Anonymous Feedback...why not?

[knotty_dude]

In our great country, we are allowed to vote for our politicians anonymously so why should voting on these stories/poetry be any different? I've heard plenty from the writer's point of view but what about the readers? C'mon, the biggest reason writer's want to know who voted them, usually when they've been voted poorly, is to chew the voter out! Taking away the anonymity of the vote will take away most of your honest voters out there! Granted, there are some slobs out there will who rate you a 1 with nothing but malicious intent. But hey, a lot of voters voted for Al Gore not because they thought he was qualified but because they didn't want Bush for president. Do you think that is hardly fair?
I've read SOME great "5" stories, a lot of 4s and 3s and a whole shitload of 1s! Some of the grammar out is there is so atrocious, you can't read the story w/out stumbling over the words. Then some of it looks like it was slapped together from bits & pieces from another story, in other words, plagarism. Also some of these 1s lack any depth, just basically something like this "I wanted my Mom's pussy, so then she just let me have it & I came all over her, the end". Does that deserve a 5? How about stealing from Penthouse letters & stuff like that? Sad that some of us actually recognize the work but a lot of these writers just copy these stories right out of other publications.
In closing, I know some of you writers have been unfairly graded, and I'm sorry but it aint a perfect world, never will be. But a lot of these writers need to stop having these cheese & WHINE parties & take another good look at their story & see why they got the vote that they did.

Thanks & sorry for ranting on & on...

Knotty_dude

 

[PAUL C]

Your points are well made and valid.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

No they're not. I don't know anybody who's been afraid of giving his opinion on a story because he's scared of being flamed. When most people hate a story they tend not to say anything. Who has the time. It's when they like a story thta they speak up. Being anonymous won't chagne any of that.

And, before you give a list of examples, I agree that there are exceptions to all rules. But, generally, it holds: People rarely comment on suck-ass stories, anonymous or no.

And the voting is already anonymous.

 

[Weird Harold]

And the voting is already anonymous.

So it is, and it should remain so. Despite suggestions to the contrary.

I do wish that there were a way to sort out the malicious votes from those on the merits of the story.

Most of the "cheese and whine" parties are about one votes on stories that everyone else voted 4s and 5s on, or one votes on every story for a single author.

How the story contest is going to affect malicious voting remains to be seen, but I'm not optimistic

 

[KillerMuffin]

I whined once, felt good too. I wonder about the one votes I get. With two exceptions everything I have is over 4.00 in votes and 5 of my stories are sitting over 4.5. I would think that I am a little justified in wondering about a suddenly cliff-like drop in my scores. Particularly when they drop after a specific event has happened on the board.

No, I don't want the site owners to pull up the voting records and look for voter fraud because it couldn't be proven, only inferred. There may be legitimate one votes. There may not be.

I don't think I write the hottest stories here and I think most people read my stuff and don't really "get off" on it as well as they can get off on other stories. I do think, however, that it rates at least a 3.

 

[knotty_dude]

Killer Muffin, I can understand your frustration, but there's a whole world out there w/various opinions, I can't honestly say if I've read your work so I can't say yes your work deserves a 3. It probably does but someone out there may feel it does not & that is their perrogative. Mark Twain when his works were 1st published they were considered trashy. Go figure.

 

[Laurel]

I think knotty_dude's point - which I agree with - is that we shouldn't assume that every single 1 vote is done out of spite. The fact of the matter is that some people just won't LIKE your story, period. If you have too much plot and too little sex, that may rankle one reader. If you have too much sex and too little plot, someone else may get annoyed. If the lead character's name is Karen and the reader's ex-wife also happens to be named Karen, the reader may give you a 1-vote because it affected their enjoyment of the story.

Not everyone loves Steinbeck. Some readers can't stand Nabokov (hard to believe, but true). Does this make them idiots, because they adore Solzhenitsyn but think "Invitation to a Beheading" is crap? Of course not. People have different tastes. Everyone will not like everything you write. That's the nature of an audience.

It's possible that a minority of people may give you a 1-vote due to things you've said on the BB. I'm also equally sure that there are people who will give you a 5 vote due to things you've said on the BB. Is either vote more or less valid? Who's going to decide what a valid reason for voting is? Do we make voters fill out surveys and leave blood samples? You think the percentage of voters vs readers is low now...

You can drive yourself nuts stressing on every single eeny weeny vote that's cast. If 25 people give your story 3s, 4s, and 5s, and then a single person gives you a 1 - and then you choose to stress yourself out on that 1 vote and ignore the 25 other votes...that's a bit retentive and pessimistic, IMHO.

Use the voting as a rough guide. Analyze the written feedback you receive from readers. Ask for criticism from other authors, people whose tastes you trust.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there's no way to determine voter intent. If there are readers who are down-voting high-ranking stories, then it's happening to all high-ranking stories. If there's a member out there who 1s all of your work because he or she doesn't like what you say on the BB, that's one person. A single 1 vote will not change your average significantly if your story is good enough to be read, enjoyed, and voted on by the readership. If you're not getting many votes, or if you're getting a lot of low votes, you may want to have an editor read the story over to help you make it more effective.

I've done this schpiel before. I know you will all continue to visit your author profile and get your calculators out to try to determine who 1-voted you. IMHO, that's time better spent editing and polishing your work, or even writing something new. But it's your time to waste.

 

[Madame Pandora]

Most of the "cheese and whine" parties are about one votes on stories that everyone else voted 4s and 5s on, or one votes on every story for a single author.

How the story contest is going to affect malicious voting remains to be seen, but I'm not optimistic

What WH said about the “cheese and whine” is exactly true.

Laurel, you know I think you're the bee’s knees. I've heard your side of this song before. I just can't dance to it.

Today I stuck my tongue out at a couple of people on the board. All my stories and poems received a 1. (Except for one story which received a 1 and a 5). Aside from my usual fan club of 1zers, I also get the benefit of small-minded gargoyles who can’t represent themselves in any other manner but to malign my writing in their anonymous ways.

There are those of you who will grin and say “that’ll teach you.” And you’re entitled to your opinions. That’s your prerogative. I believe that personal interaction should be kept separate from artistic concerns. They just should. It’s bad form to allow otherwise.

You say it all evens out and that all votes are "valid" but that's just not the case. If I have one reader give me a "5" because he really liked the story and another give me a "1" out of spite that means I've got a 3. The “5” is valid and the “1” is not. Together they create a an invalid result.

Here’s an example. I have one story which held a 4.71 with 31 votes. I followed the tracking of its votes from the beginning, and I figured it had 28 5s, 1 4, and 2 1s. The two ones may or may not have been legitimate (yeah, right) but, let’s say they are. That put me at a 4.71. A top 10 position on the top list. The next vote was a 1 (today), which took it down to a 4.59. So what…big deal…not even .3 difference, right? Well, it’s the difference between 10th place and 60th place, my friends. The next vote was a 5, taking me to a 4.61. Which will put me about 45th on tomorrow’s list.

29 5s, 1 4, and 3 1s. And I’m at 45th place from 10th in one day.

Yeah. That 5 and 1 sure evened out.

Despite my occasional rants this doesn’t preoccupy as much of my time as people seem to think. I sign on in the morning, I log my numbers. Not even 30 seconds. I check it maybe a couple times through the day, or sometimes not until the next morning. I’m that way. I like to keep track. It takes up all of maybe 2 minutes from my overall day.

Usually the aggravation doesn’t factor in. Some days it does. But then, some days I arrive at work bitching about the moron who cut me off in traffic. And, in a week or so, there will be yet another moron, and I may or may not bitch about him. That’s what this voting is. It’s bad driving. And mostly I don’t take notice…but some days I just want to slam down on the gas, blare the horn and scream obscenities. We ALL DO.

Do I give a shit what people think? No. Not really. But I don’t like that it lets them take the shot. And I don’t like that maybe someone just perusing the site won’t look past the top, say 20 stories and mine gets left out. I write because I want people to read it. All writers do. The “I write for personal satisfaction” stuff is 99% crap. Sure, there’s an element of that there. But anyone who really writes does so to communicate ideas, images, and sensations to an audience, whatever genre and however small.

The voting problems ARE there and they suck. And no matter how many times you all say "ignore it" or "it all evens out" the fact remains that it doesn't even out, and it will, at times, be an irritant.

A writer is vulnerable enough. They present their thoughts, their expressions, and often their inner selves to an open forum and expose chinks in their armor for readers to examine. I imagine we've all taken our share of hits from legitimate sources. That’s okay. We signed on for that tour of duty when we posted the stories.

But, malicious voting is an illegitimate source. No matter how repeatedly you try and scoff at it. And it's like being told, as the big kid, to just stand still and let the little kids throw rocks.

I sympathize that there's little that can be done to solve or lessen the problem. I appreciate that it is far from a high priority.

But it's there. And for those of us who get hit time after time, it gets more and more irritating to hear "ignore it." I am usually more irritated by people telling me not to let it bother me than I am by the actual votes these days. Fuck ignoring it. It’s there. Maybe it can’t be helped, maybe there’s no cure for it, but damn if I can’t grunt about it or be sarcastic about it here and there. Like hell I’m not going to vent a little. I may have to stand here and let the little kids throw their rocks, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to pick one up and hurl it back from time to time. Fruitless as it may seem. Sure it won’t change them, but I’ll be damned if I’ll let them change ME. I’m vocal. I bitch. If I have to ignore the 1 votes, then everyone else can ignore my occasional tirades about them.

So I will continue to bitch on the days that traffic pisses me off, and I will do so with as much grim humor as I can muster.

And I will continue to post on this issue. Because, like it or not, it is still an issue.

And, like WH, I'm not optimistic about how the contests will affect this existing problem.

MP

 

[Laurel]

I sympathize that there's little that can be done to solve or lessen the problem. I appreciate that it is far from a high priority.

Well, actually, the intergrity of the voting is a pretty high priority. We've spent a tremendous amount of time and money trying to make it as bullet-proof as we possibly can. We've spent hours - nay, DAYS - going over code, brainstorming, test and retesting, designing templates, listening to both authors and readers to determine their needs, to try to come up with site improvements that help satisfy their needs. But I suppose if we can't solve every problem 100%, then we're just not making it a high enough priority, huh? Oh well. We'll try harder next time.

And I will continue to post on this issue. Because, like it or not, it is still an issue.

Never asked you to stop posting. Like I said, it's your time to spend. This isn't a problem unique to this site. I've seen this discussion many times on many other sites where voting occurs. I've read lots of complaining on this topic all over the Internet, and not much in the way of constructive solutions.

My question for you is this: what do you suggest as a way of solving the problem? How do you determine voter intent over the Internet without discouraging readers from voting altogether? Any constructive, realistic suggestions are most welcome.

 

[Weird Harold]

All right. And what do you suggest as a way of solving the problem? How do you determine voter intent over the Internet without discouraging readers from voting altogether? Any constructive, realistic suggestions are most welcome.

I made this suggestion once before, but it may have gotten buried in all of your other e-mail.

1: Any vote that is more than two away from the current average should be counted as only two away. eg a one vote against a story averaging 4.4 counts as a vote of 2, a one vote against a story of 4.5 counts as a 3, a 5 vote against a story that averaging 2.5 counts as a 5, and a five against a story averaging 2.4 counts as a 4.

Limiting the voting variance to +/- 2 from the averages limits the amount of damage malicious voters can do, and still allows the vote average to fluctuate according to the will of the majority.

2: Any time ALL or most of an author's stories get oned at the same time, those votes should be invesitgated and voided if they are from the same source as being obviously malicious votes directed at the author rather than the stories. The author's must be responsible for identifying this situation as there is no simple algorythm to apply to the votes and Laurel doesn't have the time to manually monitor every vote cast.

A low vote against a single story might be reader dissatisfaction with the story, a misunderstanding of the rating system, or an attempt to influence the awards. Low votes against all of an author's stories is so obviously malicious it should be identified and corrected.

One other thing that can be done to protect the integrity of the contest voting, is to compile the average vote given by each member.

It is a statistic I would personally like to see on my votes to see if I'm being overly generous or parsiminous in my voting, but it would also serve to alert Laurel to people voting low on everyone's stories when they have a story in contention for an award.

 

[knotty_dude]

Weird Harold,
I only agree with your 2nd suggestion when someone is bombarded with 1s all at once. It should be looked into but who is really going to do it? It will take a lot of time & effort and I don't see the people who run this site doing it.
I disagree w/your 1st suggestion, limiting the effect of a vote. It seems like a good idea in theory, but it's still not a true representation of the votes people get.
My whole point of starting this thread is stay you will get legitimate 1s. Everybody is entitled to their own bloody opinion. Madame Pandora, I read your reply and when you said "The two ones may or may not have been legitimate (yeah, right)" Right there you are telling everyone that someone who gave you a 1, and the vote is invalid because YOU think your story is worthy of a higher vote. That's only 2 1s, and now it looks like you got 3. I'm sorry if you feel criticized but hey, it's same shit, different format.
I write to several letters to the editors of varying newspapers and because of my opinion there's a handful of people that feel they need to send me nastygrams and or write a spiteful reply to the editor mentioning me. However, and get ready for a shocking moment of truth (yes I'm being sarcastic) some people actually disagree w/my opinions w/valid reasons!

 

[KillerMuffin]

The problems that I have with dropping off the "2" away from average are 1) voter fraud occurs in the other direction as well and 2) a lot of the 1's are legitimate.

I have rationalized (I'm good at this) that while my writing is good or the stories are good, they just aren't good enough to get off to. Some of them at least. And when people read things that are more for reading and less for orgasm they tend to judge things a bit more harshly than they do stuff that's only there to make them cum. Some readers may be voting based entirely on the story's ability to get them aroused or hot. If a story doesn't do that, then it gets a low grade. Some stories get voted based on topic, not for the story itself. Or am I just kidding myself here?

I have a story out there, Stalking Tango it's called, that isn't hot. The sex wouldn't get anyone off, it's just not hot. From the emailed feedback I've gotten on it, the readers loved the story, they thought it was great because the characters made it work. There were some other things, but I think my ego is swollen enough right now, toodling through the old email would make it big enough to explode. However, ST is sitting really low, comparatively, in my little queue of stories. Like it or not, this is a sex site, and one of the readers' criterion is going to be "did it get me hot?"

I did receive an email to the how to on Editors that explained to me that she gave me a 1 because I spelled Hemingway with 2 m's.

As for fixing the voter fraud problem? There isn't a way. The only thing we can do is email Laurel to request that she pull the voting records whenever we notice a sudden drop in the ratings. Then she could look for those "serial ip's" or whatever she looks for. I wish we could fix it, but unless we want to make it too much trouble to vote, we can't.

 

[Mickie]

My two cents.

Since no one is able to mind read reliably, it really is moot question. We, as author's, have no real clue as to why someone might vote us a one unless we get feedback about it. No one wants to be hollared at because they offer an opinion, so rarely do we get feedback on one votes (and don't tell me an author wouldn't hollar if someone told them they deserved a one because they just didn't like the story).

Readers have a right to their opinions, and some one votes are valid, period. Some one votes are revenge and so one, but is there really a way to weed them out without bringing in a psychic?

This is the best a system like this can do. I disagree with playing with the averages. It complicates the system and will cause even more problems than it would solve. Keep it as simple as possible or we have more reasons to debate.

Yes, I absolutely HATE it when I suspect someone gave me a low vote for reasons other than what I feel are legitimate. However, I just MIGHT BE WRONG about their reasons. That little sliver of doubt is enough to leave it alone. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Since it's too difficult to prove anything about it, then the best course is to leave it alone and let Karma attack the guilty party.

 

[nitengale]

Some stories get voted based on topic, not for the story itself. Or am I just kidding myself here?

I think this is a lot of it. Like you mentioned this is an erotic story site, and I am sure there are a lot of people who purposely come here for one reason only. If your story didn't do it's job, then chances are it might not be getting a good vote. And if the reader doesn't even get through the story, then chances are it isn't even getting a vote.

Of course there are the stories that do the job, but perhaps they reader is now so involved in themselves, they no longer care to vote.

There have been references to people getting 1's due to spite. I don't think anything can be done about this, no matter the system place. Or am I wrong? And if they are that spiteful, chances are they stalk your site and 1 you all the time??

I have no idea what the answers are to any of this. I do believe that if you work hard at something and it is well liked, then you sure do deserve the good vote. But what is good for me as reader may not be good for the next person clicking on that blue link.

At this point for me, I'm just glad I have one or even two people reading my stories.

 

[Madame Pandora]

Hey, Knotty_Dude - Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Even a bitch like me. When you get regularly dive-bombed, memo me, and I'll be more open to everything you have to say. Really I will.

Do I think someone could give my stories a legitimate 1? Sure I do. Do I think most of the 1s I get are legitimate? No. Can I prove it? No. The "evidence" I have is circumstantial at best. But it’s a lot of ugly coincidence.

The bottom line is that you can't stop assholes from being assholes. I am the FIRST PERSON to say it can't be fixed. I'm also the first person to say we have a right to vent about it.

Laurel - you do the best you can. I know that. Everyone knows that. NO ONE is impugning your integrity or the integrity of the site. No matter how I bitch, I do believe you operate in the best interest of the authors to the best of your ability. You have always taken this issue personally, but you're the first person to point out you can't control or determine voter INTENT. It's not a reflection on you.

This was the issue that started me posting on the boards. It will always be an issue I pay attention to.

Me? I would be glad if you had to register to vote. Enter your name and password like you do when you post. Not so that the authors can SEE who votes, but so that someone would have to go to the hassle of registering multiple identities to vote multiple 1s. But that only takes care of the situation of multiple 1s, not the dive-bombers

And yes, fraud happens on both sides of the 1s and the 5s. I'm sure there are some people who like me who give me 5s without really thinking about whether the story merits it.

My only idea was to have some sort of time-filter. I really think that most fraudulent votes happen by someone clicking on the link and voting the 1 or the 5 off the bat and bugging out. It would be nice if there was some way to discard any votes cast in, say, the first twenty seconds or so of clicking on the link. I have no concept if this is a practical or even possible solution. And yes, if the time differential is widely known, the "cheater" will just count to 10 or something and circumvent.

I also think there is a small fraction of people who are confused by the 1 - 5 voting scale and who vote accidentally because the default is "3." I get a scattering of emails from people who say "I think I voted your story a '3' but I meant to give it a 5." (The last two of which were both regular posters AND authors, but I won’t name names.) Not much you can do here either. Nothing’s foolproof.

This all factors in. I'm not saying anything can be done about it. I'm not saying Laurel's not doing her best. All I'm saying it that is sucks that people use the system the way they do and the authors who sometimes want to vent and rant about it do often have a right and a reason to do so.

MP

 

[Weird Harold]

The problems that I have with dropping off the "2" away from average are 1) voter fraud occurs in the other direction as well and 2) a lot of the 1's are legitimate.

You missed that I suggested that it be limited to plus or minus two from the average which would affect high votes on low averages as much as it affects low votes on high averages.

The "legitmate ones" would still have the effect of giving the lowest possible vote without destorying the average of an otherwise highly rated story. On a story rated lower than 3.5 they would still be ones.

My theory here that is any vote more than two points away from the general opinion is probably spiteful, and definitely over-critical. Implementation would only require two "if then" comparisons so it's not an overly complex technical problem to implement.

In principle, it is much like the standard statistical practice of throwing out the highest and lowest and using the average of the remaining data to establish a valid mean.

Limiting the vote spread would not materially affect the story ratings other than limit the effect of spiteful votes. where a low vote or high vote is "legitimate" there will be others that lower the average to a level matching the story quality.

Where there is only one low or high vote in opposition to the general trend, the intent of the voter is more likely to be fraudulent or spiteful. Limiting the spread only limits the effect of a small minority of voters who vote against the majority opinion for whatever reason.

Over the long term, and at higher vote totals, the difference in effect of a two vs the effect of a one is negligble. Limiting the spread would only have any real impact on stories with less than 100 or so votes. Once a story reaches a thousand votes, the limit would produce no measurable effect on the average score.

knotty dude saidI only agree with your 2nd suggestion when someone is bombarded with 1s all at once. It should be looked into but who is really going to do it? It will take a lot of time & effort and I don't see the people who run this site doing it.

Like I said originally, it would have to be the authors who notified Laurel and Manu of spiteful voting patterns. Once they are mad aware of it, the voting records should be fairly easy to check and correct. If it isn't, then it could easily be made easy to check and correct.

With the story contests being in effect, malicious or fraudulent voting affects their pocketbook so I'm pretty sure that they'd take whatever time is required to insure there is no fraud.

Mickie asked "but is there really a way to weed them out without bringing in a psychic?"

If ten or a hundred people vote five on a story, and one person votes one, it doesn't take a psychic to guess that it isn't the story that prompted the vote.

In Madame Pandora's example, one or two malcontents voted against the general trend of votes on her story, which forced it down to the bottom of the top stories page where it is less likely to be read, voted on further, and the true average for her story found.

I personally find it very hard to believe that someone who votes so far from the general consensus on a story can't possibly be voting on the merits of the story. They may legitimatly like the story less than others, but to vote the exact opposite of everyone else who has read the story is beyond the bounds of statistical probability.

No system is foolproof, but making it fool resistant isn't that hard.

 

[knotty_dude]

Madame Pandora, I had no intention of shooting you down or insulting you, ok? When I see a glass with some water in it & someone says "If you say half full you're an optimist but if you say half empty then you're an pessimist. Well I consider myself to be a realist. I lean towards optimism but realize some stuff will NEVER go the way I like, no matter how bad I may want it to. Madame Pandora, I just don't want you to vent as much as you because I don't think it's doing you any good. I'm NOT saying you're not entitled to your right to vent ok? We all that have (and love!) that right but I've read your posts & it looks like you've been very angry about this feedback business. So to hell with those that rate you unfairly, but life goes on. Madame Pandora, what really matters is how the ones that care about you feel in the REAL world and yourself, that's all. So your story is rated a 1 on the Net, does it really matter? I wish you the best in your story writing!

 

[Madame Pandora]

Thanks for your personal concern. I appreciate the thought, but if I ever feel I need counseling or anger management, I'll seek a professional.

I seem angry about a lot of things. That doesn't make them non-issues. It also doesn't make me necessarily angry. It makes me "seem" angry. I use harsh words when I'm smiling or without expression as much as I do when I'm growling. On-line is like that. Assume as you like. You’re free to speculate about me or anyone else. Doesn’t make you any more right.

I'm a realist, too. In reality some people feel better when they vent and face issues. Others don’t feel the need.

Anyway, feel free to stick to the issues or to address me as you like, but you're wasting your words trying to tell me what will or won't do me any good. That's not your decision to make, nor is your opinion valid in that context.

I would have gladly emailed you such a reply, but you are conspicuously without an email address.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Sorry, just had to add one more thing. As for caring about what others think...I'm just curious. In your ponderings over my "anger" did I strike you as lacking in a sense of self or in need of approval? Those tried and tired lines of "who cares what people think" and "don't let it bother you" really are as obnoxious as I stated above. THAT is also realism. Keen of you to pick up on the other elements of my post and miss that tidbit.

MP

[Edited by Madame Pandora on 04-05-2001 at 11:33 AM]

 

[KillerMuffin]

*grins* A thought... announce that you are considering paying authors by the click. After all, you have to click a story to downvote it, that might give the pooh-poohers pause. Of course, the devoted fannage out there might be going and click-click-click to help out their favorites. Oh well, it wasn't that good of an idea *sigh* and Laurel isn't one to prevaricate.

 

[Alex De Kok]

originally posted by Weird Harold
Once a story reaches a thousand votes, the limit would produce no measurable effect on the average score.

Yeah, OK, gimme that thousand!

Seriously, those of my stories which have managed to garner over 100 votes are only varying by 0.01 or 0.02. There is, unsurprisingly, greater variation in those with lower votes. My only entry in the 'Romance' category, 'Meg' had a 4.67 average with 9 votes, 4.64 with 11 votes and has now dropped to 4.57, with a dizzy total of 14 votes. Poor girl's been sitting out there since last October - does no-one read romance?

Meg is my highest score, sitting at 7 in the Romance category, which nevertheless puts her well down on the all time Top List at 114.

My point? I guess I'm agreeing with Weird Harold, that time and votes will tend to level things out. Perhaps Laurel should launch us on the world at 20 votes? Although on that basis 'Meg' would still be in hiding!

One final surprise - to me anyway - is that my 3-part story 'Kate' has actually been gaining in her scores, albeit in the low 4's and not with many votes (37, 25 and 8).

Alex

 

[Laurel]

All I'm saying it that is sucks that people use the system the way they do and the authors who sometimes want to vent and rant about it do often have a right and a reason to do so.

You have absolute right to vent - please do! Just realize that it's a complicated situation - something that sites run by major corporations have been unable to solve. It's not a lack of hardware, software, or intelligence on our part. It's the lack of a real solution - a way to discern voter intent, to discourage downvoting while encouraging readers to give their honest opinions.

Having voters register to vote will not stop fraud. All it takes to register is an email address. If someone really wanted to go after you, they could register under a hundred names with a hundred AOL addresses and downvote you a hudred times. Then, we'd have a database full of faulty member information, and you'd have a hundred downvotes. In addition, the votes-to-reads ratio will drop to twice what it is now, if not more so. People like Alex de Kok who crave more feedback via votes will be unhappy. Readers on their first time through the site will find out their votes didn't count, and they'll be unhappy. And the cheats...they'll work around it - which will mean that there will be more cheat votes percentage-wise than there are currently.

Manually averaging out the scores is, IMHO, basically saying "your opinion doesn't count" to the vast majority of voters with good intent. If someone really feels that the story deserves a 1, he or she should be allowed to vote a 1. If we want to decide for him what he or she should vote, maybe we should just have one choice - a 5 - for them to click. Or maybe no votes at all, if we're not truly interested in their opinions. There are also technical issues to deal with in anything that requires the server to 'do math', but those could be overcome (with much time and money) if I thought that were a viable solution. I don't.

As far as voter confusion as to what the numbers mean, it says right on the voting box the words "worst" next to the 1 and "best" next to the 5. I don't know what more I can do to make it clearer. Perhaps I could make the words "worst" and "best" clickable to their dictionary definitions?

Finally, I think situations like Madame Pandora's are very much the minority. She's a very outspoken person who's apparently pissed off someone enough to seek revenge on her via downvotes - which is a stupid and childish thing to do btw. However, I think that situations like hers and KMs are very rare. I think we should be wary of treating every vote outside the norm as sabotage. Not everyone is within the norm. Just because 100 people love a story does not mean that person #101 will. That's not fraud - that's how it is.

I don't know what else to say, so I'll stop now.

 

[Madame Pandora]

I think I've always said it is a complicated situation. And I don't think I've ever said there was an easy solution.

Every time this subject comes up, I make sure I support the integrity of this site, and the integrity of those who run it. And I don't do so to blow smoke up anyone's ass. If I thought Laurel were corrupt or the site was corrupt, I'd say so. Feel toward me as you like, but give me that.

Laurel -

I understand the point about the positives vs. negatives. I suppose I don't see the big step from signing in to post on the BB from signing in (or being cookied in) to post as being a large hindrance to voters. But I do see the reality of a person out to commit fraud circumventing any roadblocks you try to put up. I suppose I was banking on the fact that most people are simply not that driven.

I disagree that manually averaging out scores means what you see it to mean, Laurel, but that's just a matter of opinion. However, even in the Olympics, the highest and lowest get tossed. Under WH's idea, a story could get a 5. Then a 1 which would register as a 3. For a 4 rating. If it gets another 1 which would be a 2, then the rating would be 3.3. One more 1 and that one's a 1 for a 2.75. Overtime with enough consistency, a true average emerges.

I think WH’s system is sound, I just think it won't so much curb the problem as just create higher manipulated scores. But, given that cases like mine are unusual, it WOULD do the job for most.

I don't see it as discarding a vote. I see it as maintaining the overall average. But...opinions will always vary.

For the voter confusion, I was just making a point. There are other INNOCENT factors that contribute as well, which makes the harm caused by malicious votes even more devastating to an average. I wasn’t suggesting you should try to idiot-proof anything. I seem to remember saying quite the opposite over and over and over….

Yes, my situation is probably pretty unique. Over the last three days I've gotten not just one series, but SEVERAL targeted 1 votes on ALL my submissions. And lovely little anon. feedbacks to match. You don't always get the whole set, but it provides a certain congruency. I'm not saying I shouldn't have to live with the consequences of being outspoken. That's my choice. Posting this will probably get me yet another round. C'est la vie. I’m just saying it sucks.

My story Janie & Dell got over 400 votes BEFORE I began posting heavily on the boards. It got big numbers before it could get hit with low votes. It now has over 500 votes. In the last 3 days it's gone from a 4.61 to a 4.59. Maybe not so big a deal. But the difference between being on the front page of the top lists (where it has always been from it’s first day posted) and the second page.

And that's my story with 500 votes. Care to think were my other stories and poems are right now?

So, I'm sorry if my "venting" offends anyone. It is how I get rid of the irritation.

However, I will say again, that I have NEVER aimed my venting at Laurel OR the site. And I have ALWAYS maintained my belief in the integrity of both. And I’ve said so. Over and over and over and over…

And I STILL don't think there's anything wrong with talking about this issue no matter how many people decide to be defensive over it or scoff at it.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

MP

 

[Laurel]

Totally understood.

 

[Alex De Kok]

Laurel said

People like Alex de Kok who crave more feedback via votes will be unhappy

I'm not sure if crave is the right word. Yes, I like to see readers voting on my work, especially good votes, but I get a lot more satisfaction from written feedback, both anonymous and signed, from people who enjoy what I write and care enough to tell me. Particularly when that feedback comes from a fellow Literotica author whose own work I respect.

I will try not to care so much about the votes, Laurel, honest. But good ones are nice to have.

Alex

 

[knotty_dude]

Ok everyone, if I ever offend you, such as I did w/Madame Pandora please tell me off, after all I'm only human. Getting back to the whole point of this thread, which I started, that there actually reasons WHY people post low scores, it is NOT always because of malicious intent. Hell, if you're going to raise hell thru the message boards because someone rated you a 1, it doesn't take a card carrying genius to figure out why someone else may rate you a low score. In no way I'm saying it's ok or even justified. Assholes are everywhere you go in life, including the internet, welcome to reality.