Something not right here

[Jigs]

e-mailed to info@literotica.com 09-26-03

Laurel

Something is wrong here.

A month so ago I posted a BDSM story by the name of "Torments of the widow McWorter 7-10". I do not remember exactly, but at the level of about 52-53 votes, it had earned an average 4.80-4.81 and was second or third on the top list. The next day with only 3-4 more votes recorded, the story's average had dropped to 4.78 and into tenth place on the top list. With that few votes difference, it was obvious that somebody trashed the story with a string of 1s. I don't think that's fair, but hell, I'm a big boy and no virgin. This is not the first time I've been raped by a voting terrorist.

Then a remarkable thing happened, something unique to my experience in the 2-3 years I have been posting to Literotica. A day or so later with a vote total still less than 60, the story shot back to first place with an incredible 4.89 average. I don't know how that the average could have bounced so radically down, and then so incredibly far back up, with as many as 50 votes already recorded, and fewer than 10 more added. Rightly or wrongly I assumed that you had applied some process that filtered out the malicious votes--and gave a cheer for your effort.

Nevertheless, while I have had stories #1 on a top list before, I've never had one anywhere near 4.89, certainly not as late as 50 votes into the ball game, so I knew that 4.89 was both unrealistic and unsustainable. Sure enough, as the votes increased the score drifted downward to the 4.80 range, but the story still managed to alternate in first or second place on the top list. Yesterday morning it was at 4.80 and No. 1 with 83-85 votes (again I don't remember exactly).

This morning with 88 votes it has an average of 4.73 and has dropped from No. 1 to No. 35 on the BDSM top list. I'm no mathematician, and maybe it's possible for 3-5 votes out of 80 to drop a story that far, but I'm certain that is not unless someone has deliberately and maliciously trashed it. As Dr. Lee testified in the Simpson trial. "Something not right here!"

I know this is a problem that has been hashed and rehashed on the bulletin boards, and I'm not sure it is anything in your control, or is any thing that you try to, or even want to, control. The most recent BB speculation, however, has been that you are now attempting to filter votes that are obviously malicious. I would think a something of the sort is more necessary than ever since I note that your system no longer blocks repeat votes coming from the same computer. I am also suspiciously aware that two years ago a story and earning a 4.50 (or something not much above it) would have been #1 on both the BDSM and Nonconsent Top Lists. How is it then that the average scores of the top stories in those categories have increased in the last six months or so by more than 25 points?

I don't want to be a whining complainer. I would be the first to agree that there are too far too many 5 votes given to stories, mine and everybody else's, than are deserved. I also agree that the voting average doesn't put a dollar in my pocket either way so it doesn't really make that much difference--but I hate like hell to be screwed.

There are serious questions here. If repeat votes from the same source are allowed, are they also counted? A string of multiple 1 votes suddenly recorded on an otherwise popular story are patently malicious no matter where they originate. Is it possible that these malicious votes are coming from a member, or perhaps all from a single computer. I note your system recognizes my computer without me logging in, and I assume that it is does the same for at least every member.

I can also understand that you would like to protect whatever means you might be using to keep the voting on the up and up by keeping it confidential. At the same time, however, I for one think you owe your writers who contribute a general statement policy regarding this problem, at least to the extent of an honest disclosure of whether the site does or does not make an effort to protect stories from being trashed by a voting terrorist.

We all like to think our readers enjoy their stories, and it doesn't do much for my morale to have a story drop overnight 35 places solely because of a suddenly cast 4-5 votes out of 80. Surely there must be some kind of check and balance here, or we can turn the whole process over to those duly elected Supervisors of Elections in my home state of Florida.

Jigs. gunfighter36@ yahoo.com

 

[MathGirl]

I don't want to be a whining complainer. turn the whole process over to those duly elected Supervisors of Elections in my home state of Florida.

Dear Jigs,
1. Heaven forbid that anyone would think that of you.
2. Good idea. We know how well the FL election process worked in the last presidential election.
MG
Ps. 3 to 5 days. Sometimes as much as a week of there are lots of submissions.

 

[Jenny _S]

I've come to think of this as the "Lit Vote Yo-Yo Symdrom". It seems to happen a lot for some unexplainable reason.

 

[Quint]

Votes only count once from a single ICQ. Your woes originate from multiple sources.

 

[Pure]

Hi Jigs,


//Yesterday morning it was at 4.80 and No. 1 with 83-85 votes (again I don't remember exactly).

This morning with 88 votes it has an average of 4.73 and has dropped from No. 1 to No. 35 on the BDSM top list. I'm no mathematician, and maybe it's possible for 3-5 votes out of 80 to drop a story that far, but I'm certain that is not unless someone has deliberately and maliciously trashed it. //

Taking the worst case, 83 votes averaging 4.8.
Adding five ones.

Old total 398.4 [4.8 x 83]
New total 403.4 [+ five 1s]

New average 4.584 [New total divided by 88]

Each 1 has an impact of .043

So yes it's possible. Less so as the total increases; at 160, there is half the impact.

you continue:

There are serious questions here. If repeat votes from the same source are allowed, are they also counted? A string of multiple 1 votes suddenly recorded on an otherwise popular story are patently malicious no matter where they originate. Is it possible that these malicious votes are coming from a member, or perhaps all from a single computer. I note your system recognizes my computer without me logging in, and I assume that it is does the same for at least every member.

I can also understand that you would like to protect whatever means you might be using to keep the voting on the up and up by keeping it confidential. At the same time, however, I for one think you owe your writers who contribute a general statement policy regarding this problem, at least to the extent of an honest disclosure of whether the site does or does not make an effort to protect stories from being trashed by a voting terrorist.

There's many a posting on this, my friend. Sorry it happened to you.

First, votes from the same identified source(screenname) are not allowed. If you log on as 'jigs' and try to vote twice on one story (signing off, in between), you'll see a note 'you already voted.'

That said, lacking a fixed 24/7 hookup to the internet, there's nothing stopping anyone from having 5, 10 or 100 screennames or "Identities" at lit.

Laurel has made several statements about policy, which is to remove fraudulent votes (most often from fans), and *general* vandalism votes --- where the top 10 stories all get a couple 1s.
All other votes are 'free speech' (=I spit on your story).


The problem is with your statement that youre certain of malice, that it's "patently malicious," etc. You don't actually know that.
Some one person hated the story (a real wakko, obviously) and he asked his friends to look at it and vote 1s to 'give you the message.' So Jigs, my friend, I'm sure your 1 means --"I spit on this story desevedly 'cause it's abominable, and should not be posted" and Joe Blow' s 1 means, "I spit on this, because I'm a bitter deranged wacko who's taking it out on a fine story."

More importantly, "malice" or any motive is strictly irrelevant in voting--- will you vote against Bush out of malice, next election?
Should that be disqualified?

Second, Laurel has made the point you're aware of. Fraud is usually from excessive 5's. Can you tell me why, a string of 5's (ftsoa) since you called some friends, is left in, while a string of 1s from your wacko enemy and friends is thrown out?

So the answer is that no, you aren't personally protected from a 1 'terrorist' ; in the same way, on the general board, you aren't protected from a group of people that continually declare you to be an asshole.

My general experience is that requests for 'specific' relief--one author, one story-- rarely succeed, for the reasons above. If a clearly defined bunch of stories--e.g. top ones are vandalized, often something is eventually done.

I don't agree with what I've described, and I've even proposed remedies, as have several others. But it's not too likely you can receive the kind of protection you want from those you allege are malicious in voting (provided the votes are properly cast, non fraudulent, etc.)

Sorry, friend. Push up your totals and watch your back. And realize the best stories are usually on top; it's a straw vote from a range from 60 yr old literature professors to illiterate 18 yr olds that cant read English beyond Play Station directions.

Best
J.

 

[Chicklet]

Jigs my dear,

E-mails to Laurel sometimes get lost in her spam. If I were you I would PM her - the result is usually at least a polite answer in 24hrs if not a sollution. I´ll let the math ner...ah...experts take it from there.

-Chicklet

 

[Jigs]

"Votes only count once from a single ICQ. Your woes originate from multiple sources." Quint
____________________
"First, votes from the same identified source(screenname) are not allowed. If you log on as 'jigs' and try to vote twice on one story (signing off, in between), you'll see a note 'you already voted.'" Pure
____________________

I don't know whether multiple votes from a single ICQ (whatever that is) "count" or not, and I don't know what Pure shows on his screen when he tries to vote twice, but I have tried it and I am no longer blocked as once was the case. Now I get "thank you for voting Jigs" as many times as I want to pull the trigger. I know damn well I can vote twice, or maybe 50 times as far as I know. The question is if I or anyone else does that, how many times, if at all, is a repeat vote counted?

And sure, different strokes for different folks. Over all, even the best story can expect to get a 1 now and then, but three or four by themselves virtually in a row on the story at the top of the list in the same 12 hours takes a leap of faith in coincidences. And by the way Pure, neither you nor I can do the math because we don't know the either the exact starting average or the exact number of votes in issue.

What we do know is that it had to be less than the five 1 votes of the 'Pure Hypothisis' or the average would have been even lower than it is. I guessed 3-5 total additional as a kind of minimum and maximum. Actually Pure's method probably would come out pretty close if the assumption is three 1 votes by themselves, or a single 4 or 5 mixed with four 1 votes. (If I remembered how to find unknowns perhaps I could make a better estimate, but it's been 50 years since I took algebra, and I was lucky to escape the class with a passing grade even then.)

But, let's have it your way Pure. Let's assume I had the misfortune to have a 12 hour period in which only three people voted and they were all assholes. Explain for me then how the same damn story with 50 votes, and again only 3-5 additional votes raised the average from 4.80 to 4.89? 1 votes count pretty heavy on the down end (that's exactly what makes them so devistating), but can you show me the math how three to five 5 votes out of 55 or so will account for that kind of a increase?

"Something not right here!" Obviously on that occasion at least somebody at the site thought the story had been trashed and purged some votes. I'm not against that, but if that is what happens, I just think we'll all ought to know about it and what the criteria is for a purge.

Beyond this single story, could there be any other explanation than a change in the rules of tabulation that could account for the average top scores in the BDSM and Non Consent categories increasing by 25 + points in the last six to nine months? Just when do I stop believing in coincidence?

You can believe that this is just a bad break, and this way things work if you want, but I was a trial lawyer for 40 years and I learned the hard way not to believe in an coincidences when they happen over and over. The "Lit Vote Yo-Yo Symdrom" Jenny_S called it, and as she said, "it seems to happen a lot for some unexplainable reason." I don't think it is unexplainable, I think it's just unexplained. There's a difference.

That this problem has come up repeatedly on this board only speaks to that difference.

I'm not accusing Laurel or the site of tampering, dishonesty, or serving fattening fast food. Moreover I understand that no voting process is either perfect or entirely honest no matter how hard we try.

I do want to know what the rules really are. I do contend that either the site should take it on itself to find a way to mitigate out right blatant dishonesty (I've always thought throwing out a percentage of the total number of votes cast of the high and low votes would be a start). Alternatively, If the site doesn't want to do take on this admittedly daunting task, then let me have access to the raw data of the vote. At least then if I've been screwed I will know how, if not by whom, it was done.

 

[FlyontheWall99]

I'm not accusing Laurel or the site of tampering, dishonesty, or serving fattening fast food. Moreover I understand that no voting process is either perfect or entirely honest no matter how hard we try.

You know if voting causes you that many headaches, you can just switch it off in your user control panel, and be blissfully unaware of your story's standing. We all have to go through the yo-yo syndrome, trust me I know what you're talking about, and after a while you just learn to wear it ....

Back to writing ....

Fly ....

 

[Pure]

Hi Jigs,

I'm sorry you're upset. If the system is not working, and you can log on and vote 50 times (without any devious measures), why not do it and demonstrate that to Laurel so it may be fixed. I get the 'you have already voted on this story' in red letters.

{{ADDED: I JUST TRIED VOTING TWICE IN SUCCESSION AND APPARENTLY IT WORKED-- NO 'YOU VOTED ALREADY' MESSAGE.
I merely went back to the item and voted again.}}



// Explain for me then how the same damn story with 50 votes, and again only 3-5 additional votes raised the average from 4.80 to 4.89?//

You're right, that isn't possible. For a high ranked story, 5's have less than a tenth of the impact of 1's.

Referring what happened at the 50 level:
//"Something not right here!" Obviously on that occasion at least somebody at the site thought the story had been trashed and purged some votes. I'm not against that, but if that is what happens, I just think we'll all ought to know about it and what the criteria is for a purge.//

Well something was done, maybe some bad/improper votes eliminated, possible from several stories. There are adjustments from time to time, throwing out sets of fraudulent votes.

You are not getting the basic point, here. No one knows the motive behind a string of 1's or of 5's. The only approach I have thought of, is to discard say 10% of the lowest and of the hightest votes, say every week, and get a weekly 'adjusted' average that determines weekly standings.

You mention this, yourself. Also access to raw data and 'distributions' might be nice, as you say.

I'm afraid I don't follow your general argument. For example.

//"You can believe that this is just a bad break, and this way things work if you want, but I was a trial lawyer for 40 years and I learned the hard way not to believe in an coincidences when they happen over and over. The "Lit Vote Yo-Yo Symdrom" Jenny_S called it, and as she said, "it seems to happen a lot for some unexplainable reason." I don't think it is unexplainable, I think it's just unexplained. There's a difference. //

I don't think 'a bad break' is something I said. There's an anomaly, but there have to be objective standards for identifying and fixing anomalies, without reference to alleged motives. (It's a bit like complaining to the FCC about spam; there are no laws in place, though lots of people say what's happening is shitty.)

Incidentally, Laurel's arguement here, for 'as is', is that the little nasties that happen, kind of 'even out'. Even five 1s are eventually counteracted if positive voting continues. Further, the phenomenon of 'fan 5s' is there, and much stronger: hence NOT addressing both anomalies (absent fraud) has a positive impact on voting averages.

So I believe that only where fraud is demonstrated: multiple votes from one source; or general vandalism, is anything done. There are alternatives, but Jigs, are any set of numbers a 'fair' estimate of the value of a story? Why did the literotica folks, in making their book of stories, generally ignore numbers, standings, etc.

Think of it as showing your art film in yahooville, and getting a bunch of eggs thrown. That's just how it is, there.
You will triumph at Cannes.

Again, I'm sorry at your distress, and we even agree, roughly on some solutions, but few are convinced, and Laurel isn't. Further, there are a dozen schemes out there, so that never has Laurel heard a call for one particular solution. Some schemes are quite mad, for instance, eliminate 1s-- make the lowest vote 2.

Best,
J.

 

[snooper]

One observation, one (more) suggestion.

First - malicious voting does have a pattern. Often the same person will vote a 1 to every story an author has up.

Second - I can get a story on screen scroll to the bottom and vote without reading it. If the voting mechanism only cut in after (say) two minutes, that would mean that the voted had at least had time to read the story.

 

[Pure]

UPDATE

Killer M tells me that despite the lack of "you already voted" messages, only the first vote will count, if you vote several (say 5) times in a row on the same story. Apparently the counter of votes does not advance by 5, in this case, but by one.

----------------
Hi Snooper.

Yes, I've thought of time delay, say two mins per literotica page. The one drawback, is, suppose you read the story and the door bell rings and you log off. Now, you could just go to the end and vote. Your way you'd be bogged down. Generally I like the scheme. Also EVERY page should have to be clicked on, not just first and last.!

The problem is that a group of us have not agreed on a short list of remedies for voting anomalies. A list to be sold/petitioned to the Powers that BE.

Another remedy would be to have a sheet to be filled out, for those voting 1. There would be several questions (say multipile choice) as to what was wrong and say space for 25 words of critique. Only if that's filled in, does the vote register.

As to the other pattern: all your stories get 1s, one evening. Well that's not clearly wrong. I read one and hate it cuz it's so bad. So I track down your others and find the same thing. So I give you five to ten 1s , in an evening. I do think that when all the top 10 stories get 1s, something is amiss.

It's very hard to avoid the mistake of taking an author's view and trying to *optimize* his or her score. For instance, howcum you didn't complain (about a situation) where someone reads all your stories one night and gives them all 5s? Why is that 'justified enthusiastic appreciation' whereas all 1s 'irrational vandalism' (my words)? Any satisfactory scheme has to address anomalies of inflation, not just deflation.

J.