I believe that prominently featuring user-curated Lists is (ahem) on the site's Wish List of Planned Features. No telling when they will be getting around to implementing it, though.
My thoughts exactly.
Well yeah, I’ve got “as seen on Stacnash’s ‘worst’ list” on my business card, but it’s not generating much traffic.
OK, well scratch that idea then.
@Omenainen tried valiantly to get such an index going in AH back in October. It seemed to fizzle, but here it is if you want to restart it.
See, I'm going with the same marketing strategy I used when one of my books was banned on Amazon years ago.
Lucky Dip reviewers: Anonymous
A list of critiques of Troll comments? Oh hell yes! Construction, use of language and originality of the comment content. There are a number of things we could critique!
On their user page. Go to the bottom of this page, click on Stories, scroll down to Author Search, type in account name, and you're there.
(and then ignore the lists completely)
One of the lists can be TLDR (Too long, didn't read) and Stacnash goes on that one. Along with weirdo Anubelore. Like the topic of this thread, he can give good and bad reviews, but they can be close to a thousand words, and I give up after a paragraph or so. I didn't think about the story that much and I wrote it.
It's hilarious how the "one star" and "disqualified" list are filled with Red H's.
Yeah, there’s a perverse pleasure in knowing that Stacnash’s ratings for those stories were most likely purged from the database during the ‘sweeps’ for being wildly inconsistent with the prevailing sentiment.
Not just that, some of the best authors that make real money outside of Lit.
The site is very cloak and dagger with how sweeps actually work, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. It certainly shouldn't be. From the information from the lists, it looks like Stacnash is voting each of the five-star levels in roughly equal numbers. He is allowed a different opinion even if it is ideosyncratic or even agenda-driven.
Yes, but she is voting on a range of 1 to 5 (assuming her votes are consistent with her stated scores) where most people would vote on a range of around 3 to 5 if they've managed to finish a story (because why would you persist reading a really terrible story?). Let's say for the sake of argument that she's voting a '1' on a story that is averaging above 4.5 - it's highly likely that that vote will be picked up in the sweeps. If she's voting a '3' for a story that she regards as middle of the pack, the vote is much more likely to survive. The changes in story score with the sweeps would suggest that 1 votes don't tend to survive unless there there's a clear voter sentiment that it's a terrible story.
Point taken re the speculation - I also agree that it's good that we don't know how the algorithms work. But I can't see how they wouldn't be driven by outliers. There's only so many ways you can do it, surely - multiple votes from the same IP address, flagged IP addresses, flagged accounts, and statistical outliers. Scores often rise dramatically during the sweeping process, so lots of low votes are surely being deleted.
