[B]Voting[/B] - Another perspective - Sad tale.

[Boxlicker101]

I don't either but... I don't know. If the story is good enough to read over and over... and you really have read it through each time... it seems like a valid vote to me. (Just my opionion) Many number 5 voted stories don't get reread. So I think that if a story is really so great that you read it 6 0r 7 or more times, doesn't it deserve more than just 1 5 vote?

feel free to disagree, just consider.

I don't see that there would be any harm in allowing a subsequent vote like that. No contest would last six months so you couldn't be giving anybody an edge in that regard. As for changing the top lists, usually the position on the top list would be pretty well solidified after six months. I don't see anything really wrong with permitting a second vote that much after the first, but I also don't see it as being a big deal.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Eliminate the Top Lists and implement a 'search' method instead.

--- Of course, this requires using story tags instead of categories, which means an overhaul of the system but if we're demanding overhauls then the sky is the limit.

Sincerely,
ElSol

I like the top lists- both as a reader and as an author. I like them even more now that I'm on them a little bit

People who don't like top lists don't have to use them, but for those of us who do, they shoudn't be removed. I don't think that's fair to the reader. It's just one more way to navigate the site.

And I also prefure the categories to just a tag search. I think for lit's purposes and the way that lit is used simple categories are best. I certainly would not appreciate a major overhaul, the new message boards was bad enough. I love lit just the way it is.

 

[BlackShanglan]

While recognizing the theory that the authors are contributing to the success of Literotica, I'd challenge the suggestion that they are contributing more, inherently, than the readers. Literotica, if I'm not mistaken, derives its funding from advertisement. That, in turn, is driven by readers coming to the site. Yes, on the surface it does appear that authors are funding Literotica by posting stories that draw readers.

However, one might wish to consider the (immense) volume of stories on the site. With this in mind, this author humbly submits that no single one of us is making a particularly noticable contribution to the overall income of the site, and that it would undoubtedly be able to continue for some time - possibly indefinitely - with the trove of stories already here. When one goes further to weigh the fact that Lit very kindly lets pretty much anyone post regardless of the quality of the work, I think that a reasonable equine might come to the conclusion that we authors consume very nearly as many resources as we produce - and some of us, such as those who choose to write long, thinly-read novellas about highly improbable interspecies romances, are consuming more than we actually produce. Therefore, one might - without punning overmuch - suggest that it behooves us to consider ourselves more in the role of consumers than producers in this particular economic model.

This is especially true considering, ironically enough, our feelings about votes. Why do low votes offend us? Because we want readers. And why do we want readers? Because, frankly, it's a service that Lit provides us. Readers are what we, as authors, crave. They aren't simply, however we might like to believe it, a group of consumers to whom we are providing a product. If they were, we'd be quite unlikely to be doing it for free. They are the readers who make our texts real - stories, and not just personal fantasies. Because of this, I think it's more reasonable to look at Lit as providing a service to authors rather than the other way around. Or we might look at them as the Ebay of porn - they connect those who provide to those who desire, but their income is derived from the interaction of both, and not only from one side.

Personally, I think voting a bauble. Those who genuinely want feedback will use the anonymous feedback, PC, feedback forum, or story discussion circle. Those who want "fairness" are doomed to dissapointment anyway. Life is not fair, and very little is less fair to anyone than an attempt to get large numbers of people to agree on a subjective evaluation of a work of art. Better to recognize that for the inherently quixotic procedure that it is than to invest it with more meaning that it has.

Shanglan

 

[CharleyH]

While recognizing the theory that the authors are contributing to the success of Literotica, I'd challenge the suggestion that they are contributing more, inherently, than the readers. Literotica, if I'm not mistaken, derives its funding from advertisement. That, in turn, is driven by readers coming to the site. Yes, on the surface it does appear that authors are funding Literotica by posting stories that draw readers.

However, one might wish to consider the (immense) volume of stories on the site. With this in mind, this author humbly submits that no single one of us is making a particularly noticable contribution to the overall income of the site, and that it would undoubtedly be able to continue for some time - possibly indefinitely - with the trove of stories already here. When one goes further to weigh the fact that Lit very kindly lets pretty much anyone post regardless of the quality of the work, I think that a reasonable equine might come to the conclusion that we authors consume very nearly as many resources as we produce - and some of us, such as those who choose to write long, thinly-read novellas about highly improbable interspecies romances, are consuming more than we actually produce. Therefore, one might - without punning overmuch - suggest that it behooves us to consider ourselves more in the role of consumers than producers in this particular economic model.

This is especially true considering, ironically enough, our feelings about votes. Why do low votes offend us? Because we want readers. And why do we want readers? Because, frankly, it's a service that Lit provides us. Readers are what we, as authors, crave. They aren't simply, however we might like to believe it, a group of consumers to whom we are providing a product. If they were, we'd be quite unlikely to be doing it for free. They are the readers who make our texts real - stories, and not just personal fantasies. Because of this, I think it's more reasonable to look at Lit as providing a service to authors rather than the other way around. Or we might look at them as the Ebay of porn - they connect those who provide to those who desire, but their income is derived from the interaction of both, and not only from one side.

Personally, I think voting a bauble. Those who genuinely want feedback will use the anonymous feedback, PC, feedback forum, or story discussion circle. Those who want "fairness" are doomed to dissapointment anyway. Life is not fair, and very little is less fair to anyone than an attempt to get large numbers of people to agree on a subjective evaluation of a work of art. Better to recognize that for the inherently quixotic procedure that it is than to invest it with more meaning that it has.

Shanglan

welcome again, you and your intelligence, friend.

Edit: I mean welcome again, you and your intelligence, Shanglan.

 

[Boxlicker101]

While recognizing the theory that the authors are contributing to the success of Literotica, I'd challenge the suggestion that they are contributing more, inherently, than the readers. Literotica, if I'm not mistaken, derives its funding from advertisement. That, in turn, is driven by readers coming to the site. Yes, on the surface it does appear that authors are funding Literotica by posting stories that draw readers.

However, one might wish to consider the (immense) volume of stories on the site. With this in mind, this author humbly submits that no single one of us is making a particularly noticable contribution to the overall income of the site, and that it would undoubtedly be able to continue for some time - possibly indefinitely - with the trove of stories already here. When one goes further to weigh the fact that Lit very kindly lets pretty much anyone post regardless of the quality of the work, I think that a reasonable equine might come to the conclusion that we authors consume very nearly as many resources as we produce - and some of us, such as those who choose to write long, thinly-read novellas about highly improbable interspecies romances, are consuming more than we actually produce. Therefore, one might - without punning overmuch - suggest that it behooves us to consider ourselves more in the role of consumers than producers in this particular economic model.

This is especially true considering, ironically enough, our feelings about votes. Why do low votes offend us? Because we want readers. And why do we want readers? Because, frankly, it's a service that Lit provides us. Readers are what we, as authors, crave. They aren't simply, however we might like to believe it, a group of consumers to whom we are providing a product. If they were, we'd be quite unlikely to be doing it for free. They are the readers who make our texts real - stories, and not just personal fantasies. Because of this, I think it's more reasonable to look at Lit as providing a service to authors rather than the other way around. Or we might look at them as the Ebay of porn - they connect those who provide to those who desire, but their income is derived from the interaction of both, and not only from one side.

Personally, I think voting a bauble. Those who genuinely want feedback will use the anonymous feedback, PC, feedback forum, or story discussion circle. Those who want "fairness" are doomed to dissapointment anyway. Life is not fair, and very little is less fair to anyone than an attempt to get large numbers of people to agree on a subjective evaluation of a work of art. Better to recognize that for the inherently quixotic procedure that it is than to invest it with more meaning that it has.

Shanglan

Speaking of us as being producers or consumers, I consider myself to be a producer. I believe that Lit. makes a profit off the smut I write. It is purely smut, (an oxymoron?) something to wank or frig to or to read over the phone as phone sex. And there is a lot of it. Those who come here and read my filth are just the kind of dirty-minded persons the advertisers want to attract. If you read and enjoy my dirty stories, you will probably also enjoy the pictures and videotapes being offered by the advertisers. The long and thinly read novellas you disparage probably do consume more than they produce but that is not the case with those who write like I do.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[cloudy]

mismused,

I love you, dear, but I think your reply to Shanglan serves you ill. The horse has always offered a well-thought through opinion, and many times, is right on the money. If nothing else, it's another side to the issue that's worth considering.

The sarcasm offered to Shanglan in reply to a considerate post is unbecoming, darlin'.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If you live by the Vote, you'll die by the Vote. That's it in a nutshell. Voting is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and unfair. People express how they feel about the story, the subject, the author, or what kind of day they had at work.

An observation about contests and winning and fairness: Contest winners are chosen by their relative ranking at the precise time the judges check them, whenever that might be. Meanwhile the scores are constantly fluctuating. rising and falling like waves in the sea.

I've placed in a couple contests, and both times when I went and checked the scores after being informed, I saw that other stories in the contest had higher rankings than mine, even though they didn't place. It was just blind good luck that I happened to be in the lead when the judges checked. It could just as easily have been someone else who'd won.

That taught me something important about winning contests: unless you've written a runaway blockbuster, it's probably 50% skill and 50% luck.

I'd also like to point out that votes, at best, are an indicator of popularity, which is not the same as quality. (If it were, McDonald's would be world-class cuisine.) And if you want to be popular, if that's your goal in wanting more aggressive vote-farming, there are probably other ways to achieve it: write what's popular. Mother-son anal incest is a good place to start.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[cloudy]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with Shanglan, or anyone else for that matter. I just thought the sarcasm was a little nasty, that's all.

We're all entitled to our opinions. If you didn't care what anyone else thought, then I don't think you would have started the thread. Why then get nasty with someone that disagrees with you?

*shrug*

I'll go now, before I get the sarcasm directed at me next time.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Stella_Omega]

This confuses me, I must admit.

Every so often I'll read an older story from an author I enjoy, usually after they have a new story posted. I'll vote, only to be told that I have already voted. Oops. I forgot I had, because it was so long ago.

However, the system didn't take my second vote. Why is it taking more than one vote from other people?

It might be because you have a static IP, and your vote is being logged from the same "place" Many people have service that assigns them a random IP each time they connect to the internet. If they cleared their cookies cache and hadn't logged in, they wouldn't be "recognised" by the board again. That's the problem with anonymous voting.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Shanglan

There you are! Haven't seen you around for a while. I was just wondering about you yesterday- and here you show up!

Yah!

And wonderfully put response, I'd like to add. It should be posted as a note to every author here.

 

[sweetnpetite]

If you live by the Vote, you'll die by the Vote. That's it in a nutshell. Voting is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and unfair. People express how they feel about the story, the subject, the author, or what kind of day they had at work.

...

I'd also like to point out that votes, at best, are an indicator of popularity, which is not the same as quality. (If it were, McDonald's would be world-class cuisine.) And if you want to be popular, if that's your goal in wanting more aggressive vote-farming, there are probably other ways to achieve it: write what's popular. Mother-son anal incest is a good place to start.

You know, I originally thought this was going to be a political thread. Really.

Political voting isn't fair either. I mean, the process is expected to be fair, but like you said, people vote for a variety of reasons with there bias, incomplete knowledge, misinformation and emotions. They vote based on name recognition and various scandals and mudslinging (ie. rumours). And this is choosing our leaders and government officials. If we can't expect people to vote fairly there, how can we expect more from a story site on the net? Let along a porn site, where a crappy story might get a 5 because it addresses someone's unusual fetish of masterbating to GI Joe cartoons.


There is nothing wrong with being popular or wanting to be popular. It's just a matter of this: don't confuse your goals. It's never going to be fair (although we can hope for some modecum of validity I suppose)- if you want popularity, you have to play the popularity game. If you want to be good- you practice and you educate yourself. If you want to be great, you go out on a limb, you take risks. The important thing is to know which of these you want to be and follow the path that leads to your goal.

Umm... none of this means we can't have 'voter reform' to make it better. Just remember that there will be inherent flaws in any system- and it's often better to tighten an existing system than start over from scratch, just because the grass looks greener on the other side.

(in case it sounds argumentative- I'm agreeing with you doc)

 

[BlackShanglan]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with Shanglan, or anyone else for that matter. I just thought the sarcasm was a little nasty, that's all.

We're all entitled to our opinions. If you didn't care what anyone else thought, then I don't think you would have started the thread. Why then get nasty with someone that disagrees with you?

*shrug*

I'll go now, before I get the sarcasm directed at me next time.

*nuzzle* It's good to see you again, Cloudy. You're extremely kind to take up my defense. But don't fear the sarcasm. As you can see, it's really quite harmless. And hello, Sweet. Happy to oblige with a timely reappearance.

I'm not sure why Mismused appears to think that I'm setting myself up as an authority or one speaking for the denizens of Lit as a whole. I thought it self-evident that one's opinions are, in fact, one's opinions. I suppose that I might have prefaced each individual statement with a reminder - "It is my opinion that those who seek fairness in life are doomed to disappointment" - but that seems cumbersome and redundant if affixed to every statement. I did rather think that I had indicated, through the use of the occasional tag - "one might wish to consider," or "this author humbly submits" - that my ideas are simply my own. It's not clear to me how I might be assumed to be speaking for anyone else, or attempting to do so.

I'm similarly a little baffled about Mismused's comments on compacts and agreements. It seems to me that part of any implied compact or agreement with Literotica would be an acceptance of the voting procedures then in place. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't ever be changed, but I can't see how identifying them as a compact between writer and administration would really aid that goal. In fact, it rather seems to undercut it.

The comments on the feedback forum, PC's, and SDC I really can't address, as it's not clear to me what they mean. I don't see how observing that people who want feedback have avenues to receive it amounts to telling people what they want, and I can't say that I'd terribly well-motivated to try to work it out, as it seems to involve a rather tortured and individually driven reading of my post.

That Mismused has a deep-seated dislike of being told what to do or what to think is evident and expressed quite clearly. Why Mismused chooses to interpret another person expressing an opinion as an attempt to do those things is more of a mystery to me, but not really one I care to investigate at any great length. I suppose it's like most people with a strong single issue: if you look only for one thing, you'll see it nearly everywhere.

As for Dr. M., he can at least speak collectively for me. Well put.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

There is nothing wrong with being popular or wanting to be popular. It's just a matter of this: don't confuse your goals. It's never going to be fair (although we can hope for some modecum of validity I suppose)- if you want popularity, you have to play the popularity game. If you want to be good- you practice and you educate yourself. If you want to be great, you go out on a limb, you take risks. The important thing is to know which of these you want to be and follow the path that leads to your goal.

How very well put. I enjoyed that greatly, Sweet. And it even works politically as well.

Shanglan

 

[The_Darkness]

If you live by the Vote, you'll die by the Vote. That's it in a nutshell. Voting is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and unfair. People express how they feel about the story, the subject, the author, or what kind of day they had at work.

An observation about contests and winning and fairness: Contest winners are chosen by their relative ranking at the precise time the judges check them, whenever that might be. Meanwhile the scores are constantly fluctuating. rising and falling like waves in the sea.

I've placed in a couple contests, and both times when I went and checked the scores after being informed, I saw that other stories in the contest had higher rankings than mine, even though they didn't place. It was just blind good luck that I happened to be in the lead when the judges checked. It could just as easily have been someone else who'd won.

That taught me something important about winning contests: unless you've written a runaway blockbuster, it's probably 50% skill and 50% luck.

I'd also like to point out that votes, at best, are an indicator of popularity, which is not the same as quality. (If it were, McDonald's would be world-class cuisine.) And if you want to be popular, if that's your goal in wanting more aggressive vote-farming, there are probably other ways to achieve it: write what's popular. Mother-son anal incest is a good place to start.

So sad and so true. That's why I stick with my public comment slut-dom. If people are just being an ass about things, they generally don't leave PC's. It's faster and easier to just click the little circle by the 1 and continue on with their lives.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's why I stick with my public comment slut-dom.

Who can turn down a good honest bit of slut-dom? Never pays to discourage that sort of thing.

 

[CharleyH]

(Note to detrractors/mgmt apologists - defenders: Please keep invective out of this thread. No, I can't make you do that, but I'm asking you kindly. Your refusal to comply is your choice, but it marks you in ways you will not find flattering.)

Thank you, and again, let's keep this serious please. I am asking kindly, and, no, it's not a threat -- I will keep my cool.



mismused

As always in questions of voting, I ask not why you are asking, but why do you give a shit? Don't you know what kind of author you are?