The significance of Ratings

[Ezrollin]

I've been reading here on Literotica for sometime, though only stories from certain categories. In the comments I've seen cases where people where given one star ratings simply because the person commenting didn't like "cuck" stories or was pissed because they didn't think the story should have been published in a certain category. I feel this has a detrimental effect on aspiring writers not to mention it's just cowardly. If you have an opinion on this please share it with us.

 

[Emotional]

Lit ratings are seriously flawed by design.

You can always turn ratings off, but what fun is that?

 

[Escierto]

It is what it is. Haters gotta hate.

 

[SimonDoom]

The purpose of a rating system is not to please or reward authors, or to do "justice," whatever that means, to stories. It's to provide information to prospective readers about stories so they can determine if they want to read them. It's like Rotten Tomatoes or Amazon ratings. Anything Literotica was to do to limit the ability of readers to vote the way they want to on stories would impede this function of ratings, so Lit isn't going to do much, other than to use its "secret-sauce" sweep formula to purge votes it deems "bogus."

The remedy for authors is not to take ratings too seriously.

 

[mirafrida]

It's like Rotten Tomatoes or Amazon ratings.

I agree that the star-rating on Lit contains information for readers. All else being equal, yes, a 4.5 story will usually be better than a 3.5 story.

But I'd argue that the ratings here provide much less useful information for readers to find what they like, relative to ratings on Amazon or Rotten Tomatoes. Whenever a movie has 90% on RT, it's really likely that I'll watch it and say "yeah, that was a pretty good movie, worth my time." If I buy something with a 4.8 rating on Amazon, I feel like I'm very likely to be happy with it. But even in my preferred Lit category, I will probably enjoy only a very limited subset of the 4.5 (or even 4.8) rated stories.

In that sense, I wish Lit downplayed ratings and "what's published today," and focused instead on doing more to help readers find stuff they'll like (though admittedly it's a tough problem).

 

[MrPixel]

I agree that the rating system has a certain value. However, in my view that value is greatly diminished because of its susceptibility to vandalism.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree that the star-rating on Lit contains information for readers. All else being equal, yes, a 4.5 story will usually be better than a 3.5 story.

But I'd argue that the ratings here provide much less useful information for readers to find what they like, relative to ratings on Amazon or Rotten Tomatoes. Whenever a movie has 90% on RT, it's really likely that I'll watch it and say "yeah, that was a pretty good movie, worth my time." If I buy something with a 4.8 rating on Amazon, I feel like I'm very likely to be happy with it. But even in my preferred Lit category, I will probably enjoy only a very limited subset of the 4.5 (or even 4.8) rated stories.

In that sense, I wish Lit downplayed ratings and "what's published today," and focused instead on doing more to help readers find stuff they'll like (though admittedly it's a tough problem).

It's not going to happen, and I know that, but I'd like to see a more fine-grained 10 point system, or a system where you can give half points, where 4.5 gets a red H but one can give a 4.5 OR a 5. As it stands, 4.5 across all categories is, I believe, only around the 75 percentile (I'm not certain of that number, and I know it varies a lot from one category to another), so it's not THAT discriminating. Such a system would encourage people to vote more, because people would be less reluctant to give a less than perfect score. I think it's a little silly to have a system where substantial numbers of voters have the philosophy of either giving a 5 or giving nothing at all. That philosophy undercuts the ability of the ratings system to convey information, which is its purpose.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it's a little silly to have a system where substantial numbers of voters have the philosophy of either giving a 5 or giving nothing at all. That philosophy undercuts the ability of the ratings system to convey information, which is its purpose.

But most readers can't be voting that "five or nothing" way, though, as evidenced by so few stories sitting with a perfect five, and the wide spread of scores below that.

So there is granularity, and a sufficient spread across the score bands that you can reasonably tell with any writer, which of their stories might be better than others.

And within any given category, I'd say the spread of scores gives you a fair idea where the quality stories might be. I wouldn't go comparing one category against another so much, though, because each category tribe has its own criteria and standards.

The Lit system isn't as binary as many folk suggest - I see a wide range of scores - yes, they're probably skewed high, but it's not hard to factor that skew into the scale.

 

[bestkeptsecret678]

I've noticed that in some categories, the highest rated stories tend to be one part of a series, or multi chapter submission. Which leads me to think that those readers (and therefore voters) are really followers, either of the author or the individual story. So momentum, if you can call it that, carries forward. As a new lit author, I've only submitted short, stand-alone stories so far, but readers seem to like them. For this writer, ratings have been a positive reinforcement as I'm just starting out.

 

[AndromedaDreamer]

But most readers can't be voting that "five or nothing" way, though, as evidenced by so few stories sitting with a perfect five, and the wide spread of scores below that.

So there is granularity, and a sufficient spread across the score bands that you can reasonably tell with any writer, which of their stories might be better than others.

And within any given category, I'd say the spread of scores gives you a fair idea where the quality stories might be. I wouldn't go comparing one category against another so much, though, because each category tribe has its own criteria and standards.

The Lit system isn't as binary as many folk suggest - I see a wide range of scores - yes, they're probably skewed high, but it's not hard to factor that skew into the scale.

From personal experience, it seems the vast majority of people give a score of 5, 4, or 1.

I think 3 and 2 are rare.

 

[TxRad]

Scores are highly overrated.

 

[MillieDynamite]

For me, the voting is only a gauge of the readers' acceptance of the story. Its meaning is diddle squat on sites like Lit. Yes, I love my works with those red h's, but I appreciate kind comments and little hearts more.

 

[JGittes]

Lit is a minor subset of the internet.

Whether Google Play, Apple Store, or any one of hundreds of other internet rating sites, Internet voting is pushed toward 5, 4, or nothing. I suspect that readers who come to Lit generally have that mindset. I suspect that at least 75% of readers who vote accept that as a general voting rule, regardless of where they're voting.

As authors, we have our criteria for scoring a story. I firmly believe that readers don't share our views. Some do, but not most.

In that 25% who don't vote with either a 5, a 4, or not vote, most have a self-created checklist applied consistently across the stories they read. They'll 'average' out grammar and plot, mix in character development and perceived 'hotness,' then subtract their personal squick. I'm pretty sure some readers are drunk, hit a 3-star with a fat finger, and can't remember that they even read a story the next day. You know, pretty much like a lot of the sex they actually have.

Then some just hate. I think they are not common, except in particular categories, and we all know the categories.

Having said all that, scores reflect something about a particular story's perceived quality. Stories that get the red H tag on their first day of posting receive significantly more views than stories that don't. There is gaming of the scores when stories hit the first page of a top list, but there are mainstream authors who send out minions to buy real books in New York Times qualifying bookstores to jack up their 'real' standing on the premier US book listing (here's looking at you, EL James.)

Anyway. I have so much fun here that I can't imagine life without this community, and all this shit about scores keeps me from writing. I hate that I, too, get wrapped up in it.

 

[oggbashan]

Some categories will always attract lower ratings.

Fetish is one. If you EXACTLY meet the reader's fetish, you will get a 5. If you don't? A 1 or 2, and far more people are specific about their fetishes than not so anything above 4.00 is a 'win'.

 

[KeithD]

It's not going to happen, and I know that, but I'd like to see a more fine-grained 10 point system, or a system where you can give half points, where 4.5 gets a red H but one can give a 4.5 OR a 5. As it stands, 4.5 across all categories is, I believe, only around the 75 percentile (I'm not certain of that number, and I know it varies a lot from one category to another), so it's not THAT discriminating. Such a system would encourage people to vote more, because people would be less reluctant to give a less than perfect score. I think it's a little silly to have a system where substantial numbers of voters have the philosophy of either giving a 5 or giving nothing at all. That philosophy undercuts the ability of the ratings system to convey information, which is its purpose.

As I've posted for a decade and a half, I think most of the angst here would be alleviated by adding a level of marking: Use the H for stories rating between, say, 4.25 and 4.5, and an S, for Sizzle, for those rating 4.5 and above. The issue is that the hurdle set to get an H is high for the definition of what is high quality here and the site makes it easy to knock a rating down. It's the site itself that has established the "5 or nothing" philosophy. In terms of story highlighting, the only "yes" is voting a 5.

 

[MrPixel]

Then some just hate. I think they are not common, except in particular categories, and we all know the categories.

Not necessarily. I apparently have at least one unobomber stalking me in GS - a normally quiet and benign category - who more or less revealed their presence with a 1-bomb nearly the moment a chapter went live this morning. I suspected this was the case with the prior chapters put up this week. Now I know. Lesson here is be wary of "followers" - some may not be your friends.

The problem with the mystical "sweep" process is it doesn't occur daily. By the time the damage is undone, unless you hit the timing lottery, the story is well off the "new" list and fewer eyes see it with a more realistic score. This bothers me because I know I only read stories >4 (>3 in LW), so I would expect the same judgment calls from the general readership.

 

[oggbashan]

5 for sizzle?

I get 5s and a Red H for some stories that have no sex at all because people like the story. In the Romance category sex is not obligatory. Relationships are.

I get some comments saying 'How can this have a Red H? There is no sex.

 

[KeithD]

5 for sizzle?

I get 5s and a Red H for some stories that have no sex at all because people like the story. In the Romance category sex is not obligatory. Relationships are.

I get some comments saying 'How can this have a Red H? There is no sex.

"Sizzle" isn't ipso facto a sexual term. Bacon sizzles.

 

[JGittes]

"Sizzle" isn't ipso fact a sexual term. Bacon sizzles.

Kevin Bacon, of course. Just re-watched Termors last week. Very enjoyable.

 

[MillieDynamite]

"Sizzle" isn't ipso facto a sexual term. Bacon sizzles.

But at lit, bacon only counts if you are eating off someone's belly, and the sizzle is dangerous.

 

[yowser]

Oy! Now we're driving off all the Jewish readers. Maybe the vegetarians too.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I know some Jewish people who know other Jewish people, who know people that claim they don't eat kosher.

 

[MrPixel]

One of my characters practices... you know... on hot dogs. She only buys the Kosher ones 'cause they're circumcised.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I've been reading here on Literotica for sometime, though only stories from certain categories. In the comments I've seen cases where people where given one star ratings simply because the person commenting didn't like "cuck" stories or was pissed because they didn't think the story should have been published in a certain category. I feel this has a detrimental effect on aspiring writers not to mention it's just cowardly. If you have an opinion on this please share it with us.

Definitely agree that it has a detrimental effect on some new writers. It sucks for readers too, makes it difficult to judge overall quality. Favourites are a much better measure of quality when hunting for gems.

In my sample size of one, I feel one of my best stories has the lowest rating so poor judge of quality of writing.

 

[MillieDynamite]

One of my characters practices... you know... on hot dogs. She only buys the Kosher ones 'cause they're circumcised.

She slid her ruby, red lips down the hot dog, one inch, two inches, three inches, and with one swift bite, severed the bun and dog, chewing the meat with a fever. This was her second favorite type of wiener. The man at the table next to her puckered his lips, setting a long, low wolf whistle free into the air. His wife, not at all amused, gave him a hard, angry whack on his arm.