Voting problems at Lit, and maybe it's Lit itself/help???

[mismused]

delete

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It has been mentioned before, but bares repeating. If a troll bombs all the stories on the top list, it will send stories with fewer votes spiraling, but may have negligible effect on stories with many votes.

There are times when a troll does this, that accusations of "protecting" their lead get levied against some people on the top list. This isn't neccissarily the case. If you have 40 votes and slmeone has 240, the malicious one may well drop you several places, while barely affecting the other.

I've also mentioned before, and I think it bears repeating, we, as authors have no control over whom enjoys our works. When you asre looking at the top lists, it's entierly possible an overly zealous fan of someone up there is trying to keep their favorite author in or at the top. This is not within the control of said author, in fact he/she may be unaware of it.

Finally, living life at the top list is by nature a transcient thing. I had all ten stories int he lez cat at one time, I now don't have any in the top 20 I know of. When you are up there you get exposure, but you are also move highly visible to trolls. It's the flip side to getting there.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Colleen Thomas]

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

Hi, Colly. Glad you got home safe and sound. Thanks for posting.

Normally, I'd totally agree with you. This time I don't agree, but I don't disagree either. The reason for that is that I watched just about every vote that came in (yeah, nothing better to do ), and logged the time and date I saw them. I say just about because early on in the first day, there were a few that I saw as two or three votes. Still, it wasn't hard to figure out what the votes were.

It settled into a pattern of a vote here and there, again, still easy to know that you got two 5's. From the 25th vote on, I caught every vote by itself, and had 40 votes for 4.88. (BTW, it's easy to understand why there was only a vote here and there as my story, "Till the Magic's Gone," is 12 Lit pages long. Not everyone is willing to wade through those.) On Saturday, the 13th, of this month, I got a 1 vote. at just after the dinner time. I also saw that another author on the top list/lesbian stories was downgraded, and then saw others.

It doesn't take a genius to see what was being done. The stories were being swept, either officially, or unofficially. Regardless, I had sent my protestation to Laurel in the authorized manner, that being at the bottom of your story where you report whatever you want to report.

It got taken care of immediately, like within minutes, then the vote got restored as it was (if it was a vote). The top lists board was also being juggled. If they did a sweep, the same persons got swept several times. Hmm!

This 1 vote was once again altered on my submissions page to be a slightly higher vote. How do I know this? Easy. I went from 41 votes at the 4.78 (where I'd fallen from the 4.88) to 40 votes and a 4.83. Yes, they got the votes right, but didn't properly make me to be as I was when I started with the 40 votes at 4.88.

(See, Charlie, it's not rocket science, girl, but sure, ya gotta take my word for it, but it's proof, girl. )

Sorry about that side-bar. Had to do it?

Does that make sense to you, Colly?

I know what it's like to be at the top as you said, that is, what to expect. Admittedly, I wasn't prepared the first time I submitted my stories, but on that first story, I had submitted it in 22 submissions containing 25 chapters. It was easy to submit it that way since it was already completed when I started submitting it. With that, I got my first intro to deviousness, chicanery, and what, pure jealousy? I, too, had stories in the top list, proudly noting I had 11 of those first 75 (that's what's on each page), and two more on the next page.

What happened after they played with me too much, and I got proper wind of what was going on really ticked me off (as anyone who was here then remembers) and created quite a brouhaha that turned into a real donneybrook. That wasn't my finest hour, but at least I did try to stay away from the name calling, foolish though I might otherwise have been.

It's happened since, and I've kept my peace. This time I determined to at least say something, but do it in a reasonable manner. The name calling has stayed at a minimum, and, as you probably saw, we even had some fun last night (thanks to sweetsubsarahh, and another kind assist from Cloudy -- thank you ladies).

In sum, I really feel I've spotted something that Laurel needs to pay attention to. It seems there might be someone in her employ, or a very good hacker, perhaps a trusted friend, who has somehow accessed their system. Why do I say that? I've seen countless changes in the "sweep" that might have been occurring over the weekend for today's final version of the top stories for the July awards. I recorded some of them, and it looks mighty suspicious.

That, in and of itself, may not tell all, but coupled with what I know happened on my story at the same time, I'd have to say I just may have a good guess. The biggest troll may be at Lit itself. Only Laurel and Manu can really determine that.

I don't care about winning, I do care about a semblance of fairness, and of letting the readers determine who is best.

I am very appreciative of the fact that this seems to be the premier site (no, I haven't tested any others, just going on the easily seeable popularity of this site) to post stories in, but as Imp, as well as others, once said a short while ago, it needs to be changed.

Okay, it's their business, and I'm sure if every disgruntled (hey, always wondered what it would be like to use that word ), author left, I'm sure they'd still have a very viable business. That means that it may be that it has to affect their bottome line before they institute changes. What we, as business people, (yes I was one of those at one time) don't often see, is the benefit] of making a change.

I have here provided my proof/rationale for what I have said. I can only hope they use it. I think Lit has a golden opportunity here, and I sincerely hope they take it. Little as I venture into the forums, I do love this place, and see no sense in allowing these irritants to continue. It's like having roaches. Only kill one when you see it, you have to realize that there may be thousands in the woodwork. A good spray is needed.

Wish this thread had remained serious for that, but well, what can I say? Thanks Charlie? I do thank her for having the sense, and great intelligence to allow herself to be just that -- intelligent. Okay, she's really smart and funny too.

So, what do you think now, Colly? You know your opinions are like gold in these here parts.

mismused

(edited to clarify which day/date I got the 1 vote on that set this off)

Thank you

Very good to be home. Mom is already spoiling me rotten


The fairest thing is for me to make admission I don't really understand what you have uncovered. I don't understand the system, how sweeps work, etc. I've never asked to have a vote removed, in fact I only notice low votes on a story I am monitering closely.

This happens with stories like Bets when I am trying something new or stories like Latin when I am trying a new cat, but my general pattern is to have already moved on to something new by the time a work posts. I simply take it for granted the votes will be tallied and the sweeps will remove those votes that are duplicates. To a lesser degree proably those that are spurious as well.

Since I don't pay any attention, I generally confine my comments to pointing out rational alternatives when I see them.

You appear to have a significant body of evidence that something is going on. I wish I understood it well enough to comment, but I don't. Partly because I am innumerate to an embarassing degree and party because I am computer illiterate.

Since I don't understand exactly how the sweeps work, I would really be talking into my hat to try and make a definitive statement. I can only say you seem sure of yourself and sure of what you have observed. You should ask, and hopefully Laurel or Manu can explain what the system is doing or, they can investigate and address what you have uncovered if it is chicanery of some kind.

-Colly

 

[LeBroz]

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

Hi, Colly. Glad you got home safe and sound. Thanks for posting.

Normally, I'd totally agree with you. This time I don't agree, but I don't disagree either. The reason for that is that I watched just about every vote that came in (yeah, nothing better to do ), and logged the time and date I saw them. I say just about because early on in the first day, there were a few that I saw as two or three votes. Still, it wasn't hard to figure out what the votes were.

It settled into a pattern of a vote here and there, again, still easy to know that you got two 5's. From the 25th vote on, I caught every vote by itself, and had 40 votes for 4.88. (BTW, it's easy to understand why there was only a vote here and there as my story, "Till the Magic's Gone," is 12 Lit pages long. Not everyone is willing to wade through those.) On Saturday, the 13th, of this month, I got a 1 vote. at just after the dinner time. I also saw that another author on the top list/lesbian stories was downgraded, and then saw others.

It doesn't take a genius to see what was being done. The stories were being swept, either officially, or unofficially. Regardless, I had sent my protestation to Laurel in the authorized manner, that being at the bottom of your story where you report whatever you want to report.

It got taken care of immediately, like within minutes, then the vote got restored as it was (if it was a vote). The top lists board was also being juggled. If they did a sweep, the same persons got swept several times. Hmm!

This 1 vote was once again altered on my submissions page to be a slightly higher vote. How do I know this? Easy. I went from 41 votes at the 4.78 (where I'd fallen from the 4.88) to 40 votes and a 4.83. Yes, they got the votes right, but didn't properly make me to be as I was when I started with the 40 votes at 4.88.

(See, Charlie, it's not rocket science, girl, but sure, ya gotta take my word for it, but it's proof, girl. )

Sorry about that side-bar. Had to do it?

Does that make sense to you, Colly?

I know what it's like to be at the top as you said, that is, what to expect. Admittedly, I wasn't prepared the first time I submitted my stories, but on that first story, I had submitted it in 22 submissions containing 25 chapters. It was easy to submit it that way since it was already completed when I started submitting it. With that, I got my first intro to deviousness, chicanery, and what, pure jealousy? I, too, had stories in the top list, proudly noting I had 11 of those first 75 (that's what's on each page), and two more on the next page.

What happened after they played with me too much, and I got proper wind of what was going on really ticked me off (as anyone who was here then remembers) and created quite a brouhaha that turned into a real donneybrook. That wasn't my finest hour, but at least I did try to stay away from the name calling, foolish though I might otherwise have been.

It's happened since, and I've kept my peace. This time I determined to at least say something, but do it in a reasonable manner. The name calling has stayed at a minimum, and, as you probably saw, we even had some fun last night (thanks to sweetsubsarahh, and another kind assist from Cloudy -- thank you ladies).

In sum, I really feel I've spotted something that Laurel needs to pay attention to. It seems there might be someone in her employ, or a very good hacker, perhaps a trusted friend, who has somehow accessed their system. Why do I say that? I've seen countless changes in the "sweep" that might have been occurring over the weekend for today's final version of the top stories for the July awards. I recorded some of them, and it looks mighty suspicious.

That, in and of itself, may not tell all, but coupled with what I know happened on my story at the same time, I'd have to say I just may have a good guess. The biggest troll may be at Lit itself. Only Laurel and Manu can really determine that.

I don't care about winning, I do care about a semblance of fairness, and of letting the readers determine who is best.

I am very appreciative of the fact that this seems to be the premier site (no, I haven't tested any others, just going on the easily seeable popularity of this site) to post stories in, but as Imp, as well as others, once said a short while ago, it needs to be changed.

Okay, it's their business, and I'm sure if every disgruntled (hey, always wondered what it would be like to use that word ), author left, I'm sure they'd still have a very viable business. That means that it may be that it has to affect their bottome line before they institute changes. What we, as business people, (yes I was one of those at one time) don't often see, is the benefit] of making a change.

I have here provided my proof/rationale for what I have said. I can only hope they use it. I think Lit has a golden opportunity here, and I sincerely hope they take it. Little as I venture into the forums, I do love this place, and see no sense in allowing these irritants to continue. It's like having roaches. Only kill one when you see it, you have to realize that there may be thousands in the woodwork. A good spray is needed.

Wish this thread had remained serious for that, but well, what can I say? Thanks Charlie? I do thank her for having the sense, and great intelligence to allow herself to be just that -- intelligent. Okay, she's really smart and funny too.

So, what do you think now, Colly? You know your opinions are like gold in these here parts.

mismused

(edited to clarify which day/date I got the 1 vote on that set this off)

Mismused ~ we're taking to heart all we've heard here - and elsewhere. The points you raise are quite - stimulating. Got a note from imp and shared her thoughts - and the proposal continues to develop and evolve.

A couple things I've noticed - when threads get serious and discussions get hot and heavy about voting problems of any sort, a few "disrupters" come along and divert the course of the thread ~ it's a fairly standard and predictable occurence.

The other point is that the really serious problem is not the voting, trolls or otherwise; the truly serious problem is one of perception - every troll vote looks bad; a sweep makes it look worse as poems and stories bounce like crazy in the standings; the really bad thing is that it looks like everything is out of control, with votes being given and taken away with wild abandon - why bother to vote - it looks like the whole thing's rigged - again, it's all a matter of perception to the ordinary reader, without access to details of vote totals, etc.

I've said it before - hang in there and patience.

 

[impressive]

As I've said a gazillion times (but those who choose to believe otherwise, will continue to do so), I just want the system to work fairly for everyone.

In my dialog with Laurel, I pointed out that it could not possibly be a productive use of her time to constantly be sweeping spurious votes manually. That time could be MUCH better spent elsewhere (even if it's just freeing up Laurel's time for some recreation ).

Laurel commented to me that disallowing anonymous voting would severely cut back on voting (as the vast majority of all votes are anonymous) which would result in far few authors qualifying for contests. My response to that is to simply lower the bar in terms of the number of votes required to qualify.

Or, alternatively, have a dual voting system: one score for member voting, one score for non-member voting ... with the former being the one which counts for contests.

The system CAN be fixed. The question remains if Lit is really invested in making it work efficiently and effectively.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[LeBroz]

Omg

As I've said a gazillion times (but those who choose to believe otherwise, will continue to do so), I just want the system to work fairly for everyone.

In my dialog with Laurel, I pointed out that it could not possibly be a productive use of her time to constantly be sweeping spurious votes manually. That time could be MUCH better spent elsewhere (even if it's just freeing up Laurel's time for some recreation ).

Laurel commented to me that disallowing anonymous voting would severely cut back on voting (as the vast majority of all votes are anonymous) which would result in far few authors qualifying for contests. My response to that is to simply lower the bar in terms of the number of votes required to qualify.

Or, alternatively, have a dual voting system: one score for member voting, one score for non-member voting ... with the former being the one which counts for contests.

The system CAN be fixed. The question remains if Lit is really invested in making it work efficiently and effectively.

This is where I say, "Great minds think alike!" Have you been monitoring my e-mail and IM chats? You're positively psychic! Will toss your thoughts onto the roundtable.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[impressive]

FYI. This is the only PM I could find from that dialog.

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!

 

[Guest]

Mismused ~ we're taking to heart all we've heard here - and elsewhere. The points you raise are quite - stimulating. Got a note from imp and shared her thoughts - and the proposal continues to develop and evolve.

A couple things I've noticed - when threads get serious and discussions get hot and heavy about voting problems of any sort, a few "disrupters" come along and divert the course of the thread ~ it's a fairly standard and predictable occurence. . .

I've said it before - hang in there and patience.

LeBroz, I take issue with being called a "disruptor".

Last evening I merely attempted to deflect the beginnings of what I assumed would be a serious argument. I hate to see my friends needlessly hurt and tempers were beginning to flare.

And it worked.

Today the seriousness of the thread remains, yet people are still on speaking turns, and quite frankly, who in the hell cares if we digressed to mindless flirting close to midnight in the middle of a thread on an author's forum in a friggin' porn site?

Ahem.

Have a peachy day.

 

[impressive]

LeBroz, I take issue with being called a "disruptor".

Last evening I merely attempted to deflect the beginnings of what I assumed would be a serious argument. I hate to see my friends needlessly hurt and tempers were beginning to flare.

And it worked.

Today the seriousness of the thread remains, yet people are still on speaking turns, and quite frankly, who in the hell cares if we digressed to mindless flirting close to midnight in the middle of a thread on an author's forum in a friggin' porn site?

Ahem.

Have a peachy day.

God, it makes me hot (the good kind) when you do that!

 

[Guest]

God, it makes me hot (the good kind) when you do that!

You like 'em bitchy, hmmm?

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[LeBroz]

My pardon, Ma'am

LeBroz, I take issue with being called a "disruptor".

Last evening I merely attempted to deflect the beginnings of what I assumed would be a serious argument. I hate to see my friends needlessly hurt and tempers were beginning to flare.

And it worked.

Today the seriousness of the thread remains, yet people are still on speaking turns, and quite frankly, who in the hell cares if we digressed to mindless flirting close to midnight in the middle of a thread on an author's forum in a friggin' porn site?

Ahem.

Have a peachy day.

Oh please, I do beg your pardon. Not meaning to disparage innocent fun. Just the flying wedge that descends to disrupt and "kidnap" a thread and those therein seriously debating (or even having not so innocent fun). Just a fact I've observed on several threads - usually with predictable results.

And I most certainly did not have your well timed calming influence in mind when I spoke. Discussing the issue of voting on the threads is fraught with peril - the least of which are frayed tempers. Even when IM'ing about the voting problem amongst those with shared views, things can get a bit tense at times and then a little raunch never hurt there either.

Just one small thing - did you have to speak of peaches - I so miss them oh so sweet Georgia peaches.

So, peace??

 

[Guest]

Oh please, I do beg your pardon. Not meaning to disparage innocent fun. Just the flying wedge that descends to disrupt and "kidnap" a thread and those therein seriously debating (or even having not so innocent fun). Just a fact I've observed on several threads - usually with predictable results.

And I most certainly did not have your well timed calming influence in mind when I spoke. Discussing the issue of voting on the threads is fraught with peril - the least of which are frayed tempers. Even when IM'ing about the voting problem amongst those with shared views, things can get a bit tense at times and then a little raunch never hurt there either.

Just one small thing - did you have to speak of peaches - I so miss them oh so sweet Georgia peaches.

So, peace??

Of course.

And so graciously asked.

One of my terrible vices is responding to serious situations with smart-ass humor. It's a coping skill that I've only recently (and probably unfortunately) begun to perfect.

But after re-reading the thread and your comments, I think I understand what you meant. You were taking issue with the detracting from any discussion of voting inaccuracies, as if voting scores were a sacred cow and not to be touched under any circumstance.

This does go back and forth, doesn't it? And tempers flare. If you complain about your scores, some say you are egotistical and should be happy with what you've got. If you complain about the people complaining about their scores, some say you have no empathy.

Which is why, after serious thought, I posted pictures of half-clad women in leather teddies.

Even I have my limits.

 

[cloudy]

LeBroz, I take issue with being called a "disruptor".

Last evening I merely attempted to deflect the beginnings of what I assumed would be a serious argument. I hate to see my friends needlessly hurt and tempers were beginning to flare.

And it worked.

Today the seriousness of the thread remains, yet people are still on speaking turns, and quite frankly, who in the hell cares if we digressed to mindless flirting close to midnight in the middle of a thread on an author's forum in a friggin' porn site?

Ahem.

Have a peachy day.

What Sarahh said. We're all friends here, more or less, and a little bit of flirting never hurt anyone.

 

[LeBroz]

What Sarahh said. We're all friends here, more or less, and a little bit of flirting never hurt anyone.

Only a little???

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[LeBroz]

Got a response from Laurel just a while ago, and I'm not sure about the protocols of posting her reply, but I have no problem with posting mine back to her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's up to her now, and possibly up to some of you who have made, or are making suggestions to her. Think I'll take a small break for a while.

mismused

(edited to show today's date, or yesterday's now, Aug. 15, not 14. What a Klutz)

Your hand-off is noted; the work proceeds with modifications being made, especially in recognition of points raised by imp's earlier posting. We all want it done yesterday, but will be taking our time to do the best possible job - trying to cover as many details as possible to come up with a doable deal.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[impressive]

Anyway, Laurel did make a point of telling me that there is just her and Manu, period.

If this is true, the amount of work they do is nothing short of astonishing.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I hate to be the forum bitch, but, who cares [in the nicest possible way]?

If I understand it right, some people in a category got trolled while others didn't or got upvoted. So someone has an ego stroke for a while, but it is a fleeting pleasure. And no system is fool proof. Look at politics But everyone gets trolled, and it probably balances itself out. And it helps that I believe in Karma.

I have a lot of stories in the non-consent category where you are trolled just for the category you post in Thank christ I don't post in loving wives

I used to really care about votes when I just joined Lit and had a few stories in non-consent. Every time they approached a group of stories by the same author, they got voted down. For a long time [a month or 2 ] I thought it was the author trying to get a monopoly on the top 5 or 10. [it never occurred to me then that it might be a fan or the higher number of votes meant them more resistant]. Then something happened, and then all my stories monopolised the top 10. I felt guilty for my nasty thoughts, because I realised that to hold the top spots is a bitch because 1 week they hold the top 5, the next week they hold 5 in the top 20. My scores have never stabilised on any of my story and fluctuate so badly I couldn't care, and are spread out now. When the sweep goes through, I've sometimes had up to 20 votes removed on a story [some 1s, some 5s]

I know this is a different situation to what you describe, but another example is a winning story of mine which had a score of about 4.76. When the sweep was done, I ended up at about 4.97 [it literally came out of nowhere, page 3 or something]. Had I not been trolled so much, I would have been on about 4.89 say, and then I would have got a lot of 4 votes around the middle of the month, and dount I would have won because they wouldn't have been countered as troll votes. So, on this basis, trolls can have a positive influence

I understand what has happened is frustrating and annoying at the very least, particularly that someone/s do not adhere to your set of principles ( and most of us in the AH) and cheats to get ahead [for a few minutes of fame before getting trolled themselves :d], but ultimately, what real effect does it have? Winning on lit is a lottery.

PM me if you want.