A top list scores tampering theory

[AwkwardlySet]

We've discussed this phenomenon here at length, but after observing it for a while, I am pretty sure it's a script that does the downvoting rather than an actual person.

In the last half a year or so, I've had three separate stories of mine reach the #1 spot in the Hall of Fame all-time list (in Lesbian and in Fetish). That's not really something I'm boasting about, not in these times when there's such obvious and widespread tampering. I am mentioning it because it gave me an opportunity to observe the way the inevitable downvoting that followed works.

Every single time, within a day or two or three, the story of mine that was in the #1 spot would receive batches of 2-3 votes, a likely mix of 1* 2* and 3*, that would make it fall down the list. But that's not the interesting part. Even if two out of three of my #1 stories were chapters 3 and 4, respectively, there was no downvoting on the previous chapters. Each time, ONLY the top spot story was targeted.

That tells me that the downvoting likely isn't done by someone who hates me and wants to harm my stories. Why not downvote the rest of my stories, or at least the rest of the series?

What also indicates that it's just an automated script is that:

1. The downvoting continues for the following couple of days, even when the "offending" story is already completely off the whole top list, let alone the #1 spot. To lose the placement in the top lists, a decrease of score by 0.02 is often more than enough, yet after several days of action, my offending story loses as much as 0.2 before settling on a score.

I want to emphasize that the top lists refresh more often than they used to, a couple of times per day, from what I've seen, so there is no logic to the continued assault.

2. Some of the other stories that share the couple of top spots remain unaffected by the script, even if they don't have many votes, and thus, there's no buffer to protect them.


It's a script for sure. I theorized previously that the systemic downvoting in all the categories is done by the site itself, and I'm sticking to it, but there are other players out there, too.

Geez, this is beginning to resemble hybrid warfare.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not technologically aware enough to have an opinion on this issue, but I'm curious, if it is a script, is it possible to defeat it? What if the site installed a filter to ensure that the voter is human, like a captcha system? Would that prevent the use of a script to downvote?

It seems logical that there's some element of automation involved in the downvoting, if for no other reason than that it would take so much effort for a person to do this so relentlessly, every day, all the time. That's a seriously messed up person, if it's a person.

 

[RejectReality]

I've got several that keep yo-yoing from sweeps popping them back up, and I've seen no evidence of anything beyond the first swarm of downvotes. If you keep getting bombed, then you've got a personal troll.

The toplists are being manipulated the way they've always been manipulated, by the hordes of white knight fanboys giggling as they throw poo at whoever isn't their favorite. The difference is the absence of the large sample, deep-cutting sweeps that used to keep it in check. ( Monthly contest sweeps )

 

[Rob_Royale]

If it is a script, it's being monitored and modified as it's a bit choosy. In another category from the OPs, I have a story that routinely climbs into the top five and then gets smacked down. However, a new story from a new writer popped up in April and sits atop the the list very comfortably since it got the requisite votes. Well over a month. I haven't read it yet, but I shall. I'm sure it's very good.

 

[caleb35]

We've discussed this phenomenon here at length, but after observing it for a while, I am pretty sure it's a script that does the downvoting rather than an actual person.

In the last half a year or so, I've had three separate stories of mine reach the #1 spot in the Hall of Fame all-time list (in Lesbian and in Fetish). That's not really something I'm boasting about, not in these times when there's such obvious and widespread tampering. I am mentioning it because it gave me an opportunity to observe the way the inevitable downvoting that followed works.

Every single time, within a day or two or three, the story of mine that was in the #1 spot would receive batches of 2-3 votes, a likely mix of 1* 2* and 3*, that would make it fall down the list. But that's not the interesting part. Even if two out of three of my #1 stories were chapters 3 and 4, respectively, there was no downvoting on the previous chapters. Each time, ONLY the top spot story was targeted.

That tells me that the downvoting likely isn't done by someone who hates me and wants to harm my stories. Why not downvote the rest of my stories, or at least the rest of the series?

What also indicates that it's just an automated script is that:

1. The downvoting continues for the following couple of days, even when the "offending" story is already completely off the whole top list, let alone the #1 spot. To lose the placement in the top lists, a decrease of score by 0.02 is often more than enough, yet after several days of action, my offending story loses as much as 0.2 before settling on a score.

I want to emphasize that the top lists refresh more often than they used to, a couple of times per day, from what I've seen, so there is no logic to the continued assault.

2. Some of the other stories that share the couple of top spots remain unaffected by the script, even if they don't have many votes, and thus, there's no buffer to protect them.


It's a script for sure. I theorized previously that the systemic downvoting in all the categories is done by the site itself, and I'm sticking to it, but there are other players out there, too.

Geez, this is beginning to resemble hybrid warfare.

I believe you but is there anyway to prove this? Also, I believe it's a combination of things -- automated attacks on top stories, as you've outlined, but there are also individual downvoters who downvote either based on on personal attacks or to see other stories slide down top lists (maybe to make their own stories stand higher, who knows). My most recent story got some of the most positive feedback I've ever received, from multiple people, but it sits at 4.47 because it also got four individual 1-stars.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm not technologically aware enough to have an opinion on this issue, but I'm curious, if it is a script, is it possible to defeat it? What if the site installed a filter to ensure that the voter is human, like a captcha system? Would that prevent the use of a script to downvote?

It would certainly help. As far as I know, captcha is a solid, if not perfect, way of dealing with bots.

It seems logical that there's some element of automation involved in the downvoting, if for no other reason than that it would take so much effort for a person to do this so relentlessly, every day, all the time. That's a seriously messed up person, if it's a person.

There is a person(s) behind the script, of course. I just think that the actual vote-casting and target selection is done automatically.

If it is a script, it's being monitored and modified as it's a bit choosy. In another category from the OPs, I have a story that routinely climbs into the top five and then gets smacked down. However, a new story from a new writer popped up in April and sits atop the the list very comfortably since it got the requisite votes. Well over a month. I haven't read it yet, but I shall. I'm sure it's very good.

That mirrors what I observed. But as I said, I would separate this automated or semiautomated and selective top list tampering from the massive overall reduction of scores across all categories in the last year or two.

I might be wrong about the automation of the former, but what I've seen suggests the use of a script.

I believe you but is there anyway to prove this? Also, I believe it's a combination of things -- automated attacks on top stories, as you've outlined, but there are also individual downvoters who downvote either based on on personal attacks or to see other stories slide down top lists (maybe to make their own stories stand higher, who knows). My most recent story got some of the most positive feedback I've ever received, from multiple people, but it sits at 4.47 because it also got four individual 1-stars.

There are obviously some dedicated, personal trolls, always. Three years ago, I suffered the prolonged and vicious attention of one of them. It was very frustrating and disheartening.

I didn't mention them here because they are a known and understandable quantity, but we all know they are out there. My intention was to talk about the larger-scale score tampering, and that's why I only mentioned the other two types I noticed.

Is it possible to prove any of this? Of course, but not for any of us. Only those who have access to the data - the website admins- could properly investigate this phenomenon. But if it is as I suspect, if they are the ones behind the truly large-scale score reduction, then why would they? And these other forms of tampering that affect us are probably beneath their attention and care.

 

[SimonDoom]

Is it possible to prove any of this? Of course, but not for any of us. Only those who have access to the data - the website admins- could properly investigate this phenomenon. But if it is as I suspect, if they are the ones behind the truly large-scale score reduction, then why would they? And these other forms of tampering that affect us are probably beneath their attention and care.

I'm curious about this theory. I'm skeptical, but I confess upfront that I lack the technological know-how to do anything but speculate. Why would the site do this? What exactly do you think they're doing?

I can't see why the site would be motivated to do this. It seems like an unnecessary effort for two people whose abilities to run the site are quite obviously already stretched to the max. It obviously creates a lot of distress among authors, so it seems like it would subvert what they want to accomplish, which is a successful site.

Why would they do this AND also have a sweep system that is intended to get rid of "fake" votes?

It's obvious to me, even if it wasn't a few years ago, that something weird and deliberate is happening. I don't know what, and I don't know how. It makes sense to me that the site owners, either because of a lack of capacity or a lack of motivation, might not be doing everything they could be doing to prevent the problem, but I can't see how they would be motivated to cause it.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I had the same thing happen to a story, it didn't make #1 but was in the top 20s in the category (romance). Every day it picked up a pair of 2s (or possibly a 1 and 3) it until it dropped off the all time list. Then it stopped.
I just figure someone is "curating" the lists.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I had the same thing happen to a story, it didn't make #1 but was in the top 20s in the category (romance). Every day it picked up a pair of 2s (or possibly a 1 and 3) it until it dropped off the all time list. Then it stopped.
I just figure someone is "curating" the lists.

Sounds familiar. And I believe it's all done automatically.

If I were trying to achieve something like this, I'd make an exclusion list of authors whom I would want to keep in the top list, and then make my script downvote everyone else, as long as they are on the list. It's a simple and efficient way that aligns with the top list behavior I have witnessed.

I'm curious about this theory. I'm skeptical, but I confess upfront that I lack the technological know-how to do anything but speculate. Why would the site do this? What exactly do you think they're doing?

I can't see why the site would be motivated to do this. It seems like an unnecessary effort for two people whose abilities to run the site are quite obviously already stretched to the max. It obviously creates a lot of distress among authors, so it seems like it would subvert what they want to accomplish, which is a successful site.

Why would they do this AND also have a sweep system that is intended to get rid of "fake" votes?

It's obvious to me, even if it wasn't a few years ago, that something weird and deliberate is happening. I don't know what, and I don't know how. It makes sense to me that the site owners, either because of a lack of capacity or a lack of motivation, might not be doing everything they could be doing to prevent the problem, but I can't see how they would be motivated to cause it.

You ask the right questions, of course. "Why" is the big mystery, and while I did speculate on the benefits of reducing the scores in the toplists, I admit it's all speculation. The "why" with Lit itself as a culprit is shaky, but the "why" for anyone else has even less sense.

But it's really the "how" that made me form my theory. For anyone else, it would take a significant effort to achieve what we have seen. Bots that would need to constantly change IPs so they can cast vote after vote, and on such a large scale, even.

Yet for the Literotica admins - who have direct administrator access to Lit's database - it's a question of investing ten minutes or so to write the SQL query, and then a matter of clicking and starting it periodically to slowly lower the to list scores.

It's all speculation, obviously, but I also think it's the guess that makes the most sense so far.

 

[Bazzle]

My humble opinion is that there is someone with a illness on the spectrum that likes the list as is.

So maintains it.

 

[liliput1]

I had the same thing happen to a story, it didn't make #1 but was in the top 20s in the category (romance). Every day it picked up a pair of 2s (or possibly a 1 and 3) it until it dropped off the all time list. Then it stopped.
I just figure someone is "curating" the lists.

It'd be interesting to see which stories don't get downvoted. Are they trying to make sure #18 doesn't drop of the list by pushing other people down like a crab in a pot?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

My humble opinion is that there is someone with a illness on the spectrum that likes the list as is.

So maintains it.

I see no reason to disagree. It makes more sense than the site being part of some grand conspiracy.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It'd be interesting to see which stories don't get downvoted. Are they trying to make sure #18 doesn't drop of the list by pushing other people down like a crab in a pot?

Someone decided that the list as of May 18 2016 was PERFECT and must not be changed!

Jokes aside, it would be interesting to track that.

 

[liliput1]

What's weird to me is that I generally agree with the top 20 list in LS but for E/V I've never ever agreed with more than half and I now less than a third. I would have said that was my wheelhouse. So I don't know if my tastes skew wide of one and not the other or if the fuckery is targeted.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What's weird to me is that I generally agree with the top 20 list in LS but for E/V I've never ever agreed with more than half and I now less than a third. I would have said that was my wheelhouse. So I don't know if my tastes skew wide of one and not the other or if the fuckery is targeted.

That would be an interesting avenue of research. Is there a commonality amongst the stories that are "allowed" to remain on the top list?
Does this person think only stories meeting certain criteria belong?

 

[SimonDoom]

You ask the right questions, of course. "Why" is the big mystery, and while I did speculate on the benefits of reducing the scores in the toplists, I admit it's all speculation. The "why" with Lit itself as a culprit is shaky, but the "why" for anyone else has even less sense.

But it's really the "how" that made me form my theory. For anyone else, it would take a significant effort to achieve what we have seen. Bots that would need to constantly change IPs so they can cast vote after vote, and on such a large scale, even.

Yet for the Literotica admins - who have direct administrator access to Lit's database - it's a question of investing ten minutes or so to write the SQL query, and then a matter of clicking and starting it periodically to slowly lower the to list scores.

It's all speculation, obviously, but I also think it's the guess that makes the most sense so far.

It seems highly improbable. If I were evaluating your criminal case as a prosecutor, I would say that you've proved that there's opportunity, but you haven't proved motive and you don't have a smoking gun. It's not enough for conviction. It's not close.

So I'm going to default to: this seems like a big stretch.

I think Reject Reality has come up with the most plausible explanation so far.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Yet for the Literotica admins - who have direct administrator access to Lit's database - it's a question of investing ten minutes or so to write the SQL query, and then a matter of clicking and starting it periodically to slowly lower the to list scores.

It's all speculation, obviously, but I also think it's the guess that makes the most sense so far.

I pondered this at one stage, when folk began talking about the 4.83 threshold thing and the hundred votes (or whatever it is, that's the line), and thought, might there be some backroom reason, and could it be the site doing the manipulation? But I'm with @SimonDoom, why would the site do that?

It's not as if large databases have quotas, or things fill up and you need to make space. Or do they? I don't know, not being a computer guy, but is there a possible technical limitation? Running out of server space? Something oddball that no-one's thought about?

I find the fucktard troll theory equally odd, why would someone bother? But then, people do weird things, so maybe.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It seems highly improbable. If I were evaluating your criminal case as a prosecutor, I would say that you've proved that there's opportunity, but you haven't proved motive and you don't have a smoking gun. It's not enough for conviction. It's not close.

So I'm going to default to: this seems like a big stretch.

I think Reject Reality has come up with the most plausible explanation so far.

I'll try to put into perspective what RR is saying.

While individual authors certainly have the incentive to tamper with their own scores or the scores of those around them in the top lists, why would they go for the scores of everyone in every top list out there? There are 20+ all-time top lists on Lit, and every single one of them exhibits the exact same behavior, same scores, same overall decrease, same pace of decrease.

Do you really think it's likely that it's just individuals doing their own small tampering that produces such incredibly uniform results over all 20+ all-time top lists?

The how is even less plausible, considering what they would need to do and over how long a period of time, slowly and consistently.

Some of the speculation here feels as if an atomic detonation happened in the Mojave Desert, and we are speculating whether it was John trying to kill a really annoying desert rat, or Gina trying to punish a peeping Tom, rather than discussing why the US government would detonate a bomb there.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I see no reason to disagree. It makes more sense than the site being part of some grand conspiracy.

See, I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. It's just the site doing what they want to do, in the exact same way that they do anything else. Without announcement, without asking for our opinions, without explanation. It fits perfectly.

While we can't make too much sense of the why, remember that we couldn't make sense of many other Lit-related things. Do you remember all the speculation about the incredible delays when publishing a story, stories falling through the cracks, all done because we couldn't make sense of it, and because the site wouldn't say anything? This looks exactly the same to me.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Nope, nope. All the other things look like we missed something in the database and we don't understand why those lists aren't updating and you're getting two or seven notifications. This thing looks like stroking a fluffy white pussy-cat and smirking over how much control you have over all the subtleties. I don't think the same people can be doing both of those.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I pondered this at one stage, when folk began talking about the 4.83 threshold thing and the hundred votes (or whatever it is, that's the line), and thought, might there be some backroom reason, and could it be the site doing the manipulation? But I'm with @SimonDoom, why would the site do that?

It's not as if large databases have quotas, or things fill up and you need to make space. Or do they? I don't know, not being a computer guy, but is there a possible technical limitation? Running out of server space? Something oddball that no-one's thought about?

I find the fucktard troll theory equally odd, why would someone bother? But then, people do weird things, so maybe.

See my answers to Simon and Kellie. I honestly don't think it's a technical reason. If it were, the decrease in scores wouldn't have been so gradual and slow. It would have happened all at once, IMO. But I could be wrong about that.

The problem with fucktard trolls isn't the "why". I mean, they are fucktards after all. It's the how, the scale of it, the uniformity of it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

See my answers to Simon and Kellie. I honestly don't think it's a technical reason. If it were, the decrease in scores wouldn't have been so gradual and slow. It would have happened all at once, IMO. But I could be wrong about that.

That was my thought, something being tried out over time.

The problem with fucktard trolls isn't the "why". I mean, they are fucktards after all. It's the how, the scale of it, the uniformity of it.

Agree that. It's something quite deliberate, that's obvious from the mechanism - reach a hundred votes, bang, score goes down to 4.83.

We can speculate all we like, but it really is a, "No-one knows."

 

[AwkwardlySet]

We can speculate all we like, but it really is a, "No-one knows."

It has been like that throughout human history. No one knows until someone figures it out.

Not me, though. I am speculating more than providing anything of substance. But it's something. Maybe someone gets an idea from all of my speculation and reasoning.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

See, I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. It's just the site doing what they want to do, in the exact same way that they do anything else. Without announcement, without asking for our opinions, without explanation. It fits perfectly.

While we can't make too much sense of the why, remember that we couldn't make sense of many other Lit-related things. Do you remember all the speculation about the incredible delays when publishing a story, stories falling through the cracks, all done because we couldn't make sense of it, and because the site wouldn't say anything? This looks exactly the same to me.

I thought most of that speculation was pretty absurd to be honest.

That said, I can see logical, rational, reasons for the delay/through the cracks phenomenon. I said then it would be nice to see them drop a short post saying "sorry about all that, here's what's going on".

I can't say the same for this. Ocham's Razor would suggest a clown with some sort of script.

I can't see any logical reason for the site to do it deliberately, and the pattern doesn't fit a bug.

 

[RejectReality]

*Sigh* It's not remotely consistent. One of mine will hit the toplist and get bombed down to the low 4.7s with 10 or 11 votes. The next will get knocked down to 4.83 on 5. The next, 4.81 with 4. The next, 4.77 on 8. The only thing that's consistent is what's been been consistent for the entire 20 years I've been here. You hit the toplist, you're inevitably going to get downvoted.

In fact, now that the toplists update more than once a day, there's a trade off. It used to be that you got more exposure from the toplist because you were on there for 24 hours, but during that time, more and more people bombed you because your score still read as in the threat zone of their darling even long after it had been bombed down. Usually the low 4.6s to high 4.5s. ( SF&F ) Now, you get far less exposure on the more frequently updating toplists, but you also don't get bombed down as far, because you're not up there reading as a threat for as long.

I've seen exactly one low vote after the story left the toplist since whenever I started tracking this one series with a bunch of chapters on the threshold last year — the first one — and that probably came from the thread here where it was being talked about specifically. Everything else, the moment it drops off the toplist, no more bombs.

Anybody who doesn't think these stories with hundreds or even thousands of votes have fanboys who are super invested in them and the author is crazy. Anyone who doesn't believe with human nature being what it is that a large enough fraction of those is actively bombing everyone not their darling is just as crazy. It doesn't take some coordinated effort or some super-intelligent script to generate the results we see. All it takes is a few handfuls of people on every toplist being naughty little devils dropping a single 1-3 on a few stories above their darling every once in a while.

That and the lack of large sample, contest-level sweeps that used to undo all their "good work" on a regular basis.