Every story I post gets 1 star’d

[crookedletter]

Except that given where the average story sits the equivalent to a one-star vote is six five-star ratings, no?

Fair. I meant in terms of its legitimacy.

 

[Britva415]

an account who only votes 1 stars, or even just 1 stars in a particular category is just trolling, and their ratings should be discarded. Even more effort can be put into it to curb rating abuse, but this seems like a very easy thing to do that wouldn't take much man-power from the site administration

The manpower trolls will (and already do) put into voting anonymously would nullify this idea entirely.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

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.

Just so and well noted, but it should not be ignored.

 

[Writer61]

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.

Fair point, but when most of the web requires a sign-in, would it really put people off?

 

[Britva415]

It's a shame literotica doesn't have a mechanism to separate anonymous comments from people who have accounts on literotica from those who do not. They wouldn't have to reveal the member's handle just something like "anonymous Literotica member"

Trivially easy to circumvent. We already can't tell the difference between someone who doesn't have an account versus someone who does but doesn't use it to post an anonymous comment.

 

[Writer61]

The manpower trolls will (and already do) put into voting anonymously would nullify this idea entirely.

But then we (or the site) would be able to see & discount them.

I would weight scores by the average given by the voter. Somebody that always votes 1 would have less impact than someone who votes 3-5 on average.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Oh, that's a good idea. The mathematics of it requires a bit of thinking out, but yes, a 1 from someone who usually votes 4 would be counted as a genuine 1.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I never understand why anyone would give a 1 rating. Seems overly nasty to me.
If you’re not enjoying a story why not just leave & read something else?
I’ve had it, though.
My latest story has had 8 votes, 7 of which have been 5’s. The one turd in the water pipe was a 1 vote I got.
Don’t think I’ve had so many 5’s before so that gives me confidence.
I imagine there’s some sad fuck with steam coming out of their ears as it hasn’t really worked out for them.

I’ve had 1’s before & decided they have no effect on me at all. A 3 is probably worse in my view as that really is a critical snub.

Just ignore it if you can but know you’re not alone

Because that's how the voting system works. Outside of a malicious vote, it's valid by design.

 

[Britva415]

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 do you make of votes which happen without reading the story at all and just skipping to the last page?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

With regards to the contests, if everyone is getting bombed, is there really an advantage?
To be honest, the problem is one of perspective. It is a big problem to a small group of people, and it isn't a problem at all to 99.99% of the people who use the site. So how seriously should they take it?
As long as the contest winners are good stories, and I don't think anyone is implying they aren't, then why should readers care that someone's story should have been third place but some malicious votes survived the sweep so it lost out. And I say this as someone who's story finished the Christmas contest .01 points behind third place, congrats to the winners and move on. Who knows if the margin of difference had anything at all to do with malicious? Maybe the story actually had MORE malicious votes that survived the sweep and actually should have won by a wider margin. We have no idea of knowing any of that, and anyone who is thinking they would have won if... is in denial.
The bottom line is it doesn't impact the user experience in the slightest for the readers.

The other issue is we don't really know how bad the problem is, assuming it's really bad in the first place.
All the hyperbole about sucking chest wounds aside, we just don't know how wide spread the problem is. Last time we had this discussion people made claims that they have "proof" of how bad it is... but they never seem to show the receipts.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Because that's how the voting system works. Outside of a malicious vote, it's valid by design.

A friend made me sit through "The Blair Witch Project".
I'd have given that shit a negative score if I could have.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What do you make of votes which happen without reading the story at all and just skipping to the last page?

Plenty of people here make comments about how, "if the author does this I nope out right there".
I'd say that rises to the level of "Hate it" and they don't need to finish the story to make that assessment. Why would they be wrong clicking to the last page and clicking 1 on their way out the door?

 

[EmilyMiller]

But it would be nice if this problem was taken seriously, for both bombing and padding.

They used to take obvious abuse more seriously. It was more or a suture than a Band-Aid, but still something. But that no longer appears to happen. Either because they are too busy fighting other alligators, or due to a change in personnel and a related dip in knowhow.

 

[EmilyMiller]

What do you make of votes which happen without reading the story at all and just skipping to the last page?

Those get swept.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

The interacial category is notorious for this - the scores there are just bad often, and there are plenty of stories I've read that deserve Hs, but don't have them because they get hit with the one-bombers. That sucks for casual authors, especially if they let the rating go to their head and quit writing because of it.

For those of us in the middle - not new authors, but with established brands but not powerhouse numbers of followers, it's usually not that hard for the score to go up. I find that when I post a story it will get one bombed close to immediately, then slowly climb its way out of the pits into H territory over the next few days as people get a chance to read it. This is especially true given my usual stuff is long.

For the well-established authors, it's not a big deal at all - if you've got 500+ followers, those one bombs will get drowned out in the accolades from your fans, and you will barely notice them.

And all of this tends to work itself out whenever there's a contest and they run a cull of all the bots - I find all my scores tend to go up when that happens. So if you wait a bit, things will probably work themselves out. I know that sucks when you're hoping that red H will help you get some followers or keep a story in the top lists for a little while, but that's the way the game seems to be played.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

They used to take obvious abuse more seriously. It was more or a suture than a Band-Aid, but still something. But that no longer appears to happen. Either because they are too busy fighting other alligators, or due to a change in personnel and a related dip in knowhow.

And back to the conspiracy theories....

 

[EmilyMiller]

So if you wait a bit, things will probably work themselves out.

At the substantial risk of being a cracked record. Yeah, if your one bombers are know nothing bozos. But if they are other authors who know the system, how to game it, and are sufficiently motivated by jealousy, hate, or unrequited love… not so much.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

But then we (or the site) would be able to see & discount them.

I would weight scores by the average given by the voter. Somebody that always votes 1 would have less impact than someone who votes 3-5 on average.

So they 5 bomb random stories and keep their powder dry for something else.

 

[Writer61]

So they 5 bomb random stories and keep their powder dry for something else.

Yes, but for every story they want to bomb with an effect, they have to give another a five = futility.

Serves the fuckers right.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The interacial category is notorious for this - the scores there are just bad often, and there are plenty of stories I've read that deserve Hs, but don't have them because they get hit with the one-bombers. That sucks for casual authors, especially if they let the rating go to their head and quit writing because of it.

For those of us in the middle - not new authors, but with established brands but not powerhouse numbers of followers, it's usually not that hard for the score to go up. I find that when I post a story it will get one bombed close to immediately, then slowly climb its way out of the pits into H territory over the next few days as people get a chance to read it. This is especially true given my usual stuff is long.

For the well-established authors, it's not a big deal at all - if you've got 500+ followers, those one bombs will get drowned out in the accolades from your fans, and you will barely notice them.

And all of this tends to work itself out whenever there's a contest and they run a cull of all the bots - I find all my scores tend to go up when that happens. So if you wait a bit, things will probably work themselves out. I know that sucks when you're hoping that red H will help you get some followers or keep a story in the top lists for a little while, but that's the way the game seems to be played.

That assumes you look at this from a rational point of view.
Some people here seem to think if it weren't for trolls all their stories would have perfect 5 ratings. Anything else is illegitimate.

 

[MrPixel]

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.

No, they are not equivalent. It's a statistical aberration. Starting with a new story, the damage of a 1-star vote requires seven 5-star votes to then only partially undo. 1+(5*7)/8=4.5.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yes, but for every story they want to bomb with an effect, they have to give another a five = futility.

Serves the fuckers right.

They could hand out lots of 4s.
Which from a Red H perspective still causes trouble, and then employ their 1s as they see fit.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

No, they are not equivalent. It's a statistical aberration. Starting with a new story, the damage of a 1-star vote requires seven 5-star votes to then only partially undo. 1+(5*7)/8=4.5.

Mathematically they are different, morally they are the same.

 

[crookedletter]

No, they are not equivalent. It's a statistical aberration. Starting with a new story, the damage of a 1-star vote requires seven 5-star votes to then only partially undo. 1+(5*7)/8=4.5.

Fair. I meant in terms of its legitimacy.

 

[Writer61]

They could hand out lots of 4s.
Which from a Red H perspective still causes trouble, and then employ their 1s as they see fit.

Yes, but isn't that better than 1s without consequence?

Edit: also, wouldn't the need to do that increase their sense of futility?

Edit2: assuming the morons could figure out the consequences of what they were doing. My bet is that @Incel123 would keep doling out one-bombs.