Regression To The Mean

[nice90sguy]

Before assuming that your highly-rated story is being vindictively down-voted, be aware of this common fallacy:

Regression Fallacy

I suspect that's often the "reason" that highly-rated story scores tend to drop. And having a high rating means that the regression will happen quite fast because more people look at high-rated stories than low-rated ones.

 

[sirhugs]

How mean is it?

 

[MelissaBaby]

Before assuming that your highly-rated story is being vindictively down-voted, be aware of this common fallacy:

Regression Fallacy

I suspect that's often the "reason" that highly-rated story scores tend to drop. And having a high rating means that the regression will happen quite fast because more people look at high-rated stories than low-rated ones.

It's even more pronounced among contest winners. I've had people ask me, "How did that story win an award, it's only rated 4.75?"

Well, because when the contest closed, it was 4.92...

 

[SimonDoom]

I suspect this is true, and it's much more true than many want to acknowledge.

I see people complain about their story getting "knocked down" from 4.93 to 4.85, and then they reveal that their story has 20 votes, and I think, you must be kidding.

A score simply doesn't mean much until you have enough votes. Until then, the sample size is so small that you cannot say with any confidence that it represents anything. This is especially true during contests, because the sweeps make things especially unpredictable.

I had a story that followed the pattern MelissaBaby alludes to. It lucked out in reaching its maximum, 4.92, right when the contest closed, and after sweeps had cleared out some nasty votes. I placed in the contest, so that story will forever have a blue "W" next to its title.

But when it placed, it only had something like 27 total votes. Now, two years later, it has 187 votes and a score of 4.49. That's a huge drop. Did it get maliciously downvoted? Maybe, but it seems much more likely that the 27 votes when it placed simply were not representative of the readers' sentiments as a whole, and that the newer number better represents what everybody really thinks of it. I'm likely to be stuck with a score of around 4.49 for this story in perpetuity, because with 187 votes it's not likely to change too much.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I suspect this is true, and it's much more true than many want to acknowledge.

I see people complain about their story getting "knocked down" from 4.93 to 4.85, and then they reveal that their story has 20 votes, and I think, you must be kidding.

A score simply doesn't mean much until you have enough votes. Until then, the sample size is so small that you cannot say with any confidence that it represents anything. This is especially true during contests, because the sweeps make things especially unpredictable.

I had a story that followed the pattern MelissaBaby alludes to. It lucked out in reaching its maximum, 4.92, right when the contest closed, and after sweeps had cleared out some nasty votes. I placed in the contest, so that story will forever have a blue "W" next to its title.

But when it placed, it only had something like 27 total votes. Now, two years later, it has 187 votes and a score of 4.49. That's a huge drop. Did it get maliciously downvoted? Maybe, but it seems much more likely that the 27 votes when it placed simply were not representative of the readers' sentiments as a whole, and that the newer number better represents what everybody really thinks of it. I'm likely to be stuck with a score of around 4.49 for this story in perpetuity, because with 187 votes it's not likely to change too much.

Also, it's likely that those early votes were probably heavily cast by your followers, who received notification the story was published, and are predisposed to giving you a high score.

 

[SimonDoom]

Also, it's likely that those early votes were probably heavily cast by your followers, who received notification the story was published, and are predisposed to giving you a high score.

Exactly.

 

[HordHolm]

Also, it's likely that those early votes were probably heavily cast by your followers, who received notification the story was published, and are predisposed to giving you a high score.

Apart from, as is whispered, those who follow for darker, 1-bombing reasons...

 

[iwatchus]

My reaction varies between two different scenarios that are getting intermingled. If I have 100 votes and a 4.9, 20 straight for votes drop it to 4.75. That is probably a valid reaction to a wider audience. Four straight 1's will also give you a 4.75. I have experienced both cases (a little more complicated, but essentially this pattern). When a story has had ninety 5's and ten 4's, four consecutive 1's are extremely unlikely to be valid assessments of the story.

I don't know whether people are numerically illiterate enough to not distinguish the two cases or have their head in the sand sufficiently, but there is a regular problem here. Just not as often as people claim. And @SimonDoom is absolutely correct to say ignore any rating with few votes.

 

[crookedletter]

I've noticed what seems to me an interesting self-serving fallacy in terms of interpreting votes: any vote that positions one's story above others' must obviously be objective and reasonable, inspired by said story's greatness; and anything that brings it down is a fraudulent personal attack. Whereas, of course, the same low votes others' stories get are based purely on those stories' shortcomings.

I don't really know the politics around here, maybe there are some folks who are unfairly targeted by mean-spirited voters. But it seems just as likely to me that there are simply some negative people around who like to hurl 1s and 2s at the stories they don't like. Ratings fluctuate -- they all do, subject to the whims and moods of the wacky humans reading and voting on them.

 

[nice90sguy]

I actually think that people tend to naturally temper their opinions based on other people's opinions - so a person's voting score will be "pulled" towards its existing average -- people prefer to agree with the consensus. And obviously there's the "friends, family and followers" effect for new stories.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Ah, Wikipedia, the most accurate website on the entire internet!

 

[nice90sguy]

Ah, Wikipedia, the most accurate website on the entire internet!

I can't help wondering what you consider a better candidate for that accolade.

 

[MillieDynamite]

On the net, accuracy isn't required.

I can't help wondering what you consider a better candidate for that accolade.

 

[MillieDynamite]

However, while I didn't put my usual , one might assume I was joking, as smart-assed remarks from me are almost always jokes.

I can't help wondering what you consider a better candidate for that accolade.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I can't help wondering what you consider a better candidate for that accolade.

X and Blue Sky have to be up there.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Ah, Wikipedia, the most accurate website on the entire internet!

And I believe you are required to say "apropos of nothing " before you post a Wikipedia link.
Some kind of rule about that.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Trump's Truth Social?

I can't help wondering what you consider a better candidate for that accolade.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Trump's Truth Social?

That's how you get people crying about politics in the AH.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Opps, my bad!

That's how you get people crying about politics in the AH.

 

[SimonDoom]

Ah, Wikipedia, the most accurate website on the entire internet!

I actually think Wikipedia gets a bad rap. You have to be a bit careful with it, because sometimes a page on a hot topic will get swarmed by zealots who distort the narrative. But the good thing about it is that it has citations, and you can always check the citations. I would never rely upon Wikipedia as a fact source for an academic article (if I wrote one, which I haven't in a long time), but I think it's a reasonable thing to cite for most casual online conversation (which is what this is).

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I actually think Wikipedia gets a bad rap. You have to be a bit careful with it, because sometimes a page on a hot topic will get swarmed by zealots who distort the narrative. But the good thing about it is that it has citations, and you can always check the citations. I would never rely upon Wikipedia as a fact source for an academic article (if I wrote one, which I haven't in a long time), but I think it's a reasonable thing to cite for most casual online conversation (which is what this is).

I've also found that, if you ask, both XAi and ChatGPT will provide citations and footnotes for questions you ask them. In my experience, XAI seems to be more thorough.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It works for writing on some things. It works for some fact-checking on bloggers & podcasters' ideas (where they have the idea and I have to put it into words). But I wouldn't trust in any serious issues but thankfully I don't deal with many of those.

I actually think Wikipedia gets a bad rap. You have to be a bit careful with it, because sometimes a page on a hot topic will get swarmed by zealots who distort the narrative. But the good thing about it is that it has citations, and you can always check the citations. I would never rely upon Wikipedia as a fact source for an academic article (if I wrote one, which I haven't in a long time), but I think it's a reasonable thing to cite for most casual online conversation (which is what this is).

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I actually think Wikipedia gets a bad rap. You have to be a bit careful with it, because sometimes a page on a hot topic will get swarmed by zealots who distort the narrative. But the good thing about it is that it has citations, and you can always check the citations. I would never rely upon Wikipedia as a fact source for an academic article (if I wrote one, which I haven't in a long time), but I think it's a reasonable thing to cite for most casual online conversation (which is what this is).

I've seen a couple of studies that come to similar conclusions. Essentially if you aren't looking into anything controversial you get a decent answer.
Once there's a sniff of controversy...it's off to the races.

 

[alohadave]

I've also found that, if you ask, both XAi and ChatGPT will provide citations and footnotes for questions you ask them. In my experience, XAI seems to be more thorough.

Do you check those citations? Because they are known to make them up.

 

[SimonDoom]

It works for writing on some things. It works for some fact-checking on bloggers & podcasters' ideas (where they have the idea and I have to put it into words). But I wouldn't trust in any serious issues but thankfully I don't deal with many of those.

Me, either. I'm just a smut writer tossing out marginally informed opinions on arcane subjects of interest to just a tiny fraction of those with similarly smutty literary tastes. The requisite accuracy bar, as I see it, is relatively low.