Every story I post gets 1 star’d

[EmilyMiller]

Most sadly, I have been assured that there have been serious attempts in past to sway contests by systematically bombing other participants showing high scores. Hopefully that doesn’t happen anymore, but the possibility exists.

It has happened in very recent history…

 

[YmaOHyd]

So, about the "lez" part of the user name...

Parents loved Les Paul.

 

[TheLobster]

People need to keep in mind that a recent thread showed the median score of a story here is around 4.4 meaning a Red H is almost the average unless you're in LW, so we need to ask, how big of a deal is the trolling if the site wide score is that high?

It is precisely because the median scores are so inflated that 1- and 2-bomb trolling is a big issue. Were the rating distribution more spread out, and the average closer to 3 like you'd expect, there would be more symmetry in terms of impact between the low scores and the high scores.

But as it stands now, because the expected score is so high (expected in the statistical sense), any rating that widely deviates from average affects the score disproportionately — and it can only affect it negatively, as the scale ends at 5.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Parents loved Les Paul.

I would mention the labrys, but I guess Les Paul also had an axe.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

As I've mentioned before. I'd like to see a more "Rotten Tomatoes" approach to voting.
Have a "registered user" score and an "anonymous voter" score, just like they have an audience score and a critic score.

 

[Erozetta]

A dozen writers suddenly all wonder if it was their story...

Lol. It wasn't a story written by anyone in the AH and if it were, they would've gotten a sternly worded PM months ago.

 

[Writer61]

As I've mentioned before. I'd like to see a more "Rotten Tomatoes" approach to voting.
Have a "registered user" score and an "anonymous voter" score, just like they have an audience score and a critic score.

Would a 'registered' user be any less likely to troll?

I support making Incel123 sign in, as long as authors can then rate his contribution, as Uber drivers rate their passengers. Then the votes of a consistently obnoxious voter/commentator could be down-weighted.

People who have not signed in should not be allowed to vote.

EDIT: Yesterday, somebody made a good point about my latest story. At about the same time, it received a 1-star rating. I don't know if he was the person who gave it, but even if he was, I would rate him highly.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

The trouble (or a trouble) with changing the voting system now is: it makes comparing 2026 stories to 2005 stories impossible, or rather meaningless.

 

[YmaOHyd]

It is precisely because the median scores are so inflated that 1- and 2-bomb trolling is a big issue. Were the rating distribution more spread out, and the average closer to 3 like you'd expect, there would be more symmetry in terms of impact between the low scores and the high scores.

But as it stands now, because the expected score is so high (expected in the statistical sense), any rating that widely deviates from average affects the score disproportionately — and it can only affect it negatively, as the scale ends at 5.

In effect, it's practically a thumbs-up/thumbs-down system, where the median score is 70% Fresh.

 

[crookedletter]

Still waiting to see the spirited discussion on why so many stories pile up the 5 star votes. It seems to be taken on faith that each of those can only be a sincere reflection of a close reader's evenhanded response.

 

[StrentWriter]

When my novel was published last year it got 1*s added almost instantly. Now removed, the score is 4.73 “hot”.

Basically, once the 1*s are dealt with, there’s nothing to worry about. It is infuriating, and I’m sorry everyone here has gone through it. Trolls are going to troll, sadly.

 

[Writer61]

Still waiting to see the spirited discussion on why so many stories pile up the 5 star votes. It seems to be taken on faith that each of those can only be a sincere reflection of a close reader's evenhanded response.

I think it is because scoring works as follows:
• 5* means the reader got to the end and liked it (who is going to give a story 5* if they did not read & like it?)
• 4* means the reader got to the end and thought it was OK (as above but a bit less)
• 3* means the reader got to the end and went 'meh'
• 2* means there was enough to keep the reader to the end, but they had a problem with something
• 1* means the 'reader' did not get to the end, or did but had a major problem with something

Almost by default, most votes are going to be 5* to 3*, with decent authors unlikely to get many 3* (my own estimate is 0.3% of all those cast).

 

[EmilyMiller]

Basically, once the 1*s are dealt with, there’s nothing to worry about. It is infuriating, and I’m sorry everyone here has gone through it. Trolls are going to troll, sadly.

Again, sweeps only remove dumb one bombs, not smart ones. Sweeps are a Band-Aid on a ruptured carotid artery. They are an acknowledgment of a problem, not a solution.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Would a 'registered' user be any less likely to troll?

I support making Incel123 sign in, as long as authors can then rate his contribution, as Uber drivers rate their passengers. Then the votes of a consistently obnoxious voter/commentator could be down-weighted.

People who have not signed in should not be allowed to vote.

EDIT: Yesterday, somebody made a good point about my latest story. At about the same time, it received a 1-star rating. I don't know if he was the person who gave it, but even if he was, I would rate him highly.

It depends on what your definition of "troll" is.
If someone doesn't like your story and chooses to give it a 1 for whatever reason, that's no less legitimate than giving it a 5, I don't consider that trolling. I realize some people here don't consider any 1 votes legitimate, but I disagree with that.
Now, if they use one of the various tricks to cast MULTIPLE one votes on a story, then they are trolling. If they are logged into an account, they can give their 1 and move on. If they are going ANON, they rate a story 1 over and over until their patience wears out. Although I suspect you could automate it if you really wanted to.

Using the system I suggest, you can ignore the Anons if you consider their votes illegitimate, but other people have access to the data. What is the down side?

 

[Writer61]

The trouble (or a trouble) with changing the voting system now is: it makes comparing 2026 stories to 2005 stories impossible, or rather meaningless.

I understand your point, but how important is it to compare current stories to those from 20 years ago vs. an improved voting system (if such is possible) that helps me improve as a writer and find stories that appeal to me?

 

[MrPixel]

How long do you reckon it'll take to attract enough readers (and voters) to produce meaningful scores?

Have no idea. Right now there is discussion about how to spread the word. I'm personally useless in that function. My entire life in the genre has been here, and I don't have a social media account anywhere. So I'm letting them hash that out.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Still waiting to see the spirited discussion on why so many stories pile up the 5 star votes. It seems to be taken on faith that each of those can only be a sincere reflection of a close reader's evenhanded response.

Yeah.... people seem to ignore the fact that the same tactics used to 1 bomb could be equally applied to 5 bombing. Not the slightest bit of concern about that for some odd reason.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The trouble (or a trouble) with changing the voting system now is: it makes comparing 2026 stories to 2005 stories impossible, or rather meaningless.

Fair point, but to what extent does that matter?
I suspect vanishingly few readers are debating between a story from 2005 and one from 2026 before they start reading. And if they are a slightly different rating system likely won't make much of a difference.
The readers don't have our same obsession with this stuff. Look how often someone wanders in asking how you get a red H.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Naive newcomer here. When I was anonymous I thought to myself, Hang on, anonymous readers can vote? Isn't that liable to abuse? Do they check IP addresses? Cookies? Then when I created this account and published a story I looked at it and thought, Hang on, it looks like I can vote on my own story. That can't be right. (I haven't and am certainly not going to.)

If I get to the voting buttons at the end, that means I liked it enough to get to the end. So I liked it, so I take the text literally: 4 is I liked it. Mostly I vote 4. If the writing was superb, made me devour it, or if I couldn't easily read it because I was crying too much, I loved it, give it a 5. I have now worked out that there are certain authors who consistently deserve a 5, but it's not automatic: I read the story to the end, dry my tears, and tell them it's a 5.

I think I once gave a 3. It was short, and it was okay but not great, and I was hesitating whether I liked it. Probably at the end they spelt CUMMING with four capital M's and that knocked a point off. I felt guilty giving a 3.

Yes there should be some automatic sweeping of obvious pattern 1's. But also we shouldn't say the only valid votes are 5 (good) and 4 (not so good). There has to be a range where 3 is the middle value. If they develop the technology so that as soon as you click into a story, arms and electrodes come out of your chair and force you to read to the end and then truthfully answer, heck, most of them would get 1's and 2's from most of us. But they don't because we don't vote unless they're good enough to keep us reading to the end.

 

[Writer61]

It depends on what your definition of "troll" is.
If someone doesn't like your story and chooses to give it a 1 for whatever reason, that's no less legitimate than giving it a 5, I don't consider that trolling. I realize some people here don't consider any 1 votes legitimate, but I disagree with that.
Now, if they use one of the various tricks to cast MULTIPLE one votes on a story, then they are trolling. If they are logged into an account, they can give your 1 and move on. If they are going ANON, they rate a story 1 over and over until their patience wears out. Although I suspect you could automate it if you really wanted to.

As I said earlier in the thread, I consider some 1* ratings to be valid criticism.

Using the system I suggest, you can ignore the Anons if you consider their votes illegitimate, but other people have access to the data. What is the down side?

I don't think 'anon' votes should be allowed at all. What is the point of my 'ignoring' a 1* rating if it affects what everyone else sees?

 

[crookedletter]

I think it is because scoring works as follows:
• 5* means the reader got to the end and liked it (who is going to give a story 5* if they did not read & like it?)
• 4* means the reader got to the end and thought it was OK (as above but a bit less)
• 3* means the reader got to the end and went 'meh'
• 2* means there was enough to keep the reader to the end, but they had a problem with something
• 1* means the 'reader' did not get to the end, or did but had a major problem with something

Almost by default, most votes are going to be 5* to 3*, with decent authors unlikely to get many 3* (my own estimate is 0.3% of all those cast).

What you're describing is how the ratings should be used. If that describes prevailing behavior then there's nothing wrong with 1 star votes: a reader should be allowed to rate a story poorly if they had a problem with it.

The equivalent to a 1 star vote as a personal malicious attack is a 5 star vote for a friend's story -- or one's own -- regardless of how one feels about the content.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

As I said earlier in the thread, I consider some 1* ratings to be valid criticism.


I don't think 'anon' votes should be allowed at all. What is the point of my 'ignoring' a 1* rating if it affects what everyone else sees?

I wasn't referring to you with regards to 1s being illegitimate, apologies for not being clearer, but several people have made comments to the effect that "if they give it a 1..." and go on to attack the voter.

As to anonymous voters... I think we have to balance what is in the best interest of the site vs what we would prefer as authors. It's a porn site, they don't want anons to feel unwelcome because that is probably the VAST majority of their clicks and views. Which translates to the revenue that keeps the lights on.

I think most people understand the difference in the Rotten Tomato's system, and would see the similarities if we used it here.

 

[StrentWriter]

Again, sweeps only remove dumb one bombs, not smart ones. Sweeps are a Band-Aid on a ruptured carotid artery. They are an acknowledgment of a problem, not a solution.

Like most things on the internet though.

It’s why I stopped posting on YouTube, left Twitter and a few other bits of social media where the problem is the people.

You can’t fix the system because you can’t stop all of the people, you just manage it as best you can.

 

[YmaOHyd]

What you're describing is how the ratings should be used. If that describes prevailing behavior then there's nothing wrong with 1 star votes: a reader should be allowed to rate a story poorly if they had a problem with it.

Yes.

The equivalent to a 1 star vote as a personal malicious attack is a 5 star vote for a friend's story -- or one's own -- regardless of how one feels about the content.

Except that given where the average story sits the equivalent to a one-star vote is six five-star ratings, no? That's also why I'm not that concerned by five-bombing.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Yeah.... people seem to ignore the fact that the same tactics used to 1 bomb could be equally applied to 5 bombing. Not the slightest bit of concern about that for some odd reason.

I've flipped and I've flopped WRT limiting votes to registered voters. Right now, my pendulum is slightly towards Yes. That would make more difficult and solutions easier for both illicit padding and malevolent bombing. The present system is nowhere close to optimum and is pretty open to mischief for which, as @EmilyMiller puts it, the sweeps are more of an acknowledgment than a cure.

I frankly don't care about being able to compare present ratings to decades-ago scores. My concern is Now, where the bombing and padding serve to steal opportunity from writers. Bombing makes it harder to get the coveted red H. (Let's not go into how floppy that is, please. It's a measure of sorts and I am certain it influences reader selection, if nothing else.) Bombing inevitably worsens the chances writers have of wining competitions, again hurting their chances of attracting readers. Bombing is theft and it's vandalism. How bad the problem is is anybody's guess.

I'm not going to castigate the site owners. If I am sufficiently annoyed, I should leave or start my own site. It appears that the site is having some problems in any case. But it would be nice if this problem was taken seriously, for both bombing and padding.