Forum: Bug Report and Feature Requests

When the ability to revote a review score was added, SOL started tracking who scored what, otherwise it would be impossible to change a vote and keep meaningful stats.

That data is stored with the story file, not with the reader's file. Thus he'd have to keep another set of files to track what a reader's voting pattern is.

He already had the file attached to each story to show what vote was registered on what date. When he expanded it to include the reader ID all he had to do was to add a column to place the data in. The file is accessed and checked every time someone votes, first to change a vote if one is already there, and second to recalculate the current score. This was a fairly simple extension.

It's my understanding that this is the only record where a reader ID is linked to a story and it would be very difficult to go through it to create a list of what stories were read by who, which is a capability Lazeez doesn't want the site to have to provide privacy to the readers. The sort of list needed to track a readers voting habits would breach the privacy aspect and require a duplication of the entire voting set of files. And that's before you start to get into analysis of it.

It's a heck of a lot of coding, data storage and storage costs for no real worthwhile benefit. It's not as if SoL is a major government project with unlimited staff resources and funding. There are limitations on storage and processing capabilities and no need to overload them for no real gain.

It's not only the 1-votes, who crash a story's score. Pretty much everything below five does, because such votes practically mean the reader says 'meh' or even worse.

That in itself is a reader's good right, but I think voting three or lower is basically saying the story is utter cr*p.

There would be two ways to make this a bit more fair for readers and authors alike. You could use what is used in European and German voting laws. A choice has to gain at least 5% (or 3%) of all votes to be counted. That way if a story has 40+ votes each of 8 and higher, the one-digit 1 and two votes will be discarded. That would work for too high votes too. If the majority of people vote 7 or 8, the two 10-fanboy-votes will be ignored too.

An easier way would be that votes below 3 or 10-votes require a written explanation why you chose to vote that and it will be sent to the author.

in the past the voting and scoring has been discussed until almost ALL are sick of it. The scores are to help readers differentiate how people feel or appreciate stories - they have nothing to do with writers or how well it was or wasn't written. The current system does it's best to remove outliers caused by fanboys and hate voters, and there's no way you can get it any better. Mind you, only about 1 on 50 readers vote, anyway.

The problem is, that there is no justification for votes. Someone can vote down my stories just because he feels like it.´I may have pissed off someone, because each and every story I post goes down in score with every chapter I submit. It's pretty obvious that someone is downvoting out of spite no matter what is written, because the email replies I get do not reflect the negative votes. In that regard, I'll probably turn off voting for good, because it's simply not working.

I'll probably turn off voting for good, because it's simply not working.

You pay a price for doing that. It's better to simply ignore the scores.

The problem is, that there is no justification for votes. Someone can vote down my stories just because he feels like it.´I may have pissed off someone, because each and every story I post goes down in score with every chapter I submit. It's pretty obvious that someone is downvoting out of spite no matter what is written, because the email replies I get do not reflect the negative votes. In that regard, I'll probably turn off voting for good, because it's simply not working.

Slim, I got that for a long time. That's why I know so much about the subject now. Luckily, when they first started, they (one reader) registered their complaint. After I explained my reasoning for what I did, their response was 'We don't care how it impacts the story, either you write what we want (about Fox news being the 'Only reliable news program in the country'), or we'll make you pay' (a paraphrase, rather than an exact quote). When I heard that, and realized they weren't interested in a discussion but only in dictating what I was allowed to write, I doubled down, throwing away my previous compromises and returning the offending character (originally planned for a one-time appearance) in a later book.

Ever since, I've gotten the same amount of 1-bomb votes. But I pointed out that, if you only vote 1 every time, you can't do anything about the times you really dislike what I write. After I returned the character, they finally saw the wisdom in that approach, so now those same protesters vote 3s across the board, but if they dislike something they'll drop it to a 1, and if it's an especially exciting chapter (which happens much more often), they'll boost it to a 5. Which is why I know they're loyal readers, who read each chapter I write, only days (by the weekend) after I post them.

As with real-life trolls, there's no point in arguing with them. The only way to rob them of their power (like certain politicians who won't be named) is to stop repeating every offensive thing they say. The more you respond, the more they win.

As the famous quote on "Big Bang Theory" goes: "Every day you don't strangle Sheldon in his sleep, he wins!". No matter what you do, the trolls will continue, but the more you engage them, the more they'll influence other trolls to duplicate their efforts.

(about Fox news being the 'Only reliable news program in the country'), or we'll make you pay

Hmm, I better trash my idea for a story about Trump blackmailing Megyn Kelly and using her as a sex slave.

Hmm, I better trash my idea for a story about Trump blackmailing Megyn Kelly and using her as a sex slave.

I'm not sure such a story would be believable. Trump is all bluster, with little substance to back up any of his claims, while Megyn doesn't seem likely to take any of his shit. If he made a move, she'd likely take an arm off. 'D (At least, I like to think so.)

I'm not a huge fan of Fox, but I do think that most of the people who vocally complain about bias by Fox are delusional if they think CNN, MSNBC or CNBC are even a tiny bit less biased than fox (their bias just runs in the other direction).

I've always admired Fox's ambitions, and they did a good job, but ... for a long time, they received a deservedly bad reputation for fairness and journalism, since they back and repeated such patently false claims.

However, with the debates, Fox seems to be working hard to prove themselves to be legitimate newspeople (i.e. they're not party shills). Megan Keely seems to be leading the charge, but Fox, so far, has been solidly supporting her every step of the way.

Again, I don't mind their slant on the news, but I'm glad they've grown a little backbone, and stop kowtowing to every idiotic comment every conservative politician spits out. I like the fact they're actually pushing conservative candidates to take their claims seriously.

In general, I'm glad to see a strong Republican News Organization, and I'm especially proud that they're now trying to distance themselves from the individual politicians in the party so they'll be seen as serious journalists, whichever their stripe (even if they do support Trump, which isn't that unlikely).

CNN, CNBC, MSNBC all have their own share of false claims, as do the broadcast news operations. Does forged national guard documents and GWB ring a bell.

I agree. Professionalism is a goal, not an achievement. News agencies and reports of all stripes have to be constantly on their guard, and they fail frequently. But at least FOX is trying to up their game, which I commend them for. As I said, I've always admired their objective, but they make a lot of compromises along the way. It's nice to see a correction and a more independent streak.

That's why we need more, not less news organizations, so they can keep one another in check, rather than marching in lockstep in what they report and what they don't.

There, I'm done with my rant. *Flame Off*

I've always admired Fox's ambitions, and they did a good job, but ... for a long time, they received a deservedly bad reputation for fairness and journalism, since they back and repeated such patently false claims.

The last time a truly independent media organisation provide true and absolutely unbiased media reports in the Americas was somewhere around 1772.

But scores are NOT for authors

That's like saying a student's high school grades are not for the student but the colleges to determine if they will accept them.

But I agree about the "don't obsess over them." In my opinion, the scores don't make sense.

But I agree about the "don't obsess over them." In my opinion, the scores don't make sense.

The scores are more about the widespread appeal of the plots by the majority of people. Stories that only appeal to some, or which touch on topics which others can't relate to, won't score well.

If someone doesn't like your story, it has little to do with how well it's written, though that'll have an impact. Instead, it just means they'd prefer a different story.

Poor scores hurt, but more than anything else, they suggest we're missing our target audience. If you get a lower score than normal, then either you need to refine your story (finding what reader's dislike and correcting it), or you need to do a better job of describing your stories so you attract fewer of the wrong readers. But you'll never please everyone, if nothing else because it a) has too much sex, or b) has too much sex. For the others, replace "sex" with "violence", "politics", "philosophies", "writing style", "genere" or "what have you".

I have never seen one complain about 10 bombs.

It happens. Usually, loyal fans will immediately vote a 10 to support an author before they ever read a single word. In fact, I've had readers post a 4-star rating on Amazon or goodreads before they had time to read the entire book (just after it was released), so it does happen. In fact, in one case, I released one book whose only review it ever received was a 4-star on Amazon (out of 4), and that was delivered before they read it. Strangely, the story did well on SOL and FS, but it never got the ratings/reviews in the broader marketplace.

The problem is, you can play with numbers all day, but at the end of the day, nothing you do will change the nature of people, and a small subset of people will register protest votes which have little to do with the story's quality of appeal.

I keep harping about gay stories, because those particular 1-bombers will go out of their way to open a story only to vote it down, without ever reading a word of the story. However, using the number of 1-votes wouldn't help, because I'm assuming they support their own subset of stories.

Chances are, a religious conservative who believes that gay sex is a crime against humanity will favor stories featuring a more socially conservative slant (even if it features under-aged sex or incest--hypocrisy strikes across the board, in most cases).

The worst thing you can do, though, is to challenge a bad review, as it makes you, the author, look like an ass, and that will affect more readers than anything the 1-bomber says. Basically, you've got to roll with the punches and accept anything thrown at you, no matter how unfair it seems.

Statistics prove that readers prefer books with the occasional bad review. I'll often ignore any product that only lists top ratings, as I assume the ratings/reviews were written by the developers. Instead, I'll ignore ALL the initial glowing reviews, and examine the subsequent negative reviews to see what issues the product may have. In short, 10s can be just as bad for a story, or even worse in some cases, than 1-bombs are.

Likewise, I pay more attention to reviews that point out the author's problems, as it highlights issues to look out for, and provides a more reasoned approached than a pure gloss piece.

Actually, I've reached the pinnacle of having a SoL stalker who 1 bombs all my stories on the first chapter as soon as they see it. The current system of dropping the top and bottom 5% of scores to remove the haters and fanbois actual means a 1 bomber can improve your score.

If your lowest legitimate score is a 5 and some hater 1 bombs you, that means their 1 gets dropped and a higher score is kept in the calculation, thus your score can go up after being 1 bombed.

If your lowest legitimate score is a 5 and some hater 1 bombs you, that means their 1 gets dropped and a higher score is kept in the calculation, thus your score can go up after being 1 bombed.

That's not true. The 5 might have been in the bottom 5% so when the 1 is given it is now part of the calculation.

That's not true. The 5 might have been in the bottom 5% so when the 1 is given it is now part of the calculation.

It isn't as clear as Ernest paints it, but often, that is the case as the scores get recalculated. However, it just as likely to drop as to improve.

It isn't as clear as Ernest paints it, but often, that is the case as the scores get recalculated. However, it just as likely to drop as to improve.

Nothing to do with the 1 vote, though. When we were testing this, sometimes a score of 10 lowered my overall score. It's because it's recalculated each time it's scored. So even if no new vote was received, a recalculation could change the overall score.

So even if no new vote was received, a recalculation could change the overall score.

If there is no new vote there is no recalculation.

My understanding of the system, from when Lazeez explained it in detail, is the raw scores are listed in their vote order, then the top 5% and the bottom 5% are removed - this is done by whole numbers only, and the remaining votes are averaged, then the other factors of normalizing and weighting are applied. I'm going to ignore the normalizing and weighting aspects to concentrate on the first part.

Taking a case where there are 219 votes listed (number chosen for simplicity of later calculations) the top 5% and bottom 5 % would be 10.95 - this is rounded down to the whole number and the top 10 and bottom 10 votes are removed prior to being averaged. The next vote lodged will take it to 220 votes and the top and bottom 5% will mean 11 votes are removed from each end. In this case it's most likely the score will go down due to the extra top end vote being removed. However, this is not as common as a vote not increasing the number of votes being removed.

Assuming at this point the 11th lowest vote is 5 and the 221 vote is a 1 bomb. When the recalculation occurs only the lowest and highest 11 votes will be removed, since this vote is a 1 the 5 that was the 11th lowest vote is now the 12 th lowest vote and thus the 5 is now used in the calculation of the average for use in the score, and thus it will go up a little. This process will continue until it reaches the point where the top and bottom 12 votes are dropped - that is the 240th vote is made.

Anyway, the general effect is the 1 bomb stalkers votes are ignored by the system, unless the number of 1 bomb stalkers after you is about or above the 10% mark of your readers. Which is the main point of the system.

typo edit

Anyway, the general effect is the 1 bomb stalkers votes are ignored by the system, unless the number of 1 bomb stalkers after you is about or above the 10% mark of your readers. Which is the main point of the system.

Correction: "Unless the number of 1 bomb stalkers after you is about or above the 5% mark". (5% would be 1-bombers, the other 5% are loyal fans who consistently rate the story a solid 10!) For each 1-bomber removed, you're also removing a consistent 10 score (in most cases).

If there is no new vote there is no recalculation.

My point was that if it was recalculated even without a new vote, the score could go up or down.