Puzzle about Category Nominees

[TruthAndLove]

There's probably some simple answer to this that I'm overlooking, but it's got me baffled. I thought that the highest scoring story in each category in a given month is the Category Nominee for that month. But ...

The January, 2007, Category Nominee for Fetish is a story called "Our Wet Camping Trip"; but the highest scoring story from that month in the Fetish category is actually the story "Roshni Ch. 04".

The nominee for Non-Consent/Reluctance is a story called "Carly in New York". But that story does not appear on any of the pages of the "Tops" list for Non-Consent/Reluctance. At least two other stories from that month are on the "Tops" list, including one entry of the "Bean Counter" series by Creamer.

Can anyone explain these anomalies? Is there some nuance to how category nominees are selected that I'm not aware of?

 

[starrkers]

A story needs 50 votes to qualify.
If no story entered that month has 50 it drops to 25, then 10, then any votes.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Only legitimate votes received between January 1st and February 15th count to determine the nominee for January. We're in June. The current top list is irrelevant.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That puzzle was easy. Give me another!

 

[kendo1]

That puzzle was easy. Give me another!

Happy 18000.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Happy 18000.

Ooo. I hadn't noticed. Thanks!

I wonder how many of those were nice.

 

[kendo1]

Ooo. I hadn't noticed. Thanks!

I wonder how many of those were nice.

Three.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Three.

You're much too generous.

 

[kendo1]

I try. Have a nice day.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I already used that word once today. Don't push it.

 

[kendo1]

*slaps wrist*
Ah! You're a groupie!

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Yo momma!

 

[TruthAndLove]

Only legitimate votes received between January 1st and February 15th count to determine the nominee for January. We're in June. The current top list is irrelevant.

Well, that raises other puzzles, then:

The "Carly in New York" story doesn't appear ANYWHERE on the Tops list for its category. So you are saying that as of Feb. 15th, it was higher rated than the stories from January that are now on the Tops list for its category, but since then it has dropped so far below them, that it is not even on the Tops list at all for that category. Is that a normal occurrence?

The highest January story of the Non-Consent/Reluctance category is
"Bean Counter ch 11" by Creamer. It has 198 votes and is 35th on the tops list. Did it have fewer than 50 votes on Feb 15th? Was it ranked below "Carly in New York"? I was watching the "Hot"s and the "Top"s in that category pretty closely at the time and I don't remember ever hearing of "Carly in New York". The "Bean Counter" series, by contrast, was getting a lot of attention, votes, and high rankings.

BTW, what votes are not legitimate?

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Only legitimate votes received between January 1st and February 15th count to determine the nominee for January. We're in June. The current top list is irrelevant.

I thought January (for Monthly Contest purposes) ran from Jan 16 to Feb 15...or something like that.

 

[Guest]

Well, that raises other puzzles, then:

The "Carly in New York" story doesn't appear ANYWHERE on the Tops list for its category. So you are saying that as of Feb. 15th, it was higher rated than the stories from January that are now on the Tops list for its category, but since then it has dropped so far below them, that it is not even on the Tops list at all for that category. Is that a normal occurrence?

The highest January story of the Non-Consent/Reluctance category is
"Bean Counter ch 11" by Creamer. It has 198 votes and is 35th on the tops list. Did it have fewer than 50 votes on Feb 15th? Was it ranked below "Carly in New York"? I was watching the "Hot"s and the "Top"s in that category pretty closely at the time and I don't remember ever hearing of "Carly in New York". The "Bean Counter" series, by contrast, was getting a lot of attention, votes, and high rankings.

BTW, what votes are not legitimate?

OKay... let's try this again.

A story must have 50 legitimate votes to be in contension for the nomination.
That story does NOT have to be part of the tops list to be nominated.
So... the story for that month that has the minimum of 50 votes AND the highest score is the category nominee.
Sometimes what we 'see' in the top lists is not who becomes nominated... its a simple computer program.


Personal note:
When I was writing heavy in 2004 (I think or 05 maybe) I had three stories in different months become eligible for different stories nominees. They were not the highest rated story of the entire month however they were the highest story in that month for that category following the guidelines.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, that raises other puzzles, then:

The "Carly in New York" story doesn't appear ANYWHERE on the Tops list for its category. So you are saying that as of Feb. 15th, it was higher rated than the stories from January that are now on the Tops list for its category, but since then it has dropped so far below them, that it is not even on the Tops list at all for that category. Is that a normal occurrence?

Absolutely. The story could have had a relatively low number of votes back then, and being at the top of the top list is a sure way of attracting one-votes, which have a greater impact the fewer overall votes you have. Or the author could have turned voting off since then. Or the readers' collective boat may have started floating on something else.

BTW, what votes are not legitimate?

Duplicate votes, votes with suspicious patterns, etc.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I thought January (for Monthly Contest purposes) ran from Jan 16 to Feb 15...or something like that.

Nope. If a story is posted on January 1st, it's eligible for January, with the votes received until February 15th.

 

[Weird Harold]

BTW, what votes are not legitimate?

Duplicate votes, fraudulent votes, malicious votes, etc. Lit has been careful not to give too complete an explanation of how they define and/or identify illegitimate votes so as to minimize the opportunity to circumvent their safeguards.

I don't know whether it has ever been implemented or not, but Lit does have the capability to distinguish between regitered and unregistered voters and originaly intended only registered voters to count towards contest standings.

Finally, the top lists are dynamic lists and the status on the day winners are determined has no bearing on the current status -- or vice versa. Contest winners often suffer the same fate as new stories that emerge at the top of the top lists with a perfect score: they get trolled, and often trolled into oblivion.

 

[TruthAndLove]

Absolutely. The story could have had a relatively low number of votes back then, and being at the top of the top list is a sure way of attracting one-votes, which have a greater impact the fewer overall votes you have. Or the author could have turned voting off since then. Or the readers' collective boat may have started floating on something else.


Duplicate votes, votes with suspicious patterns, etc.

OK. From this an other replies, I think the ultimate answer to my puzzles is that the results are strongly affected by the subjective judgements of the contest judges as to what votes are "suspicious". That's OK, but it would be nice if the official descriptions of how the category nominees are determined made it clear that there is an element of subjective judgement involved.

BTW, web servers can obtain the IP address of anyone who accesses a site, whether they are logged in or not. That makes it possible to prevent anyone from a particular IP addess from voting more than once on a particular story. This can be done with software: no human would have to examine the IP address for each vot. Software could also prevent anyone who submits a story from voting on any other story in the category in that month. These two techniques would not prevent every kind of voting abuse, but they'd prevent a lot of it.

But, on the other hand, if voting is so easily abused, maybe voting isn't the best way to hold contests. Perhaps committees of volunteers in each category could choose nominees. That's how the American TV "Emmy" awards are determined.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

OK. From this an other replies, I think the ultimate answer to my puzzles is that the results are strongly affected by the subjective judgements of the contest judges as to what votes are "suspicious".

The only contest judges are the readers who vote, and their judgement is indeed subjective.

And if you know about computers and IP addresses and detection software, then you know why some votes are deemed non-legitimate. There.

 

[Weird Harold]

BTW, web servers can obtain the IP address of anyone who accesses a site, whether they are logged in or not. That makes it possible to prevent anyone from a particular IP addess from voting more than once on a particular story. This can be done with software: no human would have to examine the IP address for each vote.

There are a lot of couples here at Lit who use a single computer to vote on stories. There are a lot of people like me who have dynamic IP assignment with a dial-up connection.

Just how do you propose to distinguish between a husband/wife duplication and/or automaticaly identify two votes from two separate sessions on a dynamic IP connection. Ot how do you prevent fraudulent voting by traveling salesmen who log on from a different hotel's server every day of a business trip?

 

[TruthAndLove]

There are a lot of couples here at Lit who use a single computer to vote on stories. There are a lot of people like me who have dynamic IP assignment with a dial-up connection.

Just how do you propose to distinguish between a husband/wife duplication and/or automaticaly identify two votes from two separate sessions on a dynamic IP connection. Ot how do you prevent fraudulent voting by traveling salesmen who log on from a different hotel's server every day of a business trip?

I don't propose either thing. There are limits to what technology can do, as I indicated.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't propose either thing. There are limits to what technology can do, as I indicated.

Yes, and I for one am willing to accept the limits of that technology rather than try to find a committee to judge every category every month. Some of the categories get hundreds of submissions. Anyone who nominates me for the chore gets a hoofprint on his pants seat.

 

[TruthAndLove]

The only contest judges are the readers who vote, and their judgement is indeed subjective.

And if you know about computers and IP addresses and detection software, then you know why some votes are deemed non-legitimate. There.

I *think* this contradicts what you said before. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you implied that some human(s) (and "contest judge" seems as good a name for that person(s) as any) is using detection software but is also making judgement calls about what patterns of voting are suspicious; and, hence, about which votes will be counted and which will not be. If I misread, I'm not alone. Other people who have responded to this thead seem to be under the same impression.

Also, your posts make it sound as if you use the detection software after-the-fact to discount illegimate votes. My point about the software was that you can use it to block (some) illegimate votes from being cast in the first place. If you were doing that, then the Tops ranking on the 15th of each month would provide a pretty good guide to what stories are going to be category nominees: There would be exceptions, but in general, if you are blocking most illegimate votes from being cast in the first place, the top ranked story (with more than 50 votes) in a given category on the 15th of the month after it is submitted would be highly likely to be the category nominee.

 

[cloudy]

I *think* this contradicts what you said before. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you implied that some human(s) (and "contest judge" seems as good a name for that person(s) as any) is using detection software but is also making judgement calls about what patterns of voting are suspicious; and, hence, about which votes will be counted and which will not be. If I misread, I'm not alone. Other people who have responded to this thead seem to be under the same impression.

Also, your posts make it sound as if you use the detection software after-the-fact to discount illegimate votes. My point about the software was that you can use it to block (some) illegimate votes from being cast in the first place. If you were doing that, then the Tops ranking on the 15th of each month would provide a pretty good guide to what stories are going to be category nominees: There would be exceptions, but in general, if you are blocking most illegimate votes from being cast in the first place, the top ranked story (with more than 50 votes) in a given category on the 15th of the month after it is submitted would be highly likely to be the category nominee.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be harsh, but....who cares?