Flash insight on voting chicanery

[AwkwardlySet]

I'd say that if you are accusing Laurel of fixing the contests, the burden is on you to show proof.

Yes, because the AH is big on showing evidence for their claims about Lit and Laurel in general.

Anyway, I'm supposed to prove that Laurel decides the winners? She decides when the voting ends and when the sweeping ends, and thus effectively decides the winners. There is nothing, nothing, no mechanism whatsoever, that stops her from doing as many sweeps as she wants to do. There are no predetermined rules that limit her decisions in any way. This is literally a tautology. I don't need to prove this. It's a known fact.

The only thing I would need to "prove" is that she does all of the above with a specific intent. I can't prove that, as I can't enter her mind, can I? Either way, what I said about that was very clearly speculation, the same as we always do when we debate about Laurel. My speculation is based purely on Laurel's M.O. and basic logic, nothing else.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Yeah - you’re wrong. Totally wrong. It’s highest rating not most votes. /

Yep, top 3 highest rated for stories that have at least 25 votes at the end of the sweeps when the final tally is complete. So you could get 1 - 4.95/25, 2 - 4.94/10k, 3 - 4.93/500

 

[LargoKitt]

So, how does one measure this "following" or "popularity"?
Keeping in mind that the AH is a tiny fraction of this site.
Being "popular" (whatever that means) on the AH doesn't mean a thing on the story side. Most readers probably don't even know the AH exists.

One easy guage would be that the author's stories often get hundreds of thousands or even millions of views. And their vote to view ratio is very low. Maybe also that stories are regularly above 4.9.

 

[LargoKitt]

Insight: In doing my 'due diligence' I went back and read the specs of contests. They point back to the basics being the monthly contests, which effectively no longer exist, thought Laurel says they will be resurrected. Monthlies are based on highest scores and sometimes highest scores with greatest number of votes. I had neglected this because I assumed monthlies tallied automatically from all stories submitted. And for years there have been no monthlies'.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Many of us have already hypothesized about all this before, and aren't interested in doing so yet again, perhaps?

I can only speak for myself. I am not interested in hypothesizing about scoring. It's allllllll been said before.

About ratings and regular stories, yeah, we've all debated those things ad nauseam. But contest scores and how exactly one wins? Not nearly that much. People are always too scared of pissing off the powers that be, or of being poor losers. I feel liberated in that sense, as I've never participated. I intended to at one point, but when I realized how contests work, I quickly gave up on that idea.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

One easy guage would be that the author's stories often get hundreds of thousands or even millions of views. And their vote to view ratio is very low. Maybe also that stories are regularly above 4.9.

Who are these people who are consistently above 4.9?
Who is consistently getting 100,000 views?

Not the same people winning contests.

@silkstockingslover has the most followers on the site, has stories with millions of views and doesn't dominate the contests.

@lovecraft68 has a ton of followers, stories with millions of views, and also doesn't dominate the contests.

And they are both great writers.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yes, because the AH is big on showing evidence for their claims about Lit and Laurel in general.

Anyway, I'm supposed to prove that Laurel decides the winners? She decides when the voting ends and when the sweeping ends, and thus effectively decides the winners. There is nothing, nothing, no mechanism whatsoever, that stops her from doing as many sweeps as she wants to do. There are no predetermined rules that limit her decisions in any way. This is literally a tautology. I don't need to prove this. It's a known fact.

The only thing I would need to "prove" is that she does all of the above with a specific intent. I can't prove that, as I can't enter her mind, can I? Either way, what I said about that was very clearly speculation, the same as we always do when we debate about Laurel. My speculation is based purely on Laurel's M.O. and basic logic, nothing else.

And there is no way to disprove it either.
By your own logic, we'd have to peer inside Laurel's mind.
I can't see why she would care enough to do it.
What would her motivation be to do so?
There isn't any evidence of people who defend the status quo winning contests.
No patterns...

 

[Dodola]

I think this is more just a comment that voting and scores are the only 'currency' here. And that's why there is so much attention and angst about this.

It seems that way in the AH, but it's the same 12-15 people who track this closely and have any angst. It does get a lot of attention, but it's a tiny fraction of the number of writers who submit stories on lit.

 

[Voboy]

About ratings and regular stories, yeah, we've all debated those things ad nauseam. But contest scores and how exactly one wins? Not nearly that much.

Yeah... nah. I don't buy that. I myself have participated in an easy dozen or more threads about precisely that topic. There is, quite honestly, no more meat left on that bone, and you've just discovered why: because we can't read Laurel's mind.

There's no way for us to know how it works, and that is a feature, not a bug.

I intended to at one point, but when I realized how contests work, I quickly gave up on that idea.

...wuss.

YOLO, my friend! Get in there! Nobody in their right mind actually expects to win. You do it for fun, not for profit. It's a blast.

 

[FrancesScott]

That's what they call 'anecdotal' rather than statistical. But I could be very wrong if there are lots of 'one hit wonders' winning contests.

I believe the word you are looking for is ‘counterexample.’

And it would be interesting to know why your story was very popular with voters that time.

The best answer I can offer is that Literotica competions are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

If you ask me to wildly speculate, then I believe that there are - for whatever reason - a large number of neurodivergent people here. At least some of them saw something of themselves in my protagonist.

 

[FrancesScott]

Probably because it was really damn good.

Yeah, probably because it was by FrancesScott.

What lovely things to sign on and read. I am humbled. Thank you.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

...wuss.

YOLO, my friend! Get in there! Nobody in their right mind actually expects to win. You do it for fun, not for profit. It's a blast.

I am very competitive and generally a sore loser. You should see me play chess online.

So yes, if I can't quantify the rules and metrics of a competition, I am unlikely to participate. I don't want Laurel deciding whether I won or not.

 

[anthrodisiac]

What lovely things to sign on and read. I am humbled. Thank you.

I'm all for more great neurodivergent stories, thank you for writing it.

 

[LargoKitt]

f you ask me to wildly speculate, then I believe that there are - for whatever reason - a large number of neurodivergent people here. At least some of them saw something of themselves in my protagonist.

This is cool. Personally, I would love to see more stories on shows like the Good Doctor or Attorney Woo that explore sexuality in that arena. Go you.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Yeah, and I'm going to disagree with you, Frances: it wasn't because you'd touched some neurodivergence nerve that people could relate to. It was simpler than that. You're a bloody good writer.

I pay no attention to the contests. But I've seen two stories I loved, which subsequently went on to win - one by FrancesScott, one by anthrodisiac - and they won because they were incredibly good. This wasn't a popularity contest, a number-of-followers contest, this was oh my, these are so beautiful, moving, touching.

Oh, and in one there was a polite dispute that actually redgarters should have won, and yes, that was another story that was so incredibly good and beautiful, and had nothing to do with number of followers, except that this beautiful touch is why these writers are so popular.

 

[LargoKitt]

to maybe round this up: The initial 'aha moment' for me wasn't about which stories are popular; but rather which are seriously *unpopular*. I've never quite 'grokked' one-bombs beyond 'kids' who can't build a sand castle, so they kick one over. But if it helps 'make money'...

 

[Voboy]

to maybe round this up: The initial 'aha moment' for me wasn't about which stories are popular; but rather which are seriously *unpopular*. I've never quite 'grokked' one-bombs beyond 'kids' who can't build a sand castle, so they kick one over. But if it helps 'make money'...

Well, you already expressed that in the opening post: your belief is that people are enlisting their followers to vote their entries up by promising them portions of the $1500 prize.

This has already been shown to be false in every conceivable way:

1. People with massive followings do not reliably win contests here.
2. The sweeps ensure that gaming the contests in the way you describe would be quite difficult.
3. The prize money is merely $150, not $1500, which leaves virtually no profit for the winner's many followers.

Along the way, other theories have been ventured and, likewise, dismissed or tabled. THAT is the round-up.

 

[SmilingLez]

This thread has become a rather fitting demonstration of the very problem it set out to discuss.

One side is speculating about one-bombing, popularity, and people supposedly sabotaging competitors. The other is defending the contest system and dismissing concerns because nobody has produced proof of deliberate manipulation.

Neither speculation nor indignation is evidence. A low vote can affect an average without proving sabotage. Administrative discretion can raise legitimate questions about transparency without proving anyone rigged a contest. And pointing out that a system is arbitrary doesn't make every concern about its operation invalid.

What’s especially revealing is how quickly a discussion about voting mechanics turns into a referendum on the people discussing them. Suddenly it’s about who has credibility, who has sour grapes, who writes good stories, and who deserves to be taken seriously.

For a community that supposedly values writing, there’s an extraordinary amount of energy being spent defending ratings, placements, hot tags, and the machinery that distributes recognition.

If the system is fair, it should withstand scrutiny without requiring personal attacks on the people asking questions. If it isn’t demonstrably fair, personal confidence in its fairness proves nothing.

And if nobody can distinguish evidence from suspicion, perhaps everyone should stop pretending this thread has established anything beyond how personally invested people are in the outcome.

The contest results may be decided by averages. This argument is being decided by egos.


YMMV

 

[FrancesScott]

Yeah, and I'm going to disagree with you, Frances: it wasn't because you'd touched some neurodivergence nerve that people could relate to. It was simpler than that. You're a bloody good writer.

I pay no attention to the contests. But I've seen two stories I loved, which subsequently went on to win - one by FrancesScott, one by anthrodisiac - and they won because they were incredibly good. This wasn't a popularity contest, a number-of-followers contest, this was oh my, these are so beautiful, moving, touching.

Oh, and in one there was a polite dispute that actually redgarters should have won, and yes, that was another story that was so incredibly good and beautiful, and had nothing to do with number of followers, except that this beautiful touch is why these writers are so popular.

Again, my blushes are hard to contain. But, yes, The Last Song She Wrote by @redgarters was a better story than mine and would have been a very worthy winner indeed.

 

[LargoKitt]

Well, you already expressed that in the opening post: your belief is that people are enlisting their followers to vote their entries up by promising them portions of the $1500 prize.

Among Quakers there is a process called 'eldering' in which a (reputedly) wise and often old member of the meeting takes the wrong-headed young parishioner aside and illustrates 'the error of their ways.' Okay. I'm easy and enlightened by all arguments here. That's why I participate in this forum. Be it also known that I have very low tolerance, in a forum, for any 'you ought to know better' preaching. I assume, with some evidence, that people in the Authors' Hangout are folks with a real respect and affection for Literotica, with all its sexy fleas. Okay, "if it ain't broke..." and this is a fine place to test ideas and become informed.

 

[LargoKitt]

YMMV

MMDV

 

[anthrodisiac]

But, yes, The Last Song She Wrote by @redgarters was a better story than mine and would have been a very worthy winner indeed.

Hardcore agree that The Last Song She Wrote would've been a worthy winner, though I disagree that it was "better" than yours. Both are excellent and handle very different subjects and challenges in compassionate, moving ways, both are incredibly high-quality stories and I'd personally struggle to say which is the better of the two.

So, I would recommend both @redgarters's story and Abby's Sapphic Deliberations. Not to prove a point about anything, they're just incredibly good stories in their own right, regardless of win status, and deserve, if nothing else, a willingness to give them a look, but I guarantee most people will want far more than that if they give them a shot.

 

[FrancesScott]

Hardcore agree that The Last Song She Wrote would've been a worthy winner, though I disagree that it was "better" than yours. Both are excellent and handle very different subjects and challenges in compassionate, moving ways, both are incredibly high-quality stories and I'd personally struggle to say which is the better of the two.

So, I would recommend both @redgarters's story and Abby's Sapphic Deliberations. Not to prove a point about anything, they're just incredibly good stories in their own right, regardless of win status, and deserve, if nothing else, a willingness to give them a look, but I guarantee most people will want far more than that if they give them a shot.

Can we at least agree that The Importance of Being Beatrice is better than both?

 

[EmilyMiller]

Can we at least agree that The Importance of Being Beatrice is better than both?

Seconded

Then I’m terribly biased

And another ND-themed story for @LargoKitt

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This thread has become a rather fitting demonstration of the very problem it set out to discuss.

One side is speculating about one-bombing, popularity, and people supposedly sabotaging competitors. The other is defending the contest system and dismissing concerns because nobody has produced proof of deliberate manipulation.

Neither speculation nor indignation is evidence. A low vote can affect an average without proving sabotage. Administrative discretion can raise legitimate questions about transparency without proving anyone rigged a contest. And pointing out that a system is arbitrary doesn't make every concern about its operation invalid.

What’s especially revealing is how quickly a discussion about voting mechanics turns into a referendum on the people discussing them. Suddenly it’s about who has credibility, who has sour grapes, who writes good stories, and who deserves to be taken seriously.

For a community that supposedly values writing, there’s an extraordinary amount of energy being spent defending ratings, placements, hot tags, and the machinery that distributes recognition.

If the system is fair, it should withstand scrutiny without requiring personal attacks on the people asking questions. If it isn’t demonstrably fair, personal confidence in its fairness proves nothing.

And if nobody can distinguish evidence from suspicion, perhaps everyone should stop pretending this thread has established anything beyond how personally invested people are in the outcome.

The contest results may be decided by averages. This argument is being decided by egos.


YMMV

Someday you are going go make an interesting point, instead of just shitting on everyone from some self anointed position of authority.
Today is not that day.
You seem to think there is some binary choice here.
Attack the process or defend the process.
Those aren't the only choices.
Most of us are addressing the very specific concerns raised by @LargoKitt. Such as the belief that someone with a large group of followers has a big advantage in the contests (leaving aside the obvious idea that one builds a large following by being a good writer, and thus more likely to win a contest).
Pointing out these specific flaws in Largo's argument is not the same as blindly defending the contest process.
As I mentioned earlier, many of us would likely do things differently. No one thinks the process is perfect. I'd be willing to bet Laurel doesn't think it's perfect. But it accomplishes it's intended purpose, and that's good enough.
I'm sure you've developed a perfect system, and we'd all love to hear about it...