I see my score is 4.18

[SinclairGroupLLP]

I understand the desire around switching from the current system to one where only registered accounts could vote, but i think the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze in this instance.

First, the number of votes and favorites on stories would plummet. Not everybody wants to give their email, even a burner account, to a porn site.

Second, I don't see this being a real deterrent to one-bombers. If somebody is annoyed enough with you to go through your entire roster of stories and vote them each down, they aren't going to let a pesky requirement like signing up for the site slow them down. They'll wait to get approved and then nuke your stuff, like PSG said.

In the end, there's no easy, no-downsides way to fix this problem, which is probably why the system remains the way it is, besides the obvious desire on the part of the admins not to rock the boat unnecessarily.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Exactly, which is why the whole 'better grading system' obsession isn't one I buy into. Readers have different tastes and requirements for what they view as a good/bad story. Subjective is always going to mean something, all the chatter is about finding a new way for every reader to still view a story by taste, not the infamous "merit" we hear about.

I totally agree with the stance that there is really nothing that can be done to make scores indicate more quality, or really much quality at all. However, there are things that we can do to improve the general meaningfulness of the votes, at least insofar as they might help readers find stories that appeal to them.

For instance, if a Red H is to indicate belonging to some 'cream of the crop' or at least if the readership largely believes that it is, then labeling 45% (!!!) of all stories as hot is very misleading to the readers. Imagine expecting the cream of the crop and getting a story that is in the meh 60th percentile. That's just stupid. The Red H becomes meaningless.

Another example, if a writer has very few (or no) Red Hs on his profile, a potential reader browsing his profile will often think, 'meh' and nope out. But if that writer writes the majority of his stories in controversial judgemental categories, it will be harder for him to get Hot ratings. So, if each category had it;s own bar for Hot (such as an 80th percentile say), then the potential reader will get a more accurate overview of the catalog and might find something that he likes.

The one thing that I will always agree with Simon is that the categories and ratings are there to help readers find a story that they might be interested in (and I'll always add that the categories also help writers reach their audience), not to fluff the egos of the writers. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the writers just want the ego stroke from the Red H. That in itself is fine, but when changes to the system are motivated by that ego stroke, we will only end up with something worse than we already have just so that some of us can chuff ourselves with scores and Red Hs.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I understand the desire around switching from the current system to one where only registered accounts could vote, but i think the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze in this instance.

First, the number of votes and favorites on stories would plummet. Not everybody wants to give their email, even a burner account, to a porn site.

Second, I don't see this being a real deterrent to one-bombers. If somebody is annoyed enough with you to go through your entire roster of stories and vote them each down, they aren't going to let a pesky requirement like signing up for the site slow them down. They'll wait to get approved and then nuke your stuff, like PSG said.

In the end, there's no easy, no-downsides way to fix this problem, which is probably why the system remains the way it is, besides the obvious desire on the part of the admins not to rock the boat unnecessarily.

You are arguing against a system I haven't even presented yet. There would be no voting down in my idea.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Also, there is no point in talking about whether this idea would help or not unless a concrete solution that synergizes with registered voting is presented.

Not true. Votes do not need to be registered. I'll repeat myself. There is no proof whatsoever that barring unregistered voting will significantly reduce fraudulent voting. However, there is noted evidence that it will significantly reduce feedback.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Second, I don't see this being a real deterrent to one-bombers. If somebody is annoyed enough with you to go through your entire roster of stories and vote them each down, they aren't going to let a pesky requirement like signing up for the site slow them down. They'll wait to get approved and then nuke your stuff, like PSG said.

I'll take that one further. Bombers and trolls are already on the site with accounts. If one cares enough to troll, one cares enough to have an account presence. Yes, those with accounts who bomb can also log out and bomb too, but forcing them to log in won't stop them. The huge downside is all of the unregistered readers who read regularly (once or twice per week) without an account. These people aren't the bombers and they won't be able to vote. This will lower the vote totals making the bombs weigh heavier.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

There would be no voting down in my idea.

That's not up to you. That's up to the downvoters.

 

[Bamagan]

I want to second PSG and LC on this.

I think there are three real reasons to care about the rating (and the H's)

1) For the sake of all of our egos. I guess most of us, at least. Maybe some authors don't actually care, but I am dubious that anyone is that pure of intent. I know I like to see an H; it was a good inventive to keep writing after my first submission.

2) To give guidance to readers trying to find stories. As a reader, I know I scanned the scores, ignoring anything below a 4. I also was more likely to read a series if it had a bunch of H's -- just as a short hand for reading all the scores.

3) To give authors feedback on their stories; what works, what doesn't.

Fairness is important for the first two, not so much for the third.

When proposing a "solution", people need to be clear about which problem they are solving, because, while overlapping, they are different issues with different solutions (assuming there are valid solutions at all).

Pursuant to point 1, I disabled voting on my stories. I had some with an H and some without. Most of my stuff is pretty niche, fetishy content, the kind that more vanilla readers often respond negatively to, if they happen to run across it. People seeking unusual content are often happy to get anything new, and score generously regardless of quality.

The ratings system doesn't serve me particularly well as a reader, since a lot of stuff I like tends to get low votes, or more accurately, it gets enough 1s from haters to mask the 5s of the actual target audience. I largely ignore scores when deciding if I want to read something or not. If the blurb looks promising, I'm actually somewhat more inclined to open a story with a 3.8 (for example) than a 4.8; sometimes it deserves the lower rating because of bad editing, but often, it earns it by pushing buttons some people prefer unpushed.

As for feedback, unless the vote score is accompanied by a comment explaining the rationale (if any), the author is left guessing as to what worked (or didn't) and why. Votes are rare for most stories, but comments often are about ten times rarer. As a means of guidance, they're about as reliable as tea leaves, haruspication, or other forms of divination. Or at least, I have rarely found them to be very useful, because I mostly got vague praise or nasty invectives. Perhaps other folks get more nuanced reviews. But still, if someone gives you a 3 with no comment, good luck figuring out what they meant!

 

[Voboy]

If someone really wants to go into the math and mechanics of it, I can present and easily prove a much more accurate method of voting, assuming only registered users could vote, of course.

Which, as we always seem to remind each other, is a non-starter. So it's hardly worth your effort, surely.

The site is consistent: it likes unregistered votes. Railing against that seems like a waste of time, in that context. Any solution that does not take that fact into account is simply not a good-faith solution.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Which, as we always seem to remind each other, is a non-starter. So it's hardly worth your effort, surely.

The site is consistent: it likes unregistered votes. Railing against that seems like a waste of time, in that context. Any solution that does not take that fact into account is simply not a good-faith solution.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that Literotica will disallow unregistered voting in the foreseeable future. As I said, this was all nerdy math indulgence for me. But we've all learned to discuss things that are firmly in the realm of fantasy, so this was my contribution.

 

[Voboy]

But we've all learned to discuss things that are firmly in the realm of fantasy...

Fair. I think tentacle-monster fucks would probably do better than mythical changes to the voting scheme here, though.

 

[old_prof]

I can present and easily prove a much more accurate method of voting

I am not sure I really want to go down this rabbit hole. (Other holes I am much more interested in writing about at the moment.) But, for purely intellectual reasons I would be curious about what you would consider your axioms for your "proof". There are a whole range of assumptions I could imagine starting from, which could yield an entire spectrum of different results.

 

[SimonDoom]

I am not talking about my own case here, Simon. No one should be bothered whether my scores are accurate or not. I honestly don't care much about anything related to Literotica anymore. I just want to point out from a nerdy point of view that there are better ways to implement voting, if you cared about score accuracy and fairness, which Literotica clearly doesn't.

This is all fun math and logic brainstorming, nothing else.

I'm interested in what you have to say about that, for giggles' sake if for nothing else (since all of this is likely just for fun and not likely to change anything). Just go slow on the math part.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

You are arguing against a system I haven't even presented yet. There would be no voting down in my idea.

I'm not arguing against your system you've not presented - I'm simply chiming in on this theoretical "no anonymous votes" system that currently exists in the minds of all of us when we hear the phrase "no anonymous votes."

I mean, if you're going to suggest a thumbs up only kind of thing, that's fine. But I don't want to speculate, and will wait for you to explain what you want.

 

[OralAllOver]

Worried about a site's opaque rating?
Cmon people, sounds like a SNL skit

Suggestion: embrace integrity, self-knowledge and understanding/forgiveness
THEN, CORRECTLY, YOUR ONLY INTEREST WILL B WHETHER SUCH INANITY CONSTITUTES HUMOR

My gosh, I am envious of those whose day has room for such Planck-sized matters

 

[SimonDoom]

My gosh, I am envious of those whose day has room for such Planck-sized matters

This reminds me of one of my favorite, very dark comedy routines, by Anthony Jeselnik. It's a 5 minute bit and it starts like this:

"My biggest pet peeve in America today are people who see all this horrible stuff going on and yet they still overreact to shit that just does not matter.

"For example . . .

"Have you ever dropped a baby?"

 

[Bramblethorn]

Another example, if a writer has very few (or no) Red Hs on his profile, a potential reader browsing his profile will often think, 'meh' and nope out. But if that writer writes the majority of his stories in controversial judgemental categories, it will be harder for him to get Hot ratings. So, if each category had it;s own bar for Hot (such as an 80th percentile say), then the potential reader will get a more accurate overview of the catalog and might find something that he likes.

The "H" would be more useful to me (both as reader and author) if it worked this way; for anybody who's comfortable with the concept of quantiles it's an obviously reasonable way to do it.

I do worry though that for site users who already find average story scores a confusing concept, percentile-based Hs might be even more so.

 

[Actingup]

The "H" would be more useful to me (both as reader and author) if it worked this way; for anybody who's comfortable with the concept of quantiles it's an obviously reasonable way to do it. I do worry though that for site users who already find average story scores a confusing concept, percentile-based Hs might be even more so.

Well yes, but many of them have learned to tie their own shoelaces, so there's always hope.

There are so many ways to skin this cat. The site could automate bronze, silver and gold stars for 70th, 80th and 90th percentile stories (platinum for editors choice). It could give 'fires of hell' awards for stories that polarise voters (lots of 1s and 5s), or vary the award by category - soppy lovehearts for Romance, stake through the heart for Loving Wives, and so on. It could find ways to reward solid commentators and votes with trustworthiness indices, multiplying their vote weights (anybody can vote, but not all votes are equal). I know that this is same fantasy realm as 25 cm / 10 inch cocks and reliably simultaneous orgasms, but we can always dream.

(Does anybody really dream of 25 cm cocks?)

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I do worry though that for site users who already find average story scores a confusing concept, percentile-based Hs might be even more so.

Nahh, see Red H, assume good. For the most part.

 

[lovecraft68]

Worried about a site's opaque rating?
Cmon people, sounds like a SNL skit

Suggestion: embrace integrity, self-knowledge and understanding/forgiveness
THEN, CORRECTLY, YOUR ONLY INTEREST WILL B WHETHER SUCH INANITY CONSTITUTES HUMOR

My gosh, I am envious of those whose day has room for such Planck-sized matters

Some people do get carried away both in how important it is followed by thoughts of making it 'better' but fact is nothing is going to change so that's really not getting anyone anywhere.

I disagree about it being an SNL skit. No one here has made anything political, and parts of this thread are actually funny.

 

[StillStunned]

My opinion? Besides what I noted above about the increased likelihood of authors backstabbing each other to get into the highest percentile group, in what way would it benefit the readers? Or the writers?

Do readers really want to know what stories rank highest compared with others? Anything that's not in the top group will be ignored even more. And remember that some of the highest scores are for stories that are decades old, or Chapter 209 of Part 17 of a series. Breaking into the top percentiles won't be easy to do legitimately.

And as we all know, the ratings are more a measure of popularity than of quality. Do readers really need to know "Of all the stories in this category, these are the top 10 most popular"? Because we already have the Halls of Fame for that. And they're already flooded with chaptered series, and any new entry gets bombed out of sight.

So maybe it's more useful for readers to see a score assigned by an audience of their peers, with the red H given to any story that meets the criteria by itself, not in relation to other stories that are perhaps decades old. What it tells readers is basically, "Hey, people seem to like this story, maybe you should give it a try!"

And anyway, the site's never going to introduce a system that makes it less likely for readers to click on a story.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

My opinion? Besides what I noted above about the increased likelihood of authors backstabbing each other to get into the highest percentile group, in what way would it benefit the readers? Or the writers?

They already do, toplist raids, and top percentiles will be the same stories as the toplists, so no very doubtful that that sort of stuff would increase much at all.

Do readers really want to know what stories rank highest compared with others?

Of course they do. Why do you think higher scores get more hits? D'uh!

And as we all know, the ratings are more a measure of popularity than of quality. Do readers really need to know "Of all the stories in this category, these are the top 10 most popular"? Because we already have the Halls of Fame for that. And they're already flooded with chaptered series, and any new entry gets bombed out of sight.

Yes, that is what readers already look for, popular stories. Nothing would change there.

And furthermore, I can quote you here on stating that you do not believe that a score equates quality the next to you and the rest of the gang refute me when I claim the same thing.

So maybe it's more useful for readers to see a score assigned by an audience of their peers, with the red H given to any story that meets the criteria by itself, not in relation to other stories that are perhaps decades old. What it tells readers is basically, "Hey, people seem to like this story, maybe you should give it a try!"

The age of s story has no bearing on it's average vote score. A story with 10 votes and an average of 4.8 beats a score with 50,000 votes and a score of 4.79. And what criteria by itself? 4.5? What the hell does 4.5 have to do with any criteria of quality or even popularity. We already know that site wide 4.5 is roughly the 55th percentile. The criteria of the Red H right now is literally meh. In some categories more than half the stories have Red H. That hardly indicates popularity or anything at all.

 

[SimonDoom]

The objections that people are making to a percentile system (e.g., it will induce bad behavior, people won't understand what a red H in such a system means, etc.) are all true, but they're less true than they are for the current red H system, where people are basically fooled into thinking a red H/4.5 is meaningful, when in fact we know for certain that it is not, because people demonstrate constantly in this forum that they are confused about what it means. We know from the data that the most commonly awarded score is 5, followed by 4, with a sharp drop off after that. The raw number tells you nothing whatsoever unless you know how it is being constructed. That's a harder thing to figure out than a percentile. A percentile is what it is regardless of how people vote or how the raw score is put together. That's why percentile rankings can be compared across different databases and different systems. If you have three standardized aptitude tests A, B, and C and you know that three sets of people scored 4.6, 96, and 740 on them respectively, that tells you nothing about comparing the scores. But if you know that each score represents a performance in the 95 percentile, then you know something. It conveys more meaningful information to the consumer, whatever its faults.

An extreme example: there's a math test that many of the best math students in American colleges take every year called the Putnam. It is famously difficult (I didn't take it but I had friends who did), so much so that the most common score on the test is zero. Going by raw data you might think scoring 0 or ten percent shows the test taker is a dummy, but you'd be wrong. A percentile ranking might show that somebody who got only 25% of the questions right had a percentile score in the 90s, and therefore performed impressively well.

 

[SimonDoom]

My opinion? Besides what I noted above about the increased likelihood of authors backstabbing each other to get into the highest percentile group, in what way would it benefit the readers? Or the writers?

Do readers really want to know what stories rank highest compared with others? Anything that's not in the top group will be ignored even more. And remember that some of the highest scores are for stories that are decades old, or Chapter 209 of Part 17 of a series. Breaking into the top percentiles won't be easy to do legitimately.

And as we all know, the ratings are more a measure of popularity than of quality. Do readers really need to know "Of all the stories in this category, these are the top 10 most popular"? Because we already have the Halls of Fame for that. And they're already flooded with chaptered series, and any new entry gets bombed out of sight.

So maybe it's more useful for readers to see a score assigned by an audience of their peers, with the red H given to any story that meets the criteria by itself, not in relation to other stories that are perhaps decades old. What it tells readers is basically, "Hey, people seem to like this story, maybe you should give it a try!"

And anyway, the site's never going to introduce a system that makes it less likely for readers to click on a story.

You are contradicting yourself here. Yes, some will care, and that means yes, they will be more likely to read top-rated stories, just as they are now. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. No author can fairly claim: "Now that the story rating system is more accurate my story is less likely to be read than before."

And as we all know, the ratings are more a measure of popularity than of quality. Do readers really need to know "Of all the stories in this category, these are the top 10 most popular"?

Some do. This is the whole point of having score and rankings: to convey information to potential readers. Same as with Amazon scores. Some people use them.

Because we already have the Halls of Fame for that. And they're already flooded with chaptered series, and any new entry gets bombed out of sight.

This isn't in fact, true. There are new stories at the tops of toplists, proving they don't necessarily get "bombed out of sight."

So maybe it's more useful for readers to see a score assigned by an audience of their peers, with the red H given to any story that meets the criteria by itself, not in relation to other stories that are perhaps decades old. What it tells readers is basically, "Hey, people seem to like this story, maybe you should give it a try!"

The point is, it DOESN'T say this, and we know this for a fact. The current system, where a story with a 4.5 and a red H may be no more than 50 percentile, clearly does NOT tell us that people like the story. It tells us that the people who like the story dominate the voting, a fact that yields no useful information to the reader.

And anyway, the site's never going to introduce a system that makes it less likely for readers to click on a story.

I agree with the conclusion, not the premise. Why would readers be LESS likely to click on a story with more accurate, percentile-based information? Let's say the red H cutoff is the 75 percentile in a category, and the percentile is published. I think I might be MORE likely to read a story if I know it has a 74 percentile but fell just outside the cutoff. The red H system as it exists now is more of a talismanic either/or system than a percentile system would be. A published percentile system lets everybody know what the red H really means, whereas now many readers have no clue.

 

[NotWise]

I've been grinding my teeth and telling myself not to respond to this thread. I lost.

Personally, I believe in the KISS principle. The only problem with the existing system is that some writers want to get more out of it than the readers put into it. You know who you are. Changing it, complicating it, refining it, massaging it... none of that is going to improve the system, because there is no more content in the readers' votes. They aren't critics. They may or may not be telling you if they liked the story, and that's all they're telling you.

If you want more than you're getting, then you might submit your story to a juried contest. Another alternative is to assemble a jury of critics and host a juried contest here.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Three separate scores are the best solution, but they are totally wrong to use at Lit. One score for ease of reading and use of the language, 1- 5, one score for like love hate, 1-5, and one score for novelty (originality of how what is presented) of the work, 1- 5. And then, not a voted score, the sum of the three scores divided by 3. It is too much work for the average reader to either heart or vote on a score. They might do one or the other, but seldom both. Well, seldom either actually. God forbid they have to vote three times.