistake is not fine.

Manually acting upon the identified mistakes is what typically passes. No guarantees on anything else.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

But I can say: it's not objectively a problem. There's no evidence that the site is less successful for it. There's no evidence it's losing readers. It pisses off some authors, but my guess is the majority --including me-- don't care, much or at all.

I can sympathize with those that feel that they are the "target" of bad actors without accepting that there is a systemic problem or a conspiracy looming out there.

I write my stories, deal with anything that I need to do on my end to get them published, and ignore that which is out of my control.

Happy life.

 

[SimonDoom]

I can sympathize with those that feel that they are the "target" of bad actors without accepting that there is a systemic problem or a conspiracy looming out there.

I write my stories, deal with anything that I need to do on my end to get them published, and ignore that which is out of my control.

Happy life.

Of course. It sucks. I've been downvoted. Nobody likes it. We're all human.

But, as you say, the sensible thing is to focus on what you can control rather than to engage in endless bashing of the site for something that is, objectively, not a major problem, and not something that the site is going to fix for the sake of your feelings.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I can sympathize with those that feel that they are the "target" of bad actors

It’s not a feeling. It’s hard data. And it’s not just me. Though - unsurprisingly given the behavior on this thread - few want to talk about it in public. I don’t think anyone’s interests are served by taking an ostrich-like approach to the problem. But YMMV.