OMG One Bombs!

[lovecraft68]

As evidence that 1* votes don't automatically get swept, there are stories on this site which have long-lasting "perfect" 1.00 scores.

That's the Samuel X effect

 

[Voboy]

That's the Samuel X effect

...ouch.

But you're not wrong.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I won't repeat the threads I did on this a while back, but: people tend to over-analyse patterns in story scores.

I'm not saying that people never abuse the system - that definitely does happen, I've seen it happen. But it's natural for averages to fluctuate as votes come in, and the kind of fluctuation you'd expect even with honest voting is larger than many realise. If a story was sitting on 4.85 for a while and then drifted down to 4.80, the most likely explanation isn't a coordinated downvoting campaign, it's just the random element of who sees that story first and who sees it later.

Exactly. I couldn't believe the guy a few months back, moaning about a point 01 change in score. I might have been vaguely sympathetic if it was a point 1 change, but point 01??

My story file seems to have a snake like movement scores wise. Generally over time all scores are creeping higher, but some stories slide up faster while some wander down. If I look at the ranking every six months or so, there's always a slightly different order in each quartile (although a story rarely moves from one quartile to another). Curious. It means people are reading my back catalogue, though, which is the main thing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

First, maybe I’m just unfamiliar with the Literotica platform, but I feel like a lot of heartache could be saved by displaying the distribution of ratings on our author portals in addition to vote count and the average. The data must be saved in the backend somewhere because The Sweeper leverages it. Is there a reason we don’t have access to that data, or is it simply a feature that’s on the to-do list somewhere buried beneath the hundreds of other things that go into site upkeep?

I agree that would be very interesting to see, and that the site must have that data. I don't think anybody in this discussion knows for sure why it's not currently displayed, but your "buried in the to-do list" guess seems pretty plausible.

I’m surprised by how down on people who value ratings the community seems to be.

Maybe I’m in the minority here, and maybe it says something unflattering about my maturity level or whatever, but here we go. I like seeing big numbers next to my stories. There, I said it. On top of being an evolved ape that is chemically programmed to enjoy dopamine, I pour hours upon hours of work into writing my stories. Every little “ya done good, kid” I get makes me feel good. Are ratings the best indicator of quality writing? Probably not. But given the slim pickings for alternatives, they’re certainly not nothing.

I hear that. I like seeing nice numbers on my stories too. I'm also a maths nerd so I enjoy playing with numbers even if they're somebody else's.

The problem is that some people get kind of obsessive about it in ways that don't end up making them happy or benefiting their writing. Like any system, people start trying to game it, and it ends up not being a fun game. A lot of it ends up being people over-interpreting things that are too small to be meaningful.

So, when they fall out of that rating range by a single person submitting a 1-star rating, it feels like a real blow. Especially when it’s done anonymously, without any comment to indicate why the reader was displeased or what the writer can do to improve their craft. And remember, most of us newcomers have pretty low total rating counts, so math dictates a single 1-star does a disproportionate amount of damage.

Keep in mind though that most of the 5* voters don't leave comments either, and their reasons for loving our stories are often just as superficial and arbitrary as the 1* voters' reasons for hating. That's not to say we shouldn't enjoy the positive ratings, but don't get carried away with them.

A certain portion of 1* votes are from mean-spirited people, sometimes for things that have nothing to do with the story at all. Maybe they have their own story they want to boost by tearing down the competition, maybe they disliked something you posted on the forums, it could be anything. But we do have a tendency to assume that all the good ratings are valid and insightful and that all the bad ratings are dishonest (cf. the "ban 1-star votes" ideas that get floated here every so often) and I think that's not a healthy way to think about it.

And when a 1* rating comes in, remember that all the people who did love the story still exist! The 1* has just changed the average, it hasn't undone history.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's the Samuel X effect

I've said it before, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that many writers here could learn a valuable lesson from SamuelX.

 

[dmallord]

I've had over 34 ones on my story "A User Guide - A Geek Pride Story" at the end of May for the author challenge. I watched the votes as they came in two or three at a time, and now weeks later (with the one scraps) it's still only rated at 1.92.

Several authors here commented that they enjoyed the story and the tech guide approach. One commented he liked the unique way I wrote the poker game ending. So, their more positive ratings have kept it from being much lower.

I posted that to Loving Wives to poke those 1-bombing trolls deliberately. Sometimes we DO know we're being 1-bombed.

There are a lot of variables in determining Lit scores that 'are behind the curtain' beyond what we can see. We are assuming that Lit rounds up - not down - for one. Lit only shows two decimal places that makes it even harder to know what all those actual numbers make up that average score, e.g. the example of 400 votes with 4.8 score. Secondly, Lit doesn't give a clue to anyone what the actual score given is, so, we are using our spreadsheets like a crystal ball to try and divine what those scores are. At best, they are approximately close. Fretting writers worrying over a drop from 4.9 to 4.8, and harping about it sounds like - well you know, 'picky' or the 'w' word: okay, whining ...

For what it's worth I found that there are more than ten, lots more than ten, different combinations to achieve a 4.8 Lit average using 400 scores. I hope the image below comes through and you see the ten I created to illustrate just ten of these combinations.

If one tracks scores from the beginning, with some due diligence, one can, 'fairly' accurately, conjecture a score keeper can determine that he/she did get a '1 subjective score' that may or may not be valid as others have noted.

All said and done - it's the satisfaction of knowing your work is being read - right?

I write for mental stress release and to try and maintain some cognitive skills at my age. Scores are just another skill set to manipulate as a honing device for the other side of the brain cells. ;-)

 

[NotWise]

For what it's worth I found that there are more than ten, lots more than ten, different combinations to achieve a 4.8 Lit average using 400 scores. I hope the image below comes through and you see the ten I created to illustrate just ten of these combinations.

Just as an indication of how much of a nerd I am, I found 3004 unique combinations of 400 votes that would average 4.80. My interest in tracking all this has been to get to the distribution of votes, and the average distribution of those 3004 possibilities is:

1* 2.60
2* 7.53
3* 11.63
4* 23.77
5* 354.48

The actual distribution that comes closest to the average is:

1* 3
2* 8
3* 10
4* 24
5* 355

 

[Voboy]

I'm pleased that some of you care enough to do all this math/programming stuff. Truly, I am. I lack the knowledge, the patience, and the interest. However, whenever I see any writer on here brooding over their scores, I think of something that happened to me:

I wrote a story especially for my woman. I was careful about it, because I wanted to get it right: it's a gift to her, an expression of love. I posted it, she read it, and she loved it. Absolutely loved it. Truly, madly, deeply loved it. Still does.

Then she told me, laughing, that she mashed the 4* button instead of the 5* because she lost control of her thumb on the phone screen, or something. So this woman for whom I wrote the story, and who adores it above all other stories on the entire site, gave it a score that helps keep it below a red H.

The moral of the story? Even when votes matter, they really don't. They're not worth worrying about all that much, IMO.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

But there is something else to it. How many times have each of us had the experience of looking for something new to read, and coming across a few possibilities in the genre of our choice and with some appealing tags. Option A is a 4.8, B is a 3.2, and C is a 4.2. Which are you gonna click first?Everybody who didn’t say “A”, you’re a less superficial reader than I can claim to be.

Yes I am.

My fave writer on this site has scores all in the 3s. He writes a character that no one else dares to. The numbers mean fuck all when it comes to quality of writing and as such they mean fuck all to me.

Your story has a 4.9 you say? Great. I honesty do not give a good goddamn shit.

 

[dmallord]

I love strolling through the grocery store's ground coffee aisle! My feet just about float above the floor inhaling all those aromas! Alas, my doctors have me on decaf and it's instant out of a jar. Faint smell, little taste, just hot enough to remind me of something called coffee. Perhaps I should take my next cup to the grocery aisle and drink it there while inhaling all those delicious smells!

And by the way, I am truely impressed by your math skills! My poor spreadsheet looks like it was designed by a troglodyte in comparison to your skillful creation. I bow before a master!

 

[ElectricBlue]

Then she told me, laughing, that she mashed the 4* button instead of the 5* because she lost control of her thumb on the phone screen, or something. So this woman for whom I wrote the story, and who adores it above all other stories on the entire site, gave it a score that helps keep it below a red H.

You've not heard of a Freudian slip, then? Sounds like a classic example to me .

 

[Bramblethorn]

There are a lot of variables in determining Lit scores that 'are behind the curtain' beyond what we can see. We are assuming that Lit rounds up - not down - for one.

IIRC Lit rounds to nearest 0.01, with scores exactly on the halfway line being rounded up. You can check this easily enough when there are only a few votes on the story: e.g. if you only have 6 votes, the score must be a multiple of 1/6, so a rounded score of "4.33" means 4.3333... rounded down, and "4.67" means 4.6666... rounded up.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've said it before, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that many writers here could learn a valuable lesson from SamuelX.

Same here, I have a lot of respect for him. That guy is the definition of writing whatever you want, however you want, and giving zero fucks how its received.
He is a testament to writing for yourself and no one else.

 

[lovecraft68]

But there is something else to it. How many times have each of us had the experience of looking for something new to read, and coming across a few possibilities in the genre of our choice and with some appealing tags. Option A is a 4.8, B is a 3.2, and C is a 4.2. Which are you gonna click first?Everybody who didn’t say “A”, you’re a less superficial reader than I can claim to be.

When I first started here, I discovered the top lists and figured, okay these are the best in the category, let's see what they have that maybe I don't have yet. With the exception of one story I was really blown away by I saw nothing that set these stories above anything else I'd read, to the contrary, I didn't bother finishing more than one.

Then I focused more on my work and as time went by and I learned that nothing here is truly an indicator of a good story other than did you as the reader like it. I changed how I looked for stories. I now go to the category I wish to read, and I go by title and tag. If the tag grans me I check it out. I don't even look at score.

Admittedly as time went on here I read less and less because I wrote more and life itself just kept tossing things in to my time so it was my writing, or reading someone else's. But I recommend just choosing something that sounds good and not look for the score or if it has an H.

This site really delivers on the 'undiscovered Gem" pieces.

 

[Lifestyle66]

If any writer here is still obsessively focused on ratings, I recommend you try writing an extra-marital fun story (consensual swingers story) from the swinger couple's perspective and post it to the Loving Wives category. Put forth your best effort and write a story you are proud to publish. Then watch the ratings and read the comments. You won't be so focused on any .01 change in your score, and it will probably cure you of caring about ratings.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I won't argue any of the points made, but have on the other hand wondered about people giving 'legitimate' or 'honest' one-scores. I know that if I start a tale and find the characterizations feeble, the plot stale, the eroticism unrealistic and both spelling and grammar poor, how likely am I to read it all the way through in the first place? If I find somebody's writing poor in general, how likely is it that I am going to keeping reading his or her other stories?

Putting it another way, if I have a series in which every single one has a lower score, one which (I check) could only come with a low, low score for each of them, how should I take that?

There is honest opinion, honest criticism and that's fine. The point - and we have all seen it - is that many (I won't say all) low-scores are either vindictive attacks on individual writers or else cynical gamesmanship to make themselves look good by making others look less good.

Another datum for consideration. Yes, I track scores and readers and such. Logically, fluctuating scores are to be expected. Jane and Kelly like a tale and their votes push the score up until Mike dislikes it and the score sags, followed by Tony who likes it and the score shifts upwards. Yup, normal, up and down, back and forth. Normal.

Now take a story where the score slowly crawls up, vote by vote, over an extended period, then suddenly drops over a short time with but a few votes. It then begins to crawl upwards again until it almost reaches a certain point, then again drops suddenly with a relatively few votes. This pattern continues, over and over, generally stopping when a contest ends. Unless one postulates certain timezones filled with harsh critics, that would clearly seem to be less random voting and more targeted attack.

One needs to look for patterns among the static.

 

[lovecraft68]

I won't argue any of the points made, but have on the other hand wondered about people giving 'legitimate' or 'honest' one-scores. I know that if I start a tale and find the characterizations feeble, the plot stale, the eroticism unrealistic and both spelling and grammar poor, how likely am I to read it all the way through in the first place? If I find somebody's writing poor in general, how likely is it that I am going to keeping reading his or her other stories?

Putting it another way, if I have a series in which every single one has a lower score, one which (I check) could only come with a low, low score for each of them, how should I take that?

There is honest opinion, honest criticism and that's fine. The point - and we have all seen it - is that many (I won't say all) low-scores are either vindictive attacks on individual writers or else cynical gamesmanship to make themselves look good by making others look less good.

Another datum for consideration. Yes, I track scores and readers and such. Logically, fluctuating scores are to be expected. Jane and Kelly like a tale and their votes push the score up until Mike dislikes it and the score sags, followed by Tony who likes it and the score shifts upwards. Yup, normal, up and down, back and forth. Normal.

Now take a story where the score slowly crawls up, vote by vote, over an extended period, then suddenly drops over a short time with but a few votes. It then begins to crawl upwards again until it almost reaches a certain point, then again drops suddenly with a relatively few votes. This pattern continues, over and over, generally stopping when a contest ends. Unless one postulates certain timezones filled with harsh critics, that would clearly seem to be less random voting and more targeted attack.

One needs to look for patterns among the static.

A long time ago I started the discussion is there such a thing as a legit one? I am sure there is, but of course most authors refuse to accept the fact someone could dislike their story so much they get a one.

Which is not true, and its not an indictment(at least not all the time) on your writing. They don't like a premise, a character, maybe some of the dialogue rubs them the wrong way(especially these days when the professionally offended prowl the net) any of those reasons is a reason in their eyes for that score and of course, there are some flat out bad stories.

I don't like that the sweeps in contests seem to eliminate just about every one bomb because it has created yet another way to game scores. Bomb your own story repeatedly or have people do it for you. Why? Because when the sweeps pull votes, they sometimes go too deep, that means you could lose a good vote, but also it keeps lowering your total vote number and in a low vote total category you be one of those people who place with a 35 or so vote story.

This of course lends more credence to the argument of not fretting scores or numbers because of the endless manipulations some people can pull off which in turn creates more questions about anything here being authentic, and to just focus more on your story and whatever constructive feedback you get. Everything else is superficial, and often not 'natural'

 

[Bramblethorn]

I won't argue any of the points made, but have on the other hand wondered about people giving 'legitimate' or 'honest' one-scores. I know that if I start a tale and find the characterizations feeble, the plot stale, the eroticism unrealistic and both spelling and grammar poor, how likely am I to read it all the way through in the first place?

Does somebody have to read the whole story through before their 1* can be legitimate, though? Or is there a point at which a reader might be justified in saying "I've seen enough" and skipping ahead to the voting?

 

[NotWise]

Now take a story where the score slowly crawls up, vote by vote, over an extended period, then suddenly drops over a short time with but a few votes. It then begins to crawl upwards again until it almost reaches a certain point, then again drops suddenly with a relatively few votes. This pattern continues, over and over, generally stopping when a contest ends. Unless one postulates certain timezones filled with harsh critics, that would clearly seem to be less random voting and more targeted attack.

One needs to look for patterns among the static.

Do you mean a pattern like this?

Or maybe like this?


Or maybe like this.


These graphs are all generated with random numbers, using the score distribution I showed earlier for a story that would eventually rate 4.8 with 400 votes. (355 5* votes, 24 4* votes, 10 3* votes, 8 2* votes and 3 1* votes).

The votes are mostly 5-star votes, which makes the scores trend up, but every time a vote shows up that's less than 5 stars it crashes the score.

No voters are manipulating the votes or vindictively down-voting the story. There are just different points of view.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Does somebody have to read the whole story through before their 1* can be legitimate, though? Or is there a point at which a reader might be justified in saying "I've seen enough" and skipping ahead to the voting?

Point taken, but let me give you an example, a series. Either half a dozen different readers each bombed one story in the series the same day (yes, me, today) or one person took his or her time. Further, the stories in question are, objectively, pretty good tales, well-rated by a lot of people. That somebody else comes along and finds them all dreadful, without any literary merit, to the point that a very low score is justified, well, that's... curious.

I would also question how many normal people actually give low scores vice simply moving on and resolving never to read that author again. Pure speculation, admittedly without evidence, but I suspect those giving really low 'honest' scores are in the minority.

Not whining. It's not my site and I'm grateful for such opportunity I get. My point is that there is no rational reason to think that the system is not vulnerable to manipulation or that is it not being manipulated.

 

[NotWise]

Does somebody have to read the whole story through before their 1* can be legitimate, though? Or is there a point at which a reader might be justified in saying "I've seen enough" and skipping ahead to the voting?

Readers don't all want the same thing. In fact, quite a few readers seem to want a quick off and to get it done. I chalk up quite a few low votes to people who read far enough into a story to realize they aren't getting that, then go to the end and vote because, from their point of view, it's a crappy story.

It's an erotic site. I think you can expect that kind of voting.

 

[RejectReality]

Standard distribution ignores the fact that voting patterns trend toward the extremes, and this holds true everywhere I post. Lush still has actual distribution numbers, and SOL did for years. Most of the votes are either 1 or 5, with a smattering of anything in the middle, weighed mostly toward 4. People who can be bothered with the voting form either loved it or hated it. There are only a tiny subset of people who vote with any nuance, and most of those trend toward 4, with 5 being reserved for something that really hit them.

 

[RejectReality]

A quick and dirty collection of some distribution from elsewhere.


There aren't nearly as many people low voting for content there, so it's even more heavily weighted toward the upper end. ( More categories, always had more prominent keywords, longer description lines... Easier to filter things you're not going to like before opening them ) The exception is incest, which they took down without notice ( and malice ) then were forced to restore because it killed traffic. Those who didn't want it back slap them all with low scores trying to chase them off.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

NW,

First off, sidebar. The phrase ‘one bomb’ has become more of a rule of thumb description for a vindictive or unscrupulous low scoring than one strictly limited to a one-star vote. IMO, waving off posters because their numbers don’t support a whole bunch of ones misses the point.

In any case, let’s look at my figures this morning.

I have 84 published stories, including two entries in the current Nude Day contest.

Of those, no less than 32 received votes yesterday, a very, very high percentage for me. Yes, indeed, there is a contest going on and that brings attention - acknowledged. If it matters, all but two of those 32 had more than the magical 100 votes beyond which scores are generally accepted as becoming fairly stable.

Of those 32, 10 scores changed from yesterday. Just one had less than 100 votes previously.

Of those 10 changed scores, eight were downwards.

Yes, swings can be anticipated. They’re normal. And, yes, ‘not-Five’ votes have a greater impact, so to speak, than Fives. Gotcha. And randomness can do strange things, things which set our primitive pattern-recognition senses twitching incorrectly. All that is acknowledged,

On the other hand, when this sort of pattern becomes, shall we say, overly-frequent, one’s mind misquotes Auric Goldfinger: “Once is randomness, Mr Bond. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

Permit me another personal example, Stories are posted just after midnight my time. If I get up early, the scores will generally be very nice, smile-bringers. Invariably – invariably - between 0530 and 0600 my time, there will be a one-vote. (Spreadsheet analysis, not my WAG.) Coincidence? Maybe. Coincidence, with the same thing happening at the same time, dozens of time in a row? Sorry, neither randomness nor coincidence has enough horsepower to convince me.

My point is that, while it it’s absolutely correct that not every drop in score can be attributed to a one-bomb, some definitely can. I’m not all that worried about scores and I'm whining about this anymore than I whine about the weather. I’m grateful to the site for the opportunity to exercise what little talent I might still have and how Laurel and Manu run it is their business. But it cannot be denied that the present setup is vulnerable to manipulation. You, I’m sure, can think of more ways than I can. It was worse years ago, I gather, with charges of collusion and bots (before my time, so I cannot judge). Now? As cynical as I am, I’m in the camp that believes if something can be manipulated, it will be manipulated.

I myself would like it changed, but it’s not my site and I’m not going to walk away because I don’t like the rules. Let’s just not sugar-coat things.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

Welcome to the real Literotica, Wark.

There are all kinds of one-bombers, IMO. Some lurk the New Stories page and bomb anything that appears. Some on the other hand are more focused and target specific authors.

The why of it is open to interpretation. Some, I think, are like toddlers. Unable to build their own stack of building blocks, they take delight in knocking down those build by others. Whee! Then there are those motivated by hatred (with whatever label you wish to attach). Most despicable of all, IMO, are those who target high-rated stories to help their own win prizes. Personal opinion above, but I know many agree with me.

Sweeps help, but we do not discuss how sweeps work. A good guess can help a bomber avoid the sweeps. If you have reason to believe you have been one-bombed, hit the Report icon on the story and request a sweep. If one happens, it will cover all your stuff, not just the one reported. As there is a contest going on now, sweeps will be more frequent than normal.

Keep in mind what NW says above about jumping to conclusions.

What’s a sweep here?