Time for a new rating system

[KeithD]

Another "fix" that would both encourage reading deeper into the file and would make zapper's efforts more difficult--and that has been suggested for over a decade--would be to add another level of distinctive marking to the lists--like change the red H to a red S (4.50 and above--Sizzling) and add another colored marking for H (4.00 to 4.49--Hot).

 

[SimonDoom]

Another "fix" that would both encourage reading deeper into the file and would make zapper's efforts more difficult--and that has been suggested for over a decade--would be to add another level of distinctive marking to the lists--like change the red H to a red S (4.50 and above--Sizzling) and add another colored marking for H (4.00 to 4.49--Hot).

The one advantage to this system is that it would provide a mild incentive for people to read good stories that don't quite make it to 4.5. Those stories could get a boost. But you'll still have gaming in the voting. Getting rid of artificial distinctions and just letting readers rely on the numbers makes more sense to me.

Another possibility would be for the owner to make more generous use of the green E for editor's choice, and perhaps to create a panel, perhaps made up of active authors, who can designate certain stories for special attention, perhaps by giving a gold star or something like that.

 

[RickHeathen]

Nuance

That hated concept of black and white thinkers is that of Nuance. The problem with the current rating system is that it treats all stories as if one size will do, and all readers as if they judge a given work by the same measure. I understand that it was probably an attempt to level the playing field and make it as simplistic as possible—whether that was an unintentional slight on the average reader’s intelligence is another matter. However, in an effort to maintain a nuanced view of the system, chances are, the accuracy of a given work will vary depending on the work. A single story in one post is likely to have a more accurate appraisal (read that nowhere near perfect) than one with multiple chapters and a single post for each chapter. I tend to have multiple chapter stories and the work cannot be rated as a whole, but rather individually, chapter by chapter. The read numbers are all over the place for these stories, and this tells me that some, perhaps many, of the ratings are made by someone reading one chapter, saying to themselves, “I don’t get it,” and hitting one star the instant they get to the end. So, the system does need to be reworked with more nuance in mind.

 

[MillieDynamite]

That hated concept of black and white thinkers is that of Nuance. The problem with the current rating system is that it treats all stories as if one size will do, and all readers as if they judge a given work by the same measure. I understand that it was probably an attempt to level the playing field and make it as simplistic as possible—whether that was an unintentional slight on the average reader’s intelligence is another matter. However, in an effort to maintain a nuanced view of the system, chances are, the accuracy of a given work will vary depending on the work. A single story in one post is likely to have a more accurate appraisal (read that nowhere near perfect) than one with multiple chapters and a single post for each chapter. I tend to have multiple chapter stories and the work cannot be rated as a whole, but rather individually, chapter by chapter. The read numbers are all over the place for these stories, and this tells me that some, perhaps many, of the ratings are made by someone reading one chapter, saying to themselves, “I don’t get it,” and hitting one star the instant they get to the end. So, the system does need to be reworked with more nuance in mind.

The system, like all the others out there for literature judgement, is asking for an opinion. Weather you have 1 through 5 stars, ranking I hate it I love it, or 1 through 10 system, it's opinions. It isn't asking for a critical analysis of the worth of the writing, the technical merit of the grammar and English usage, or how "hot" the story is in an arousal way. Even if you do those three specific votes for each story, they are still one person at times opinions.

Just don't see how you can do it differently where it means anything more than what we have. And how do you rank a story with different scores with three different criteria?

 

[SimonDoom]

That hated concept of black and white thinkers is that of Nuance. The problem with the current rating system is that it treats all stories as if one size will do, and all readers as if they judge a given work by the same measure. I understand that it was probably an attempt to level the playing field and make it as simplistic as possible—whether that was an unintentional slight on the average reader’s intelligence is another matter. However, in an effort to maintain a nuanced view of the system, chances are, the accuracy of a given work will vary depending on the work. A single story in one post is likely to have a more accurate appraisal (read that nowhere near perfect) than one with multiple chapters and a single post for each chapter. I tend to have multiple chapter stories and the work cannot be rated as a whole, but rather individually, chapter by chapter. The read numbers are all over the place for these stories, and this tells me that some, perhaps many, of the ratings are made by someone reading one chapter, saying to themselves, “I don’t get it,” and hitting one star the instant they get to the end. So, the system does need to be reworked with more nuance in mind.

It bears repeating that the whole point of a rating system is to convey information to readers to help them in selecting stories. That's it. In an ideal world nuance would be nice, but to the degree that a more nuanced system is a more complex system, with more parts, it ends up subverting the purpose of a numerical rating system, which is to provide a crude but useful proxy for quality in the form of a number to help readers. By the time an adult reader reaches Literotica and sees the numbers, he or she is familiar with similar ratings systems. I don't know if there's any way to enhance nuance without multiplying complexity.

 

[JuanaSalsa]

Another issue with the red H is that a lot of the malicious zapping I experience is a concerted effort to keep the story below the 4.50 mark. Without the red H element, the malicious zappers don't have an incentive to do that as much. They have to put a lot more malicious voting effort in to make reading the story not worthwhile.

But also, readers who like you can see you just below the red H and be inspired to bump you up, where otherwise they may not vote. I can see it working both ways. I've certainly put a 5 on a story that I thought was too low rated that I might have otherwise not voted on.

...what is the problem with the current system from the READER'S point of view? Forget your own complaints about the alleged unfairness or injustice of the system as an author. The primary purpose of the rating system is to convey information that readers rely upon in selecting stories.

As a reader, my problem is that a lot of stories are downvoted, not because their poorly written, but because someone doesn't like the fetish involved. I have a hard time finding well-written stories that have are heavy noncon, or feature cruel men, or include degrading fetishes, because they all get downvoted into the same ranking as stories that are just terribly written (i.e. poor spelling and grammar, barely understandable plot line, flat characters).

It sucks to be horny and looking for a little help along the way, and every story with a good score in noncon is *barely* reluctance. To find a decently written, actual noncon, I have to sift through at least eight stories that are just totally badly done, but have the same score as the good stuff. And all just because someone's knickers are in a twist over the topic. By the time I find one that's well written and on the right theme, I've totally lost my interest.

Why do people read in noncon if they are going to 1-bomb all the actual noncon? It's frustrating enough that I largely gave up.

So, that's the problem for the reader.

That said, I don't know if there's a better way. No matter how things are scored, some asshat is still going to come along and shit on everything they personally think is in poor taste, well-written or not. And that's not going to be caught in any sweeps, because a person generally has to read a bit to figure out that the fetish involved is one of their hated targets.

Ooh, I would love to have a little graph so I could see if the story has a nice, normal parabolic curve to the scores that looks trustworthy, or demon horns from spiked 1's and 5's. That would probably be hard to implement. But man, that would really help me out as a reader.

 

[RejectReality]

The thing is, it only takes 1 low vote to blast your score. It takes multiple new 5s to counter-balance that single 1 or 2. So even if the response is equal, the result isn't.

The H is causing unnecessary anxiety among authors, and doing readers a disservice by effectively cloaking huge amounts of excellent work that's hovering just below that arbitrary barrier.

But also, readers who like you can see you just below the red H and be inspired to bump you up, where otherwise they may not vote. I can see it working both ways. I've certainly put a 5 on a story that I thought was too low rated that I might have otherwise not voted on.

 

[rescatooor]

I've been recently kind of regretting the fact that there is no option to see a breakdown of the votes. Like how many one-star-reviews, how many three-star, etc. At least I'd be able to know how badly I've been bombed.

Maybe if the information was available for everyone, people would use it to target people during contests. But maybe for authors' personal use...

 

[JuanaSalsa]

The thing is, it only takes 1 low vote to blast your score. It takes multiple new 5s to counter-balance that single 1 or 2. So even if the response is equal, the result isn't.

That's true. Good point.

I've been recently kind of regretting the fact that there is no option to see a breakdown of the votes. Like how many one-star-reviews, how many three-star, etc. At least I'd be able to know how badly I've been bombed.

Maybe if the information was available for everyone, people would use it to target people during contests. But maybe for authors' personal use...

How could it be used any differently than the way we see scores now?

 

[rescatooor]

That's true. Good point.



How could it be used any differently than the way we see scores now?

I mean, the 1-star-bombs make the results muddy, right? You don't know if you got that 4-star-average because of the bombs or because you just happened to get a lot of four stars, maybe a couple of fives and twos. I mean... if you have a loving wives story, and you have just ones and fives, ending up at the average of three? That might be pretty interesting, wouldn't it?

Fact is that not everyone favorites, since not everyone wants to get an account. Knowing how many people genuinely liked your story might be valuable. And right now the only way to know is by obsessively policing your rating on the day/week it's new.

 

[JuanaSalsa]

I mean, the 1-star-bombs make the results muddy, right? You don't know if you got that 4-star-average because of the bombs or because you just happened to get a lot of four stars, maybe a couple of fives and twos. I mean... if you have a loving wives story, and you have just ones and fives, ending up at the average of three? That might be pretty interesting, wouldn't it?

Fact is that not everyone favorites, since not everyone wants to get an account. Knowing how many people genuinely liked your story might be valuable. And right now the only way to know is by obsessively policing your rating on the day/week it's new.

Oh yes, I agree. I'm sorry for not being clear. You mentioned that if we knew the distribution, people could use it to "target" authors in contests. I am asking how they would do that any differently than now?

 

[rescatooor]

Oh yes, I agree. I'm sorry for not being clear. You mentioned that if we knew the distribution, people could use it to "target" authors in contests. I am asking how they would do that any differently than now?

It might tip off a bit too easily as to how many votes a story already has. Also there's the whole issue of sweeps: does Laurel really want us to know how many five star ratings were removed along with the one star ones? Probably not. It might lead Laurel having to explain why some rating was removed while another was not.

On the other hand, if you could OPT OUT of any contests in exchange for that info... Might be kind of cool sometimes.

 

[JuanaSalsa]

It might tip off a bit too easily as to how many votes a story already has. Also there's the whole issue of sweeps: does Laurel really want us to know how many five star ratings were removed along with the one star ones? Probably not. It might lead Laurel having to explain why some rating was removed while another was not.

On the other hand, if you could OPT OUT of any contests in exchange for that info... Might be kind of cool sometimes.

I see, interesting. It is easy to see how many votes a story has now, if it's got a high enough rating to be on the top lists. But I can see not wanting to stir up drama around sweeps.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As a reader, my problem is that a lot of stories are downvoted, not because their poorly written, but because someone doesn't like the fetish involved. I have a hard time finding well-written stories that have are heavy noncon, or feature cruel men, or include degrading fetishes, because they all get downvoted into the same ranking as stories that are just terribly written (i.e. poor spelling and grammar, barely understandable plot line, flat characters).

In the end, I'm not sure that's something that can be fixed within a single numeric rating - at least not without a major loss of simplicity and/or transparency in the scoring system, and both of those matter. I don't know of a way to distinguish between "some people downvoted this because they don't like the fetish involved", "some people downvoted this because of terrible spelling/grammar", and "some people downvoted this because they mistook UK English for spelling/grammar errors".

I think the solution to that lies more in the direction of tailored story recommendations, like a beefed-up version of the Similar Stories approach: Bob and Jane seem to like the same kind of stories you like, so here are some recommendations based on their votes and favourites. This is a large part of how organisations like Amazon make their suggestions to customers, though it's not trivial to implement.

 

[JuanaSalsa]

In the end, I'm not sure that's something that can be fixed within a single numeric rating - at least not without a major loss of simplicity and/or transparency in the scoring system, and both of those matter. I don't know of a way to distinguish between "some people downvoted this because they don't like the fetish involved", "some people downvoted this because of terrible spelling/grammar", and "some people downvoted this because they mistook UK English for spelling/grammar errors".

I think the solution to that lies more in the direction of tailored story recommendations, like a beefed-up version of the Similar Stories approach: Bob and Jane seem to like the same kind of stories you like, so here are some recommendations based on their votes and favourites. This is a large part of how organisations like Amazon make their suggestions to customers, though it's not trivial to implement.

Ooh, that sounds good. Another option, although also challenging, would be objective "judges" who would just give a grammar / spelling score. Like, "trusted voters". Maybe they could have different specialties, this one will rate plot, this one characters, etc. But, you know, it'd take volunteers and a moderating staff and probably more budget than is available.