What does targeted, sweep-evading, story vandalism look like?

[Kelliezgirl]

that's not how data works. she's presented data. 14 people voted 1s and 2s on her stories today. that's data.

it does not matter if 99% of scientists believe in climate change or if 99% believe there is no climate change. the climate is either changing or its not. facts are not a democracy.

It's a data point. If you want to argue that the system is broken, you need to establish what the purpose of the system is, and whether or not it is fulfilling that purpose.

 

[MelissaBaby]

that's not how data works. she's presented data. 14 people voted 1s and 2s on her stories today. that's data.

it does not matter if 99% of scientists believe in climate change or if 99% believe there is no climate change. the climate is either changing or its not. facts are not a democracy.

Uh...you're the one who took the position of "Emily says so, I believe it, that settles it." Has anyone is this thread described a similar phenomenon as Emily? Many of those who've opined have longer and more extensive experience on the site, but have never seen such a thing happen.

I don't doubt her claim, but her explanation seems implausible.If votes were cast, they can be swept.

 

[metropolinational]

I don't agree vulnerable means broken. That makes no sense to me at all. I doubt that any voting system would be invulnerable.

of course no voting system can be invulnerable. but what Emily just showed, right now, is that she got 14 troll votes today. if its that vulnerable, yes its broken.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

then why are you posting in a thread about the flaws of the scoring system. wouldn't your time be better spent commenting on threads where they talk about stuff that doesnt mean diddly?

Because they want to... why the gatekeeping?

 

[RejectReality]

the system we are talking about is the voting system. if its vulnerable, its broken.

I agree many, many other things about this site work wonderfully. I love this site.

So let me guess. Your first suggestion is to only let registered ( and still anonymous, so pointless ) people vote.

Guess what happens? ( Because I watched it happen firsthand on another site ) Vote totals fall off a cliff. Your average Jimmy Jerkoff isn't going to sign up for a porn site to cast a vote on something he just busted a nut to. The few who will make the effort aren't enough to serve as a counterweight to trolls, who are far more determined to fling their feces than some rando is to cast a legitimate vote. In the end, the trolls have an even easier time affecting the outcome, because they don't have to overcome the weight of all the other anonymous voters who are only willing to do so because they don't have to jump through hoops to do it. On that site, people complained about 4-bombs, not 1-bombs, because anything less than a perfect 5 more or less was relegated to obscurity.

 

[metropolinational]

Has anyone is this thread described a similar phenomenon as Emily?

no - the vast majority of posters have said:

1. ad hominem
2. it doesnt matter
3. how dare you?
4. get over it
5. my scores are super high, so the system works for me

she's the only one who has presented data. if others were presenting data and debunking her, then I might take their side and not Emily's. but I have seen zero data from the other side, just nonsense.

 

[MelissaBaby]

of course no voting system can be invulnerable. but what Emily just showed, right now, is that she got 14 troll votes today. if its that vulnerable, yes its broken.

No, there is a failsafe system. Sweeps.

 

[metropolinational]

Because they want to... why the gatekeeping?

its a question. im asking why is he posting here if this thread is about diddly.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

So let me guess. Your first suggestion is to only let registered ( and still anonymous, so pointless ) people vote.

Guess what happens? ( Because I watched it happen firsthand on another site ) Vote totals fall off a cliff. Your average Jimmy Jerkoff isn't going to sign up for a porn site to cast a vote on something he just busted a nut to. The few who will make the effort aren't enough to serve as a counterweight to trolls, who are far more determined to fling their feces than some rando is to cast a legitimate vote. In the end, the trolls have an even easier time affecting the outcome, because they don't have to overcome the weight of all the other anonymous voters who are only willing to do so because they don't have to jump through hoops to do it. On that site, people complained about 4-bombs, not 1-bombs, because anything less than a perfect 5 more or less was relegated to obscurity.

Exactly. Any system can be gamed, the existing system works and it provides a useful data point for readers.
Why should Lit waste time and limited resources to replace it?

I've said in previous discussions I'd love to see a hybrid system such as Rotten Tomatoes where you separate critic and audience scores. In our case it would be registered and unregistered user votes. There simply isn't any real incentive for Lit to do something like that. There is no real indication that the readers care.

 

[metropolinational]

No, there is a failsafe system. Sweeps.

you keep saying that to me. I keep responding - I dont even know what sweeps means. but, the whole point of the OP is that these attacks are sweep resistant. please respond to her and explain to her how they are NOT sweep resistant. that is what wold advance the conversation. maybe then I can also learn what the heck sweeps are.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

its a question. im asking why is he posting here if this thread is about diddly.

Because he wants to.
Maybe ask OP why there are so wound up about a site they don't post stories on.
You are rather particular on which motivations you question.

 

[metropolinational]

So let me guess. Your first suggestion is to only let registered ( and still anonymous, so pointless ) people vote.

no. im a free speech absolutist. I would never, ever, suggest that.

what I have asked for is:

1. that they let us see votes by category (registered non anon, anon, author, follower)
2. that they let us see the full distribution of votes, not the mean.

 

[MelissaBaby]

no - the vast majority of posters have said:

1. ad hominem
2. it doesnt matter
3. how dare you?
4. get over it
5. my scores are super high, so the system works for me

she's the only one who has presented data. if others were presenting data and debunking her, then I might take their side and not Emily's. but I have seen zero data from the other side, just nonsense

What data would you accept as a counter? I presented a point of data to you-80 submissions without a trolling problem. One that did have one, which the admin addressed to my satisfaction. Why do you hold my experience as less valid than Emily's?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

no. im a free speech absolutist. I would never, ever, suggest that.

what I have asked for is:

1. that they let us see votes by category (registered non anon, anon, author, follower)
2. that they let us see the full distribution of votes, not the mean.

And how would that "fix" the system?

 

[metropolinational]

You are rather particular on which motivations you question.

I am infinitely curious about this issue. I also ask my anons in my comments sections the same question all the time. they literally say: "I didnt even read your stupid story, I just came here to tell you I gave it a 1"

and I ask.... why? why did you bother? what motivates you?

I really am very curious!

 

[TheRedChamber]

We're assuming that these votes today won't get swept. We're also assuming that they are not from a new troll who has seen this thread and is not savvy with avoiding the sweeps. We wont know until the sweeps.

 

[metropolinational]

Why do you hold my experience as less valid than Emily's?

I'm sorry. I do not. You are not a patient. Emily is suffering from condition A. she has a theory about what is causing condition A.

dozens of people here are saying: condition A does not matter.

it matters to Emily, who wishes not to have condition A.

You come in and say: I dont have condition A. look, im in perfect health.

that's great for you, but its not super relevant as data. im sorry if that makes you feel dismissed. I do not mean it that way at all. its just that you dont seem to have condition A.

 

[metropolinational]

We're assuming that these votes today won't get swept.

even if they do, I have heard a lot of people argue that they matter in the moment. that if they get swept later, they have already done their damage.

 

[RejectReality]

no - the vast majority of posters have said:

1. ad hominem
2. it doesnt matter
3. how dare you?
4. get over it
5. my scores are super high, so the system works for me

she's the only one who has presented data. if others were presenting data and debunking her, then I might take their side and not Emily's. but I have seen zero data from the other side, just nonsense.

Virtually nobody is disputing that the OP is being trolled! Constantly crying about it here is, undoubtedly, making it worse. The average jackoff doesn't even know the sweeps exist. They're dropping 1-bombs with a giggle that vanish the first time the Hoover happens across them, because they're obvious. The OP has attracted a personal troll. They tend to have a better idea of how to get around the system, and will devote much more time and effort. They also watch, looking for signs of delicious tears they can lap up. This thread is a veritable feast for whoever is trashing those scores.

They almost always get bored, leave the site, or find someone they hate more to devote their time and energy to eventually — so long as they're not being fed an emperor's banquet of sweet, sweet tears every few minutes of every day like the OP is doing here. They also almost always slip up and eventually get most of their handiwork wiped out. ( Though, not so much nowadays without the bulwark of the large sample-size, deep sweeps that used to happen for the monthlies )

Both of the other sites I post on used to display full vote distribution. They got rid of it because they were also doing voodoo math to try and limit the effectiveness of trolling, ( mind you, they're both members-only voting, and it's still a problem ) so people couldn't figure out how those vote breakdowns translated into the scores they saw and cried about it endlessly.

 

[metropolinational]

And how would that "fix" the system?

It would fix it 100%, for me. I bet there are others like me.

it would allow me to see how many people love my story, how many of the people that love my work love or hate this particular story, how much other authors value my work, etc. those would be huge improvements.

 

[metropolinational]

Virtually nobody is disputing that the OP is being trolled! Constantly crying about it here is, undoubtedly, making it worse.

so, it sounds like you agree with the OPs point. the system is vulnerable to trolling.

whether crying about it is useful or not, is not my business. the OP has agency and can choose to do whatever she likes, for whatever motivations.

im really only interested in the systems aspect of this, plus pushing for my personal wish list.

but I dont need to argue with you if you already believe she's being trolled. great.

 

[metropolinational]

Wow. Did I win?

[looks around] Are you not entertained?!?!! [throws sword]

 

[MelissaBaby]

you keep saying that to me. I keep responding - I dont even know what sweeps means. but, the whole point of the OP is that these attacks are sweep resistant. please respond to her and explain to her how they are NOT sweep resistant. that is what wold advance the conversation. maybe then I can also learn what the heck sweeps are.

Sweeps are a method, details undisclosed, by which the site scans for votes that appear to be illegitimate. Sweeps are run, generally more than once, during the final days of contest. As RejectReality as pointed out several times recently, since the site ceased holding monthly contests, there appears to be an uptick in one bombing, because there is no regular sweep of all stories anymore.

How can a vote that has to be recorded to count, become unavailable to the site? Your Mr. Data, explain to me how the voting results can change without changing the number of votes cast.

I think it may well be that someone is engaging in a targeted attack on Emily, but if the problem is systemic, why has no one else reported it?

When my Vaentines Day story took a nose dive, I did not ring the fire alarm, I asked Laurel to look into it, and she did.

 

[RejectReality]

so, it sounds like you agree with the OPs point. the system is vulnerable to trolling.

whether crying about it is useful or not, is not my business. the OP has agency and can choose to do whatever she likes, for whatever motivations.

im really only interested in the systems aspect of this, plus pushing for my personal wish list.

but I dont need to argue with you if you already believe she's being trolled. great.

If you got a breakdown of votes of anonymous vs. registered, the registered section would be so insignificant as to be irrelevant. You'd also see that the majority of your 5s come from anonymous.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I'm sorry. I do not. You are not a patient. Emily is suffering from condition A. she has a theory about what is causing condition A.

dozens of people here are saying: condition A does not matter.

it matters to Emily, who wishes not to have condition A.

You come in and say: I dont have condition A. look, im in perfect health.

that's great for you, but its not super relevant as data. im sorry if that makes you feel dismissed. I do not mean it that way at all. its just that you dont seem to have condition A.

I have been careful not to dismiss Emily's concerns. What I am contending is that, so far, it seems to be a condition specific to her, not an "infection" of the whole system.