What gives with the tops lists

[Auden James]

The "new" Top Lists are totally flawed. You must know that I also read in the German section, and the Top Lists there are now completely useless!

Why is that?

Because the treshold of 100 votes to enter the "All Time" list is much too high, especially as it is almost impossible to earn such an amount of votes on the German section which is far less frequented than the English section. In consequence, the best stories, e.g. Shooting Paula Ch.2 by chekov (4.80 rating), are simply not listed! As these stories are too old they don't even appear on any other list! Actually in the "All Time" top list of "Erotic Horror" are now only 2 - in words: two!!! - stories listed because in the German section even 50 and more votes are already rare!

What a "Top List" is that?

I'm not sure about the treshold to the 12-month list, but somebody suggested there would be 10 votes needed which in my eyes is okay.

My suggestion:
The idea of splitting the top lists into time intervals is per se a great feature.

But there shouldn't be any threshold of determined vote numbers for the 30 days list (regarding peotry).
Leave the treshold for the 12 month list and the All Time list at 10 votes as before (preventing one-hit-wonders).

Instead set the new rule that a story can only appear on one list at a time and can eventually be promoted to the next time interval, i.e. story "XY" with a continuous 5.00 rating is first listed #1 of "Last 30 days" for the first 30 days after posting, then #1 of "Last 12 months" for the following 11 months, then #1 of "All Time" afterwards.

Hence, the "Top List" is made as dynamic and accurate as possible.

As already said, rather set a treshold for the vote scores, e.g. 4.0 on average, than skewing the "Top Lists" by excluding stories of less frequented sections. This should probably reduce the calculation amount as stories with a rating less than, for example, 4.0 wouldn't be included.

*

However, I hope that the "Top Lists" will at least be restored because in there current state they are completely corrupted.

Greetings

 

[Katyusha]

Question for Manu (and anybody else who'd care to post a thought): what's the point of having a 1-5 voting scale if stories with low scores are going to beat out stories with high scores simply because they have more votes? If the top lists are going to be set up this way, then get rid of the 1-5 voting scale and simply ask readers, "Would you vote for this story? Yes or no." With a 1-5 voting scale in place, the threshold needs to be set at a certain score, not a certain number of votes.

 

[Darkniciad]

Question for Manu (and anybody else who'd care to post a thought): what's the point of having a 1-5 voting scale if stories with low scores are going to beat out stories with high scores simply because they have more votes? If the top lists are going to be set up this way, then get rid of the 1-5 voting scale and simply ask readers, "Would you vote for this story? Yes or no." With a 1-5 voting scale in place, the threshold needs to be set at a certain score, not a certain number of votes.

If it was only score, that's saying that a story with 5 votes of 5 is better than a story with 150 votes that only has a 4.93. Possible, but unlikely.

If it was only vote totals, the toplist would be overweighted with incest and Loving Wives stories.

There has to be a vote + score threshold, and there always has been. You needed 10 votes to make a toplist under the old system. That was too low, and all it did was invite 1 bombs that ensured new authors in low-vote categories would likely see their scores bombed into oblivion.

32 story categories, and only 12 don't have enough 100+ vote stories to fill out a top 500 category list:

Letters 6
Chain 18
Reviews 22
Horror 54
Humor 85
Illustrated 148
Non-Erotic 155
Text w. Audio 163
How To 179
Celebrities 225
Toys 259
Sci-Fi 280

As Dark, all 82 of my stories/chapters fall in those categories *laugh* As Les, it's 11/44, my third pen name is 1/11

I think the category toplists should have a median vote total determined so that they all fill out a top 500, but I'm obviously biased Still think it's a good idea, though. A median vote total would probably give stories older than 12 months in many categories that have enough to fill out a toplist a better shot, too.

The all-time, all-category toplist still has pretty much the same category composition that it's always had, even with the new 100 vote threshold. There are probably a few exceptions, but it looks more or less the same in composition to me. Maybe the threshold should be 50 ( same as the threshold for monthly contests ) but this list looks fairly similar to how it always has.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

I think the category toplists should have a median vote total determined so that they all fill out a top 500, but I'm obviously biased Still think it's a good idea, though. A median vote total would probably give stories older than 12 months in many categories that have enough to fill out a toplist a better shot, too.

Yeah, I think i suggested something similar. The vote threshold for a category top list needs to weighted depending on the median vote scores of the category. Ideally the overall score should be a function of both vote score and vote count, but there are already enough problems with dodgy votes this is probably unworkable.

 

[starrkers]

I don't understand the point of the Toplists anymore.

I have the "Readers Choice Letter or Transcript" winners for the last two years. Neither of them make it to the toplist.
Ditto my "Readers Choice Chain Story".

You'd think winners would be good enough to get in the Toplist somewhere.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't understand the point of the Toplists anymore.

I have the "Readers Choice Letter or Transcript" winners for the last two years. Neither of them make it to the toplist.
Ditto my "Readers Choice Chain Story".

You'd think winners would be good enough to get in the Toplist somewhere.

Winners, like Editor's Choice selections, are surefire targets for the trolls.

My single E has never had an H.

Og

 

[Manu]

Hey All -

Sorry I haven't been replying to every post, but I have been reading this thread and using your input while working on the Toplists, along with other features in various stages of development.

Based of feedback posted here, and discussions I've had with some authors privately, we have now updated the "All Time" Category toplists to use a different algorithm for the minimum number of votes required to be on the list. With the new algo, each Category will have its own minimum vote requirement. We agreed that it wasn't fair to require the same amount of votes for all categories, so that's been changed.

Again, all posts are being read and I'm stealing your brains and using them for my evil experiments, so please continue with comments, suggestions, and even complaints - they all help to improve the site in the long run!

Thanks for all the help and patience.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Hey All -

Sorry I haven't been replying to every post, but I have been reading this thread and using your input while working on the Toplists, along with other features in various stages of development.

Based of feedback posted here, and discussions I've had with some authors privately, we have now updated the "All Time" Category toplists to use a different algorithm for the minimum number of votes required to be on the list. With the new algo, each Category will have its own minimum vote requirement. We agreed that it wasn't fair to require the same amount of votes for all categories, so that's been changed.

Again, all posts are being read and I'm stealing your brains and using them for my evil experiments, so please continue with comments, suggestions, and even complaints - they all help to improve the site in the long run!

Thanks for all the help and patience.

Wow. Bravo!

 

[freshface]

Hey All -

Sorry I haven't been replying to every post, but I have been reading this thread and using your input while working on the Toplists, along with other features in various stages of development.

Based of feedback posted here, and discussions I've had with some authors privately, we have now updated the "All Time" Category toplists to use a different algorithm for the minimum number of votes required to be on the list. With the new algo, each Category will have its own minimum vote requirement. We agreed that it wasn't fair to require the same amount of votes for all categories, so that's been changed.

Again, all posts are being read and I'm stealing your brains and using them for my evil experiments, so please continue with comments, suggestions, and even complaints - they all help to improve the site in the long run!

Thanks for all the help and patience.

I applaud your goals, but I'm not sure the execution is there yet. Using the GM section as an example, it appears that it takes at least 250 votes to make the All time top list. A quick scroll through that list shows one story from 2008, two from 2007, and a handful from 2006. At the same time, the bottom fifty stories range in score from 4.21 to 3.04.

A look at the last twelve months shows that only 14 of the 250 stories listed there have over 100 votes, with the highest story at 175 and dropping off later this month. Given current voting patterns, will any of them manage to make it to 250 votes without a several years lag?

I'd rather see a minimum score requirement tied in with your sliding algorithm for number of votes. If a goal of the top lists is to help readers find the best stories, then should the All time top list really include a score of 3.04, just because 367 readers voted on it?

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, if "top" is going to mean anything approximating "good quality" and within the last three years, the GM entry level for votes on the all-time list would have to come down to somewhere between 20 and 25.

But the effort is laudible.

I would think that if a separate category algorithm was going to be established, it would be set so it wasn't just the number of votes, but also the rating that provided a floor. Allowing nothing below, say 4.2--which is quite a good rating--on the top 500 list would give some sort of bow to perceived quality as well as to merely prompting to vote (either up or down).

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Did I mention that I still think sweeps are WRONG? Who the hell votes more than once on a story anyway (other than the 3-4 people who can't be named)? Watching all my votes getting sucked off like there are leeches attached to my voting numbers is depressing.

My SO gets real cross. With only one vote allowed per IP - and I usually get in first - his vote usually gets swept. I don't really care 'cos I know my judgement is better than his.

The new system is just a bit too techy - and even the NYT bestsellers list doesn't use number of votes as a criteria.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Question for Manu (and anybody else who'd care to post a thought): what's the point of having a 1-5 voting scale if stories with low scores are going to beat out stories with high scores simply because they have more votes? If the top lists are going to be set up this way, then get rid of the 1-5 voting scale and simply ask readers, "Would you vote for this story? Yes or no." With a 1-5 voting scale in place, the threshold needs to be set at a certain score, not a certain number of votes.

Agree totally. If you take this to destruction, a story with 5,000 '1' votes is going to beat a story with 99 '5' votes.

However organized, I want the toplists to try and showcase the stories readers consider the best. From experience, in most popular categories, scores under 4 usually suggest a story that has less than popular appeal.

 

[sr71plt]

Manu: From the Web site's own perspective, I would think it would see the importance of having a good mix of current authors on the all time top lists, which, as Freshface points out, basically isn't happening in either the new--or apparently the new revised--system. Generally speaking, authors only actively post stories to the board for a few years. If your all-time top list is mainly of authors who don't write/post much if anything or who are long gone, you are losing an important dynamic for readers and authors alike--currency.

It's hard for a reader to interact with an author long gone or no longer active in posting stories, and it's hard for current authors to feel good about a top list they can't expect to make until they are long gone or no longer interested in posting stories (and are, in fact, being encouraged to lose interest by the very nature of the "attention getting" mechanisms here).

 

[EldridgeinOO]

This is ridiculous. I had the top story in Incest for two weeks now, it has amassed an amazing 640+ votes in just two weeks.

But now the top lists, at least the all-time ones, apparently require 1000+ votes? How does that even make sense? I guess the owners of Lit hate it that there's new people taking over their precious friends' spots on the top lists?

At one point I was #1, #2, #4 and #6 in the all-time list. The next day, each of those chapters had been voted down by 0.03 so they disappeared out of it (except for the #1, which started at 4.89 so went down to 4.86 and still was #1.)

I'm not conceited enough to think that it's just me that's causing this : P but an all-time list of only 1000+ votes is ridiculous. Show me one Incest story of the last three or four years that's gotten 1000+ votes. So I guess you only have a chance to show up on the top list if your story has been around for four or five years, at which point you've LONG since stopped caring if anyone reads it.

Once my story reached #1, it got a glut of new readers. I guess not anymore?

I realize this site is free and all, but the support for the people who actually provide the content is abysmal.

 

[CharleyH]

So now they go by the number of votes and not the quality of the votes...How can a 2.09 story be better than a 4.81 story regardless how long it's been hanging around...ridiculous...just another way to keep the new guys off the lists...I guess perservence does pay off...

Ratings don't matter much to me. Some of the best stories on Lit average a 4.50 to 4.80.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, well, as I was saying, the current contributors will have some kicks about the new (and even revised, if it's already been revised) system.

I've just looked at what should be about the most dynamic and vote-getting category, "Loving Wives," and only 15 out of 250 stories on the all-time top list are less than a year and a half old. Not exactly serving the current contributors--or readers wanting to interact with/encourage current contributors.

Also, what's with not being able to link directly back to the Bulletin Board from the Top Lists?

 

[sr71plt]

Ratings don't matter much to me. Some of the best stories on Lit average a 4.50 to 4.80.

I think the best stories--as far as writing and provoking response--are in the 4.0 to 4.5 range--precisely because they provoke reaction both ways (which is one of the things good stories are supposed to do). And as we are all aware, it takes a heck of a number of 5's to offset a 2--or even a 3, so negative responders have the power.

 

[EldridgeinOO]

Hey All -

Sorry I haven't been replying to every post, but I have been reading this thread and using your input while working on the Toplists, along with other features in various stages of development.

Based of feedback posted here, and discussions I've had with some authors privately, we have now updated the "All Time" Category toplists to use a different algorithm for the minimum number of votes required to be on the list. With the new algo, each Category will have its own minimum vote requirement. We agreed that it wasn't fair to require the same amount of votes for all categories, so that's been changed.

Again, all posts are being read and I'm stealing your brains and using them for my evil experiments, so please continue with comments, suggestions, and even complaints - they all help to improve the site in the long run!

Thanks for all the help and patience.

And 1000 votes seems a good cutoff for Incest? Have you noticed that over the years, stories simply get FEWER votes on Lit? How many stories in the past few years have gotten 1000 votes in Incest? MindFiend's fantastic Stacy story, published in 2004, never made it to 1000 votes, and it's probably one of the three best Incest stories ever published here. Well, sorry Mindfiend, buddy, your story's not good enough anymore. Only stories from the days when tons of people voted are good enough now.

Similarly, there are excellent chapters from VertigoJ that have only gotten 200-300 votes. Guess he's not good enough anymore either?

The top list is really one of the ONLY ways to get more viewers to your stories. When my Conflicted Ch. 08 reached the #1 spot, suddenly viewers on all my chapters shot up by a bucket, and consequently my votes went up as well. Apart from one chapter that's 3 votes away, all my chapters have gotten 400 votes. From what I see around the Incest category, that's a HUGE amount of votes for most stories. I've got several in the 500s now, and one in the 600s.

None of them are good enough to be included in the top lists anymore? Even though Conflicted Chapter 09 still has a 4.87 ranking after 640 votes and chapter 10 is currently tracking at a 4.90?

Or do you really think that anyone actually bothers to click on the "30 days" and "12 months" links? People go to top lists, and click on the #1 story. That's where a huge amount of my readers have come from.

By arbitrarily banishing everyone with fewer than 1000 votes you're basically saying to every author that is currently writing "Sorry, you're just not good enough. Even if you have a 4.87 after half a thousand votes."

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

I know I shouldn't care so much, but I take a measure of pride in the fact that I held the all-time #1 spot (and several more of the top 5 at certain points.)
To be arbitrarily negated for that honor because, well, Literotica readership doesn't vote that often anymore and so you'll never reach the required vote totals is just plain nonsense.

 

[freshface]

I think the best stories--as far as writing and provoking response--are in the 4.0 to 4.5 range--precisely because they provoke reaction both ways (which is one of the things good stories are supposed to do). And as we are all aware, it takes a heck of a number of 5's to offset a 2--or even a 3, so negative responders have the power.

Yet another reason why it would be nice if we could identify these. It can be hard to find them in the sea of lower scored stories.

 

[CharleyH]

I think the best stories--as far as writing and provoking response--are in the 4.0 to 4.5 range--precisely because they provoke reaction both ways (which is one of the things good stories are supposed to do). And as we are all aware, it takes a heck of a number of 5's to offset a 2--or even a 3, so negative responders have the power.

Don't worry so much. However, it would be nice, as writers, to know the division of how people vote on our stories. If someone votes a 0, how many of them do? If people vote 5, how many of them do?

 

[TxRad]

Don't worry so much. However, it would be nice, as writers, to know the division of how people vote on our stories. If someone votes a 0, how many of them do? If people vote 5, how many of them do?

Another site I post on shows every vote and who made it. Sure cuts down on the back stab vote. either that or raises the number of anonymous votes.

It also breaks the vote down by gender. i think that can be very helpful in figuring your target audience.

 

[sr71plt]

Don't worry so much. However, it would be nice, as writers, to know the division of how people vote on our stories. If someone votes a 0, how many of them do? If people vote 5, how many of them do?

What gave you the impression I'm worried? I just plod on posting my one story a week now (down from three two years go).

I can see why you are ambivalent. You haven't posted anything in four years--and precious little then. One might wonder why you are in this discussion at all.

You are exactly the kind of top list author I was talking about in my most recent postings on this thread.

I can pretty easily tell you how many have voted a 0: zero; it's not an option. Which, again, leads one to wonder why you are commenting on this thread at all, since you aren't exactly current with the issues.

That's one of the real interesting things about the Author's Hangout thread here--it's mostly folks who have contributed little or nothing to the Lit. story file.

 

[starscape]

Now it's even worse

I appreciate that an attempt was made to adjust the way the Top Lists are calculated, but IMO the way it is now is even worse than the 100-vote cutoff! In Erotic Couplings, for example, you now have to have ~several hundred~ votes to be on the All-Time List, and #250 currently has a rating of 3.17 (and from #238 on all of them score less than 4.0). That seems very unfair.

It seems like all that's been accomplished is perpetuating the idea that more votes = better story. There are certainly times when that is indeed the case, but I just don't agree that a story with a 3-something rating and 300 votes is better than one with a 4.5+ and 30 votes.

I've also noticed that the All-Time List, at least for EC, seems to be very heavily weighted toward stories that were posted on or before 2004. I'm not saying stories that have staying power don't deserve to be on the Top Lists, but when only four out of the first 100 stories were posted in the last two years (none of them after 2007) that seems really off to me. How is a new/current author supposed to get exposure for their work after their "12-month" stint is over when the vast majority Top List stories are at least five years old and have 100s or even 1,000s of votes?

There has got to be another solution that doesn't have the deck so stacked against newer and lesser-known stories. There have been suggestions of making the cutoff 10-50 votes, along with a "minimum score" requirement factored in. Some combination of that would be better than the previous two incarnations. I know the original setup of the Top Lists wasn't perfect, but at least then my work actually had a shot at making the list.

 

[Auden James]

Worse is an understatement

Hello again!

So I've noticed that the Top Lists have been "revised" - er ... what? OK, the effort is laudable, but - sorry - the outworking is absolutely unacceptable.

Again, it seems I'm the only one posting here who also reads the German section, and achieving 50+ votes is already a plenty there - especially nowadays.

Now there's the ludicrous treshold of 1000+ votes for the incest category - the "cash cow" of Lit. Does that make any sense? Well, not to me, not even regarding the great amount of votes on the English Lit.

Another example, Manu, what these tremendous tresholds mean on the German Lit. In the nonconsent category there's now 1 - in words one!!! - story on the "All Time" list; in the incest category there are 2 and in "Fetish" 3 all-time top stories. Even in "Erotic Couplings" - with 1049 stories by far the most popular category over there - now only 25 stories are on the "All Time" list - and 12 of them have an average score below 4.0 (which is a percentage of 48% of the stories on the list).

Once more: Half the erotic couplings stories on the "All Time" list of German Lit have now a score below 4!!!

Does that make any sense regarding a so-called "Top List"?

Well, if the top lists shall be parodies on themselves then it's great. Otherwise it's unbearable!

I really cannot understand the logic: almost everyone in this thread complained that the treshold of 100 votes for the "All Time" list was too high (especially as it seems to be the same for the English and German Lit), and what do you do? You set it even higher! 1000+ votes ....

Seriously, if that fault won't be corrected as soon as possible, I don't see a reason for any current writer to contribute anymore in the future because after 12 months at the last new stories - even if they were masterpieces! - will be lost forever in the undetectable mass of over 200.000 stories in total

*

However, if you think that a determined treshold for the "All Time" list is absolutely necessary then set it to 50 votes at most on the German Lit, and to 100 votes at most on the English Lit, but still depending on the category!!!

And please, publish the voting treshold for every category then, so it'll be much more transparent and easier to discuss.

Another possibility could be to differentiate the "Most Viewed" list for each and every category. Or - my personal favourite - to let the reader sort the stories of each category according to his needs, i.e. the reader, not the site script, can set a treshold for views or/and votes, determine the time interval, tags, awards, etc. That would be great! A personalized top list.

But should the status quo stay unchanged then it seems to me the way others already opined: the high tresholds shall preserve the good ol' days and their authors whose stories did not even come close the votes of today's outstanding stories.

I highly recommend the essay "Literotica Numbers (1+2)" for further information ...

 

[EldridgeinOO]

Seriously, if that fault won't be corrected as soon as possible, I don't see a reason for any current writer to contribute anymore in the future because after 12 months at the last new stories - even if they were masterpieces! - will be lost forever in the undetectable mass of over 200.000 stories in total

Why even write at all anymore, when you're a new author? Literotica makes it more than clear that they don't give a crap about new writers. You need to be a part of the good old boys network before you get to be in the top lists now.

The 12 month list is a joke. If there is an all-time list, why would you click on a 12 month list? All-time >>>> 12 months.

Not even mentioning the fact that the 12 month list is screwed up. I should be 1,2, 4, 5 and 6 in it, simply based on votes and score, and I'm not. All-Time is now a list of VOTES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SCORE, but then in 12 months, several stories with the same score and lower vote totals are ranked higher than mine. Makes great sense!

My latest chapter is now at 4.93 after 150 votes. My previous chapter is at a 4.88 with almost 550 votes. (I lost 150 votes overnight it seems. Sweeps?) They'd be 1,2 in the all-time list, but I'm not a part of the good old boys network, so, eh, tough luck I guess.

It's awesome the way Lit treats their new authors. I guess they feel they don't need them. It's much better to have a site with nothing but five and six year old stories being promoted.