Yet another ratings thread... or is it?

[Voboy]

"Competitive Advantage?" What exactly are you talking about?

What are you competing for? In contests? Obviously in contests there would have to be a standardized rule about which voting settings are legal.

But for normal scores? I don't understand why you would care? If it bothers you so much that other authors get better scores by removing anonymous voting, then Laurel could easily remedied that by only giving you an orange H (or whatever) if you turn off anonymous voting.

Again, I'm not going to remove anonymous voting for myself, but I wouldn't mind if other people did it.

His point is that that decision might put you at a disadvantage for toplists and the HoF, plus the monthly contests. Which might matter to you, might not, but it's still a variable that's bound to matter to SOMEONE. And that makes it more complicated than it seems on its face.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Simon put his finger on the problem with allowing authors to block anonymous votes. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are all in competition for the readers' eyes. Putting a story in the Top Lists or winning a Monthly contest (if they still exist) is worth thousands of views. It would be very unfair to expect those who allow all readers to vote to have to compete with others who block certain voters.

This is a well established policy on Lit. If you block voting on a story, even temporarily, you lose your eligibility for the contests.

 

[SimonDoom]

All right, I believe you, but when was this? I mean, in that case, she already reneged on what she said as she did allow authors to disable anonymous comments. Same as all of us, Laurel can change her mind

"Competitive Advantage?" What exactly are you talking about?

Contest results.
Rankings on toplists.

I don't care much about these things, personally. But the people who profess so much concern about anonymous voting DO seem to express a great concern about things like how highly their stories rank. They're concerned that lower scores disadvantage them because their stories will get fewer readers. If you care about these things, then you should care whether the voting systems are fair (as opposed to simply working for you). To be fair, the system should impose the same voting parameters (as opposed to comment parameters, which is something completely different) on everyone. You can't compare pool A (authors who've turned off anonymous voting) with pool B (authors who've kept it on). They aren't subject to the same voting pools. That's unfair.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Contest results.
Rankings on toplists.

Well obviously if you block votes, it should put you out of the running for Hall of Fame and contests, including monthly contests.

As far as Top lists go, yeah, either create 2 lists or restrict people who don't allow anon votes

I guess I forget about those things because I don't write the types of stories that get placed on those lists.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Those are all fair points, but you have to acknowledge that the present system is also hardly fair in certain ways. As we've said a million times already, ratings being shifted towards such high values gives a 1* or even 2* or 3* vote a powerful impact, so if someone wants to sabotage your scores and your visibility it is easy enough to do it, and anonymity just gives extra protection and possibilities. I mean, certainly, there are pros and cons to all of this, but the system will never be fair to everyone and in every way. My mindset is always towards giving authors a choice. Also, anonymous voting doesn't mean one will automatically get a higher score as getting fewer votes makes you much more vulnerable to random 1* or 2* votes.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

To be fair, the system should impose the same voting parameters (as opposed to comment parameters, which is something completely different) on everyone. You can't compare pool A (authors who've turned off anonymous voting) with pool B (authors who've kept it on). They aren't subject to the same voting pools. That's unfair.

Yes, but short stories being ranked in the same pool as long stories and chaptered stories is also quite unfair. Nothing about the current system is screaming fairness to me, to be honest. My suggestion was simply about protecting your story from malicious anonymous attacks. Would it get misused in some way? Probably, but hey, that is just human nature at work and not this idea being wrong by itself.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Those are all fair points, but you have to acknowledge that the present system is also hardly fair in certain ways. As we've said a million times already, ratings being shifted towards such high values gives a 1* or even 2* or 3* vote a powerful impact, so if someone wants to sabotage your scores and your visibility it is easy enough to do it, and anonymity just gives extra protection and possibilities. I mean, certainly, there are pros and cons to all of this, but the system will never be fair to everyone and in every way. My mindset is always towards giving authors a choice. Also, anonymous voting doesn't mean one will automatically get a higher score as getting fewer votes makes you much more vulnerable to random 1* or 2* votes.

I agree that there will never be a system that is totally fair to everyone. But an absolute prerequisite for fairness is a level playing field.

 

[Mastered_again]

Problem solved

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I agree that there will never be a system that is totally fair to everyone. But an absolute prerequisite for fairness is a level playing field.

Absolutely agree. That is not the case right now.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Absolutely agree. That is not the case right now.

Are you saying that the playing field isn't level now, but allowing authors to remove anon comments WOULD make it level? (or more level?)

I've been with you until now, AS... But you lost me with that one.

Allowing an author to remove anonymous voting wouldn't level anything

 

[EmilyMiller]

Yet another ratings thread... or is it?​

Hey,

Sorry to hear. First I knew of this was your thread.



Your little nerd

Em

 

[KeithD]

Your readers are no better educated than they were yesterday, I'm afraid.

I think that (and the OP) is a little harsh on the readers. There's no requirement here for the readers to vote or comment on a story just because that's what authors would like to happen.

In fact, authors would be a lot happier posting stories here if they worried less about ratings and top lists.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I would argue that it is, in that, other than the actual voting, every factor that handicaps an author's ability to achieve a high score is one that the author can control.

It's our choice what category to post in, whether to write long or short, to publish as a series or a stand alone, etc.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Are you saying that the playing field isn't level now, but allowing authors to remove anon comments WOULD make it level? (or more level?)

I've been with you until now, AS... But you lost me with that one.

Allowing an author to remove anonymous voting wouldn't level anything

No, I am saying that the playing field isn't level right now, and that is completely unrelated to the anonymous voting. The reason why I suggested that anonymous voting should be made optional is because then authors would be able to protect themselves from a good deal of malicious attacks, not because it would make the scoring and ranking system more or less fair. Bombing campaigns are something that can drag down your stories very quickly and make them practically invisible to readers. They expressed some concern about that option being misused to make scores more unfair and I have simply pointed out that the scoring system is already pretty fucked up in my opinion. Whether the option to turn off anonymous voting would impact fairness in any major way remains a contested point, I guess.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I would argue that it is, in that, other than the actual voting, every factor that handicaps an author's ability to achieve a high score is one that the author can control.

It's our choice what category to post in, whether to write long or short, to publish as a series or a stand alone, etc.

But not if we let anonymous people vote?

 

[NoTalentHack]

Wanna know the kill move to stop (singular) trolls from fucking with your scores?

Write in LW.

View attachment 2264168

Yeah, the score isn't that high, but nobody has the time to drag it down. Look how many votes that thing has. I have it on good authority that other categories don't get that many votes. Lol

This right here. My two most-rated stories are at about 6500 ratings, both in LW. My LW story with the fewest is still at almost 600, and I explicitly said "this is a cuckold story." That is higher than all but two of my non-LW stories, both in Romance.

LW readers vote A LOT.

ETA: Missed A Very Long Engagement, my sole Incest story, at 1K votes and Longings From the Past (Mature) at 1.4K. That's still lower than almost every other LW story I have AND LFtP had a prequel posted in LW that I know pushed viewers to it.

 

[djrip]

This right here. My two most-rated stories are at about 6500 ratings, both in LW. My LW story with the fewest is still at almost 600, and I explicitly said "this is a cuckold story." That is higher than all but two of my non-LW stories, both in Romance.

LW readers vote A LOT.

And I thought incest got a lot of votes...

 

[NoTalentHack]

So I don't particularly care about ratings--I mean, not as anything except a rough metric--but I will say this about Stacnash: they got banned from the forums, as did a very obvious alt of Tilan's, about the same time Tilan's main account went radio-silent. I'm not privy to the system, but given that I had accused Stacnash of being a sockpuppet meant to stir up shit, and the blessed silence of the last couple of weeks... well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Clearly the mods did.

 

[NoTalentHack]

And I thought incest got a lot of votes...

My sole incest story and also one of my oldest, got 1K. I missed that when I was looking for how many votes each story got; there's no "sort by number of votes" on the dashboard. So it gets a lot, but still not as many as LW. The incest story (A Very Long Engagement) got published in early January of this year. My most recent LW story, Also-Ran, went up on the 18th of this month; that one has 2.7K ratings.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Hey,

Sorry to hear. First I knew of this was your thread.



Your little nerd

Em

Thanks I am trying to use it to do something good about my writing motivation. I hope it works out, but even if it doesn't, there is nothing to lose.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I will say that my chronic insomnia as well as my ADHD nature and my always-online job has made it easy for me to watch ratings on the dashboard while I'm waiting for comments to roll in, and because I'm active in LW, I see a LOT of votes come in over the course of the first few 12 or so hours. And I know that every single one of my stories, regardless of category, follows this rough pattern:

Post at 1 AM Central
Initial votes take it to (usually 4.5-5 range), usually around 20 votes in LW
Sudden incursion of 1-bombs at exactly either 5 or 6 AM
Climbing again
Second incursion the next morning at about the same time

Someone's running a bot or bots, and they're running them badly.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

No, I am saying that the playing field isn't level right now, and that is completely unrelated to the anonymous voting. The reason why I suggested that anonymous voting should be made optional is because then authors would be able to protect themselves from a good deal of malicious attacks, not because it would make the scoring and ranking system more or less fair. Bombing campaigns are something that can drag down your stories very quickly and make them practically invisible to readers. They expressed some concern about that option being misused to make scores more unfair and I have simply pointed out that the scoring system is already pretty fucked up in my opinion. Whether the option to turn off anonymous voting would impact fairness in any major way remains a contested point, I guess.

"Practically invisible to viewers"?

Yeah, like every other story on the site?

I'm sympathetic to your plight of getting bombed. That's sucks, and is really messed up.

But you can cry me a fucking river with that "invisible to viewers" shit. Sorry not sorry.

Love ya, though

 

[djrip]

I will say that my chronic insomnia as well as my ADHD nature and my always-online job has made it easy for me to watch ratings on the dashboard while I'm waiting for comments to roll in, and because I'm active in LW, I see a LOT of votes come in over the course of the first few 12 or so hours. And I know that every single one of my stories, regardless of category, follows this rough pattern:

Post at 1 AM Central
Initial votes take it to (usually 4.5-5 range), usually around 20 votes in LW
Sudden incursion of 1-bombs at exactly either 5 or 6 AM
Climbing again
Second incursion the next morning at about the same time

Someone's running a bot or bots, and they're running them badly.

Sounds kinda like the batch- processed comments. I don't suppose there's a wait time for ratings, all the anons coming in at certain times? But that wouldn't make as much sense, ratings can't be checked for spam and offensive content like comments.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes, but short stories being ranked in the same pool as long stories and chaptered stories is also quite unfair. Nothing about the current system is screaming fairness to me, to be honest. My suggestion was simply about protecting your story from malicious anonymous attacks. Would it get misused in some way? Probably, but hey, that is just human nature at work and not this idea being wrong by itself.

It's not unfair in the same way. I've long been an advocate for changing the way chaptered stories are included in story rankings, and the Site has indicated that it intends to change that. The key point is that this change will not be unfair to authors AND it will not deter readers from voting OR from using the Site's lists to find stories effectively.

There's nothing obviously unfair about including long and short stories. The Site has to be practical. Too many lists and rankings just confuses things. What's a short story? What's a long story? How does one decide?

But allowing authors who've deleted all their anonymous votes to compete with authors who have not is unfair on a whole different level. The problem then is that one author group is selecting a different voting pool from the other group. That transparently makes no sense.

Regardless, isn't it obvious that this is spitting into the wind? What you propose is never going to happen. And it's not just that the Site is being capricious or dismissive. I think most authors are not on your side. They either actively disagree with you (like me) or don't care (like most, I reckon). Putting aside your own personal point of view, from the Site's point of view there's no reason to do this. It won't achieve a benefit for the Site.

 

[MelissaBaby]

But not if we let anonymous people vote?

I strongly suspect that registered members, as a group, give higher scores than anonymous voters do. So, if I allow anonymous votes and you don't, you have an advantage over me in top list rankings. Yes, you can argue that I have the choice to block anonymous, but essentially penalizing me if I refrain from doing so hardly makes the system fairer.