"Could it be?" & "Why not...!"

[Dream_Operator]

Yes it was yours.

Just a lot of the beginning was so similar, so I didn't read the rest of yours so I wouldn't be influenced. I want to go read the rest now to see how yours ended.

No worries.

I look forward to your feedback and see how our stories ended up verging and coming to different conclusions.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is true, but then again 100+ words telling me why my story isn't to their liking is probably going to be far more useful to me as a writer than the difference between, say, 4.45 and 4.42 - if it indeed is a case of good-faith voters like you claim.

Certainly. But only about 1% of readers vote at all, and the ones who do want to give critique already have options for doing that*. The ones who don't... probably aren't going to change their minds just for the privilege of voting 1 or 2. They're more likely to go away giving no feedback whatsoever, not even a vote... which would be nice for our scores, until authors realise that 3's become the new 1-bomb and start lobbying to make it harder for readers to give a 3

The voting system is there to provide some sort of (very imperfect) quality rating for other readers. Coupling it to mandatory critique makes it less useful for that original purpose and probably results in less information for the author.

*also, authors have the Story Feedback forums for soliciting critique.

 

[FantasyXY]

Zealots are Powerless Pukes

I am finding this topic of assuming that puritanical zealots are voting low scores as religious retribution amusing. Not that anyone thinks something like this is going on is amusing, but the fact that it is being held up as something that has been happening recently.

The very first comment I ever received, on my very first story posted on Lit, was from just such a zealot that told me I was going to hell for writing about a married woman who fucked another man to thank him for saving her life. That story and its comment were both posted 15 years ago.

 

[NicoleZ]

I am finding this topic of assuming that puritanical zealots are voting low scores as religious retribution amusing.

The very first comment I ever received, on my very first story posted on Lit, was from just such a zealot that told me I was going to hell for writing about a married woman who fucked another man to thank him for saving her life.

It is it not! Be assured that you will go to what she/he/it perceives hell to be, namely having sex for other purposes than procreation, whereas he/she/it will go to their heaven to sit on a cloud where his/her/its final average lifetime score for Zealotry - a hefty 4.78 - has earned him/her/it an "H" in gold, yet he/she/it finds no happiness because on a nearby cloud is someone with a higher average score who in addition also has a Competition Winner's trophy...

 

[TxRad]

The correct expression is COULDNT CARE LESS.

Yes, you are correct, they couldn't care less. Thank you for clearing that up.

Now back to the real discussion.

Incest does get a lot of votes but very seldom wins contests. That large number of votes dilutes the fives and moves the whole range down even with all the twos diluted.

The low vote categories actually have a better advantage in contests.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

There are definitely New Story bombers lurking on hubs. I've seen them in action, bombing all the new stories that appear like clockwork. Up and down. I don't think it's religious nuts but competitive jerks. But they certainly do exist

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Yet if any suggest Muslims one-bomb LIT stories our resident Leftists will soil their pants in outrage.

 

[TxRad]

Yet if any suggest Muslims one-bomb LIT stories our resident Leftists will soil their pants in outrage.

No, they just chalk it up to your usual bullshit racist remarks, shake their heads at the stupidity, and carry on with what they were doing.

Yeah, the one bombers do line up at the new story thread. (9 AM, noon, and around 4 PM.) Those are the times I've noticed the most over the years.