Time to Tame the Trolls

[davidwatts]

Has there ever been, or is there any way to determine the actual extent of the trolling that goes on here? Is this actually a problem that isn't taken care of in large part by the sweeps? These are questions, not arguments.

Unless you saw an actual breakdown of a typical story, it would be hard to really know. I would be glad to volunteer to have any of my stories dissected in such a manner publically so that we could get an idea of the average voting pattern and what happens to the total score as the votes go in.

Either of my Emily stories that came up this month might be good examples; because they both got heavily read and voted on for some reason, each spent time on the top lists, and both got eased gradually down in their rightful direction after a hundred or so votes.

 

[impressive]

This is what I sent to Laurel:

On the Author's Hangout, we have been discussing ways for Lit to "tame the trolls." I believe this should be a priority. It has gotten so annoying to me, on multiple levels, that I'm planning to pull my work if something is not done to alleviate the problem.

My recommendation, which has some support, is to simply discard all votes cast if the reader is not logged in. This would: (a) decrease the overall number of votes that Lit has to police for trolls, thereby lessening workload; (b) give Lit a clearer avenue to penalize those who troll by closing their accounts or removing their stories/poems; (c) increase the number of registered members, thereby statistically helping Lit in terms of ad revenue. Lit doesn't let the unregistered vote in the annual awards polls -- so why count their votes toward other contests and Top Lists?

The more determined trolls will find ways around just about any system, but I think the above suggestion would curtail the largest chunk of trolling with the least amount of effort. In addition, it would send a message both to the trolls and to those who give freely of their creative energies that Lit holds its authors in the highest regard.

Please take a look at the various ideas tossed around by those who have been dedicated to Lit's success:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=321887

No only do we want our scores to properly reflect our work, we want to help in any way we can. We want Lit to be the best it can possibly be -- and one way to ensure that is to attract and keep the cream of the crop in terms of authors and poets.

 

[Guest]

Thank you, Imp.

I have tried to stay out of this, but I was in the same situation a few months ago. After having stories bombed literally on a daily basis I had actually started the process of having my stories removed. My friends here talked me out of it but I am still not happy with the way things have been. I think eliminating anonymous voting will stop the largest portion of offenders.

http://new.disneyecho.emuck.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/clapping.gif

 

[English Lady]

Okay -- so then the only people eligible for contests and Top Lists will be those who don't care about their scores? Yeah, that makes sense.

All I'm saying is if it causes so much heartache don't put yourself through it. Life is too short for that

 

[impressive]

This message contains feedback for: impressive
This feedback was sent by: Anonymous

Comments:

I just checked your page, IMpressive. You have 16 poems, only three do not have H's, and it is nearly the same for your stories. What is the troll situation with you? Did you expect everything to be a perfect 5? Im sorry dear, you arent living in the real world, why dont you try submitting your work to the outside world, to people with credentials and education and see how well it is accepted? and then maybe you will find out how good you are, or arent just a thought----seems like you are recting to nothing but a sore ego

Dear Anonymous, (of course, it's gotta be anonymous)

No, I do not expect everything to be a perfect 5. What I expect is the malicious voting to be removed or prevented to the extent feasible -- not just for me (and my ego), but for everyone who freely gives their time and creative energies to Lit.

~ Imp

 

[puck444]

Dear Anonymous, (of course, it's gotta be anonymous)

No, I do not expect everything to be a perfect 5. What I expect is the malicious voting to be removed or prevented to the extent feasible -- not just for me (and my ego), but for everyone who freely gives their time and creative energies to Lit.

~ Imp

Impressive-
I began as a reader here. I vote what I feel is a deserving score on ALL work, whether I know the writer or not, whether it is highly rated by others, or NOT. I have given you a few 4's which were later removed. In my opinion, most of your work is shallow..now, I do not mean this in a negative way, just that you do not seem to put in the time that some other people do. Perhaps my standards are higher than some on here. Some of your work is very good, but will never compare to writers like tarablackwood, wickedeve, flyguy and twelveoone or lauren hynde.
Until you stop moaning about trolls and get serious, you will have people voting you less than a 5. Not everyone knows you, not everyone that reads your work here knows you are supposed to be so great. Their votes count too!!! I for one will never vote someone a 5 just so their feelings wont be hurt...

how many quality poems could you have written in the time you spent on this nonsense, poor baby pity thread? probably a few... give up go write, you are not the onlyone ever oned, and you will not be the last

 

[impressive]

Impressive-
I began as a reader here. I vote what I feel is a deserving score on ALL work, whether I know the writer or not, whether it is highly rated by others, or NOT. I have given you a few 4's which were later removed. In my opinion, most of your work is shallow..now, I do not mean this in a negative way, just that you do not seem to put in the time that some other people do. Perhaps my standards are higher than some on here. Some of your work is very good, but will never compare to writers like tarablackwood, wickedeve, flyguy and twelveoone or lauren hynde.
Until you stop moaning about trolls and get serious, you will have people voting you less than a 5. Not everyone knows you, not everyone that reads your work here knows you are supposed to be so great. Their votes count too!!! I for one will never vote someone a 5 just so their feelings wont be hurt...

how many quality poems could you have written in the time you spent on this nonsense, poor baby pity thread? probably a few... give up go write, you are not the onlyone ever oned, and you will not be the last

Thanks for chiming in. I don't intend to share ANY more work here until this "nonsense" is rectified ... not just for me, but for everyone. I just see no reason to stay in a troll-infested pool. Some may care. Others may not.

If you believe, after all that I've written here, that this is a "poor baby pity thread," then there's nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise.

 

[cantdog]

.....

 

[cantdog]

Has there ever been, or is there any way to determine the actual extent of the trolling that goes on here? Is this actually a problem that isn't taken care of in large part by the sweeps? These are questions, not arguments.

Unless you saw an actual breakdown of a typical story, it would be hard to really know. I would be glad to volunteer to have any of my stories dissected in such a manner publically so that we could get an idea of the average voting pattern and what happens to the total score as the votes go in.

Either of my Emily stories that came up this month might be good examples; because they both got heavily read and voted on for some reason, each spent time on the top lists, and both got eased gradually down in their rightful direction after a hundred or so votes.

Some of our more obsessive readers have compiled vote-by-vote ongoing tallies of their stories, just by checking all the goddam time. They find that some 5's and some 1's are removed by the site itself. Repeaters, I suppose. I don't think anyone but the site owners knows what they do exactly, only that some votes vanish, whether you complain or don't. These are the sweeps, as you call them.

Imp's problem is that the lowballing is frequently timed in such a way as to be in place when the contest period finishes. Patterns of lowballs clearly targeted to remove single stories or writers from contention or from top spots often are not taken care of in a timely way at all. The site may have gotten too big for timeliness. Members-only voting would have to reduce the workload on the site, if only by limiting the number of votes they need to police.

Some people here, like dranoel, feel that members-only would eliminate much of the trolling problem, others, like Arthur, feel most lowballing and highballing comes from within the membership. But whichever way it is, fewer votes would mean quicker response to any such tactics.

 

[davidwatts]

Some of our more obsessive readers have compiled vote-by-vote ongoing tallies of their stories, just by checking all the goddam time. They find that some 5's and some 1's are removed by the site itself. Repeaters, I suppose. I don't think anyone but the site owners knows what they do exactly, only that some votes vanish, whether you complain or don't. These are the sweeps, as you call them.

Imp's problem is that the lowballing is frequently timed in such a way as to be in place when the contest period finishes. Patterns of lowballs clearly targeted to remove single stories or writers from contention or from top spots often are not taken care of in a timely way at all. The site may have gotten too big for timeliness. Members-only voting would have to reduce the workload on the site, if only by limiting the number of votes they need to police.

Some people here, like dranoel, feel that members-only would eliminate much of the trolling problem, others, like Arthur, feel most lowballing and highballing comes from within the membership. But whichever way it is, fewer votes would mean quicker response to any such tactics.

Thanks cantdog,

I can't imagine trying to keep up on a vote by vote basis. That seems like an impossible task, and especially so if you get lucky and have a lot of people read your story on the first day.

Do you think this sabotage is being done so that people can win the monetary awards or just the prestige of winning? Do you think that if the awards were given in the form of a donation to the charity of the author's choice, that it would reduce that sort of thing?

I honestly have never written a thing that I expected to make money with, and the fact that I won fifty dollars last month probably broke down to about two cents an hour for everything I've written. It certainly takes away from the fun of winning to think that you might have won something because everybody else is knocking each other down.

I guess I really have no solutions to a problem that must be a lot greater than I had thought. I really hope that people don't stop writing here because of it, because it's the fellowship and interaction here that I enjoy almost as much as the writing, even though I'm not usually involved in all that much of it.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I sympathise with the idea that people sholdn't obsess over votes, but we shouldn't have to. Yesterday, I had to submit 15 different requests for stories to be checked for irregularities because I'm getting trolled.

No real suggestions here. Just bitching.

 

[Omera]

From what I have just read, everyone seems to be enraged by “one bombs”, but hardly anyone is upset by “five bombs”. Aren’t they just as distorting, even if far more desirable? Scores/ratings are distorted on both ends of the spectrum, and who knows, maybe even in the middle too.

Maybe a compromise decision (if the coding is feasible) would be to allow voting by “anonymous”, but not to use their votes in the calculation of a submission’s rating. This would allow the trolls (ones or fives) to vent their feelings, but would have no effect on the writing’s score. – I think that Literotica already does something like this by occasionally sweeping the votes and automatically removing votes it considers bogus. Unfortunately the software is not very sophisticated and removes many honest votes as well as the trash.

This is just MHO.

ps: I only read the first page of this thead. By the end I was just reading the same thoughts written differently. So if what I have said above has been already said, then I agree with whomever said it previously.

 

[impressive]

Maybe a compromise decision (if the coding is feasible) would be to allow voting by “anonymous”, but not to use their votes in the calculation of a submission’s rating. This would allow the trolls (ones or fives) to vent their feelings, but would have no effect on the writing’s score.

This is what I've been advocating all along.

 

[cantdog]

david, you ask the big question. I daresay some of the deliberate manipulation may be done by (or on behalf of) someone who actually will go up as another goes down. I think some of it is spite-driven in other contexts. Like usenet and any other BBS situation, people get heated and write some pretty stiff putdowns on the boards. A way to avenge oneself on a writer is easily available, in that case. Some of the flirting, too, is taken over-seriously and causes friction. Some people actually have been involved with one another and bring animosity with them to the site, although that last is not too common.

But I think the majority of it is a sport. You can watch the top lists in a category, and see a writer rise to the top like cream in topmilk, and then plummet. With judicious 1-votes you can pick them off like ducks in a gallery if you want to, and you know that besides being fun, it really gets under the skin of a lot of the victims. You can assuage your conscience by thinking, hell, the site will probably erase the vote anyway.

You'd have to be a member to want to do most of this, to be aware of the culture here, to know who "needed to be taken down." Even if you weren't yourself a writer in the top few dozen, you could still have favorites. After a story has been bombed off the very top of the lists, there'd be a new pattern you could affect. Sophisticated players of the game would soon switch to 2's, for their greater permanence. But when the top of the list is a few hundredths of a point from the next person, a three will do the trick, and the site doesn't seem to remove threes.

But anyone who's had three or five or more stories at the top of a category at once knows, man, this is going to last for maybe ten minutes before I get shot down.

I don't think you have to be overly attached to your scores to feel that this is reprehensible, and when you do crab about it, it's very difficult for a casual reader of the post not to read it as an ego thing or a score obsession or a glory-seeker. When it's just an unpleasant experience and patently crooked or childish. I don't get on top lists, myself, so I can't speak from direct experience. But it's gotta suck. I don't see any reason to shrug it off. If we can make it easier to fix, we ought to make the changes we can.

 

[mismused]

Has there ever been, or is there any way to determine the actual extent of the trolling that goes on here? Is this actually a problem that isn't taken care of in large part by the sweeps? These are questions, not arguments.

Unless you saw an actual breakdown of a typical story, it would be hard to really know. I would be glad to volunteer to have any of my stories dissected in such a manner publically so that we could get an idea of the average voting pattern and what happens to the total score as the votes go in.

Either of my Emily stories that came up this month might be good examples; because they both got heavily read and voted on for some reason, each spent time on the top lists, and both got eased gradually down in their rightful direction after a hundred or so votes.

==================================================

To answer your question about whether this is not taken care of by the sweeps, my answer is a resounding "YES!" As I said in an earlier post, I even posted the PM's to Laurel at one time. I've also done the "official" thing that Laurel told me to do, and it still didn't do any good. However, even if you find the thread where I did that, it is still only my word even with the copy of the PMs.

At one time, I even suggested that there may be a mole in Lit's offices favoring certain authors. That is still a possibility, but I haven't done any further super close watching. This is a business, and if Lit can get by as is, they'll make like water and let things flow where the flow is easiest.

mismused

 

[cantdog]

==================================================

To answer your question about whether this is not taken care of by the sweeps, my answer is a resounding "YES!" As I said in an earlier post, I even posted the PM's to Laurel at one time. I've also done the "official" thing that Laurel told me to do, and it still didn't do any good. However, even if you find the thread where I did that, it is still only my word even with the copy of the PMs.

At one time, I even suggested that there may be a mole in Lit's offices favoring certain authors. That is still a possibility, but I haven't done any further super close watching. This is a business, and if Lit can get by as is, they'll make like water and let things flow where the flow is easiest.

mismused

This is a cryptic post to me, mismused.

You seem to say "Yes" that it's all taken care of, and I know people with sufficient grievance have had votes removed when they were malicious. But you also seem to say the will to really fix things isn't there.

 

[Belegon]

It certainly takes away from the fun of winning to think that you might have won something because everybody else is knocking each other down.

David:

You deserved that $50.00. Don't doubt it and realize that nothing Imp or any of the others are talking about should diminish your enjoyment of that success. I know they would not want that.

It's a damn good piece dude...

 

[davidwatts]

David:

You deserved that $50.00. Don't doubt it and realize that nothing Imp or any of the others are talking about should diminish your enjoyment of that success. I know they would not want that.

It's a damn good piece dude...

Thanks Belegon, that's nice of you to say.

Thanks for the background information Cantdog. I'm a real rube in terms of the computer world and sites like this. This is pretty much the only place I've been, and after I stumbled upon it haven't had the time or energy to go elsewhere. Plus, I like it here.

I've only had a computer for a little over a year and as some of my previous posted questions will attest to, I am still a long way from knowledgeable about any of it. That would also be true of my awareness of the politics and the relationships of the "community" here. I had been assuming that most of the jousting and jabbing were in fun.

I don't know how people end up with the kind of enemies that spend their time trying to vote down stories of theirs, and frankly I don't think I want to know. It seems to be a very sad way to live one's life, this schadenfreude existence.

The Top Lists is a whole new world for me. I never paid any attention to them, as I assumed they were for real writers, and so I didn't look much at them. All of a sudden over the last couple of months, I seem to have developed a little base of readers, and a couple of weeks ago I put up a story that got read and voted on like crazy. I looked at the top lists and saw that the story was at the top of the Erotic Couplings list, where it stayed for most of the weekend. A category with over 14,000 stories no less, which was ludicrous.

Now I find that I have three stories in three categories that are wandering around the top tens. That's very gratifying in a way, but in my heart I know that it really doesn't mean anything in terms of real quality. There are writers here, real writers, whose work completely floors me. I read their work, and I shake my head and wonder what I am even doing here. They are nowhere to be found on these lists in many cases, and I guess I never really understood why until now. The more you stay around and make comments, the more enemies you make.

I agree with your assessment that if it can be fixed, it certainly should. I'm afraid that with the level of computer savvy that some people have, any remedy would be a stopgap, like drug testing in sports, where the cheaters are always a step ahead of the rest. The old adage of, "the best revenge is living well", or writing well in this case, is probably of little comfort to those who find themselves the target of things such as you have described so well.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Humility is a charming and delightful attribute. Especially in others

I like your style, Mr. Watts.

 

[davidwatts]

Humility is a charming and delightful attribute. Especially in others

I like your style, Mr. Watts.

Why thank you Shang, but actually it's not even my style, but just something I picked up on e-bay. You must have known you were one of the "real writers" I was referring to.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You must have known you were one of the "real writers" I was referring to.

Flattery has its place as well.

 

[impressive]

I don't think you have to be overly attached to your scores to feel that this is reprehensible, and when you do crab about it, it's very difficult for a casual reader of the post not to read it as an ego thing or a score obsession or a glory-seeker. When it's just an unpleasant experience and patently crooked or childish. I don't get on top lists, myself, so I can't speak from direct experience. But it's gotta suck. I don't see any reason to shrug it off. If we can make it easier to fix, we ought to make the changes we can.

According to the lastest via e-mail, the ONLY reason I'm on this "crusade" is for my own benefit:

This message contains feedback for: impressive
This feedback was sent by: Anonymous

Comments:

oh, I read every word of what you spouted in the threads. I feel sorry for you, impressive, I really do. The rest of us get trolled, get a dozen poems knocked off before we even mention it, and you get 2 and you cry like a baby. You are self important and narcissistic,and I believe you probably dont get much attention in real life or the top list wouldnt be so important to you.

I would worry about anyone whose self esteem was contingent on the Literotica, Top list.Its a PORN site, they POST anything, anything!!! It is a shame however, that you had to drag the entire Lit community into your whining. Good people who have compassion for those who work hard at their craft, who do not cry about a 4... I expect you to post this on your pity thread, just to make you look like a victim,starta (clipped) is a bitch thread even... but its not meant maliciously, most certainly not. You just need to calm down and reassess the priorities in your life and if Lit IS at the top, then I aplogize from the bottom of my heart, for taking away your meaning... but I doubt that you would spring in defense of anyone elses troll, that was just your way to draw attention to yourself, but then actions speak louder than words....we will see--- (signature clipped)

I find it rather pathetic when someone feels the need to attribute every action to something small and petty -- and fails to see how an improved voting system will benefit all involved, from Lit to reader to writer.

But, I'm used to it. It happens on every single issue -- from trivial to serious. Someone always assumes I'm motivated only by the lure of personal gain. Oh, well. It won't stop me from working to improve the system.

 

[impressive]

I received the following reply from Laurel. I found her comment (bolded, for emphasis) about the amount of registered voting quite interesting:

Hello,

Thanks for writing, and I hope you are well. Blocking non-member voting is something we've discussed many times before, but we've decided (after talking to other sites with similar issues) that it would cause more harm than good. People who downvote or upvote will (and do) simply register multiple accounts, so "trolling" will continue. And because the number of registered votes is a tiny fraction of the total, the number of votes would go down dramatically.

We are considering possibly making is so authors can choose to allow only member voting. This would put them at a disadvantage for contests, since 50 member votes is very very rare, and it won't eliminate "registered trolls". It may, however, be an option. For now, please continue reporting and we will remove any fraud as soon as we are able.

Thanks again, and talk soon!

Discuss ...

 

[davidwatts]

I received the following reply from Laurel. I found her comment (bolded, for emphasis) about the amount of registered voting quite interesting:



Discuss ...

Very interesting. Even though they are adamant about not using pop-ups or the like, most people choose not to register but do take the time to vote. Not exactly the result I would have expected, had I ever thought about it before. I'm certain that in every sense of the word, Laurel would much rather have people as members rather than cruisers, but the fact that she has looked into the situation indicates two things to me.

One is that she is concerned about some of the issues that have been raised and she is making efforts to protect the writers that submit their work to them. The second is there doesn't appear to be a sure way throughout the industry to keep out the mischief makers without alienating customers, who provide the financial input that they need to survive.

The part about not having enough member voting for contests is not real surprising, since I don't read nearly as much when I'm in a writing mood. I also don't feel right about voting in something I'm involved in, and will either vote a 5 or not vote at all in such contests.

Earlier posts made mention of multiple identities/names/accounts that people have, which made me wonder. How many are we, anyway? Is it possible that there are only about a dozen of us actually here, laboring intensely under a gaggle of pseudonyms?

For the record, I am only me. That is most likely enough, and some might add, quite often one too many.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

But wouldn't that leave us the same problems but for a smaller set of stories which are heavily trollified?

(I invented a word!)

D'you mean you spawned a neologism? Is it furry?