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

[mismused]

delete

 

[Liar]

==================================================

Eh, you getting hateful, Liar?

Eep! Not at all. This was my constructive post, after my (a little bit) hatreful post. Just tried to see if I had understood you, that's all.

Nope, that was just one of the "supporting" pieces of info. Come on, be fair, guy. "Support what," you ask? Look at it, or maybe it would be better if I remind you that the person that did this voted "MANY times in support of babylez, and most likely with others too, though there was a particular penchant for rereading her stories many, many times over, and voting, and voting, and, . . . Aw, come on, you get the picture, right?

Never been good at those hint puzzles. So no, I don't get the picture. That is not to say there is no picture. Just that some of us need it spelled out instead of insinuated. If you know, or have a theory on how it works and what the problem is, spell it out for the dense and dumb like me. K?

Now quit barbing me, K?

Alrighty. Wasn't aware that I did.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Liar]

==============================================

There were multiple erasures of votes from babylez, as in mucho more than two. Sorry, babe, that'll have to do. I'm not great at math either, uh, puzzles, I mean.

m

Yeah... so it seems. I'm cool with that observation. But that's just that, an observation. It's the symptom, not the cause.

What is your theory? Why do you think it happened? Malfunctioning purging scripts? The wrong voting rules? Management misdemeanor? Lousy kwan? Or maybe a crrect removing of votes from an unusual voting situation? That's the interresting bit. We have no chance in solving a problem unless we know exactly what the problem is.



ps. Math gives me the creepies.

 

[Guest]

ps. Math gives me the creepies.

 

[cantdog]

I have to say, mismused, that I am not getting it either. Both you and the quoted babylez say the voting system is flawed, and we have an example of a reader who did multiple votes.

But what's the problem, exactly?

What did Lit do about the votes?

What do you or babylez or even impressive think they should have done instead?

If multiple votes are made, what can possibly be wrong with a employing a sweeping process? Would you rather they were left unswept? I've read this twice now, and I can't get what reform exactly you are driving at. Box seems to suggest that no voting system at all wopuld be an improvement. Just quit allowing any voting, and all the trolling will stop, all the voting for the wrong reasons, all the repeat voting, it all will stop.

But you seem not to be advocating abandonment of all voting. What you are advocating, though, remains a mystery.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have to say, mismused, that I am not getting it either. Both you and the quoted babylez say the voting system is flawed, and we have an example of a reader who did multiple votes.

But what's the problem, exactly?

What did Lit do about the votes?

What do you or babylez or even impressive think they should have done instead?

If multiple votes are made, what can possibly be wrong with a employing a sweeping process? Would you rather they were left unswept? I've read this twice now, and I can't get what reform exactly you are driving at. Box seems to suggest that no voting system at all wopuld be an improvement. Just quit allowing any voting, and all the trolling will stop, all the voting for the wrong reasons, all the repeat voting, it all will stop.

But you seem not to be advocating abandonment of all voting. What you are advocating, though, remains a mystery.

I see nothing wrong with voting and I don't know what could be done to improve the system. I think people shouldn't vote on stories they haven't read and I don'r thing they should read stories they know they won't like. For instance, I have no interest in BDSM. Therefore, I don't read them and don't vote on them.

I don't believe people can vote successfully more than once on the same computer. They can vote but it will not record the vote. If somebody votes anonymously on a story and later buys a new computer, he can probably vote again on the new machine because there would be no way to identify him. I am referring to a non-member. If I vote on a story, I will get a response "Thank you for voting, Boxlicker101." If I subsequently get a new computer, sign in and vote on the same story, I will get the same response but I don't believe the vote will register.

 

[English Lady]

I Am completely 100% with Liar in this. I've also worked on websites like this, and believe you me it's hard piggin' work and I was nowhere near as good a webmistress as Laurel is!!!!


Anyhow, on the multiple voting thing -Proxy.

When you log on you have an IP address -some peoples stays exactly the same everytime the log on, other peoples don't. I'm not sure how exactly that works but I think it's called a Dynamic IP address so it changes every time you log on, or maybe even more often than that (technical help needed here really, I only have a vague idea what I'm on about) so someone with a dynamic IP (which is rare I think) could vote over and over and it'd not be picked up. Also if you voted from different locations the votes would stick or if you manually changed your proxy address.

Oh and I'm not saying you'd change your proxy on purpose, I've often done it simply to get a connection, as my usual IP is either slow or not responding. But some people could multiple vote, but I don't know then how if it was a dynamic IP they'd be spotted and swept or if the proxy was changed manually - I(stressing the I) don't think it could be spotted.

So maybe I'm just confusing the issue *L* but I thought I'd throw this into the mix as something for folks with more braincells to bang around than me can ponder it

 

[gauchecritic]

Mismused, I think it may be possible that you are attributing your woes to observed effects rather than any causes. I'm not saying that your conclusions are invalid, merely that you don't have all the evidence.

As far as I'm aware (and I've never checked) sweeps are a regular thing, not just at contest time, although there may be extra ones then, and the only result available to visitors is when the site is refreshed and as you know different areas of the site are refreshed at different speeds.

I'm not defending anybody or anything and quite conversely I will say that I have been told that the site (according to avaliable evidence) does have employees. The site does make money (albeit from advertising as do the majority of 'free' sites) and by this reasoning Laurel and Manu are actually making money from our free donations of work. I have no problem with that. People read my work, which is exactly why I post it. The management offer a service and I use it. The monthly and yearly awards and the contests to a certain extent inveigle (love that word) would-be authors and/or dedicated amateurs to post here.

So what we're really asking is; do the contributors here get a fair deal for the amount of money that the management make from our work? Does the management make enough money to be more scrupulous in its management?

Both questions are unanswerable by us visitors. I'm not saying don't complain, as it seems that Laurel, Manu et al apparently encourage users to do just that, what I would say, is that if the site doesn't work for you (even after you've taken the time and effort to adjust it by whatever means are available) then don't use it.

After all that, I'd like to see non-anonymous voting. (which would then lead to revenge trolling)

Now I'm waiting for Harold to chime in, he seems to be (maybe unhealthily ) close to the management and could perhaps provide some answers to satisfy at least some.

 

[Liar]

Hi, cant.

For you, I'll go through it, but I can see that there is not enough support for this.

Sweeps were apparently made on, or about the 15th for the monthly contest, I suppose, that being the cut-off date. I recorded, after accidentally seeing it, some of the results. I had a thread about it then, but it wasn't enough for everyone.

Later, after some changes had been made on my story too, buit not as I felt they should have been per a message to them, that being on about the 13th. There were more "sweeps," that being those two additional votes. It's no mystery now when one thinks about it: they discovered more problems, but it was on the 24th, much later than their cut off date. Oh, BTW, that was the same day babylez wrote her farewell, I believe, since her bio shows that date as the last day of changes to her bio.

Those two votes are what Liar might call a symptom of what is wrong, as I do too. Now put that together with the "admission" by the person (that didn't have to, incidentally), and the problem becomes easily seeable -- I hope.

Cant, this is apparently something that not enough people care about, and I now see it. As Imp implied, it would take massive defections to bring this about, and that isn't going to happen, nor do I wish that to happen. This is too fine a site even if they won't take care of a simple problem, or as I see it being simple. And yes, in all of those four posts, and again, I suggested a couple of things, but honestly, I don't think it's worth it to me any more.

About your question of what the multiple sweeps may have done, or not done, or what is wrong with them, perhaps babylez has that answer, but I'm not sure she'd be willing to put herself through all of this after seeing what is happening with this thread, and I don't blame her, or anyone else. As I said, there's not enough interest in it, though I think if myopic of Laurel and Manu not to see it. I"m certain that this site will make it, there being so much more to sustain than a few authors not being contented enough to make a difference. In that, they're most likely right.

Anyway, think about it. babylez was accorded stupendous marks and positions in the Top Lesbian category, and may well have been able to take all three places on the monthly contest if it had stayed as it was after a sweep. Some of that was in my other thread, but it's no longer available as they apparently only keep so many threads now. Again, that they had to go back and do another sweep speaks volumes, as did the mini (or at least of me) sweep many days after the contests closure.

Cant, if anyone really was that interested, they could have seen it, but truth be told, they weren't, and aren't, at least not that much. Personally, I'm okay with it. I gave it my best shot with literal proof, but not enough people care enough about it, and I don't blame them. I'm at peace about it all, and none is too upset, so that's all good. It's a wash.

Any questions about it, please PM me, or e mail me. You know I'll answer as I can, as I have.

mismused

Mismused, I really do care and I really am interrested. If there is something wrong with how the site is constructed technically or how it's run manually, something that upsets authors, making them leave, I too want to have that problem fixed.

You say that if we did care, we would see what is happening. You're wrong. I see that votes have been swept. That is evident...but you keep insinuating that what is causing this is in plain sight. Maybe it is to you, and you can't comprehend how I can be so blind that I don't see it.

Everything you've reprted in this thread is valid and reevant. You have literal proof that votes have been removed, and that in this case it affected the monthly contest. What you don't seem to want to get into is WHY those votes were removed...some of them outside of the regular monthly sweep, it seems.

And WHY is all that matters.

Sorry, I really hate to pick a fight here, and I hope you don't see it as that. But the fact of the matter is that by being obscure about the bottom line, you are not helping your cause, as noble as it might be.

(I've had this same discussion with other posters on this forum, and I can only repeat what I said to them... "If you can't make the the moron understand, the moron wins the discussion." And I'm beginning to feel like a moron here. )

You have talked about the symtoms, and the managements inability/unwillingness to solve the problem. But you have not adressed the problem itself. Is it a technical bug? Is it a fault in management policy? It is the human factor making mistakes? Is it the voting/sweeping rules that are wrong?

Please, please, please connect the dots for me and just spell it out. In as short and stringent way as possible. What exactly is the error that needs to be corrected? There is no way for anyone here to come up with creative solutions unless we know this.

 

[impressive]

What do you or babylez or even impressive think they should have done instead?

I made no suggestions in this particular situation, but since you asked, I'm of the opinion that L&M did what they could within the structure of the current system.

Laurel indicated to me that they are almost continuously tweaking the voting script in order to improve it (just as, I'm sure, the more determined hacks are almost continuously figuring out ways around it). She also indicated some measure of regret at ever implementing a voting system in the first place.

gauche was right on the money when he condensed the issue to:

So what we're really asking is; do the contributors here get a fair deal for the amount of money that the management make from our work? Does the management make enough money to be more scrupulous in its management?

I can't answer the latter -- only L&M can do that. The answer to the former will vary from person to person. For those who've left Lit, that answer was clearly "no." I'm somewhere in between myself, and I view Lit as a workshop of sorts -- a place to hone skills and test ideas and network with friends & colleagues who've similar interests. That's its "value" to me, and yes, in that respect, I'm getting what I "paid" for with my contributions.

All that being said, I STILL want the system to function more smoothly. I'm an idealist by nature. I want things to be the best they can be, and I believe Lit can be better -- for both the contributors AND for the management. To that end, I've given my suggestions and offered my assistance.

 

[wishfulthinking]

[threadjack]

I posted my thoughts on M's last thread, so no need to post em again

My question is [and I don't really have an answer] is that how clear or opaque should the voting process at lit be?

On one hand, we have a lot of threads or thoughts by irate authors [I don't exclude myself from this ] who have been trolled and don't understand why and don't immediately visibly see a result they like or an attempt by Lit to rectify the issue.

On the other, trolls read the boards, FAQs and the like, and can quickly learn or inherently know [ ]the tricks to get around such processes engaged by lit and other sites.

Should a statement be made by Lit [and assist trolls] or should Lit remain silent [and cause some frustration]?

I won't post them here, but do a quick web search about the common scripts used by websites to overcome voting cheats. And then assume like me [or not] that lit has developed or fine tuned these scripts further.

[/threadjack]

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'm feeling a bit like Liar's moron, here. I'm not sure I understand. Is it that you think there is something fishy about the site being swept more than once a month? It happens more than once virtually every month, in my experience.

Apparently, I've picked up a troll or two, because my stories and poems - which have been posted for months, not new - now seem to pick up some 1s early in the month, and then, the scores rebound as a few votes disappear mid-to-late month. Adjustments are made without my requesting them. I've never PM'd Laurel about any of the votes. But the sweeps definitely go on more than once a month.

Is it that the second sweep happened after the monthly contest voting cut-off, and you don't think it's right that the second sweep also applied to the official vote tally for the contest? That has more to do with contest rules and when votes are tallied rather than the voting process, I think. If you think the contest rules were broken by Laurel and Manu, I can't imagine they wouldn't reply to your questions and concerns if you've let them know that their sweep methodology made the count unfair. If they do it that way every month, though, it's applied equally to all authors, so I'm not sure it is unfair.

I don't know what else the problem might be. It's honestly not a glaring, obvious problem, to me, from what you've described.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Boxlicker101]

When somebody does a sweep, I'm not sure how they decide what to sweep. Sometimes, when a story is an entry in a contest, Laurel will keep a fairly close watch and sweep anything that seems wrong. If a story has been getting a lot of votes of "5" and an occasional one of "4" and has an average of about 4.75, and suddenly a one-bomb appears, it is obvious that it is malicious or an attempt to hurt the chances of a contender. It will usually be eliminated.

On the other hand, sometimes a one-bomb stays there. For instance, I have several times had stories that had ten votes of "5". After that, they are listed among the top stories in that category. Within hours, somebody will hit it with a one-bomb, knocking the story way down. The average in that case will go from 5.00 to 4.64, not bad but also not among the top stories anymore. The one-bomb might or not might not ever get swept away.

Sometimes a one-bomb may be valid. If I write an interracial story and it is well received, a bigoted white man may come along, see it involves a white woman and a black man and drop a one-bomb. Although I disagree with his opnions, ther are validly held and he has a right to express them. Of course, bigotry comes in all colors and it may just as well be a black man who objects to depictions of white men and black women. By the way, if you are wondering why a racial bigot would read an interracial story, he might enjoy reading stories about white men and women of color.

 

[Haley__F]

Voting Stuff

Hi all

The voting system hasn't really bothered me too much, If people read my submissions and like them then I'm happy, more so if they email me with feedback. I'm honoured that I am in the Top List Lesbian category, surprised to see I actually made it there in the first place!

As I can see it seems that the voting system has been abused or not managed properly or something. If this is the case then whoever is doing to abusing is a sad act. Why bother to abuse a system that is supposedly put in place to allow readers to vote on stories they like? Surely no one is afraid of a little competition are they? People who write and submit to Literotica do it (I assume) for the pleasure of writing? Sure, the recognition and rewards that go with well written work is always welcome, but not when it's wrongly acheived.

I'm not going to get into an arguement about voting, sure I like being in a Top List (and so close to the top) but I write because I enjoy it, it makes me happy. Do you see a group of teenagers get together with the idea of forming a band to make cash? Well maybe, but I believe it's because they love music. Writing is the same, you do it because you want to, because you're driven to tell a tale. Anyone who writes first and foremost for cash/fame rewards is not doing it for right reasons. And anyone who cheats a system for gain is a waste of space.

I've more than likely said things here that not everyone will agree with, but these are my opinions and beliefs. I'm not argueing against anyone. I write and enjoy writing, simple, for me writing is its own reward, if someone else likes what I have written then so be it. I've entertained them for a while.

Haley

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[elsol]

ElSol's Suggestion

1) Get rid of the top lists and contests.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Boxlicker101]

ElSol's Suggestion

1) Get rid of the top lists and contests.


Sincerely,
ElSol

I don't think that's a good idea. Those things appeal to the competitive instincts of me and the other writers. I wish there could be some way to assure honesty but eliminating contests and voting, etc. would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[elsol]

I don't think that's a good idea. Those things appeal to the competitive instincts of me and the other writers. I wish there could be some way to assure honesty but eliminating contests and voting, etc. would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

But competitive instincts = reason to bitch, complain, and generally feel like you're being slapped around because someone double voted for you, trolled you, or you got kicked off the list for the flavor of the day.

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

That way I can look for 'INC, LES, MOM, DAU... listed by SCORE desc'

Lists no longer needed and part of the focus of complaints is gone (let's be honest, a LOT of the focus of the complaints is gone).

Okay, the contests can stay.

--- 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.

You can also cure some of the voting thing by.

a) Do your dupe and troll check IMMEDIATELY. Don't run a script later... do it when the vote is cast.

b) Your dupe check should allow another vote by the same 'ip, user... blah' after X number of day (I like 180... if after six months, the story still tickles your winkie, then the author deserves your vote again.)

----

But hey, since I'm not doing any of the work, then I'll implement the change that I can... I won't take this whole thing TOO seriously. (Okay, if a story doesn't have a HOT, I'll take THAT seriously!)

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[sweetnpetite]

Hmm! I've loved some stories so much that I've read them over and over, and I bet many of you have too, however, as you may surmise, I don't vote each time I read a story.

Last follow up to follow



mismused

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.