Votes, Ratings, Feedback and your expectations

[its Leslie]

No it's not like this topic is new.

But I was talking to a Lit buddy the other day commenting on how so many are often so surprised here on Lit.

You got a malicious 1 vote "oh how tragic".
You got a feedback that said from anonymous "you suck", "oh how tragic".
You have had 3276 views but only 3 votes, "oh how tragic".

Come on people this isn't rocket science (I know, I happen to understand rocket science hehe).
People here at Lit are in a lot of cases readers more than writers.
Sure we have a lot of writers too (the volume of submissions makes that apparent).

When a person comes to a site like Lit they are not browsing in the same manner they browse their local bookstore eh.
When I read erotica, I have generally have no clothes on, and I am planning on jacking off, with or without a story.
I think it is safe to say, most of us come to Lit to cum.

I appreciate the views of fellow writers (it's why I don't post much outside of the Author's Hangout).
I appreciate that most of my fellow writers can, and do write other than erotica. I also appreciate that most of us come here when we are in the mood for erotica.

I like the occasional informative comment here on the forum. I have read some posts in here that have been quite helpful. You fellow writers are a very articulate bunch.
I value the comments of my fiends. Occasionally I am asked for my opinion or help in a technical matter.
I am greatly pleased when asked to furnish some bit of assistance.

But votes, nope it has been already established the voting system here has no merit. Some whine about nasty 1 voters. I personally find gushy overly kind 5 voters, to be just as effective at telling me nothing useful about my story writing skills (aside fromt the fact that friends only want to be nice).

Ratings, well if the voting system is worthless, then clearly the ratings mean zero as well. It's why I am not interested in the contests (no way to establish to my satisfaction it is fair).

Views, the only thing the views will tell you, is if you know how to pick choices for titles that get attention (which is perhaps a very useful feedback).

You will only know for sure, actually know for positive your writing is good, when you are sitting down eating that steak in that restaurant, paid for with your cheque from the story you sold.

That is positive feedback. That is a good vote. And if they ask you for more material, call THAT a 5.

 

[Quasimodem]

I have no expectations of any response from possible readers.
So far, I have not been disappointed.

 

[BigTexan]

Most of the feedback on my story that has come from readers has been wonderfully positive. A few have made me cringe. None has been helpful, other than to increase the size of my ego.

The feedback I have received from fellow writers was very helpful and if I ever get another story completed I hope it will show.

But to totally discount the voting process here at lit I think is to sell it short. Yes the spurious "1" votes are worthless, but the overall average can tell you something. The question is "What is it telling you."

If your stories are getting a 3.0 or lower rating, then it is probably telling you that you need to work on the mechanics of writing. I base this on observing the stories that have very low ratings. Most of them are simply horrid.

If your stories are getting between a 3.0 and a 4.5 then probably your mechanics are at least passable, but either could stand some refining or perhaps your story lines need some improvement.

If your score is over 4.5 then what the hell are you complaining about

Yeah, I agree, the voting here is pretty nebulous and certainly not an exact science, but I don't think it is valueless either.

BTW since you understand rocket science, Leslie, maybe you can answer a question for me.

Would adding or removing mass from the earth have an effect on it's orbit? Say we began to mine the asteroid belt and imported a couple of hundred million tons of mass to the earth. Would that have an effect on the earths orbit? If so what is the equation to use to calculate the exact effect? In my mind I can see adding mass increasing the inertia, but the gravitation pull holding the earth in would also increase. Do they perfectly offset? If so then there would be no effect. If not then there would be, wouldn't there?

This is something I've wanted an answer to for a while, but I am not a physics guru.

BigTexan

 

[its Leslie]

Hmm if only I had the computer needed for that math heheh.

First there is more to it than that.

The material going missing from the asteroid belt is an equation element itself.
Then you have to factor in the effects on the remaining planets as well and their interactions.

But the earth being one of the inner planets and one of the rocky ones, I think you would need quite a massive influx of raw material to generate an appreciable adjustment to our current orbital location.

To use your exact statement, "a couple of hundred million tons of mass", it is important to realise, that in planetary terms, that really isn't much mass.

To affect an orbital irregularity though, does not automatically require new mass.
We could create massive solar wind sails attached to the moon, that could use the solar wind, to progressive "sail" the moon further out of orbit.
Not sure that would be entirely safe though.
Solar sails could be almost molecular in thickness and achieve sufficient power to achieve an effect. Thus keeping them buildable.

Notion two, thermal generators on the two great glaciated regions, Greenland and Antarctica. If we intentionally and deliberately melted these two regions, the resultant alterations would actually impact our current orbit through altering numerous conditions of a planetary nature.
Climate creates atmospheric conditions that can influence planetary rotation (not much easy to measure of course).
The sudden crustal release of of all that ice pressure on Antarctica would certain change conditions.
Tie that into massive crustal movement, and planetary shape alteration.
All this would ripple effect through numerous planetary systems.

As you can see, there is many ways other than dumping rock in the Pacific heheh. But we would have to add that rock to actually change the earth's total mass potential.

As far as I know, if you are spinning around holding something, and I add more to what you are holding, logic sort of tells me it gets harder to hold it while spinning.
It would tend to pull outward more so.

 

[Route66Girl]

Physics?

Did this turn into an "Ask Leslie" physics thread?

Okay Leslie, here's something I've been wondering about: Do you think that gravity could also have a relativistic wave function? I know you don't have a Cray handy for calculations, but it's an interesting theory I heard recently. On the surface, do you think it has merit?

Oh, and on the voting system, I have to agree with Big Texan. It may not be a scientific measurement of a story's worth, but the system has some merit. Clicking on an erotic story with a 2.0 average, I know I'm in for crap. Those with 4.5 or higher generally have something going for them, either artistically, or in the degree of eroticism, or both.

But Leslie hit the nail on the head with this:

"You will only know for sure, actually know for positive your writing is good, when you are sitting down eating that steak in that restaurant, paid for with your cheque from the story you sold."

Well said!

 

[NoJo]

"You will only know for sure, actually know for positive your writing is good, when you are sitting down eating that steak in that restaurant, paid for with your cheque from the story you sold."

Sorry, but that is not the way to know your writing is good. Think how many "good" artists died in poverty. Success involves a good publisher and luck.

Good is rare, popular is rare, good and popular is rare squared.

 

[Quasimodem]

Originally posted by Route66Girl
. . . But Leslie hit the nail on the head with this: "You will only know for sure, actually know for positive your writing is good, when you are sitting down eating that steak in that restaurant, paid for with your cheque from the story you sold." . . .

Gee, guys. I hate to rain on your parade, but I personally know several fellows who regularly eat steak, or even more costly comestibles, purchased with money earned by mediocre to poor writing.
Their particular talent lies in their ability to sell their stuff.

Talented writing and talented merchandising of writing are not necessarily mutually inclusive. This is not only true of 'commercial writing' but also of the so-called 'creative writing.'

If money were the yardstick, Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Susann would be literary giants of the latter Twentieth Century.

 

[TheEarl]

I usually get about a 19:1 "you rock" to "you suck" feedbacks. I don't care whether they're anonymous, inane or gushing, I like that kind of boost to my ego. Shallow, I know, but everybody who writes to me gets a nice letter back (if poss) because I just love the thought that someone else likes something that I did.

Anyway, back to the point. I usually expect around 4.45 rating and the 19:1 feedbacks, because that's what I usually get. My first non-fiction piece "The 10 commandments" worried me as the first two pieces of feedback were negative. After that however the next 20 (on the same day!) were positive.

My "10 Commandments" piece was designed to help struggling amateur authors. The best piece of feedback I've received was from someone who said that she'd copied the piece and was going to give it to anyone else she knew who was struggling. The fact that she thought something I wrote was worth showing to someone else was much better than the 5 vote she gave.

The (very sentimental) Earl

 

[Route66Girl]

Sub and Quasi,

Okay, you're right. There's a lot of crap out there written by people who got paid for it, and brilliant works whose authors never saw a dime.

All the same, to actually earn a living by writing would certainly feel like a nice validation.

 

[its Leslie]

Hmmm probably the most interesting thing about this comment, is the poster (me) only technically has his grade 9 math heheh.

Oh well.

Gravity being a force, it can be measured, hence it can have a wave function. A wave function being a means of measurement.
So the answer to your question is ...yes.

Gravity is a splendid topic. I recently read Stephen Hawkings current book the Universe in Nutshell. Amazing reading (dry as the desert maybe to some, but amazing to me hehe).

 

[Guest]

oops

hate to correct you, leslie, but gravity is a field... not a force...

the elegant parallels to a magnetic or electric field, which may be wavelike in propagation, make it an easy slide to gravity fields being wavelike... same Gaussian surface integrals (nice pun 66) work for all of them... our frame of reference just may not be able to sense the wavelike properties because the waves are so big...

now that my brain is mush...

bt, i am crushed... i thought i had sent you constructive feedback.... i must have been too tactful, if you don't recall...

my best feedback is from fellow writers... it is their comments i most look forward to receiving...thank you to those who have already weighed in on Locker Room Recreation (couldn't reisist the pun)

b

 

[its Leslie]

I think I am partially right but maybe a shade off.

One thing that is known, gravity as a subject, is currently showing, we don't understand enough about it.

But that is the cool part about some sciences.

There is so much to learn, and the more we learn, the more we establish how much we don't know heheh.

Under extreme gravity, all of what we call science becomes incredibly flimsy and intangible.

 

[christo]

First of all, gravity is not a field. It's not a force. It's magic. People who study "science" should be stripped naked, tied to posts, and beaten with whips. Unless they like it.

If the voting is an imperfect tool, it's still a pretty good guide as to how you're doing. While it's frustrating to see your score drop with one vote, it happens to just about everyone, so we all drinks from the same bitter cup.

If your story scores over a 4, you've written a pretty good story. Or at least you've written a story where the average voter gave you at least a "B" grade. If you're story scores above a 4.5, that means you're doing some good work. When I post a story a 4.5 is what I'm gunning for, that's the score that lets me know I did a good job.

There are stories I've read that were absolutely incredible and only scored around 4.00. I've read some of the stories at the very pinnacle of the Top List and wondered what all the fuss is about. So it's not an exact science, but, as I've said before, there are NO exact sciences.

We're writing for a unique audience, after all. Lots of folks do come here to, uh, come. They want a sexy story, something to get the motor running.`If you want to write something different, something not erotic, your score may suffer for it, no matter the quality.

And that's where the feedback part comes in. You might only get 12 votes and your score might be a 2.13, but if someone writes you and tells you they really enjoyed the story, hey, what more could you want? It's pretty cool to get a note from a total stranger who loved what you wrote. Feedback is food for the writer's soul. Frustrated authors once filled their notebooks with scribblings that never saw the light of day. Now you can publish your stuff on sites like this and have thousands, THOUSANDS, of readers.

Which is pretty amazing, when you think that the best literary journals probably have a readership of 5-10 thousand. It's cool to think that more people read my stories, than, oh, Alice Munro's.

Actually, that's depressing. Very depressing. Think I'll cheer myself up by torturing a cosmologist to death.

 

[English Lady]

being totally scientifically inept i have skipped the obvious sciencey bits so I'll add my bit on the voting


To be honest i post for myself anyway, I like doing it, like the idea that people read my stuff and hope a few even get aroused by doing so.

I love getting feedback from people to see what they think...its nice to have that interacvtion.

The votes i mainly ignore..I look now and again to see what's what but even if i had a really bad average vote..I'd not be too bothered because i write for ME first and foremost.

 

[its Leslie]

The problem with "science" is it mght all be the tool of the "devil".
The world might only be about 4000 years old, and all we see through our senses is just the greatest fucking scam.

Dinosaur bones might just be plants to fuck up us supposely clever ones eh. Carbon dating might be a great ruse to support a great scam.

The visible universe might be all orchestrated to see if our wisdom can overule our minds eye.

Remember satan lucifer or whatever his fucking name is, was powerful enough to think he could kick god's ass openly eh.
So he dropped the ball so what, he took a lot of followers with him eh.
The dude must be able to do some awesome tricks eh. God created reality out of thin air, I am sure The Prince of Lies or whatever his bloody label is can manifest a few lousy bones.

Oh well it is 8:30 here, and I need to jack off.

Maybe I am slowly digging a hole my eternal soul will regret for eternity, all so I can look at naked Japanese girls in school girl outfits and go ahhhhhhhh uhhnnnn ohh yes uhhhh squirt squirt squirt.

 

[BigTexan]

Re: oops

bt, i am crushed... i thought i had sent you constructive feedback.... i must have been too tactful, if you don't recall...

Bridget, I didn't forget you, I simply counted you as a fellow writer. Your feedback was excellent.

BigTexan

 

[NoJo]

All the same, to actually earn a living by writing would certainly feel like a nice validation.

R66G,

I know how you feel, and I feel the same way too about it, to be honest. But just remember... NOT earning money from it doesn't mean your'e not good at writing!

 

[TheEarl]

Gravity is a field, but it can act as a force. It is a field created by any object, but it only registers as a force when there is something near enough to be affected (tree falls in a forest philosophy, it's not a force, if there's nothing for it to act on).

Like magnetism. Magnetism is a field, but when considered as part of mechanics, it will act as a force on any magnetic objects.

Jonny Ball explains all!

The Earl

 

[TaffyJ]

She blinded me with Science!

I happen to like the voting and scoring, though I agree it is far from an exact science. Just about like real political voting. The only votes that should count are ones made by people who have at least studied the issues and made an informed decision. At Lit, the "issues" could be anything from 'did it make me cum?' to 'was it well written?'

While we've gotten off topic onto Physics... I've been dying to ponder this issue among other minds. Everyone in the astronomic community seems to be terribly comcerned about heavenly bodies on near-Earth orbits. Wouldn't it me more profitable, if we found a huge (or small) object on a collision course with us, to send out some sort of remote controlled propulsion system to intercept it at a safe distance, and lasso that bad boy in for mining of valuable minerals? When we're done with it, we could replace it's mass with a like amount of toxic waste and send it out on a happy little non-collision course. I'm sure by the time we're actually in danger of being catastrophically (sp?) hit, we should have the technology to do this.

 

[TheEarl]

Taffy: anything that would be travelling through space woul be travelling at a very high speed. Otherwise it would have been caught by something else's gravitational pull. So there's actually very little that could slow it down. Apart from a planet in the way of course.

The Earl

 

[its Leslie]

Space being vast (more so than most I think give it credit for), it is likely we would have trouble dealing with objects due to cause us harm in time.

Although regardless of its current speed, about all I would want to do with a potentially harmful rogue rock, is increase the rock's motive effort by steering it AWAY from us.

I have zero interest in guiding them into yet closer still orbits.