K
KindofHere
Guest
............
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, I put up an old story that was at a 4.84 when I took it down months ago.
Agree this. Some folk seem to think any movement down is trolling, whereas, on a score base as high as the OP's, it's more likely 3s and 4s (that is, readers giving a genuine ranking). Tracking the movement between 4.86 and 4.84 after 358 votes is like worrying about the tint of gold being used for the star. Get a grip, I'd say.If you're getting upset over the difference between 4.86 and 4.84 or 4.82 then maybe you're too tied up in the score.
It may not be that reasonable to pin the blame on a "troll." With a score that high (and not an overwhelming number of votes) all it takes is a few 4* votes to change the score.
... now they just don't care, 4.86 to 4.82. I have 358 votes and they did the latest .04 drop in about 17 (all votes that didn't raise my score or drop it I'm guessing were 5s).
If you're getting upset over the difference between 4.86 and 4.84 or 4.82 then maybe you're too tied up in the score.
It may not be that reasonable to pin the blame on a "troll." With a score that high (and not an overwhelming number of votes) all it takes is a few 4* votes to change the score.
That always happens in the first week, even more so if it's a contest story. I wait a month before I pay much much attention to the score of any new story, and even then it's more a curiosity thing, "How did this story go down compared to the last one?"It's not one story. It happens to all of my stories and I let it go. My latest story they just went overboard on making their point that they can do whatever they want.
4.86 @ 341 votes implies at least 1656 total stars (max 1658, depending on what the exact unrounded score was).
4.82 @ 358 votes implies at most 1727 stars (min 1724).
So if I've understood KoH correct, the story had a run of 17 votes which totalled between (1724-1658 = 66) and (1727-1656 = 71) stars
Agree this. Some folk seem to think any movement down is trolling, whereas, on a score base as high as the OP's, it's more likely 3s and 4s (that is, readers giving a genuine ranking). Tracking the movement between 4.86 and 4.84 after 358 votes is like worrying about the tint of gold being used for the star. Get a grip, I'd say.
And someone "out of here" because they don't think the sweeps are putting a story back to where they think it "should" be, seriously? Just maybe the story has been ranked by hundreds of readers and they've placed it exactly where they think it sits. That's the thing about the Lit scoring system, it's what readers think a story's worth, not its writer.
From what I can see from my own file, once a story is a couple of months old, and has had two or three sweeps, it is what it is. The only movement I see in my story file over time is an overall higher score. My little garden of Red Hs is certainly bigger than it was eighteen months ago (and I've hardly been productive this last year).
You know, usually you have something worthwhile to say, but alleging that the Lit scores are what "readers think a story's worth" given the amount of gaming that goes on here about scores is incredibly naive.
You know, usually you have something worthwhile to say, but alleging that the Lit scores are what "readers think a story's worth" given the amount of gaming that goes on here about scores is incredibly naive.
I don't agree. In fact, I disagree. The rating is a measure of the popularity of your story. It has little to nothing to do with the quality of your writing or anything else you might want to read into it. I don't see as much "gaming" as you do.
I'm sorry if you want to make it more than that.
I see a whole lot of gaming going on in at least the GM category. If I want to get a handle on what readers think of the relative quality of my GM stories, I have to look at how they are doing at other, more GM-friendly, story sites.
What do you consider to be 'Gaming'? To me that's an organized effort by authors or by the fans of authors to manipulate standings. We know it's happened before, but is it still going on? I can think of a couple cases where authors have off-site blogs that--intentionally or not--could be use for 'Gaming'.
Convince me and maybe I'll change my mind. I'm skeptical.
Can a troll vote more than once on a story? Wouldn't that mean somebody could sit all day and give himself thousands of "5" votes? Maybe some people do that.
All I'm doing is giving evidence on trolling as I see it in my story file, which is minimal. Perhaps I'm lucky, perhaps nobody reads me, but I see maybe one or two score removals in the first 30-40 scores of any of my new stories, and then rare movements after that. My long term trend is higher scores across my whole story file, not lower.You know, usually you have something worthwhile to say, but alleging that the Lit scores are what "readers think a story's worth" given the amount of gaming that goes on here about scores is incredibly naive.
If the writing is truly terrible I won't score it at all. I don't read vast amounts here, but if I do score, it's generally a four or a five. Rarely, a three (depends on the weather, probably). If I give it a five, I'll often as not leave a comment.Is this way out of the norm?