One bombed

[WhenPreNut]

Hi

I'm a newbie. Been lurking and reading a while but authoring only a short while.


Looks like a few of us are running into the same 1-bomber issues.


On my first post, the score started at 1/1. I didn’t even know what that meant at the time. Then it shifted to 3/2, and now it sits at 4.52/98.

Yesterday, a new post went live. In the morning it showed 5/4. A little later it read 4/5. Anyone with a basic understanding of averages can see what that fifth rating did. Now it's at 4.17/6 so another 5.

From what I’ve read other platforms run automated checks to spot anomalous ratings and filter them out. That kind of process would benefit everyone here.

1-bomber fuckwits damage the whole culture. Letting them stand unfiltered is quietly demoralising.

It seems @old_prof posts here point to removal of some 1-bombrring? I've not seen it though. Also that lower rankings happen from using the wrong category?

Some advice would be welcome on that (again I've read some forum stuff and don't find a clear alignment for what I'm writing bdsm say "all consensual power exchange" so that's what I used on the latest - but still bombed.

Can the admin write some scripts to id the fuckwits and disable there voting access for abuse? A Light-touch system to catch obvious abusers would make a noticeable difference to users’ experience and several of our peace of mind (mental health!).


3¢

 

[Bazzle]

Welcome to Literotica.

There are people thinking with their little brains in their crotch, not in their heads.

1 bombs are just part of life. Just gotta hope the 5's out weigh them.

 

[onehitwanda]

Welcome to Literotica.

 

[SimonDoom]

Welcome to the Hotel Literotica.

And vote bombing.

They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast.

 

[StillStunned]

First of all, welcome to Lit and to the Authors' Hangout! There's a wealth of experience, skill and knowledge here, not just about publishing and writing, but almost any subject you could ever want to know. Feel free to tap into that resource!

Can the admin write some scripts to id the fuckwits and disable there voting access for abuse? A Light-touch system to catch obvious abusers would make a noticeable difference to users’ experience and several of our peace of mind (mental health!).

Second: the site will never disallow 1* votes. They're just as legitimate as any other. That doesn't mean they don't hurt, or leave us wondering what we did to deserve them.

But it might help to remember that the scoring system here isn't based on quality. Reader ratings are based on all kinds of factors, all of them subjective. A reader might give you a 1* because they didn't like your story, or because they have an issue with something you've posted in the forums, or because you have too many typos (anywhere from a single mistake to the story being barely legible), or because it's a Wednesday in February, or because your story was too short for them to get off, or because it continued after they'd got off and they couldn't decide between reading and having a nap, or for any of a thousand other reasons.

If you're lucky the bad-faith votes will get eliminated in a sweep, but that only happens at the end of the six annual contests. You can also request a manual sweep, but don't expect it to yield any results.

The only real solution that I've found is to keep writing whatever you want. Sooner or later you'll have so many stories that you'll stop tracking all your scores.

 

[Writer61]

Looks like a few of us are running into the same 1-bomber issues.

Afraid it is par for the course. 1-scores are particularly common, and most damaging, in the first 10 votes. About 1/3rd of those that I have received are there.

Every so often, the site does a clean out (known on the forum as "a sweep") to remove bad-faith votes. These are not necessarily just 1-scores.

Note: the mods do not like discussion of how the sweeps work.

 

[xannatharr]

It's just part of the game, if your work attracts sufficient attention a few low ratings won't really matter. Hopefully folks will see the number of votes and, realize that one or two low votes account for the current score, and not let that deter them from reading.

And from another perspective, why would we WANT certain votes to not be counted? They are all equally valid, unless we have proof that soeone is voting to support some ulterior motive and not to simply express their opinion.

It looks like your work is good, not sure why you would be overly-worried about one or two low votes?

Edit: Maybe I am naive, enlighten me?

Xann

 

[onehitwanda]

unless we have proof that soeone is voting to support some ulterior motive and not to simply express their opinion.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Well, as others have noted, getting one-bombed is pretty much like ants at picnics - inevitable, so get used to it. Sweeps do happen and, no, we don't talk about how they work.

I view one-bombers as being like toddlers who, unable to build their own towers with blocks in the playroom, take their pleasure knocking down what others have built.

One word of advice - don't complain about them to any major degree. Again with a toddler analogy, a small child spouting potty words does it for the reaction from others. A troll seeing somebody complain about their vandalism is getting that reaction, so don't make their day.

Welcome to Lit, folks. Ignore the ants, enjoy the picnic!

 

[SimonDoom]

Welcome to Lit, folks. Ignore the ants, enjoy the picnic!

This sums it up as well as I have seen it summed up.

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who enjoy the picnic, and those who keep getting freaked out by the ants.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Asking for a friend...

For those authors who seem to fly under the radar; never experiencing their stories being stolen and posted elsewhere, never attracting the ire of trolls, and not being targeted with down voting, what exactly constitutes vote "bombing"? Does it require a single down vote, or a certain defined number to be considered malicious?

Some definition would be helpful.

 

[SimonDoom]

Asking for a friend...

For those authors who seem to fly under the radar; never experiencing their stories being stolen and posted elsewhere, never attracting the ire of trolls, and not being targeted with down voting, what exactly constitutes vote "bombing"? Does it require a single down vote, or a certain defined number to be considered malicious?

Some definition would be helpful.

This would be my definition. A low vote is a "bomb" and "illegitimate" if it is cast for primarily or wholly strategic reasons, not based on the good faith evaluation of the merits of the story. If reader A, who likes stories by author B, downvotes author C's story not because of its merit but to keep that story from being ranked on a list above author B's story.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with low-voting, per se. The Site makes it possible to give stories a 1-star, so that's a legitimate option. It's the motive behind it that matters.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

This would be my definition. A low vote is a "bomb" and "illegitimate" if it is cast for primarily or wholly strategic reasons, not based on the good faith evaluation of the merits of the story. If reader A, who likes stories by author B, downvotes author C's story not because of its merit but to keep that story from being ranked on a list above author B's story.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with low-voting, per se. The Site makes it possible to give stories a 1-star, so that's a legitimate option. It's the motive behind it that matters.

How is the motivation or intent reliably determined?

 

[SimonDoom]

How is the motivation or intent reliably determined?

You're asking the wrong person about that, because I don't know. There's enough evidence of "strategic" downvoting that I think we can say with confidence that it happens. That doesn't mean that all low votes are illegitimate.

 

[Lector77]

How is the motivation or intent reliably determined?

“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?…The Shadow knows!”

 

[HordHolm]

How is the motivation or intent reliably determined?

I have one consistent one-bomber whose intent I believe I can reliably determine (to what I believe to be a reasonable degree). On the last three occasions I have had a story post, the first vote I have received has been a 1*, and that vote has been cast within only minutes of the story going live. I do not believe this 1* vote has been cast by someone who has actually read my story in each case, because each of those stories would need more time than ~10 minutes to read. From this I can deduce (reasonably, IMO) that this vote counts as a bomb. I can't make the same deduction for any others which are accrued later, however.

 

[Writer61]

How is the motivation or intent reliably determined?

We are asked not to discuss how bad-faith votes are detected.

 

[Writer61]

Does it require a single down vote, or a certain defined number to be considered malicious?

Some definition would be helpful.

I think most people regard any 1-score as a 1-bomb. It's not completely true, but I think most are.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

We are asked not to discuss how bad-faith votes are detected.

While not speculating on how the site does that, from a writer's point of view, if a story has maintained a steady score for months or even years, with hundreds of votes and all of a sudden that score suffers a sharp decline over a short period of time, that's an indicator.

Or, as HH has noted, if there's a drop in score consistent in effect with a one-vote, and this happens every or almost every time a new story by an author is posted, often just about the same time of day, that too is suggestive. The sweeps deal with it, but the pattern certainly makes it hard to explain any other way except somebody cracking open their computer in the morning and, over their morning coffee, as a matter of course, dropping bombs. I experienced that at one time.

Or (really Minor League trolling), I opened my account one morning years ago and every last story had had a drop in score. Needless to say, that got easily corrected.

One develops an instinct after a while. As to the algorithms Manu uses, I have no idea and really don't wish to know.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

We are asked not to discuss how bad-faith votes are detected.

The question isn't how votes are detected, but what motivates them.

Apples/Oranges

 

[BobbyBrandt]

the first vote I have received has been a 1*, and that vote has been cast within only minutes of the story going live

On the surface, an action such as this would imply that the person is someone who follows you and gets notified of your stories as they are published. IMO, that would be a clear sign of malicious intent towards you personally and not the story itself.

 

[xannatharr]

I have one consistent one-bomber whose intent I believe I can reliably determine (to what I believe to be a reasonable degree). On the last three occasions I have had a story post, the first vote I have received has been a 1*, and that vote has been cast within only minutes of the story going live. I do not believe this 1* vote has been cast by someone who has actually read my story in each case, because each of those stories would need more time than ~10 minutes to read. From this I can deduce (reasonably, IMO) that this vote counts as a bomb. I can't make the same deduction for any others which are accrued later, however.

Sounds like you have a devoted hater!

That definitely sucks, but their one bad vote will get carried away in the breeze like a fart at the beach

 

[HordHolm]

On the surface, an action such as this would imply that the person is someone who follows you and gets notified of your stories as they are published. IMO, that would be a clear sign of malicious intent towards you personally and not the story itself.

Yep. I shrug and get on with my day. There's nothing I can do about it. Other 1* votes I give the benefit of the doubt to - they may well not be an honest opinion in relation to the quality or lack thereof of my work (it could easily be someone bent out of shape about some subject matter), but it's easier just to accept the downvote and move on.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

While not speculating on how the site does that, from a writer's point of view, if a story has maintained a steady score for months or even years, with hundreds of votes and all of a sudden that score suffers a sharp decline over a short period of time, that's an indicator.

There seems to be two different phenomenons discussed relative to down voting.

First, is as stated above, the focus of the down voting is on a particular story. Some reader dislikes some aspect of the tale and gives it a 1 vote. Unless that person games the system in a manner that allows them to vote multiple times, I would consider that a legitimate vote. Multiple down votes on a particular story within a short period of time would indicate to me a targeted attack took place on that story. I think this scenario is what we typically see with contest entries.

Second, the focus is on down voting multiple works by the same author, apparently in response to some real or imagined personal slight by the reader. The example where stories get targeted as soon as they get published also fit this scenario.

 

[Britva415]

Looks like a few of us are running into the same 1-bomber issues.

I think it looks more like a few of us have feelings about it. It isn't clear at all that it isn't happening to everyone.