Genuine 1* and 2* votes

[LaRascasse]

It's something I have wondered for a while now. Is there such a thing as a "genuine" 1* or 2* vote?

We are all aware how 1* and 2* votes on the site are rarely to do with the quality of the story, but the reader feeling wronged in their own imaginary way. Sometimes it is because the wife cheated on her guy and got away with it, sometimes to push another writer's work back into the hall of fame... the list goes on.

However, I have never given a 1* or 2* vote (and even rarely 3*). Does that mean that all the stories I have read have been good? Not by a long shot. It's just that if a story was 1* or 2* material, I usually never got to the end and moved on to something else. Nowadays, I generally only read stuff by authors I follow or those recommended by someone I know, but even back when I was an avid reader, I don't remember even feeling compelled to keep reading something I didn't like, just so I could express my displeasure through the voting feature.

I write this knowing full well Laurel will not remove the 1* and 2* options, but I am genuinely curious as to how they could be used apart from the obvious purpose of trolling.

Why would a reader keep reading something they so intensely dislike only to vote at the very end? It's not like the voting panel is a floating widget and you can vote without reaching the end (as is the case on some other sites). Here, the voting panel is at the end to ensure, at least presumably, that the reader has read the whole story.

So how can a story be simultaneously bad enough to earn 1* or 2* and yet hold the reader's attention to the end? It's not like a film critic or literary reviewer who gets paid to sit through Twili... uhm... to write their opinions.

Are "genuine" 1* and 2* for stories which are good (or at least passable) till the end when there is a sudden sharp drop in quality or an especially unpalatable twist? I can't imagine there being too many stories like that.

Even outside Lit, if I was reading something I did not like, I did not bother to finish it. Unless of course there were ulterior motives like grades and credits involved.

Life is too short to grit your teeth and read/endure stories you do not like just so you can vote at the end of them.

What is your take on this?

 

[LinneaLundin]

Who said you have to read to the end to vote on a story? It's a safe bet that if I give a story a 2 or 3 star rating, I did NOT read until the end. Reading other's comments show that skipping to the end of a story to vote happens a lot.

 

[LaRascasse]

Who said you have to read to the end to vote on a story? It's a safe bet that if I give a story a 2 or 3 star rating, I did NOT read until the end. Reading other's comments show that skipping to the end of a story to vote happens a lot.

Maybe it's a personal thing, but if I ever voted on a story, it would mean that I legit read it till the end and my vote and comment would be complimentary.

The second I start losing a story, I press "Back" and move on to something else.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think there are plenty of stories on this site that deserve 1- or 2- star ratings. I don't think anyone should feel misgivings about giving a bad rating to a story that's really bad. The point of a rating is not to make the author feel good but to convey information to potential readers about whether the story is good or not. If all of us rate stories accurately, everyone has better information. We all benefit, collectively.

That said, I'm not sure I've ever given a story a 1 or a 2, precisely for the reason LaRascasse gives -- if they're that bad, I don't finish them and don't get around to rating them. It doesn't seem quite right to me to rate a story if I haven't read the whole thing, or, at the least, almost the whole thing.

The result of people not giving low ratings is that ratings tend to skew high. In most categories, IMO, there are more stories with ratings over 4.0 than there deserve to be.

 

[Bill_Cosplay]

About a decade back when I was an avid reader, I had no problem dropping a single shining star on a story or 2 of them and I never reached the ending of those scribbles. If I made it to the final page of a story, it would get at least a 3 and if I liked it, a 4, and if I really liked it, a 5. 1 hot sex scene could also earn a story 5 shiny stars even if the rest of it was blahhhhh. I judged stories based on entertainment and stroke-worthiness. Though my penchant for shared wife and glory hole stories usually mean higher scores for those tales, so I judged on a fet-bias as well . Now I don't come here to sexercise my forearms , so I don't read as much. I never left a comment though. I'd rather find writers that I like instead of telling someone how they should write.

 

[ChloeTzang]

The lowest I’ll give a story is a 2. Personally I think giving someone a 1 or a 2 is just far to negative. Even a totally awful story took someone thought and effort to write and I couldn’t hand out a 1. On the other hand I really don’t give out 5’s that freely either. IMHO a lot of Literotica stories are 3’s. Not that well written and the good ones do stand out. The truly awful ones stand out too and I won’t waste my time finishing them. And If i don’t finish I won’t vote.

 

[ttvttp]

I haven't given a one or a two but I have given stories I have hated a 5. The story in question made me hate every character and made me sick to my stomach. But that is why I gave it such a high rating. I only rate on the impact to my emotions. If the story makes me very hard I will give it a high rating. If I cry it gets a higher rating. If I am beyond happy reading it I will give it a high rating. I have read really poorly written stories and rated it higher because of the impact on me. Yes I wouldn't rate a story if I didn't finish it, I also don't base my reading on rating.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I've never rated a story I've not finished; if it's that bad or not to my taste I just back-click, gone, why bother? I don't always score stories, either, even if I finish them (or skim finish). I'm not quite sure why that is - but when I do, it's a 3 or a 4 or a 5, in a vague attempt to keep to the more usual application of a 1 - 5 sliding scale.

But on Lit, 4 is the new 3.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I rarely vote on a story even if I finish it and liked it. It's just not something I think to do. If that bothers some, I'm sorry.

There have been some I have voted on only because they either impressed me or they really, really didn't. The lowest I have giving out is a 3 and that's because the story wasn't finished. The highest was a 5, but I was really impressed by that one.

As for my own...I really don't care what they get as far as ratings. I know there are hundreds of LW haters who give all mine a 1* without even reading them.

 

[Hypoxia]

One can earn low votes by failing to meet readers' expectations or somehow violating the norms of a category, even outside LW. My most-read and almost lowest-scored story rightfully disappointed Incest readers -- it might have done better in SciFi. From now on, if I *want* to earn one-stars, I'll use an alt.

 

[Bramblethorn]

However, I have never given a 1* or 2* vote (and even rarely 3*). Does that mean that all the stories I have read have been good? Not by a long shot. It's just that if a story was 1* or 2* material, I usually never got to the end and moved on to something else. Nowadays, I generally only read stuff by authors I follow or those recommended by someone I know, but even back when I was an avid reader, I don't remember even feeling compelled to keep reading something I didn't like, just so I could express my displeasure through the voting feature.

If a story is just meh, I won't finish it and I probably won't vote (unless it's so short that I get to the end before I've made up my mind to stop).

But if a story is actively hateful/obnoxious then I have no qualms in skipping ahead to the end and downvoting, as soon as I've read enough to be reasonably sure of its character. I don't mean stories that depict unpleasant people or actions, I mean stories where the author clearly supports that unpleasantness.

 

[AfterDusk]

I think in a way by not giving honest 1 or 2* votes you’re doing a disservice to this site. I have given both when warranted, and on occasion for a story that I couldn’t force myself through. If something is that bad then others should know imo.

I won’t give a poor rating on a story simply because I didn’t agree with the plot or characters, but instead for poor grammar, punctuation and editing.

I generally stick to a 3 (it was okay but I’m not going to read it again) or a 4 (interesting). I’ll give it a 5 if it is something that sticks with me through out the day and my mind keeps wandering back to it.

I’m certain I’ve gotten 1* votes before when I’ve subjected characters to bad situations. Nothing to be done about that, it is what it is.

 

[LookingGlassLicker]

If a story is just meh, I won't finish it and I probably won't vote (unless it's so short that I get to the end before I've made up my mind to stop).

But if a story is actively hateful/obnoxious then I have no qualms in skipping ahead to the end and downvoting, as soon as I've read enough to be reasonably sure of its character. I don't mean stories that depict unpleasant people or actions, I mean stories where the author clearly supports that unpleasantness.

Yeah that's the only time I give a low rating, if the author is supportive of something I find offensive (which isn't much).

If a story is badly written I won't finish it and then won't vote. If it's written well enough for me to finish it'll get a three straight off.

 

[oggbashan]

If a H marking was set at 3.01 then all votes from 1 to 5 would have equal weight.

But H is set as 4.50. That makes 1 and 2 votes unacceptably harsh.

 

[SimonDoom]

If a H marking was set at 3.01 then all votes from 1 to 5 would have equal weight.

But H is set as 4.50. That makes 1 and 2 votes unacceptably harsh.

I think a 10-point system would make more sense, where both 9 and 10 would get red Hs. That way, as a reader you could differentiate between stories that deserve a red H on the low end and stories that are truly exceptional. The problem with the current system is if you don't give someone a perfect score you are giving them a mediocre score. There are no alternatives in between.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think a 10-point system would make more sense, where both 9 and 10 would get red Hs. That way, as a reader you could differentiate between stories that deserve a red H on the low end and stories that are truly exceptional. The problem with the current system is if you don't give someone a perfect score you are giving them a mediocre score. There are no alternatives in between.

I reckon the more granularity there is in the scale, the less likely readers will score at all, because it will be seen as "too hard."

Besides, a ten scale is effectively the same as a five scale, coz people would just lump the pairs together. That might be just me, but most scoring theory I've found suggests a five scale is about optimum. It's traffic lights with two extra bands.

It's the Red H that has permanently skewed Lit's scoring system. Mind you, we're writers who indulge in the endless debate, and I'm not sure any of us know how the non-writing readers think - we've all got a writer's skew, depending on what we each make of the scores.

 

[Hypoxia]

All those who expect Manu to rewrite the voting system, hold your breath.

[time passes]

Is anyone still conscious?

 

[KeithD]

On the premise that the purpose of the H system is to guide readers to the higher rated stories and the authors are focused on the H recognition, I wonder (have wondered for years, including in posts to the board) how difficult it would be to add another tag designation to the story listings, like an "S" for "steamy" (4.50 and above) and "H" for "hot" (say, 4.25 and above). But then, as I said, I've been posting the suggestion for over a decade.

I can see a story "deserving" a 1 or 2, if it isn't just very badly written and conceptualized but also disrespected the reader and other authors in some way. If it appeared to be an honest effort, I couldn't see giving it a 1.

And I can see both why lower numbers could be given without reading the whole story and that a story a reader thought was that bad would just not be voted on at all.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Some research here suggests that for Likert-type scales (those symmetric ones that look like "strong dislike", "dislike", "neutral", "like", "strong like") the optimal number is about seven response categories. For those who enjoy reading academic papers, which I know is all of you

 

[LupusDei]

I have not attempted to post anything yet, so still quality as reader, I think.

I make it a point to always vote if I read to finish.

For a time, I voted 4* as default for stories I finished, keeping 5* as rare prize for exceptional enjoyment, and was not shy to push 3* if I wasn't satisfied. Spending time on this forum had corrected me up a little; now I give 5* a lot more often, but still may occasionally vote 4* for merely a weaker chapter or even just disagreement despite literature quality I can't fully evaluate anyway being non-English.

Now, if I, being non-English can recognise obvious flaws in technical or literally quality, the story have to hit my kink perfectly to earn 4* or even 5* randomly, else 3* is deemed deserved. Much too much of endless, repetitive or plain boring sex without any plot value whatsoever (I mostly skip sex descriptions, just skim reading for possible info points within), not giving the relevant plot details or just annoyingly avoiding obvious opportunities to indulge my specific kinks or kinks I expect from the story may occasionally earn a 3* even if the writing is relatively bearable.

The question was about 1* and 2* however.

The minimum vote is just as saying: this shouldn't have been published, ever. Intentional gibberish could qualify, and I won't believe there haven't been attempts to publish random generated texts, but apparently those don't get past Laurel as I yet to have encounter such. Then, I'm not someone you could offend without trying really really hard and even then there little chance, but there was a text or two that nearly succeeded, and were just very badly done at that, stupid and lazy and just hateful instead of kinky. And yes, I have finished each story I voted 1*, hate read is something akin hate fuck, you just can't stop.

2* is actually weird score. It should be signaling the text is either unreadable, but grammar that bad grants rejection anyway, or nonsensical, but I yet to have encounter capital nonsense here, I guess that doesn't get past Laurel either..I'm more prone to punish a story I really, really wanted to like but they didn't let me, in all ways possible, basically totally wasting what might be a theoretically great premise, but most of those got pity 3* anyway.

Most stories I backed out wouldn't get anything worse than 3* anyway from me I believe, and with current habits, most would probably get a 4*. I rather will leave because I can't get into the story or identity theme of it as one I'm not interested in, rather than bad writing what I can tolerate if theme seems promising.

 

[Hypoxia]

To a LIT author, anything less than ***** is a downvote.

 

[AfterDusk]

If a H marking was set at 3.01 then all votes from 1 to 5 would have equal weight.

But H is set as 4.50. That makes 1 and 2 votes unacceptably harsh.

But should a 3.01 be considered hot? To me a 3* would be average, mediocre at best. Nothing wrong, just nothing spectacular. If something is set at a 4.50 or above, it seems like it signals that this is popular and many people have enjoyed it...however if I read a story with a red H and find it to be 'meh' then I will vote as such.

I think a 10-point system would make more sense, where both 9 and 10 would get red Hs. That way, as a reader you could differentiate between stories that deserve a red H on the low end and stories that are truly exceptional. The problem with the current system is if you don't give someone a perfect score you are giving them a mediocre score. There are no alternatives in between.

I'm not sure how well a 10 point system would work but it would definitely scale better; I completely agree, though, if they don't get a perfect score they're getting a 'meh' score. It makes the achievement of anything higher than 4.5 virtually impossible to obtain without a vast amount of good votes.

As far as 1* or 2*, I don't think it is harsh to judge someone with a low score if they deserve it. People are inherently too soft now a days; I read an article earlier about a teacher who was fired for refusing to give students a 50% for an assignment they didn't turn in--the school had a policy that no one gets a 0. Seems like we're forming a world of people who are offended to easily; if I write shit, I want someone to tell me it is shit so I can change it and make it better.

On a side note, has anyone ever stumbled across a story with a rating of 1.00 or 2.00?

 

[NotWise]

The voting system here is a popularity contest, not a critique of your writing. "Genuine" 1* and 2* votes are definitely possible, and they can happen any time a reader gets far enough into a story to know what's going on, and *really* dislikes it -- regardless of writing quality.

You can combine themes in stories that are almost guaranteed to get down voted, because one theme brings readers in, and another offends them. My Holiday Contest story was a mother/son story, but it had a daddy/daughter element in it as well, and I highlighted that in the short description. The problem is that "daddy" was the antagonist. Daddy's not supposed to be the bad guy.

 

[LupusDei]

On a separate note about scale 10 voting, how about system that is what is now for free, but additionally readers could buy chips to vote above 5* with exponential prices and probably free form donations above fixed value for the perfect 10*. Autors could either reuse the chips to vote themselves or redeem them at a part of the purchase price.

Ratings above 5* would indicate people were voluntary paying for that, so it must likely hit something.

Only major downside I see, existing stories would need some arbitrary correction to remain visible on top lists. Maybe 5 in every 128 5* votes corrected to 7-9 at random, or some such. To make such correction fair the new system must be observed for a significant length of time, but correction is required as fast as possible. That contradiction make it arbitrary in practice.

 

[AfterDusk]

On a separate note about scale 10 voting, how about system that is what is now for free, but additionally readers could buy chips to vote above 5* with exponential prices and probably free form donations above fixed value for the perfect 10*. Autors could either reuse the chips to vote themselves or redeem them at a part of the purchase price.

Ratings above 5* would indicate people were voluntary paying for that, so it must likely hit something.

Only major downside I see, existing stories would need some arbitrary correction to remain visible on top lists. Maybe 5 in every 128 5* votes corrected to 7-9 at random, or some such. To make such correction fair the new system must be observed for a significant length of time, but correction is required as fast as possible. That contradiction make it arbitrary in practice.

I had an interesting chat with a reader about voting vs reading; when I showed him a screenshot of my CP containing 4k+ views but only 250 votes, he was surprised that there are so many mooches on the site. I do think there is merit to making people pay to vote, however I'd suggest this amendment--only allow paying subscribers to Lit the option to vote...anyone who wishes to read for free can, but doesn't get the privilege of anything more. That might also deter some of the trolls too.