Ratings Scheme

[alextasy]

I'm of the opinion that any author with fundamental skills and the guts to share her/his/their work on this site deserves all the support we can give them. With one exception, I've given five stars to every story I've read past the first paragraph. The one exception was a hateful diatribe that went nowhere, with no redeeming value except to show the writer could create a loathsome, sociopathic, and hurtful fictional character who despises everyone.

Personally, I don't pay much attention to the ratings when I'm looking through stories. I'm a stickler for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and the basics most of us were taught in elementary school, but I've seen poorly-written stories presented with well-thought-out plots and interesting characters who evolve through their experiences--and having sizzling sex along they way--and I am quick to acknowledge the writer's successes. I've recently learned the "Favorites" numbers don't accurately reflect the actual number of people who have marked a story as a favorite, either, so that tells us nothing about a story's popularity.

Is there no way to revise the ratings scheme to create an environment that fosters and rewards writers and accurately informs readers of the merits of the stories?

The "HOT" label is practically useless. Under the current rating plan, it does not accurately reflect the quality of a story. That is most harmful to the writers, the readers, and the site when a story is in the "NEW" status, when it is most likely to get readers. A story with a rating of 4.8 after nine votes will drop to a 4.3 with a single 'one'-grenade lobbed by some jerk who probably does it for the fun of it, and likely isn't even brave enough to register with the site. At that point, anyone scanning through the listings is less likely to read the story because of the low score. With fewer readers, there are fewer ratings to pull the story back into the statistically inaccurate "HOT" status where more readers will enjoy it.

I restrict comments from anonymous readers. If they don't care to come out from behind their shield of obscurity, then frankly, I don't care to hear what they have to say. Unfortunately, the site does not allow us to restrict ratings from the shadowy masses, which is where I suspect many of those falsely-conceived poor ratings come from.

There are dozens of better ways to inform writers and other readers of the best stories on the site. How about some sort of checkbox feedback that doesn't require writers to submit to scathing personal attacks? For example, for anything below a certain rating (e.g., 3 or 4), the reader (who may not have actually read it) could be required to check the single most important reason for their choice from a list, such as "poor fundamental skills," "disagreeable subject matter," "confusing plot," or similar problems. A single rating like this would not be helpful, but consistent feedback along a single line would give the writer a clue to possible weaknesses.

There has to be a better way. The current method is unnecessarily detrimental to supporting better stories and accurately informing readers.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my criticisms and thoughts on the matter. Not that I expect it will go anywhere, but if we don't express our concerns, then who's to blame?

=Alextasy

 

[alextasy]

Oh, yes...assuming the site uses a standard average to calculate ratings, as my data suggests, in the example of a 4.8 rating dropping to a 4.3 after a single "1" vote, four "5" votes are needed to bring it back into the "HOT" category. Over twenty (20) "5" votes are needed to restore the the rating somewhere near the original 4.8.

A twenty to one ratio... Doesn't seem right.

Thank you.
=Alextasy

 

[Statius]

Oh, yes...assuming the site uses a standard average to calculate ratings, as my data suggests, in the example of a 4.8 rating dropping to a 4.3 after a single "1" vote, four "5" votes are needed to bring it back into the "HOT" category. Over twenty (20) "5" votes are needed to restore the the rating somewhere near the original 4.8.

A twenty to one ratio... Doesn't seem right.

Thank you.
=Alextasy

Agree. I have expressed concerns and doubts about the rating system as well. Prepare yourself for what's coming from other writers though. It probably won't be pretty.

 

[Davidwa1]

Most who give a bad rating are either anonymous or they dont like the subject, or claim not to as they read 10,000 words. I wouldn't give it too much consideration.

 

[alextasy]

Most who give a bad rating are either anonymous or they dont like the subject, or claim not to as they read 10,000 words. I wouldn't give it too much consideration.

It's not me that considers it. It is potential readers who are misled by spurious and possibly spiteful clicks. Just because they might not like the subject doesn't give them carte blanche to dissuade others from enjoying it. I don't like tomatoes. I don't shove my finger into every tomato I see so other people can't eat them.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've been taking flak on this anytime it comes up because I would ditch anonymous in a heartbeat here.

My feeling is even with an account and user handle, how aren't we anonymous? These aren't our names, we're not giving away personal info, and many register with an e-mail they rarely use.

So to still feel the need to be protected even more than that? Come on.

I do know many anon readers vote high and will leave nice comments, but also think if anon suddenly was not an option would they really not create an account?

Because fact is that while most anon folks are fine, 90% of the haters and trolls here are anon and they have proven so cowardly they won't sign up.

What it would come down to is less votes and comments, but better quality and better ratings, which would people prefer?

But the site isn't going to change it so its a moot conversation.

 

[alextasy]

I've been taking flak on this anytime it comes up because I would ditch anonymous in a heartbeat here.

My feeling is even with an account and user handle, how aren't we anonymous? These aren't our names, we're not giving away personal info, and many register with an e-mail they rarely use.

So to still feel the need to be protected even more than that? Come on.

I do know many anon readers vote high and will leave nice comments, but also think if anon suddenly was not an option would they really not create an account?

Because fact is that while most anon folks are fine, 90% of the haters and trolls here are anon and they have proven so cowardly they won't sign up.

What it would come down to is less votes and comments, but better quality and better ratings, which would people prefer?

But the site isn't going to change it so its a moot conversation.

Lovecraft68;

I love your writing. Thanks for your feedback.

I agree anyone can foster hatred. I believe people who have an identity--even if it's a mask with a fake email--are less likely to lob grenades, because they know it can come back on them on other ways. Of course, they can create another identity, but that requires unnecessary effort and a loss of historical data and possibly connectivity with friends, as opposed to simply being civilized.

Again, it's not for my protection. It is a brutish form of censorship by "cowardly" people, a concept this site should be especially sensitive to, and which ultimately affects the readers.

I don't agree the site isn't going to change. It is currently in the process of change. The question is, which direction will it change? I think my concerns are widely shared. I can only hope someone is paying attention to us.

Thank you,
=Alextasy

 

[PennyThompson]

I think we can be pretty confident that Lit's scoring system isn't likely to change, significant modifications to its database system happens rarely and slowly. But it's fun to think about, so here's my modest proposal...

What about a Rotten Tomatoes-style rating system? RT's system is pretty straightforward, it just considers any review of a movie to be either positive or negative.

It doesn't differentiate between a 4-star review and a 5-star review, it just asks, "did the reviewer enjoy it or not?"

And then the aggregate RT score is displayed as a simple percentage of positive reviews. If 60% or more of the reviews are positive, the movie gets a "Fresh" label. Less than 60%, "Rotten."

And then the other interesting thing that RT does that is, it provides two percentage scores. One for professional reviewers and critics, one for public audience comments and scores. This creates a really useful dynamic, I think.

• There are movies that get a low critic score but a high audience score, which usually means it's a dumb popcorn movie that might not tread any interesting artistic ground, but people had a good time watching it.
• There are movies that get a high critic score but a low audience score, which either means it's pretentious oscar bait or unappreciated genius, depending on your personal view of such things
  
• Movies that get high ratings in both scores are almost certainly a worth watching for most people.
• Movies that get low ratings in both scores probably don't have much merit to them, except perhaps as a "so-bad-its-good," movie.

It's not a perfect system, but the math is straightforward while providing a useful amount of nuance.

So in a Literotica RT system, I think you could implement it in two different ways.

1. There is an "Author Rating" and a "Reader Rating." If you're a published author on Lit, any rating you give to a story would be added to the Author Rating. If your account has no published stories, it's a Reader Rating.
2. There's a "Comment Rating" and a "No-Comment Rating." If you spent the time writing a comment, then your rating goes in that score. If you only rate a story, it goes in the other.

Then the rating options would be a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down rather than a number out of 5. The "Hot" label could be applied to any story that earns 60% (or 70, or 80, or whatever percentage is appropriate) in both scores. Or you could split it into two labels that stories can earn, "Authors Hot" and "Audience Hot." Or you could do away with it entirely, and let the scores speak for themselves!

 

[Baztrachian]

Around Lit I have observed that some people employ the following as their ratings scheme:

• They score every single Loving Wives story as a 1.
• They go out of their way to read NC stories, they are outraged, they announce their outrage, and then score it a 1.
• Every non-erotic story is downvoted for being non-erotic.

Etc.

 

[alextasy]

I think we can be pretty confident that Lit's scoring system isn't likely to change, significant modifications to its database system happens rarely and slowly. But it's fun to think about, so here's my modest proposal...

What about a Rotten Tomatoes-style rating system? RT's system is pretty straightforward, it just considers any review of a movie to be either positive or negative.

It doesn't differentiate between a 4-star review and a 5-star review, it just asks, "did the reviewer enjoy it or not?"

And then the aggregate RT score is displayed as a simple percentage of positive reviews. If 60% or more of the reviews are positive, the movie gets a "Fresh" label. Less than 60%, "Rotten."

And then the other interesting thing that RT does that is, it provides two percentage scores. One for professional reviewers and critics, one for public audience comments and scores. This creates a really useful dynamic, I think.

• There are movies that get a low critic score but a high audience score, which usually means it's a dumb popcorn movie that might not tread any interesting artistic ground, but people had a good time watching it.
• There are movies that get a high critic score but a low audience score, which either means it's pretentious oscar bait or unappreciated genius, depending on your personal view of such things
  
• Movies that get high ratings in both scores are almost certainly a worth watching for most people.
• Movies that get low ratings in both scores probably don't have much merit to them, except perhaps as a "so-bad-its-good," movie.

It's not a perfect system, but the math is straightforward while providing a useful amount of nuance.

So in a Literotica RT system, I think you could implement it in two different ways.

1. There is an "Author Rating" and a "Reader Rating." If you're a published author on Lit, any rating you give to a story would be added to the Author Rating. If your account has no published stories, it's a Reader Rating.
2. There's a "Comment Rating" and a "No-Comment Rating." If you spent the time writing a comment, then your rating goes in that score. If you only rate a story, it goes in the other.

Then the rating options would be a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down rather than a number out of 5. The "Hot" label could be applied to any story that earns 60% (or 70, or 80, or whatever percentage is appropriate) in both scores. Or you could split it into two labels that stories can earn, "Authors Hot" and "Audience Hot." Or you could do away with it entirely, and let the scores speak for themselves!

That's intriguing, Ms. Thompson. At first look, I like it, especially to show the input from different groups, who would each have a different perspective.

Thank you!
=Alextasy