The story proper hasn't started yet but already 60 readers have voted on it. I saw the score earlier when it was 9.20, although it's since fallen back a little.
I've read author complaints that voting on a single chapter was unfair on a story because the it hadn't got going properly at that point. So what sort of readers vote on a story with no chapters? And how did they judge what score to award?
AJ
So what sort of readers vote on a story with no chapters? And how did they judge what score to award?
fanboys?
SunSeeker
I didn't expect people to vote based on the Summary alone (heck, I didn't put all that much work into the Summary, and it's lousy as a story :) ). And I probably would have turned voting off if I'd spotted how to do that (if there's a way). So, I would agree that it's premature, and likely simply an expression of 'yeah, there's posting!'
I believe votes can always be changed as the chapters roll in, but I could be wrong. Certainly I've seen the score bounce around, and I'm assuming it's existing voters changing votes, not a plethora of new votes moving the needle.
I probably would have turned voting off if I'd spotted how to do that (if there's a way).
There used to be. No longer an option.
I believe votes can always be changed as the chapters roll in,
Correct.
But how many readers would bother to do it (sigh).
But how many readers would bother to do it (sigh).
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if votes were weighted dependent on how far into a story they were made. So the votes of readers who voted on the most recent chapter would be worth more than those made on the first chapter. Naturally, readers would be able to confirm their vote on the latest chapter, even if it hadn't changed from when it was first made. That would make more work for the 1-bombers who downvote the first inatalment of a story based on the author's name or a particular story code they feel threatened by.
AJ
That would make more work for the 1-bombers who downvote the first inatalment of a story based on the author's name or a particular story code they feel threatened by.
If it were easy/straightforward to detect 1-bombers (and associated accounts) it would e sneaky to have two different scores for a story: one including their votes, and the other not. Obviously 1-bombers woul only see the former, and would congratulate themselves and their friends on their success. Meanwhile the rest of us can ignore their efforts.
Of course, thisis hypothetical, as we all knowthe scorig system, whatever it's faults, won't be changed. But I find it amusing to speculate on changes that could be changed behind the scene without any notification; indeed, notifications of such changes would reduce their effectiveness. Who knows, such a 2-valued scoring system may already be in place!
(PS perhaps only those who regularly vote, but don't 1-bomb, should see the corrected score.)
This is an interesting idea. It definitely goes after 1-bombers. But, suppose someone writes a terrible story mechanically (many typos, terrible grammar, bad punctuation, no dialogue quotes, yada yada), but with a clever idea. Many people vote 1 and stop reading. Ten more installments come out, and the small number of people who read only for the idea vote 10. The story sits there with a 9.0.
I'm not sure if there's any way to distinguish a '1 because I can't read this junk, it's so bad' from '1 because I hate the author / genre / MC's name / I'm having a bad day', sadly. The system could pick out a random 1-bomber who only votes 1 on everything, but that's probably of limited value.
In my case, I see scores 'bounce around' enough that I think people do change votes. How often that happens, I don't know, but there's some movement in both directions, and it's hard to get score movement without either a large number of additional votes or people changing votes (especially when it's a .1 - .2 jump and you're ~500 votes into things, which has happened).
I don't obsess about the score - the story is what it is, and I'm almost always at least several dozen chapters ahead of what's publishing - but I'm aware of it.
I'm assuming it's existing voters changing votes, not a plethora of new votes moving the needle.
Could be a combination of both.