Every story I post gets 1 star’d

[Kelliezgirl]

It's far from clear that this is true. Anything that reduces the numbers of votes on stories increases the power of a bad-faith vote and makes it harder to distinguish legitimate votes from manipulation.

If your story has a score of 4.80 from 100 votes and somebody wants to drag it down below 4.5, out of the red H zone, they need to drop nine 1* votes on it. A run of nine 1* votes on a story that was scoring highly is obviously suspicious, and Lit can look at technical information recorded with those votes to help confirm that this is the same person voting nine times.

If your story has a score of 4.80 from 10 votes and somebody wants to knock off your red H, they just need to cast a single 1*. There is no way to look at a single 1* vote and determine whether that voter was being malicious or if they genuinely disliked your story, especially if they've cast a few high votes elsewhere (like on their friends' stories).

And we know people have multiple alts...

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm in the process of slowly moving my stuff to a site which does in fact require membership to vote, so for me personally, I have a solution.

Solution to what? Having your ego bruised. That's what. Go ahead. I won't stop you.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

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

Indeed. Our favorite critic Stacnash does not post anon.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Indeed. Our favorite critic Stacnash does not post anon.

I don't think it's fair to call Stacnash a troll, either. Opinionated, idiosyncratic, harsh and I think often just flat wrong, but not a troll. She has a capital-V Viewpoint about fiction; she's not trying to be provocative or disruptive just for the sake of it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

All this talk of fixing the voting system is really just a crock of you-know-what.

Surely, the system is far from perfect and there are things that can be done to improve it, but 99% of the ideas that people come up with the 'fix' the voting system don't fix a damn thing. All that they do is improve the average score. These ideas have NOTHING TO DO with improving the accuracy of votes and EVERYTHING TO DO with trying to limit readers from giving low scores. Force people to log in to vote. Look for patterns of in an account's scoring for low scores. It's all ego-driven bullshit.

The scores are already too fucking high. 4.5 is the Red H. 4.5 is 87.5% of a perfect score. The mean score on lit stories is 4.4-something, putting 87.5% of perfect at the 55th percentile. There is no accuracy here at all. And y'all want the scores to be HIGHER??

Do something about the trolls! The trolls! The trolls! The trolls! Boo fucking hoo! Stop the trolls or I'm taking my precious stories somewhere else. Okay then, hurry up and leave. I'll call the whaaambulance to take you there direct.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I don't think it's fair to call Stacnash a troll, either. Opinionated, idiosyncratic, harsh and I think often just flat wrong, but not a troll. She has a capital-V Viewpoint about fiction; she's not trying to be provocative or disruptive just for the sake of it.

I agree to a point. She is horribly rude, that is troll behavior, but her critiquing is top notch. So to me she is not a troll, or at least much more than a troll. However, to 95% of the writers out there, she's a worthless troll. I was playing to the audience there. ; )

 

[SmilingLez]

There are a ton of terrible stories out there with a score of 4.8 and hundreds of votes.

That is the million-dollar question.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

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

Yes, because we are talking about porn here, which still has a huge stigma, and also, at any time in the next few years could be become prison punishable by our zealous righteous asshole politicians.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

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.

A 1 is a 1 is a 1. It doesn't matter. This is just another scheme to discredit low votes and only keep the high votes.

 

[caleb35]

Much gnashing of teeth aside, trying to take a step back, it does occur to me that complaints of star ratings tends to be a thing wherever they are used -- review bombing seems to very much be a thing on other websites (Goodeads, IMDB, etc.). At this point I wonder if it's just not an inherent part of allowing people to freely rate media. The only two choices I see are to either accept that or go to a completely different system for rating/liking/disliking media (well, third option would be to continue to complain about 1-stars, and I personally like complaining but I'm a whiner... )

 

[YmaOHyd]

Much gnashing of teeth aside, trying to take a step back, it does occur to me that complaints of star ratings tends to be a thing wherever they are used -- review bombing seems to very much be a thing on other websites (Goodeads, IMDB, etc.). At this point I wonder if it's just not an inherent part of allowing people to freely rate media. The only two choices I see are to either accept that or go to a completely different system for rating/liking/disliking media (well, third option would be to continue to complain about 1-stars, and I personally like complaining but I'm a whiner... )

It is, yes. The only places that don't exactly have this sort of complaining are places that segregate audience rating from critical rating, like Rotten Tomatoes, and/or allow you to view the other ratings given by a particular critic, like Letterboxd. (And they still have complaining but it's a different kind of complaining.)

The fact of the matter is that the thing people want -- disagree with PSG here -- is for people to read their stuff. There are only a few ways to get people to read your stuff: contests and events, getting lucky with the New lottery, or having a high enough rating to earn spots on the 7, 30 and year-long toplist (and once you get to the all-time toplist, in quite a few categories you'll get sunk). So people are going to complain about ratings because they do matter for reads; a story can end up being in the 4.8s but if it spends its one day on the front page of New at 4.1, it's gonna lose a ton of eyeballs, and eyeballs are the currency we're competing for.

 

[OddLove]

Now, I may be wrong about this, because I don't track the scores enough to be certain, but! Everytime I notice a handful my story scores drop, it's usually after participating in a polarizing discussion in Authors Hangout. Which makes me suspect some of the 1* trolls are among us. I hesitate even saying it because some believe "he who smelt it dealt it" and I don't want to be seen as the farter.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It's far from clear that this is true. Anything that reduces the numbers of votes on stories increases the power of a bad-faith vote and makes it harder to distinguish legitimate votes from manipulation.

100% this.

The only real protection that anyone has against troll votes is a large voter base. If you have a following and can get several hundred votes in the first couple of weeks, a handful of 1s will barely make a dent in your score.

Just today, my only Red H sitting at 4.56 with 54 votes took one hit. Just one. And dropped to 4.49 on 55 votes. I just lost like 70% of my already pitiful traffic. Now, to all of you whiners who want to ban unregistered voting, here is what would have happened to my story today. My story having only 20 votes of protection, would have dropped all the way down to an unrecoverable 4.36 or something. Thanks for that. : /

 

[caleb35]

It is, yes. The only places that don't exactly have this sort of complaining are places that segregate audience rating from critical rating, like Rotten Tomatoes, and/or allow you to view the other ratings given by a particular critic, like Letterboxd. (And they still have complaining but it's a different kind of complaining.)

The fact of the matter is that the thing people want -- disagree with PSG here -- is for people to read their stuff. There are only a few ways to get people to read your stuff: contests and events, getting lucky with the New lottery, or having a high enough rating to earn spots on the 7, 30 and year-long toplist (and once you get to the all-time toplist, in quite a few categories you'll get sunk). So people are going to complain about ratings because they do matter for reads; a story can end up being in the 4.8s but if it spends its one day on the front page of New at 4.1, it's gonna lose a ton of eyeballs, and eyeballs are the currency we're competing for.

Agree completely on the impact of scores on reads -- that's been my one concern, but that's also tied with just HOW MUCH MATERIAL is continually posted on the site.

 

[MrPixel]

Solution to what? Having your ego bruised. That's what. Go ahead. I won't stop you.

We are certainly full of ourselves this evening, aren't we?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

We are certainly full of ourselves this evening, aren't we?

Am I wrong?

Solution to what? You tell me.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Agree completely on the impact of scores on reads -- that's been my one concern, but that's also tied with just HOW MUCH MATERIAL is continually posted on the site.

Yeah. And how do you differentiate yourself for readers from the massive amount of new material? Scores, unfortunately.

 

[Bazzle]

Why do 5 votes never need justification?

There are a ton of terrible stories out there with a score of 4.8 and hundreds of votes.

I think 5 * equally need feedback!!!

I believe the site should probe the voter harder for words!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think 5 * equally need feedback!!!

I believe the site should probe the voter harder for words!

I am not against incentivizing feedback, but I am dead against forcing feedback. I'm not sure how to incentivize feedback. All if the ideas put forth on this forum try to restrict or force.

There are ways to improve the scoring system and when they are put forth, they are always shouted down by the folks who just whine about trolls, proving that they don't want accurate scores, they just want their own scores higher - and the site should take care of this for them because their writing is so precious and valuable that it keeps the site in business. (eyeroll)

 

[Cagivagurl]

The best fix for the voting system....
Remove it... what purpose does it fill???
Is it of any value???
I don't choose to read stories because of the score... I know the system is flawed, so ignore it...
The score causes more stress than any other topic in this forum...
So, my solution. Remove voting...

It get's my vote....

Just an opinion of course.

Cagivagurl

 

[TheLobster]

The scores are already too fucking high. 4.5 is the Red H. 4.5 is 87.5% of a perfect score. The mean score on lit stories is 4.4-something, putting 87.5% of perfect at the 55th percentile.

There’s more to the score distribution than just the average. The expected value for a score is definitely inflated, but it’s the shape of the distribution that’s the problem.

You’d think it should be somewhat symmetrical, concentrating around three, but the reality is closer to an uneven bimodal. There is a huge peak around four and five, a smaller peak at one, and practically nothing in between. This is completely contrary to the intention behind a five-point scale, making it effectively into a scuffed binary.

 

[HordHolm]

The best fix for the voting system....
Remove it... what purpose does it fill???
Is it of any value???
I don't choose to read stories because of the score... I know the system is flawed, so ignore it...
The score causes more stress than any other topic in this forum...
So, my solution. Remove voting...

It get's my vote....

Just an opinion of course.

Cagivagurl

Seconded. At the very least get rid of the H.

 

[HordHolm]

There’s more to the score distribution than just the average. The expected value for a score is definitely inflated, but it’s the shape of the distribution that’s the problem.

You’d think it should be somewhat symmetrical, concentrating around three, but the reality is closer to an uneven bimodal. There is a huge peak around four and five, a smaller peak at one, and practically nothing in between. This is completely contrary to the intention behind a five-point scale, making it effectively into a scuffed binary.

The five point scale largely ignores the reality of human nature. We can easily cope with a thumbs up/thumbs down binary. Yes/no, black/white, we're comfortable with that. OTOH anything requiring nuance will fall flat when applied en masse (individually, it will work well enough - it just doesn't scale).

 

[onehitwanda]

The best fix for the voting system....
Remove it... what purpose does it fill???
Is it of any value???
I don't choose to read stories because of the score... I know the system is flawed, so ignore it...
The score causes more stress than any other topic in this forum...
So, my solution. Remove voting...

It get's my vote....

Just an opinion of course.

Cagivagurl

It's a somewhat useful tool for finding authors I might potentially want to spend some time on, but that's about it. Simplistically, a ratio at least removes the time component of scoring, where people who've been around longer will by default have more thumbs up / recommendations etc.

But yes, it's a vexing system. A web / recommendation network would probably work better - i.e. if someone sees I like your works, and they try one of your works and like it, they might try works of other authors that I like.

But that doesn't help new authors get discovered. :/ which is I think one of the most important parts of the rating system.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The five point scale largely ignores the reality of human nature. We can easily cope with a thumbs up/thumbs down binary. Yes/no, black/white, we're comfortable with that. OTOH anything requiring nuance will fall flat when applied en masse (individually, it will work well enough - it just doesn't scale).

People keep saying this, but how do you account for the spread of scores an author gets?

I've got 137 chapters/stories posted, with scores ranging from 4.94/16 down to 3.24/51.

The range of scores in between tells me that readers do use a fair chunk of the scale (in my case, between 3s - 5s). The range of scores doesn't match to a binary thumbs up, thumbs down. My catalogue and the scores tell me that readers do use the nuance of a 1 - 5 scoring system - even if we writers don't know what their criteria is, when a reader drops a score on a story.

I get the feeling that many writers only think in terms of the binary, a 1 or a 5, and never stop to wonder, how do you get a 4.65/185? Obviously, it's a mix of scores. It certainly tells me something, which stories score higher than others - it pretty much lines up with my own view, when I think, that's a pretty good story.

Of course there are outliers when a response surprises me, but equally, there are stories which I know are good, where the response from readers is not so good.