A Modest Proposal

[alohadave]

I am thinking about a new statistic for rating stories.

I find that I am equally thrilled by 5-star and 1-star ratings. In both cases, it means that I have gotten a visceral reaction out of a reader. Being a good or bad reaction isn't always the issue; the strength of the reaction sometimes is what counts to me as an author.

So how about a statistic based on an equation something like: SQRT(Sum(score-3)^2)

For those of you who don't speak FORTRAN, what I mean is that every score has 3 subtracted from it, and is then squared (so negative numbers become positive), and then they are all added up, and then we take the square root of the total. In other words, the STRONGER the reactions, positive or negative, the higher the statistic that results. So we are measuring the intensity of the reaction, rather than the good or bad of it. Lots of 3 scores will get you a very low statistic; lots of 5 scores, or 1 scores, or both, will get you a very high statistic.

This is just a thought experiment. I'm not expecting that it will ever happen, of course. Just floating it out there as a talking point. What do you all think?

I'd rather just have the vote counts. Then I could do the analysis myself.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is never going to happen, but it gets points for creativity, and kudos to Z for adding still more layers of nerdiness.

How about doing distribution graphs/curves for authors so you can see the score distribution of their stories?

 

[Writer61]

I'd rather just have the vote counts. Then I could do the analysis myself.

That would be helpful, but I have a pretty good idea through using a simple spreadsheet.

Each week, I log likely scores so that the count and average match those in the system. It is not perfect; there are combinations for which you cannot be sure (e.g. 2 & 4, which give the same result as 1 & 5).

 

[Lifestyle66]

The formula is intended as subtracting 3 from each rating and doing the sum, not from the average score. sqrt((R_1-3)^2+(R_2-3)^2+...) if you will. Like I said previously, we don't have the data to do this ourselves.

-----------------------------Nerd shit----------------------------------------
This took waay longer than it should have, because I have a fever, and it may for the same reason be slightly off - I hope not:

A story with 20 x 5 Stars and 3 x 1 Stars will have the average score of 4.478... So 4.48 rounded.
It will have the "Carnevil-score" of 9.591...

A story with 20 x 5 Stars and 7 x 3 Stars will have the average score of 4.481... So 4.48 rounded.
It will have the Carnevil-score of 8.944... Because fewer people gave an extreme rating, theoretically meaning the story elicits fewer strong reactions.

This will also give a story with an average of 3 distributed across 1 x 2 and 1x 4 a Carnevil-score of 1.4. Whereas for 2 x 3, it will be 0.

-----------------------------End of nerd shit--------------------------------

The fact that stories with similar rating spreads (not averages) will be mirrored around 3 was kind of the point, I believe. To gauge intensity of emotion, not positivity of emotion.

Your other points are correct though, we can't know the nuance of the reasons why people give the scores they do. That holds true regardless though - averages are the same.


Oh and if you feel like asking "Z, why all this ?", the answer is that I'm bored because of previously mentioned fever.

Edit: There should, btw, probably be a "/n" somewhere in that formula to normalize for number of ratings, but I'm not lucid enough right now to tell you if it should inside or outside the sqrt()

Still, ... as I was saying, sometimes there are a few stories with well-deserved ONES, and not for any emotional reaction suggesting people should read it. Merely for the author's lack of effort.

 

[cw5523729]

I think the best change would be going to a 1-10 rating system so that the median score, like @iwatchus said, wasn't 5.

The current system is very, very skewed to the high end. An actual 5 rating (not median) is almost unheard of but 4.9 is incredible. 4.8 is very good. 4.6 is pretty good, 4.5 is decent. 4.25 is mediocre. and anything under a 4 is basically landfill garbage that isn't worth the space it takes up on a server. But you can't choose any of those scores. You can only choose 4 or 5. The end.

So if we had a scoring system where all the scores weren't crammed in between 4 and 5, it would be a lot more reflective of what people actually thought.

 

[TheLobster]

Edit: There should, btw, probably be a "/n" somewhere in that formula to normalize for number of ratings, but I'm not lucid enough right now to tell you if it should inside or outside the sqrt()

Inside. But the formula is already extremely close to being the geometric mean of biased scores, so honestly I'd just go ahead and put 'n' as the degree of the root.

 

[Writer61]

I think the best change would be going to a 1-10 rating system so that the median score, like @iwatchus said, wasn't 5.

The current system is very, very skewed to the high end. An actual 5 rating (not median) is almost unheard of but 4.9 is incredible. 4.8 is very good. 4.6 is pretty good, 4.5 is decent. 4.25 is mediocre. and anything under a 4 is basically landfill garbage that isn't worth the space it takes up on a server. But you can't choose any of those scores. You can only choose 4 or 5. The end.

So if we had a scoring system where all the scores weren't crammed in between 4 and 5, it would be a lot more reflective of what people actually thought.

More granularity would be interesting, but I doubt that it will make a lot of difference.

 

[iwatchus]

I think the best change would be going to a 1-10 rating system so that the median score, like @iwatchus said, wasn't 5.

The current system is very, very skewed to the high end. An actual 5 rating (not median) is almost unheard of but 4.9 is incredible. 4.8 is very good. 4.6 is pretty good, 4.5 is decent. 4.25 is mediocre. and anything under a 4 is basically landfill garbage that isn't worth the space it takes up on a server. But you can't choose any of those scores. You can only choose 4 or 5. The end.

So if we had a scoring system where all the scores weren't crammed in between 4 and 5, it would be a lot more reflective of what people actually thought.

The site’s biggest assets are the readership and its deep catalog of stories, which are not unrelated. No proposal that does not accommodate that can really be considered seriously

 

[IWroteThis]

The best would be the shopping site style ratings, giving the average but also giving the number of votes per rating. You could then play with the numbers to your heart's content.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I think the best change would be going to a 1-10 rating system so that the median score, like @iwatchus said, wasn't 5.

The current system is very, very skewed to the high end. An actual 5 rating (not median) is almost unheard of but 4.9 is incredible. 4.8 is very good. 4.6 is pretty good, 4.5 is decent. 4.25 is mediocre. and anything under a 4 is basically landfill garbage that isn't worth the space it takes up on a server. But you can't choose any of those scores. You can only choose 4 or 5. The end.

So if we had a scoring system where all the scores weren't crammed in between 4 and 5, it would be a lot more reflective of what people actually thought.

Would probably need a multiple vote system for that. Style, Structure, Plot, Did You Cum, or something.

 

[cw5523729]

Would probably need a multiple vote system for that. Style, Structure, Plot, Did You Cum, or something.

And clearly they wouldn't be equally weighted. Who the fuck cares about silly things like "plot" or "character development" or "is it filled with typos" if "Did you cum" gets a solid 10?

 

[M_K_Babalon]

And clearly they wouldn't be equally weighted. Who the fuck cares about silly things like "plot" or "character development" or "is it filled with typos" if "Did you cum" gets a solid 10?

No, so it would probably be like what we have now, with extra math.

 

[crookedletter]

I like the idea of a Yes/No poll in every story for Did you cum. For science.

 

[cw5523729]

No, so it would probably be like what we have now, with extra math.

Yes but the scores could be ranked with emojis like eggplants and squirting water drops. So that would be a fun improvement.

 

[cw5523729]

I like the idea of a Yes/No poll in every story for Did you cum. For science.

Agreed. I'll let you know the outcome after I get to @StillStunned's house.



For science.




Does anyone know if he's home right now?

 

[Carnevil9]

Edit: There should, btw, probably be a "/n" somewhere in that formula to normalize for number of ratings, but I'm not lucid enough right now to tell you if it should inside or outside the sqrt()

Yes, there definitely should be an n in the denominator. Although doing an nth root would probably work just as well. Thanks.

For those who want to totally geek out, check out the formulae for skewness and kurtosis and see if they tell us anything interesting.

 

[YmaOHyd]

The only thing I want out of a rating system is that it shows that everything I like is amazing and everything I don't like is poop.

 

[TheLobster]

check out the formulae for skewness and kurtosis

Definitely do that! When detected early, patients with kurtosis often make full recovery.