How accurate are the "top lists"?

[StillStunned]

I used to be annoyed by the scoring system. Then I started writing better stories.

 

[onehitwanda]

Here's some maths driven by code, because I was bored.

Some initial setup - a story has 10000 votes, and a score of 4.86. Literotica truncates scores - 4.85999999999... is 4.85 from now until the end of days.

So, here's what a single 1 vote can do - even to a story with that many votes:

| idx | count | vote | rating |
|-----+-------+-------+------------|
| S | 48600 | - | 4.86000000 | <--- starting point
| 1 | 48601 | 1 | 4.85961404 |<--- 1 vote, story drops from 4.86 to 4.85
| 2 | 48606 | 5 | 4.85962807 |
| 3 | 48611 | 5 | 4.85964211 |
| 4 | 48616 | 5 | 4.85965614 |
| 5 | 48621 | 5 | 4.85967016 |
| 6 | 48626 | 5 | 4.85968419 |
| 7 | 48631 | 5 | 4.85969821 |
| 8 | 48636 | 5 | 4.85971223 |
| 9 | 48641 | 5 | 4.85972625 |
| 10 | 48646 | 5 | 4.85974026 |
| 11 | 48651 | 5 | 4.85975427 |
| 12 | 48656 | 5 | 4.85976828 |
| 13 | 48661 | 5 | 4.85978228 |
| 14 | 48666 | 5 | 4.85979629 |
| 15 | 48671 | 5 | 4.85981028 |
| 16 | 48676 | 5 | 4.85982428 |
| 17 | 48681 | 5 | 4.85983827 |
| 18 | 48686 | 5 | 4.85985227 |
| 19 | 48691 | 5 | 4.85986625 |
| 20 | 48696 | 5 | 4.85988024 |
| 21 | 48701 | 5 | 4.85989422 |
| 22 | 48706 | 5 | 4.85990820 |
| 23 | 48711 | 5 | 4.85992218 |
| 24 | 48716 | 5 | 4.85993615 |
| 25 | 48721 | 5 | 4.85995012 |
| 26 | 48726 | 5 | 4.85996409 |
| 27 | 48731 | 5 | 4.85997806 |
| 28 | 48736 | 5 | 4.85999202 |
| 29 | 48741 | 5 | 4.86000598 | <--- it takes 28 5 star votes to move this story back to 4.86

Votes are not publicly visible. It makes no difference if you permit or deny anonymous voting, because the only feedback mechanism is indirect.

 

[Bamagan]

I used to be annoyed by the scoring system. Then I started writing better stories.

Interesting strategy. I started writing worse ones! I took it as a perverse incentive.

 

[kreemi_pi]

Good look at how many horribly written stories score 4.8 and up and have endless glowing comments about how well written they are . By and large, they can't. Case closed.

You say it's "horribly written." The readers don't. You think your story is brilliant, the readers don't. So the readers are stupid morons because they don't understand there's a completely objective standard they were supposed to follow? Sure, keep telling yourself that.

A small group of writers telling each other how brilliant they are is mental masturbation.

A large group of readers liking or disliking your story is, alas, the real deal. If you have contempt for their opinion, why are you writing stories for them?

 

[kreemi_pi]

Even though I dont 100% agree, this is a very good attitude to take in order to keep authors humble.

Humility is in short supply on this thread.

 

[SimonDoom]

Firstly, separate comments from votes. An author can delete anonymous comments, but not anonymous votes. They can disable voting altogether, but they have no option to block only anonymous votes. If you wish to keep those questionable votes, that’s your choice, but allow others the freedom to choose for themselves.

It can't be done that way, because scoring, to be fair and to be meaningful to readers, must be the same for all authors. We can't have a system where authors get to choose what they think is a more favorable scoring system.

I imagine that the vast majority of authors neither agree nor disagree with me --they probably don't ever think about it or don't care. But that weighs in favor of keeping the same system, not changing it.

We're speculating about what the effect would be if anonymous voting were cut off. You don't know. I don't know. The site knows, probably. They're probably doing what they think is best for traffic. They have a right to do that. It's far more important than whether a small number of authors are bothered by the voting system.

I have long argued that one way to cut down on malicious downvoting is to change the red H system. As it is, it's ridiculous, because a red H means completely different things for different categories and provides no information to readers beyond what the score does. But authors like their goodies and don't want to lose their red Hs, so that's not likely to change.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

A large group of readers liking or disliking your story is, alas, the real deal.

Ever dropped an ice cream cone on the ground? A few kids wouldn’t touch it no matter what; some might scrape off the top; but most would just pick it up and lick it as it is, unfazed by the grains of sand grinding between their teeth — that’s your real deal right there.

 

[RocketGrunt]

Currently the top story on the SciFi & Fantasy Hall of Fame gets 4.94. The lowest rating that appears on the front page is 4.85. The top story has 101 votes. This means that the "top story" received 95 "5 Stars" and 6 "4 Stars", which is an admirable ratio, but not actually very impressive for something that has been out for 8 months.

To put things in perspective, my last chapter of Fighting Them There has a low rating for that series (4.75) and mixed reviews because of an unpopular plot direction. It came out last week and has over three hundred 5 Star reviews.

But now let's look at what a single troll rating would do to our front runner. One person giving it 2 stars would drop it from 4.94 in first place to 4.91 in 4th place. Two deliveries of 2 star troll ratings would drop it to 4.88 and be 7th place. Three troll strikes and it would be one of the many stories at 4.85 that wasn't on the front page at all. Meaning that literally one person who happened to have a personal laptop, a work computer, and a smart phone could log in from their three devices and push it from number one to off the front page in three minutes. That it hasn't happened yet is just that it hasn't happened Yet. At 101 ratings, it only just made the cutoff for consideration on the hall of fame at all. It will probably get trolled out of existence in a week or two at the outside.

None of this is desirable. The average ratings is a bad metric for popularity. It simply puts all of the power in the hands of downvoters, and those are the worst people on this site. The correct solution is to have the total 5 star ratings subtracted by the number of other ratings. The current number 7 story on the SciFi Fantasy board has been given over SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED 5 Star ratings and came out in 2010. Obviously that should be the top of the hall of fame. Because like, OBVIOUSLY. And any math that gives any other answer is bad and wrong.

 

[kreemi_pi]

Ever dropped an ice cream cone on the ground? A few kids wouldn’t touch it no matter what; some might scrape off the top; but most would just pick it up and lick it as it is, unfazed by the grains of sand grinding between their teeth — that’s your real deal right there.

The visual is great, and it gave me a chuckle, but otherwise it's one of the worst analogies I've ever experienced. Where do I even begin?

Let's just go with the most obvious thing. You're equating your audience with grubby toddlers who have to be reminded not to eat dirt.

Again I ask: if you all despise your readers so much, why are you writing?

 

[iwatchus]

I think they should eliminate anonymous voting. Sure, it might mean fewer votes overall, but the results would be far more accurate and much less noisy. The manipulation is very real, and it discourages people who genuinely care about the competitions. The site has little to lose and a lot to gain by tightening things up.

First off, I expect a majority, probably a substantial majority, of readers are anonymous. I'm sure Manu knows the percentages precisely. And I expect the voting is similar.

In another thread, authors are complaining that too many people enter the contests already.

But most importantly, the readers are who pay the bills here, not the authors. If the site had a 50% drop off in authors contributing stories, I'm sure Laurel and Manu would be moldy concerned, but that's not a big loss. If they have a 50% drop off in readers, that is crisis mode. Nothing is ever going to happen on the site to make life easier for authors that reduces readership. Fundamentally will not happen.

It is reasonable to believe that anonymous voting (and comments) increases page views. Therefore it is here to stay.

As Simon says, try not to obsess over your ratings. (Now if I could only get myself to follow that...)

 

[cw5523729]

As Simon says, try not to obsess over your ratings. (Now if I could only get myself to follow that...)

Wait, so I should or shouldn't be hitting refresh on the stats page every 30 seconds? I'm confused.

 

[kreemi_pi]

First off, I expect a majority, probably a substantial majority, of readers are anonymous. I'm sure Manu knows the percentages precisely. And I expect the voting is similar.

In another thread, authors are complaining that too many people enter the contests already.

But most importantly, the readers are who pay the bills here, not the authors. If the site had a 50% drop off in authors contributing stories, I'm sure Laurel and Manu would be moldy concerned, but that's not a big loss. If they have a 50% drop off in readers, that is crisis mode. Nothing is ever going to happen on the site to make life easier for authors that reduces readership. Fundamentally will not happen.

It is reasonable to believe that anonymous voting (and comments) increases page views. Therefore it is here to stay.

As Simon says, try not to obsess over your ratings. (Now if I could only get myself to follow that...)

Well said. This website runs on click-thru revenue to camgirls and porngames which is a function of how many people show up.

 

[kreemi_pi]

Wait, so I should or shouldn't be hitting refresh on the stats page every 30 seconds? I'm confused.

30 seconds??? You slacker.

 

[cw5523729]

30 seconds??? You slacker.

Any more frequently and I sprain my mouse-button clicking finger. Can you add a second mouse to a desktop so I can alternate hands? BRB

 

[iwatchus]

Wait, so I should or shouldn't be hitting refresh on the stats page every 30 seconds? I'm confused.

During my lone contest I have entered thus far, I had to promise my SO to only refresh every 15 minutes. I only cheated occasionally.

 

[Trionyx]

Literotica truncates scores

And all this time I have been assuming scores were averaged to the hundredth of a point. This explains even more why one isolated one vote can have an even greater impact on the ranking.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You say it's "horribly written." The readers don't. You think your story is brilliant, the readers don't. So the readers are stupid morons because they don't understand there's a completely objective standard they were supposed to follow? Sure, keep telling yourself that.

By and large they don't know and/or don't care about any literary quality. What they do define is popularity of a story. If you write a story and it scores a 4.2 and then you write another story and it scores a 4.7, this does not mean that you wrote it better or worse or the same. What it does mean is that you wrote a more popular story. The scores can be a highly accurate measure of popularity. In fact in the absence if troll downvoting, they are a perfectly accurate indicator. However, they are a horribly inaccurate indicator of literary quality. You can tell by the comments of many stories that sing the praises of such well developed characters when the characters were actually drawn up on and cut out from a box of Rice Krispies.

 

[iwatchus]

And all this time I have been assuming scores were averaged to the hundredth of a point. This explains even more why one isolated one vote can have an even greater impact on the ranking.

There is still a line that will change the displayed result. It’s just a difference whether it is 4.855 or 4.86. Any vote 4 or 1 that drops you infinitesimally below the line changes the displayed result. That so many stories tie at 4.85 on many of the top lists shows they use the truncated there

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think they should eliminate anonymous voting. Sure, it might mean fewer votes overall, but the results would be far more accurate and much less noisy. The manipulation is very real, and it discourages people who genuinely care about the competitions. The site has little to lose and a lot to gain by tightening things up.

I've been promoting this idea for years, but as you can see, no one here likes it, which is somewhat funny. AH is inconsistent as fuck.

But more importantly, Laurel would never go for it. I disagree about many points others are making, but one thing is certain. Laurel doesn't give a flying fuck about how accurate or fair ratings are, or what would benefit authors. The website is modeled to promote clicks and traffic, so it only panders to readers' needs, anonymous or registered.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

but as you can see, no one here likes it, which is somewhat funny. AH is inconsistent as fuck.

How is the AH inconsistent and why is that funny and by funny do you mean ironic, weird or amusing?

 

[SimonDoom]

That's what you think but sorry to say that you are wrong. The veterans here know that the only real protection against downvotes is a large vote count to outweigh the bombs. Anyone with a practical understanding of math can't logically disagree with that.

I think this is basically correct. Which is why the sensible path is to just keep writing, do what you do, build your following, add votes to your stories, accumulate followers and favorites, and eventually you won't care. That's where I am. My mean story score is only about 4.52, which is much lower than that of many of the people who keep complaining about downvoting, but I don't care and it doesn't in any way impede my ability to "succeed" on this site by my own terms. It's why I'm baffled by people who get upset when their story gets downvoted from 4.92 to 4.87. That's not a real-world problem. There's something awry with your attitude if you are upset about that. I have no stories ranked above 4.80. So?

 

[RocketGrunt]

I think this is basically correct. Which is why the sensible path is to just keep writing, do what you do, build your following, add votes to your stories, accumulate followers and favorites, and eventually you won't care. That's where I am. My mean story score is only about 4.52, which is much lower than that of many of the people who keep complaining about downvoting, but I don't care and it doesn't in any way impede my ability to "succeed" on this site by my own terms. It's why I'm baffled by people who get upset when their story gets downvoted from 4.92 to 4.87. That's not a real-world problem. There's something awry with your attitude if you are upset about that. I have no stories ranked above 4.80. So?

People get upset about the troll votes that change 4.9 into 4.87 precisely because the Hall of Fame algorithm depends on such nonsense. At 4.90 you're at the top of the Hall of Fame. At 4.87 you're in the middle. If they do it again and you drop to 4.84, you're off the front page altogether. If it was just a number, it wouldn't matter and only a few weirdos would care. But because it determines "Popular Stories" placement, it determines whether people who look at the story category page will see your story at all.

The solution is to decouple placement on the page from the exact rating. If the hall of fame was just the stories that have been rated and favorited thousands of times, it wouldn't be something that small numbers of spiteful people could manipulate.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think they should eliminate anonymous voting. Sure, it might mean fewer votes overall, but the results would be far more accurate and much less noisy. The manipulation is very real, and it discourages people who genuinely care about the competitions. The site has little to lose and a lot to gain by tightening things up.

Or:

https://emilymillerlit.wordpress.com/2024/07/19/an-open-letter-to-literotica-about-ratings/

 

[ChloeTzang]

I'm not passionate about it at all, and I don't mean to sound dismissive or condescending. I'm just being realistic. This is an issue that has been debated for as long as I've been in this forum (nine years). Many people gripe about anonymous voting, and have for years. I've experienced 1-bombs and downvoting. I know what it's like. But the site has made it crystal clear that it's not going to put up any barriers to unregistered readers from voting, or to anonymous comments. And it's made its reason clear: because they are such a big part of the readership and the voting system. I personally think the site's position on this issue is the right one. I WANT anonymous voting and comments. I want as much input as possible. Manipulation and downvoting are annoying, but they're just mosquito bites. They are far outweighed by the benefit of getting more readers, more voters, and more comments. And I think most authors either agree with me, or don't care in the slightest.

I agree with Simon on this. Laurel's not going to change the voting system and IMHO, it works pretty well. Sure you get trolls and you get a bit of one star backstabbing LOL but it's just the way the site works and honestly, I think the benefits of leaving it open outweigh the negatives, and I say that as someone who has had the heck bombed out of some of my stories now and then. Bugged me when I first started here but now I really don't worry about it - it all averages out over time, and like Simon, I want the anonymous comments and votes. The important things are readers, views, comments and followers - the more the better as far as exposure goes. The numbers of readers is the all important thing and you want to make it easier and attractive to them.

It's quite clear that the number of authors who want to ban anonymous voting and comments are a tiny fraction of the participants in this site, and the site quite understandably has made the decision that their views don't trump those of the majority.

It;s a reader-centric site that's friedly to authors with very little filtering. Which I like. You have to sort thru a lot of rubbish to find good stories, but it's not hard and the rating system helps a bit. And finding authors you enjoy and being able to follow them helps too.

Being active as an author always helps too - 3 or 4 years ago I had I think it was 5 or maybe even 6 of the Top 20 stories in the First Time Hall of Fame but it's exposure that keeps you up there. Without that you tend to slip as new authors and new stories pop up and your scores drop over time - that's my experience, having gone on a bit of a hiatus over 2024 for personal reasons and I'm fine with that. It's good to see a bit of change and, speaking philsophically here LOL, I don't enter the competitions competitively now, so much as for fun. Having won a few of them over time, I'm quite happy with others having their 15 minutes of glory and fame which is why I personally out a put more emphasis this year on writing for the events rather than the competitions. Altho I have to say my last competition win was accidental LOL

Which is going off on a bit of a tangent, but ratings do drop over time (unless you're Sammuel Bard and you wrote "Harp Unstrung" LOL - that was #1 for years but now even Harp Unstrung has been bumped)

I guess what I'm trying to say is dn't get too hung up on where your stories show in the list

 

[ChloeTzang]

Humility is in short supply on this thread.

LOL If we didn't have big egos we wouldn;t dare put our stories in front of readers to be abused, ridiculed and downvoted - and then come back and pyblish the next one LOL