How accurate are the "top lists"?

[SimonDoom]

I think they should eliminate anonymous voting. Sure, it might mean fewer votes overall, but the results would be far more accurate and much less noisy. The manipulation is very real, and it discourages people who genuinely care about the competitions. The site has little to lose and a lot to gain by tightening things up.

Nope. Laurel has made her position very clear on this. Over half of voting is anonymous voting. There is no chance whatsoever they're going to eliminate that. The whole purpose of this site is to make it very easy and free for people to post stories and for people to read and interact with stories. They're not going to do anything to restrict that, and they shouldn't. The fact that there is some manipulation, while annoying to some authors, is just a tiny blip in the scheme of things. It doesn't matter to readers at all. From the site's point of view, there is much to lose from eliminating anonymous voting and very little to gain.

You say that it discourages people from entering competitions. There's no evidence for that. More people enter competitions than ever before. I'm not discouraged. Most authors aren't discouraged. I don't enter competitions with a realistic expectation to win; I enter them because it's fun and because competitions give more exposure to my stories. That's true whether there's manipulation or not. The vast majority of authors don't care at all about that.

I also don't think it would necessarily eliminate manipulation, because I suspect some of the manipulation is being done by registered users.

Whatever we may say, it is never, ever, ever going to happen. It's a pointless conversation. The site has made this abundantly clear.

 

[SugarStorm]

I get that you're passionate about it, but you do have a bit of a dismissive and condescending tone.

You say that it discourages people from entering competitions.

No, I didn't say that

I suspect some of the manipulation is being done by registered users.

I suspect so, too. And the only ones who'd win with anonymous voting, are the ones who are against for it. (edit)



Anyhow, cheekiness aside, I still think they should I’ll keep saying so when the topic comes up. Change starts with people speaking up, and no one’s made a convincing case not to.

 

[SimonDoom]

I get that you're passionate about it, but you do have a bit of a dismissive and condescending tone.

I'm not passionate about it at all, and I don't mean to sound dismissive or condescending. I'm just being realistic. This is an issue that has been debated for as long as I've been in this forum (nine years). Many people gripe about anonymous voting, and have for years. I've experienced 1-bombs and downvoting. I know what it's like. But the site has made it crystal clear that it's not going to put up any barriers to unregistered readers from voting, or to anonymous comments. And it's made its reason clear: because they are such a big part of the readership and the voting system. I personally think the site's position on this issue is the right one. I WANT anonymous voting and comments. I want as much input as possible. Manipulation and downvoting are annoying, but they're just mosquito bites. They are far outweighed by the benefit of getting more readers, more voters, and more comments. And I think most authors either agree with me, or don't care in the slightest.

And the only ones who'd win with anonymous voting, are the ones who are against it.

There's no evidence for this.

and no one’s made a convincing case not to.

If you believe this, you're not listening to people. The case has been made. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but it's been made. I've made it. The site has made it. Other authors in this forum have made it. It's quite clear that the number of authors who want to ban anonymous voting and comments are a tiny fraction of the participants in this site, and the site quite understandably has made the decision that their views don't trump those of the majority.

 

[Bamagan]

Every author has the power to eliminate voting and vote manipulation on their stories, and ultimately even registered user votes are anonymous except to the site (aside from the tiny percentage who tell with a comment what their vote was (and assuming they're being honest)). Yes, turning off voting means the story is ineligible for winning any contests, but competing in those means accepting a dip in the septic voting pool with everyone else.

Banging my lonely 'disable voting' drum, pahrump-a-pum-pum.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think they should eliminate anonymous voting. Sure, it might mean fewer votes overall, but the results would be far more accurate and much less noisy

This is not true. First of all, the scores have pretty much no accuracy whatsoever when the readership are one hand up, one hand down.

Second, it would barely make a dent in troll votes.

Third, it will mean FAR fewer votes overall, which will make the scores less accurate, more prone to outliers and FAR more susceptible to bombing as the naturel score will have far less weight to offset the bombs. So this will make the scores FAR more volatile and prone to FAR less accuracy on case by case basis.

Fourth, you believe that eliminating anon votes will make your score higher so that you can feel better about yourself. The scoring system was not implemented to make you feel better about yourself. It was implemented to help readers search stories by reader opinion.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Much as I like the material, what I think of as the best parts scored worse than parts I feel are clearly weaker.

Which chapters were kinkier? Which chapters had more slutty/aggressive female characters?

 

[SugarStorm]

Many people gripe about anonymous voting, and have for years

Surely, it's a worthy topic then?

It's quite clear that the number of authors who want to ban anonymous voting and comments are a tiny fraction of the participants in this site

The site has 50+ million people visiting Lit every month, with a 100 000 authors in total. I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's a moot point in the sense that whatever AH discusses, and whatever the opinions may be (for or against), each side is only supported by a tiny fraction of the site's participants. (I define participant as reader and writer.)

First of all, the scores have pretty much no accuracy whatsoever when the readership are one hand up, one hand down.

Sorry, I don't understand this. Can you please rephrase?

Second, it would barely make a dent in troll votes.

I think it would. It's way too easy to submit extra votes that won't get caught in a sweep - it requires very low effort. If you have malicious intent, as in downvoting others rather than upvoting yourself, you can cause quite the stir.

Third, it will mean FAR fewer votes overall, which will make the scores less accurate,

No, I think the scores will be more accurate if you make it more difficult to submit extra votes. We'd lessen the risk of the system getting abused.

I do agree that with the current 1-5 star system it'll make ratings more volatile. The way the site has implemented a 5 scoring principle, and with the low amount of votes, the 'weighted average' problem gets introduced, but that is its own discussion. I don't think anonymous (or extra) voting is a good way to address it, nor do I think that anonymous voting contributes to reader engagement (as per SimonDoom's comment).

Changing 1-5 is such a daunting task however, and there are many other, viable options to support readers and authors alike.

Fourth, you believe that eliminating anon votes will make your score higher so that you can feel better about yourself.

If only

 

[DeadJasmine]

About as accurate and well-constructed as every other rinky dink piece of shit patchwork feature on this site.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Much as I like the material, what I think of as the best parts scored worse than parts I feel are clearly weaker.

Go figure.

What’s there to figure out? It makes perfect sense. Almost any reader can tell the difference between bad writing and decent writing. But there comes a point—like the peak of a parabola—where the curve of comprehension begins to fall. The more nuanced, layered, and sophisticated a text becomes—the moment you take away their feeding spoon—the likelier it is that its subtlety will pass over their heads, and they’ll answer with frustration.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

No, I think the scores will be more accurate if you make it more difficult to submit extra votes. We'd lessen the risk of the system getting abused.

That's what you think but sorry to say that you are wrong. The veterans here know that the only real protection against downvotes is a large vote count to outweigh the bombs. Anyone with a practical understanding of math can't logically disagree with that.

 

[SugarStorm]

The veterans here know that the only real protection against downvotes is a large vote count to outweigh the bombs. Anyone with a practical understanding of math can't logically disagree with that.

I agree. I said the following, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Apologies for that.

We'd lessen the risk of the system getting abused. I do agree that with the current 1-5 star system it'll make ratings more volatile.

——
I don't think we'll ever be immune against trolls or illicit voting. The way I look at it, it's about minimizing (not eliminating) the risk of it happening in the first place.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Almost any reader can tell the difference between bad writing and decent writing.

Oh no they can't.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I agree. I said the following, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Apologies for that.

——
I don't think we'll ever be immune against trolls or illicit voting. The way I look at it, it's about minimizing (not eliminating) the risk of it happening in the first place.

Eliminating anon votes will not reduce trolling. It will increase it because while it may reduce fraudulent votes, it will DECIMATE legit votes, which are the only real protection for the scores.

 

[StillStunned]

I agree. I said the following, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Apologies for that.

——
I don't think we'll ever be immune against trolls or illicit voting. The way I look at it, it's about minimizing (not eliminating) the risk of it happening in the first place.

As @SimonDoom already noted upthread, the voting system isn't intended primarily to benefit writers. It's for readers.

A factor that I think is easy to overlook is that it increases reader engagement. A quick, easy and painless to exert some kind of control over the content here, to respond to what they've consumed, is a powerful way to keep readers returning.

People love being able to leave their mark. Hikers will leave piles of rocks in remote places. Kids will tag their name in spray paint on walls. Annoying neighbours will play loud music.

The voting system on Lit caters to that urge. Whether they liked it or hated it, or whether they're just having a crappy day and want to share their frustration, or perhaps want to encourage a writer they like, readers derive a small degree of satisfaction from being able to click on the stars and knowing that they've made some small impact somewhere.

 

[kreemi_pi]

Oh no they can't.

Yes they can. In fact they DEFINE it, collectively.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yes they can. In fact they DEFINE it, collectively.

Good look at how many horribly written stories score 4.8 and up and have endless glowing comments about how well written they are . By and large, they can't. Case closed.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

I WANT anonymous voting and comments. I want as much input as possible. Manipulation and downvoting are annoying, but they're just mosquito bites. They are far outweighed by the benefit of getting more readers, more voters, and more comments. And I think most authors either agree with me, or don't care in the slightest.

Firstly, separate comments from votes. An author can delete anonymous comments, but not anonymous votes. They can disable voting altogether, but they have no option to block only anonymous votes. If you wish to keep those questionable votes, that’s your choice, but allow others the freedom to choose for themselves.

Readers won’t stop reading just because they can’t vote - that’s nonsensical. If voting matters that much, they’re welcome to sign up.

Most authors don’t agree with you. Maybe some of the 20 forum regulars do, but the overwhelming majority of site authors stay far away from the forums, and for good reasons.

Most readers rely on scores as their primary guide when choosing a story, which is only natural. They, too, want voting to be as trustworthy as possible.

Those who spend countless hours targeting multiple authors and stories are deeply troubled individuals. Their actions wreak havoc on the site and the overall experience. They should not be given the power to abuse it so easily.

Giving a story 1* or 2* is usually pure malice. Even when the writing is abysmally bad, decent readers would either ignore it or give it at least 3*, recognizing the time and effort that went into it. My solution is to change the scale to 3–5, remove the “bombing” tool from saboteurs, and provide voters with the much-needed 3.5 and 4.5 options. Being forced to choose between 4 and 5 is simply too large a gap.

 

[SugarStorm]

A factor that I think is easy to overlook is that it increases reader engagement. A quick, easy and painless to exert some kind of control over the content here, to respond to what they've consumed, is a powerful way to keep readers returning.

The voting system on Lit caters to that urge. Whether they liked it or hated it, or whether they're just having a crappy day and want to share their frustration, or perhaps want to encourage a writer they like, readers derive a small degree of satisfaction from being able to click on the stars and knowing that they've made some small impact somewhere.

I get where you’re coming from - I’m just on the other side of the coin here. I don’t think that when Laurel and Manu sat down and created Lit back in ’98, and later enabled voting in the early 2000s, their vision was to give people a way to vent their frustration on unsuspecting authors after a bad day.

Back then, I think the premise was simple and honest: “Hi reader, here’s one vote. Use it to support something you like, and tell the community what you think.”

But times change. When visibility, rankings, and in some cases a little bit of fame and fortune, are tied to voting, the dynamic shifts. The internet today isn’t what it was twenty years ago - it was, for lack of a better word, a more innocent place. Not as regulated as today perhaps, but definitely less exploited.

I think reader engagement is very valuable. I just think there are other ways to foster it than through completely anonymous voting, and with their ongoing modernization of the site, with improvements and new features coming, I think a change like this make sense, too.

 

[realitycheck701]

I'd recommend continuing to try to reach out to Manu to find out what's going on. You may not get a quick reply but my experience has been that you'll get a response eventually.

What would be the most efficient method of doing this? Do they frequent the forums? Should I message them on here? I sent an email through the official address but I imagine they get thousands of emails a week and it was lost in the shuffle as I haven't gotten a reply yet.

Also, does it seem absolutely MENTAL to anyone else that a website of this size is run by obstensibly two people? Automation is great but it can only get you so far. I've been lurking here for over a decade but it wasn't until I dipped my toe in writing that I began to understand how this place operates.

Why not hire help? This place grew far beyong "hobby" territory years ago.

As for the voting, I'm torn on it. I've seen somebody go to all 15 chapters and vote a 1 on each. I watched it happen in realtime as the scores updated. It sucks. But even if you think it's unfair, an opinion is an opinion. We might think it's uninformed, or biased, or just plain mean, but they still count. I'd leave the system as is, personally.

 

[onehitwanda]

I'm going to trot out an old favourite quote of mine.

"The finest line of poetry ever uttered in the history of this whole damn country was said by Canada Bill Jones in 1853, in Baton Rouge, while he was being robbed blind in a crooked game of faro. George Devol, who was, like Canada Bill, not a man who was averse to fleecing the odd sucker, drew Bill aside and asked him if he couldn't see that the game was crooked. And Canada Bill sighed, and shrugged his shoulders, and said, 'I know. But it's the only game in town.' And he went back to the game."

― Neil Gaiman, American Gods

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Just to educate, this is how the math of trolling works.

If I have a story with 50 votes, 1 troll bomb is is worth 2% of my score, so 5 troll bombs can kill my score by up to 10%.

If we eliminate anon voting, my story will have roughly 25 votes. This means that 1 troll bomb will be worth 4% of my score, and 5 bombs can knock it down by up to 20% (!!!).

If you are a serious troll hater, you absolutely want to ban anonymous votes. You will do incredible damage to any story that you want.

This is why the only practical defense against trolling is a large voter base, the larger the better. If my story has 200 votes, 1 troll bomb does basically nothing. 5 troll bombs barely makes a dent. If you ban anon votes, you decimate the defense of our scores. Speaking as someone who has received dozens of bombs before.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

An author can delete anonymous comments, but not anonymous votes. They can disable voting altogether, but they have no option to block only anonymous votes. If you wish to keep those questionable votes, that’s your choice, but allow others the freedom to choose for themselves.

Then you have to omit any story where anonymous voting is blocked from all contests.

Also, I know at least three members of this forum who have bombed my entire catalog each story once. I know their names. This means that they are bombing me from their logged in account.

Most readers rely on scores as their primary guide when choosing a story, which is only natural. They, too, want voting to be as trustworthy as possible.

Then you want all the anonymous votes to buoy the score as close to its natural number as possible. The fewer the votes, the more volatile the score, the less accurate it is, downvoting or not.

 

[RocketGrunt]

The top lists are a trash fire. Even when they are behaving as intended mathematically, they are garbage that encourages troll voting.

The problem is that "average rating" is not a measure of how many people liked your stuff enough to give it a good rating, it's a measure of how few people felt motivated to give it a bad rating. Right now, a lot of the stuff on "top popular stories" have perfect fives - and less than ten votes. That's not a popular story, that's just a story that no one has bothered to downvote.

Functionally a "5 Star" rating is an upvote, and a "4 Star" rating is a downvote. The system also allows people to cast downvotes two, three, or even four at a time by giving 3, 2, or 1 Star. 1 Star ratings often get "cleaned up" by algorithm, so mostly trolls give 2 or 3 stars when they want to spike a story off the top list. This is very effective, since a single 2 Star rating cancels out FIFTEEN 5 Star ratings to get to a threshold of 4.8, and THIRTY 5 Star ratings to get to a threshold of 4.9.

Anonymous voting isn't going anywhere, and getting people to adopt a less hugbox voting style of handing out 5s to everything is just not going to happen. Therefore, "average rating" is simply unsalvageable as a top list sorting algorithm. Trolls have too much power over that, and always will. The correct way to assign top positions in popularity is to simply count 5 Star Ratings and subtract other ratings. Sums, not means. It is intellectually insulting for a majority of the "most popular" works for the last month to have less than ten ratings when actually popular series get hundreds of ratings in a few days.

 

[nice90sguy]

Yes they can. In fact they DEFINE it, collectively.

Even though I dont 100% agree, this is a very good attitude to take in order to keep authors humble.

 

[SimonDoom]

What would be the most efficient method of doing this? Do they frequent the forums? Should I message them on here? I sent an email through the official address but I imagine they get thousands of emails a week and it was lost in the shuffle as I haven't gotten a reply yet.

Also, does it seem absolutely MENTAL to anyone else that a website of this size is run by obstensibly two people? Automation is great but it can only get you so far. I've been lurking here for over a decade but it wasn't until I dipped my toe in writing that I began to understand how this place operates.

Why not hire help? This place grew far beyong "hobby" territory years ago.

As for the voting, I'm torn on it. I've seen somebody go to all 15 chapters and vote a 1 on each. I watched it happen in realtime as the scores updated. It sucks. But even if you think it's unfair, an opinion is an opinion. We might think it's uninformed, or biased, or just plain mean, but they still count. I'd leave the system as is, personally.

Go into your direct messages and message Manu. That's his name.