To Vote or Not To Vote, That is the Question

[Laurel]

In the words of more than one computer programming book, "Hello World!"

Manu and I have spent a lot of time recently discussing the Literotica voting system and all of the feedback, suggestions, complaints, criticisms, and threats that authors have offered in regards to it. A majority of the feedback we receive from authors about the contests, voting system, and anonymous feedback mechanism is positive. There are, however, a fair amount of authors who are not totally happy with the system, whether it be for reasons of voter abuse, a belief that art should not be voted on, annoyance with what they perceive as a "popularity contest", or any of the other valid reasons we have heard. Regardless of any author's cause for being frustrated with the voting issue, our concern is to try to make as many of the authors happy as much of the time as possible.

We think that we maybe, might, possibly, perhaps have a solution that will turn many an author frown upside-down.

Under the existing system, an author may choose to turn anonymous feedback on or off from their member control panel. Our proposal is that we offer the same option in regards to voting on a per story basis. Each author would be able to choose whether voting would be allowed on each of their stories when they submit a story for publication on Literotica. Furthermore, you would have the option of turning off voting on your existing stories.

If voting was turned off on a story, then that story would not appear in the "Top Lists" section of the site. Furthermore, no voting score would show on "voting off" stories in the category index pages. We also propose initiating a rule by which any story where the voting was turned off at any point in a given month would not be eligible for the contest prizes in that month. The logic behind this would be to prevent authors from "locking in" a high score once they got enough votes to be included in the contest.

This is simply an idea that Manu and I have been working on. We have not made any decisions on it - and will not do so until we hear from authors. If the consensus is that this is a good idea, it would not be available instantly because we would need to have it programmed into the scripts, but I don't think it would take too long to do if people decide they want it.

Please please please let me know your thoughts, both negatory and positively, on this idea.

 

[WriterDom]

Sounds like a reasonable option if enough people want it. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.

 

[cymbidia]

Laurel,

I've totally stopped looking at the scores/votes/peeks/etc on my stories. I just have decided that the controversary is not worth the pain and agony of so many over what can never, by definition, be a perfect system.

My stuff is NEVER going to win any kinda Top 'O The Heap Prize because it's far to niche-oriented. I accept that. I'll continue to write what write because that's what i have to say. I'll continue to grow toward a deeper acceptance of the idea that the scores do not reflect, for me, to me, whether my story is good or not.

I will not, either, complain again about the voting. Nor will i feed energy or words into such complaints.

I'm removing myself from concern over votes and, therefore, i have no right or inclination to express an opinion on what is such a wildly important issue to so many.

That said, i'd like to compliment you on continuing to try hard to make Lit as good a place as it can possibly be. (And... psssst... advance notice here, WriterDom and i will be coming to talk to you pretty soon with a suggestion designed to smooth future outbreaks of BDSM-themed fighting like that we've so recently seen.)

 

[alexander tzara]

It sounds like an interesting suggestion, Laurel - you can't get pissed off about the votes if you've disallowed voting on your stories. But, as an author, I want as many people as possible to read my stories. The top lists are probably the most important advertising tool on Lit once a story moves off the new story pages. My concerns about voting weren't to do with getting low scores they were about how that affects the number of people reading the stories. Personally, I've pretty much stopped checking on my scores but I wouldn't want to remove myself from the Top Lists 'cause I know they do lead to people reading stories they maybe wouldn't otherwise. I think all I've really been after is a way to make the Top lists as accurate and fair as possible.

 

[Mr_Neb]

Your idea certainly seems reasonable but I don't think it is all that necessary. Sure, I'd like my stories to have a score of 4.99 with 7,843 reads and I'm sure that it's because of your corrupt, biased, mismanaged, conspiracy-driven system that I don't but I'm not going to jump of a bridge because of it. (Frankly, it is the email that I get that is much more rewarding than the scores.)

All the authors know that there is a voting system in place. If they feel that art shouldn't be voted on, then they are free to post elsewhere or just not look at the rankings.

Sure, the voting system isn't perfect but I don't think it needs to be but if you have your heart set on instituting such a change, just make it "author-wide" not by story. If an author want to opt out, they should opt out for all their work don't you think?

Neb

 

[cymbidia]

If an author want to opt out, they should opt out for all their work don't you think?

Now, now, Mr_Neb. Shall we not be stern and censorious, cantankerous and growly, in the face of Laurel and Manu's heartfelt efforts toward peaceful and accommodating pursuit of voting relief for all?

There may well be people who want to opt out of voting for one story or another. They should have the option. The story is theirs and if, for whatever reason, they don't want it voted on, such may now be an option (and a good one, too).

 

[vgrey]

If enough people really want it, fine. But like Mr. Neb says, they don't have to look. I would really much rather see the traffic on my stories and to heck with the votes! Any progress on hit counters? (No rush mind you, I'm happy)

VG

 

[Dillinger]

I agree with alexander. Its an interesting proposal and definitely worth thinking about. My concern is the same as many authors - having the best possible opportunities to have my stories read.

If you eliminated the voting system entirely that would require finding a method to best promote the stories here - one without controversy surrounding it. I lean toward a solution in that direction, and I believe a few have been suggested.

By continuing the voting system as is, well - the problems are well known and seems that new authors continue to bring those problems up even without having seen the past discussions on the issue.

The worry is that those authors who choose to turn voting off will not have another recourse to have their stories brought to the largest possible audience.

If you went this route - are there any other methods that can be implemented to help readers find a broader spectrum of authors stories?

Just throwing it out on the table for discussion.

Laurel and Manu - thank you for your efforts on this... I think you're moving in the right direction.

JMHO

 

[p_p_man]

I'll go along with it...

...but why an author would want to turn off the voting system at all beats me. I still get a thrill at seeing my stuff on screen and I still rush to the voting system to see how a new story is doing. But as Mr Neb says the e-mail I get is the biggest buzz.

As I'm considered competitive by some and just an honest hard-nosed Joe of my time by others I can see an advantage for me personally.

If you all turn off your voting systems, I'll be the only one left eligible to enter competitions and...dare I say it? I CAN WIN! I CAN WIN! Yeayyy Laurel - go for it...

Ahem...sorry folks got a bit hysterical there for the moment.

Yes Laurel the idead has potentialy outstanding benefits for authors, Literotica and all mankind. I vote yes.

 

[CreamyLady]

The top lists are only good advertising if your work is on them. Otherwise, one only hopes that one's story has a catchy title.

I love the email I get, and have looked at my votes only when I log on to submit something. Seriously, I think that having the disable option is a good idea, and anything that will help stop the uproar is to be praised.

 

[Max86]

Having just posted my first story, I find myself checking the vote totals more often than makes sense. I'm not really interested in the competitive aspect, but I would like to score high enough to earn that little red "H," which is the cumulative judgment of the readers.

It seems to me that the more options available, the better the site can meet the needs of both the authors and the readers.

 

[Weird Harold]

More choice is good

I think this is a wonderful idea, although I think it will see limited usage because of the advertising effect of the top lists.

There are other avenues available for advertising stories than the top lists. The "shameless self-promotion thread" is one of the more popular.

Giving the author the additional choice of whether to compete for the monthly prizes or not is a good one. I personally would never turn off the votes for any of my stories, but I can see where others might.

 

[KillerMuffin]

A couple of weeks ago I woulda said vote and damn the torpedoes!!!

Today, I never want to look at my stories again.

I hate this and I don't know what to do about it. I don't know if it's someone pissing in my cornflakes or if I just plain suck.

I'm just tired. I'm going with the apathy vote. You can't please all of the people all of the time, and even though it irritates and sometimes hurts, I would prefer that the story side remain as reader oriented as it can be. I don't know if changing the way voting is done will do any good or not (for authors), but I must raise the question how it will affect the reader. If the proposed changes won't affect them (I'll trust ya'll if you say they won't), then fine with me.

I'm not going to bitch about voting cause I'm going to stop looking at my scores. I quit looking at the top lists and I feel much happier. Now if I quit looking at my scores, I'll feel even better. I obsess too much, I think.

 

[peterpan]

vote and suggestion

I would tend to drop a story halfway through rather than give it a 1. I would be suspicious of super-low scores.

--choosing not to be rated would be useful. As with other people feedback is more important.

-------------------------------------
slightly related suggestions...

--I don't enjoy rating, but I love classifying. I wish there were a dozen zany things a reader could classify each story by. Then other readers could seach within a range for each.

--If stories were just like discussion threads then comments could be added at the bottom. The original author could hop back on and fix spelling mistakes or make changes in response to suggestions.

--I wish I could click on a profile in a discussion thread and jump to their stories. Author profiles and discussion profiles seem somehow different.


You have a wonderfully dynamic site here.

 

[alexander tzara]

The top lists are only good advertising if your work is on them.

That's true.

Weird Harold mentioned the self-promotion strand. Just as an idea, separate from this discussion, what about a forum where authors (or friends) can promote their own stories - individual strands to promote authors or stories? In the title bar you can put the story title and category (so people browsing can see straight away what they're after), then in the strand write a little synopsis, or whatever, with a link to the story / stories. Readers could reply with feedback.

I know that this could feasibly happen in the Story Feedback or Authors' Hangout forums but I'm pretty sure that most writers would feel like they're being vain and arrogant and taking over the forums if they hijack these strands too often to promote their own stories.

If you did decide to start this forum, you could have a link to it from the TopList pages, or maybe even the Story Index so that many of the readers who don't usually venture onto the BB can still read what the authors have to say about their own stories.

You could have strict instruction in the forum that it is only to be used by authors to promote their stories and by readers to give feedback or discuss the stories (as happens in the Story Discussion Forum). Other discussion / flirtathons are strongly discouraged. Also, it should be made clear that an author should not start more than one thread at a time, so that more people have a chance of being seen.

This way, if people do opt out of the voting they still have a way of promoting their stories to readers.

 

[alexander tzara]

Actually, to go along with the new Authors' forum idea - would it be too complicated if you opened the Authors' Suggestions board (or whatever it'd be called) and inside was a separate forum for each story & poem category (including audio), so that things don't get cluttered up quickly and readers can go straight to the category that interests them?

 

[Ulyssa]

Getting really complicated here.

I like the turn off the vote aspect. More freedom pumps up the give-a-damn factor that occasionally creeps into our gut reactions.

This way if we see the potential knife thrust, we can hide behind the shield. However I do not foresee using the option at this time.

 

[Alex De Kok]

A while back, on another thread, Laurel accused me (gently, and I must say, rightly) of being overly concerned with my votes. Perhaps not obsessed, but on the way to it. It caused me to think, why did I want to know my votes?

I haven't been writing all THAT long, and I didn't know what people would think of my writing. I thought the votes might be an indication. On that score, I'm happy. All of my stories are sitting with an average score of 4 or better (and now folks, watch them dive!) so I am reassured. Enough people think enough of my work to make me want to continue. To continue posting to Literotica, that is - I'd keep writing whatever votes I was getting: I just wouldn't post them if I thought no-one liked them except me.

I, for one, will probably opt to keep voting turned on if this option goes through. The scores, however, don't really matter all that much. Like others have said on this thread, the real buzz comes from the feedback, anonymous or otherwise.

Alex

 

[WriterDom]

I'd like to see poetry treated differently than stories. Rather than submitting why not dedicate a discussion board where each poem is the start of a new thread. That leads to a lot more interaction between poets and more discussion about poetry. It could coexist with the current system to see which people prefer.

 

[Whispersecret]

Long Assed Post Warning

I think this is a step in the right direction, but I'm sorry, I don't honestly see it doing much good. Maybe I'm missing something. Whom does this voting turn off option benefit? If someone wants to ignore the voting, they can just IGNORE THE VOTING, like Cymbidia, KM, me and many others. There is no need to go put a system in place that does something that we can do on our own. This seems to be an attempt to mollify those writers who are bothered by low votes, but does nothing to address the weaknesses in the voting system.

The problem is that voting is being manipulated unfairly. Frankly, it infuriates me is that those monthly cash prizes could very well be going to cheaters. It's not my site, but if it were, I would not be able to live with that. However, I accept that Laurel and I will never agree on that point because she insists the effect of voting fraud is miniscule, and I think it is more widespread. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so I won't try. Plus, it's not my money going to the cheaters.

CL had a very valid point. The Top Lists are the Top Way that readers become aware of stories. If a "successful" author turns off voting, it's at the expense of virtually the only advertising that exists here. We all know how valuable that is when you're talking about reaching potential readers.

WH's Self Promotion Thread is a good idea, but I doubt that the majority of the story readers come to the BB. Alex addresses that issue by having the advertising section appear in the Story Index, but I doubt readers want to work that hard. Also, maybe it's just me, but as a reader, I'd be skeptical about taking an author's word about the merits of his own story.

I think it's worth exploring Dillinger's idea of "What could we do if there was no voting at all?" Perhaps if we could come up with a viable alternative, then you wouldn't risk angering all the authors who like the voting. You could institute a system that offers reading suggestions that doesn't rely on the honesty of the audience.

Since feedback seems to be the thing authors appreciate the most, could we consider a system in which readers write reviews directly on the same page as the story, similar to what Amazon.com does?

Also, nothing was ever said about the idea of instituting a minimum number of minutes for a reader to have a story window open in order for their vote to be valid. That seemed to be an idea worth talking about. If a cheater wants to down someone's story or up their own, make it so he is forced to spend a disproportionate amount of time doing it.

I wish I could give more ideas. I feel that because I know next to nothing about programming and what's possible and what's impossible, my ability to help is severely limited. Let's hear from the people who have the expertise to come up with viable solutions.

 

[alexander tzara]

Re: Long Assed Post Warning

WH's Self Promotion Thread is a good idea, but I doubt that the majority of the story readers come to the BB. Alex addresses that issue by having the advertising section appear in the Story Index, but I doubt readers want to work that hard. Also, maybe it's just me, but as a reader, I'd be skeptical about taking an author's word about the merits of his own story.

The way I imagined it was more like the way scriptwriters pitch their scripts to Hollywood producers. If I wanted to read a Group Sex story I'd go to that Forum and read through the threads till I found a pitch that intrigued me. The pitch could be a rough synopsis of the story or a tantalising dust-jacket style quote from the story.

I'd be able to tell straight away what the story was about and how good / entertaining a writer the author was. It'd be a bit like the BlockBuster magazine where you know the videos being "reviewed" are going to always get a glowing review but you can get a good idea of which ones you're going to like. Also, it doesn't neccessarily have to be the author themself that starts the thread.

I don't really see how it's giving readers extra work. They can leave feedback if they feel so motivated but even if they don't it's no different to the Top Lists just now, where you click on the subject that interests you and scroll down till you come to a title or author that interests you.

 

[Mickie]

Another long winded post

But the subject is worth discussion, since it's already been discussed to the brink of nausea. This is my two cents.

Turning off the voting --

Laurel, you’re just like a parent with extremely independent and yet sensitive children. All of us have a bit of that ‘arteeest’s temperament’. I commend you for doing what you do. I wouldn’t have the patience to run a place like this unless I ignored all the crap that goes on. I hate to put a damper on your well-thought solution, but there is one logical reason why it wouldn’t do anything more than put a pause in the problems -- This is the senario.

Author posts a thread on the board. Troll answers thread. Author uses dry sarcastic wit to put the troll down. Troll, knowing they haven’t the intelligence to keep up more than ‘fuck you’ answers, hisses and heads for the member list and stories. One’s ‘em all under the author’s name. Author complains. More trolls gang up and more ones are given. (Or the same one keeps going back) A few other authors gang up on the trolls, and we have another headhunt, leading to the same situation we have right now. The only difference being that, instead of leaving the site, the author, furious and angry, turns off the voting on their stories.

However, the author has also turned off the right to legitimate voting on their stories. They’ve cut themselves out of the game of contests, and feedback is also affected. If they don’t vote, I don’t think the legitimate readers are going to give as much feedback, although that remains to be seen. Plus, the author’s work won’t be eligible for that little H or the top stories list that brings even more legitimate readers to the fore. Therefore, the trolls have just as much capability to hurt the author as they did before, but this time it LOOKS like it’s the author’s choice. The troll has just as much fun snickering as he did in the first place; more, in fact, because now, instead of running off in a huff and quitting the entire process, the author remains on the BB’s to listen to the victory dance.

I think we’ve all forgotten that it’s the AUTHOR’S choice to be a forceful, dynamic, and sometimes nasty presence on the BB. The trolls and one voters are attracted to this kind of person. Just as with the stories, themselves, anything we put on the BB is open for public criticism and/or praise. If you tell all about how you just lost a child (true or not true), there will be people who aren’t sympathetic. If you aren’t sympathetic, you run the risk of reprisals in any manner that can be devised. One votes are simple and make the angry voter feel vindicated. Very angry voters may find a way to give one votes in multiple ways. WHATEVER you post, whether it be stories or BB posts, is open to response in one way or another. It is the AUTHOR’S choice as to how to respond, knowing that other people can hurt them.

It might be more beneficial to give lessons in tact to BB users than change the voting process. Anyone who truly cares about the voting might want to learn how to get along with their readers, and how to respond to trolls. But this wouldn’t weed out the truly strange people who merely give one’s to a story because it contained a single misspelling.

Perhaps counciling for those frustrated authors who get too many one’s? (Yes, that was as sarcastic as can be.) My problem with all of this is that the trolls or fraudulent voters get exactly what they want out of all of it. Even those nasty authors trying to win contests by downvoting everyone else would get what they want. Turning off voting would take the attacked author off the contest list.

Please, Laurel, put the responsibility where it should be. An author decides to get nasty to their readers on the BB? Then the author should EXPECT this kind of thing. The other kind, where it’s another author? That’s the luck of the system, here. If you can trace multiple voting, then we have a solution. If you can’t, then we’re just going to have to put up with it. My feelings on the subject are -- if an author is so convinced that their work is too badly written to win, then they’re welcome to the prize money. Take some writing classes with it, ‘cause it sure ain’t enough to pay my bills if I win.

The world just ain’t fair all the time, people. We can only keep our own karma on a positive slant, and KNOW that the nasty trolls and so on will get what’s coming to them. Let life punish them. It will, sooner or later, because they’re offensive to other people as well as Lit authors, and their personal lives can’t be that great to begin with.

Laurel, you’ve acted as responsibly and fair as anyone could, under the circumstances. I just don’t see how giving the author the ability to take themselves out of the running for votes and all the benefits will affect much. You’ll still have people complaining because so and so is now out of the running and it just isn’t fair. The trolls chased them off. Sigh. I’d just hate to see you and Manu go through all of the necessary preparation for this, only to have the problem continue. Ultimately, the author has to deal with reader response, valid or not. It isn’t your problem. The system is as fair as you can make it.

If you want to get really complicated, you can struggle with a court system to punish alleged voter fraud. Someone comes up with reasonable cause concerning a single person, and have a trial. Jury duty for members. *Grins* There are a few members who would jump at the chance to be lawyers.

Or, using a more valid solution -- in order to post on the BB one must be a member, otherwise viewing only. Cuts down on nasty guest troll posts if you MUST use a member name in order to do so. Or, different names for the BB. An author could go under another name on the GB if they attract trolls. Just as with email addresses, names and story names shouldn’t be posted in connection with the GB name. Author names used on the Author Board and Feedback Board only, thus keeping the writer bunch able to talk to legit readers and other authors. Again, viewing possible by guests and members alike, but posting replies and such requires a membership.

It occurs to me that some might disagree with the thought that the GB is where all this started. The only way to see if this solution would be valid would be to impliment it. It might not affect it at all. *Shrugs*. It would stop the annoyance of guest trolls, who pop in and out, leaving radioactive waste after the intitial destruction. It wouldn’t be a perfect solution, no matter what, but it would help protect the author from certain kinds of voter fraud (trolls), which is more prevalent than another author playing number games.

Again, ultimately it’s up to the authors to make this kind of system work. A slip up in name function would reveal who you are as an author. It shouldn’t be up to Laurel or anyone else to patrol it. It’s up to the author to keep their own privacy or not. If they post their own name, Laurel should be able to shrug and say “Sorry, but it isn’t my problem. You used the system incorrectly.” The only fix for that, if it was done by accident and leads to problems, is to change the author name for the stories. A limit on how many times that can be done is fair, to cut down on the time that has to be spent helping out the author.

I have no idea how much work it would take to impliment this, being basically ignorant of programming and that kind of thing. I don’t participate on the GB because I tend to get stubborn and nasty if provoked. I’ve made the choice to be a writer and an informed reader, rather than a PRESENCE. I have a responsibility to myself, and that includes knowing when to stay out of things that might potentially hurt me. I also have a responsibility to my readers to allow them their opinion, no matter the reasoning behind it. It might be good or bad, but every reader has merit, even those that tell me how awful I am. I can’t please everyone. If you can’t take rejection, then don’t put your writing in a place where rejection is possible. The only REAL crime here has been the authors that downvote other stories simply to win a contest or keep themselves high in the top lists. And that, unless it can be proved that they voted multiple times, is simply one of the downfalls of competitions.

All we can do to fix this problem would be for AUTHOR’S to get in there and vote, honestly, and with every story that they can. Overwhelm those nasty single people with more honest voting. And go ahead and use those one votes if it’s appropriate. Just, please, oh, PLEASE, do email feedback to tell the poor author why! And if you really can’t read the content of a specific category, accept your own limitations and don’t vote on it. There are other people who will pick up the slack on their own categories. It’s up to the descriminating reader to outweigh those that vote for other reasons. Don’t change the system overmuch, because it isn’t going to perfect anything. Change the way you participate in the site. Use it the way it’s supposed to be used, and give the writers the benefit of your own knowledge in the bargain. We’ll all find that the dishonesty will become less important and less of an issue.

It isn’t up to Laurel to fix the voting. It’s up to the members to vote more, and model the reasons for others, and to be adults who realize that there are idiots in every crowd.

There. I’m done. Officially stepping off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening.

Mickie

 

[Laurel]

We appreciate all of the continued feedback on this issue. Please keep it coming. One thing that is obvious, and has been since the Internet began, is that there is no perfect solution to this issue. For those of you that have been around a while, I'm sure you know that one of my favorite sites is the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com). For years, they (along with zillions of other sites, including Rolling Stone and Amazon) have used a voting system very similar to the one we use today. These bigger companies with zillions of programmers, Harvard grad CEOs, and corporate think tanks never came up with a better solution than what we are using now. The fact that "everyone else is doing it" doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find a better solution. I'm only trying to illustrate the fact that this is a 6+ year-old problem which millions of people have attempted to improve upon without much luck at all.

In the case of IMDB, once they had millions of registered users they decided to institute a policy by which you must be registered and logged in to vote. This idea certainly has the potential reduce the amount of fraud, but by no means is it a solution. I could very easily register 50 users at IMDB today and 1-vote Fight Club to my heart's content. We had a "member votes" Top List, but the reality is that this site has less than 30,000 registered members of which perhaps 50% are active in any 30 day period. On an average day, more than 200,000 people visit the site, most of them coming to read the day's new stories. Because of the adult nature of the site, and because of the fact that they are here to read, not necessarily to interact, the vast majority of visitors seem to have no interest in registering as members of Literotica. This is certainly fine with us, but it does not lend itself to a situation like IMDB where only registered members would be allowed to vote. Maybe in the future if there were ever several hundred thousand active registered members, then this type of system would be effective.

As far as the idea of someone who cheats winning the prizes, I (perhaps naively) believe that over time things tend to balance themselves out. For example, one thing that is rarely discussed here is "up-voting" - the opposite of "down-voting". If your enemies are more likely to give you lower scores because of who you are, then it stands to reason that your friends are more likely to give you higher scores. While some on the board are concerned about authors voting up their own stories, others are concerned about authors who may "down-vote" stories by other writers to try to boost their own ranking. In the small picture, each of these actions would seem to compromise the integrity of the system, but if you step back and look at the big picture, you'll see 10 people "up-voting" each story, 10 people "down-voting" each story, and 1,000 people voting their honest opinion on each story.

Regardless of who wins any contest or prize, there will be hundreds of authors each month who are just as deserving but who did not happen to have the .0001 extra score to push them into the top spot. The same argument can be made for the Nobel Prize, the Oscars, the Pulitzer Prize, Miss Teen USA or any number of other respected awards. The fact that one person wins the contest and a hundred others don't does not mean that the winner's work is objectively superior. It simply means that the winner was chosen by his or her peers and/or fans to receive a prize as a representative of a large group of people who probably each deserve it just as much as him or her. It is just not possible to give a prize to everyone, and I don't think that means we shouldn't give one to anyone.

Again, these are just some of my thoughts on the issue right now. Your collective opinion (and the opinions of the 1000+ authors who don't post here regularly) are more important than my single view. We will continue to work on this issue as long as people have concerns. I'm sure that there's no way to make everyone happy, but that's never stopped us from trying.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I've thought about it, I don't see how it's going to affect anything, you'll still have trouble with the same fraud.

People who vote down for personal enmity reason.
People who vote down to get their stories up.
People who vote down because they want their faves to succeed.

People who vote up to get their stories up.
People who vote up to get their faves to succeed.
People who vote up just to be nice to someone they might think of as the underdog.

Why is this happening? With the exception of the first excuse, for personal enmity, they're committing voter fraud to affect the top lists. There is jack shit you can do about the trolls voting people down for the hell of it. The rest of them can be done away with in one of two ways, abolish voting or abolish the top lists. Tinkering with the voting methods isn't going to accomplish anything because it only puts patches on the author's egos and doesn't address the problems and reasons why the fraud is taking place.

Waste money and time on things that are more worthwhile and productive.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I don't think I'm begging to have voter fraud committing hari kari on my stories because I'm bitchy on the board. I'm not begging to be raped by writing porn stories either. But human is human.

I'm not going to win any awards, particularly those with cash involved, on this site, ever. Why? Cause people don't like me. I can accept that. I'm going to write for profit anyway. I get what I need as a writer from the vast amount of email feedback I get. That doesn't stop it from hurting or angering me when my scores drop. But I get my validation from those who take the time to email me. They'll never know how much I appreciate them.

You get what you put into things. So, darlin chile, take your superciliousness and shove it