A Bestiary of Literotica Voters

[orangecurious]

*The Nitpicker (Videntis vidium): This is possibly a subspecies of the Middlemen. Their characteristic behavior is to avoid awarding maximum scores because of particular story elements that are not in alignment with their specific tastes, even while claiming to have enjoyed the experience overall.

Did I miss any? Think there are subspecies of the ones I mentioned?

*Identified from field studies by @StillStunned.

I encountered this one recently... commented that they were going to give me 5, but the last word of the story meant I only would get 1 - saying i should have put warning tags, blah blah blah without realising that's how surprise endings work.

maybe I shouldn't get too surprised at how sensitive people are on this site, especially the anonymous ones

 

[Bamagan]

We haven't even touched on LW voters. They're an entirely unique subspecies.

They're kind of like the three-eyed fish from The Simpsons... a mutation from exposure to toxic conditions.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've met all of these in the wild. I can attest they're quite common.

Approach with caution. Take voter spray with you.

 

[SimonDoom]

@Bamagan, this is a clever idea, and it's accurate, too: I've encountered every one of these types of voters.

 

[Djmac1031]

Approach with caution. Take voter spray with you.

Oh I'm quite fine with them. Regular exposure over time has given me natural immunity.

 

[Bamagan]

@Bamagan, this is a clever idea, and it's accurate, too: I've encountered every one of these types of voters.

Thank you! It was conducted with intense scientific rigor, although I had to buy much stronger specimen jars as a result of my study.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Here's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek taxonomy of the types of voters we usually see here. It seems obvious that many people don't vote, or at least don't vote often, but this isn't about those readers, just the ones who take the time to click a star.

The Cheerleader (Plausus spp): This genus is characterized by a strong propensity to vote fives, and rarely less than a three. One species (P. scriptor) is comprised mostly of other authors who bestow fives as a sign of encouragement, sometimes only loosely based on the perceived quality of the story. The other species (P. hortus) is often an obligate fetishist of some kind, preferring to keep to a particular habitat and loudly applauding any topic or theme that feeds their desires, even if the technical or compositional value is below average. Others are more generalist in their consumptive habits, and their votes are often a sign of gratitude to the producers, but may or may not reflect any considered opinions about the works consumed, beyond their price.

The Middleman (Modicus valorem): This species is characterized by a ponderous, unflappable approach to their erotica. They're often generalists, perusing a wide range of offerings. There are some things they won't consume, but their palate is broader than most others. They rarely vote less than a two or more than a four. Evidence suggests they're a somewhat rare species, and possibly on the decline in an era catering to specialization and customization.

The Sneerclicker (Derisor quidvis): Also frequently called an 'unobomber' in the vernacular, this species habitually hates everything it consumes. While it can be free-living, it occasionally exhibits parasitism, latching onto one or more hosts for most of its sustenance. They also sometimes form packs and specialize in trying to enervate certain topics or categories.

The Adjuster (Strabus inaequalis): This species tends to believe that it has superior discernment and judgment, and its approach to voting is to look at the existing score and vote either high or low in an attempt to drag the mean in a specific direction. Their votes are therefore determined partially by the quality of the work, but also on the reception that work has received from the rest of the community. Their principal prey are new stories, but anything with a relatively low vote total or that sits close to a 4.5 may attract their attention.

The Casual Voter (Fabula specifica): This species is characterized by voting in accordance with the vague descriptions provided in the voting menu (Hate It, Dislike, Average, Like It, Love It). They generally do not know or care what happens to their vote after it is cast.

*The Nitpicker (Videntis vidium): This is possibly a subspecies of the Middlemen. Their characteristic behavior is to avoid awarding maximum scores because of particular story elements that are not in alignment with their specific tastes, even while claiming to have enjoyed the experience overall.

Did I miss any? Think there are subspecies of the ones I mentioned?

*Identified from field studies by @StillStunned.

Maybe I've missed something, but isn't this more about comments than votes? How can you be sure of the motives of voters if you don't know who they are? That said, through speculation, I'd say that much of this is true. I had one recent story that had two votes, a one and a five, and thus ranked as a three. Through a sweep, both votes are gone and it's now at zero.

Is was one of those break-up story chapters (of a series) that doesn't fit neatly into a category. Romance readers dislike them, and a couple told me to put such stories into Non-erotic. This is one result.

 

[intim8]

I'm mostly the first kind of cheerleader, though my tastes fit the middleman description. I tend to give either a five or nothing, though I will drop a four here and there if I think the core of the story is worth voting on but has too many flaws to bring myself to give a five. I'll give a three if the quality is bad enough to offend me, but rarely.

So in short, I'll only vote at all if it is a good story, then pick how many stars based on execution.

 

[gunhilltrain]

A few more that I've observed (I leave the scientific name to your expert knowledge):

The Oversharer: The reader who is compelled after reading your story to share his or her own incestuous [or fill in the blank] experience from many years ago

The Squickee: This reader is easily squicked by things and insists upon letting you know about that one little thing in your story--it could be just a single word--that compelled him to give you a 1.

The Revisionist: This reader is compelled to tell you how your characters should have behaved and then proceeds to tell you how you should rewrite your story.

The Moralizer: This reader lets you know what a terrible person you are for even writing about the subject matter, or for handling the subject matter in a way that doesn't strictly conform to that reader's moral code.

True, I have had comments telling me why they voted a certain way. Those seem to be a minority of comments, however, even in LW. That's if there are any comments at all. The story with the two votes I mentioned above did not have any comments.

 

[Bamagan]

I added another edit to account for some of the things people have said here. The addition:

The Bimodalist (Uterque terminos): This is a species characterized by strongly divergent voting behavior, sometimes called 'redditing.' They habitually vote either a one or a five, and almost never anything in between. They possess a degree of camouflage, and can appear to be other species, depending on whether or not they find themselves in favorable habitats. They are usually obligate fetishists, and when replete with their kink of choice may appear to be Cheerleaders. Even slight deviations from their preferred deviance, however, can cause them to behave like riled-up Sneerclickers.

 

[Bamagan]

Maybe I've missed something, but isn't this more about comments than votes? How can you be sure of the motives of voters if you don't know who they are? That said, through speculation, I'd say that much of this is true. I had one recent story that had two votes, a one and a five, and thus ranked as a three. Through a sweep, both votes are gone and it's now at zero.

Is was one of those break-up story chapters (of a series) that doesn't fit neatly into a category. Romance readers dislike them, and a couple told me to put such stories into Non-erotic. This is one result.

It's largely inferential, and some of the data is culled from comments, similar to what @SimonDoom was saying above. But there are only a limited number of voting patterns possible with a five-point scale, so to some extent, the 'species' are just descriptions of those patterns overlaid with terminology relevant to the site.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Omg this is the best thing I've read today. I'm dying

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Here's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek taxonomy of the types of voters we usually see here. It seems obvious that many people don't vote, or at least don't vote often, but this isn't about those readers, just the ones who take the time to click a star.

The Cheerleader (Plausus spp): This genus is characterized by a strong propensity to vote fives, and rarely less than a three. One species (P. scriptor) is comprised mostly of other authors who bestow fives as a sign of encouragement, sometimes only loosely based on the perceived quality of the story. The other species (P. hortus) is often an obligate fetishist of some kind, preferring to keep to a particular habitat and loudly applauding any topic or theme that feeds their desires, even if the technical or compositional value is below average. Others are more generalist in their consumptive habits, and their votes are often a sign of gratitude to the producers, but may or may not reflect any considered opinions about the works consumed, beyond their price.

The Middleman (Modicus valorem): This species is characterized by a ponderous, unflappable approach to their erotica. They're often generalists, perusing a wide range of offerings. There are some things they won't consume, but their palate is broader than most others. They rarely vote less than a two or more than a four. Evidence suggests they're a somewhat rare species, and possibly on the decline in an era catering to specialization and customization.

The Sneerclicker (Derisor quidvis): Also frequently called an 'unobomber' in the vernacular, this species habitually hates everything it consumes. While it can be free-living, it occasionally exhibits parasitism, latching onto one or more hosts for most of its sustenance. They also sometimes form packs and specialize in trying to enervate certain topics or categories.

The Adjuster (Strabus inaequalis): This species tends to believe that it has superior discernment and judgment, and its approach to voting is to look at the existing score and vote either high or low in an attempt to drag the mean in a specific direction. Their votes are therefore determined partially by the quality of the work, but also on the reception that work has received from the rest of the community. Their principal prey are new stories, but anything with a relatively low vote total or that sits close to a 4.5 may attract their attention.

The Casual Voter (Fabula specifica): This species is characterized by voting in accordance with the vague descriptions provided in the voting menu (Hate It, Dislike, Average, Like It, Love It). They generally do not know or care what happens to their vote after it is cast.

*The Nitpicker (Videntis vidium): This is possibly a subspecies of the Middlemen. Their characteristic behavior is to avoid awarding maximum scores because of particular story elements that are not in alignment with their specific tastes, even while claiming to have enjoyed the experience overall. Some (V. vidium atrox) are extremely reactionary and will vote the minimum if they encounter irritants, which can make them seem like Sneerclickers.

**The Bimodalist (Uterque terminos): This is a species characterized by strongly divergent voting behavior, sometimes called 'redditing.' They habitually vote either a one or a five, and almost never anything in between. They possess a degree of camouflage, and can appear to be other species, depending on whether or not they find themselves in favorable habitats. They are usually obligate fetishists, and when replete with their kink of choice may appear to be Cheerleaders. Even slight deviations from their preferred deviance, however, can cause them to behave like riled-up Sneerclickers.

Did I miss any? Think there are subspecies of the ones I mentioned?

*Identified from field studies by @StillStunned and others.
** Identified from sightings reported by many in the AH.

Fucking brilliant. Humorous, yet insanely accurate.

 

[yowser]

Impressive taxonomic research.

If I'm understanding correctly, there is no interbreeding possible? Maybe in the Plausus genus, but otherwise not.

The real question is how far back we have to go for a common ancestor. Silurian?

 

[Bamagan]

Evidence suggests that interbreeding is possible, although it may result in mules, or at least stubborn behavior.

Impressive taxonomic research.

If I'm understanding correctly, there is no interbreeding possible? Maybe in the Plausus genus, but otherwise not.

The real question is how far back we have to go for a common ancestor. Silurian?

 

[gunhilltrain]

This is all probably true of any site that allows voting and comments. If you try analyze Amazon or YouTube (the latter has "likes and dislikes," not votes) you could find similar patterns.

As Bobby Womack might have put it, "On every site you can see the same thing going down. Literotica is the capital of every social media town."

 

[Bamagan]

This is all probably true of any site that allows voting and comments. If you try analyze Amazon or YouTube (the latter has "likes and dislikes," not votes) you could find similar patterns.

As Bobby Womack might have put it, "On every site you can see the same thing going down. Literotica is the capital of every social media town."

Yes, that's more or less what I was getting at in my earlier response. Literotica voting is just another case of convergent crabbiness.

 

[AG31]

Here's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek taxonomy of the types of voters we usually see here. It seems obvious that many people don't vote, or at least don't vote often, but this isn't about those readers, just the ones who take the time to click a star.

Brilliant. It exhausts me to think of the time you must spend reading comments across all categories to have come up with this taxonomy!!!!

 

[gunhilltrain]

Yes, that's more or less what I was getting at in my earlier response. Literotica voting is just another case of convergent crabbiness.

There has been a difference between social media interactions (which began in the late '90's?) and the real world. Before that, even on the phone, social interactions were among people who had met face-to-face. That probably put a limit to the crabbiness at most times. Well, people would get into arguments and fights, but then there were consequences to be faced.

If I may paraphrase the late Womack again, "You don't know what you'll do until you're put under pressure. Writing for Literotica is a hell of a tester."

 

[MyBareTorso]

Species: Authorious Malicious. Though never seen or captured, this stealthy species of voter is almost certain to exist. This species only delivers scores of 1. These scores are not based on the stories themselves, nor the writing and storytelling abilities of the author. These scores of 1 are given merely due to opinions formed, or interactions had, in the often brutal habitat known as The Authors Hangout. This species is an often relentless predator, is skilled in the ways of camouflage, and once provoked can be very, very dangerous.

 

[Rob_Royale]

This whole thread is just terrific.

 

[Duleigh]

The Knuckle Dragger. (Nodum Caput) Votes on story regardless of content, may not even read the content. If the KD likes the author it gets a 5, if the KD dislikes the author it's a 1. There is no middle of the road. Like and dislike is based on anything, from the Author's Avatar to who else entered the contest against his favorite author. Thinks that the LW category is a documentary.

 

[Bamagan]

The contest reminded me of another species I missed.
The Saboteur (Aemulus contemptus): This species lies dormant for about half the year, but emerges from its torpor whenever there's a contest it can affect. Its typical habit is to downvote anything Hot; often this means it can be mistaken for a Sneerclicker, but many Saboteurs actually prefer to rate things a 2, perhaps hoping to avoid having their work undone. Some claim that it isn't a unique species at all, but rather something akin to a plague locust, where a normally benign species becomes aggressive and destructive because of environmental factors.