Home « Forum « Bug Report and Feature Requests

Forum: Bug Report and Feature Requests

1 vote bombs; possible method for mitigation.

Grant

It seems that there is a group of people that find the need to vote 1 for a story or chapter in a serial, and would appear to do so regularly.

I understand that a number of the highest & lowest votes are discarded to help offset such behaviour. I'm not aware of anyone that's given a 1 vote informing the author of why they did so (it may have happened) as it appears mostly used as a method to punish/annoy the author.

As each persons votes are tracked it might be worth considering discarding votes of 3 or less from people who have 5% of their total votes where they voted 3 or lower. They can still vote up a story if they liked it, it doesn't block them, but if they vote a story down harshly the vote is discarded straight away- it doesn't even show up in the Author's stats section as having been made.

This would further reduce the effect of 1 votes on scores, as well as lessen the irritation/annoyance of authors being made aware of them.

It would still be possible for people to vote 3 or lower if they felt it warranted, but it will stop those that do so purely to annoy the author.

Ernest Bywater

@Grant

too much data to be stored and tracked, and too difficult in the way of code to manage problem. So I'd say it ain't going to happen.

The current system drops the top and bottom 5% of the votes so only the middle 90% of the votes are actually used in the score calculations, although the authors can see the full raw scores on their personal stats pages.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
ustourist

@Grant

I find it difficult to understand how any story - particularly a serial - a person would read through to the end could actually qualify to be a 1, so would be supportive of a system that blocked voting totally by those who consistently give that score.
However.
There are probably some readers who automatically vote a 10 to certain authors or genres regardless of the quality of the work. Surely a 10 should be just as outstanding at the high end as a 1 is at the low end, and should also be reserved for rare occasions.
Any restriction or adjustment applied to the low end should be equally applied to high end scores to make it fair.
The current system of discounting the outliers at both ends seems to deal with that possibility fairly, though there is still the (probably intentional) side effect that the author can get upset - though I have never seen one complain about 10 bombs. Maybe they never happen?
The main problem is - you just can't prevent morons and trolls from voting a 1 and demonstrating their stupidity.

richardshagrin

@ustourist

Eliminating ones and tens and then ones and twos and nines and tens, etc. leads to all votes being recorded as sixes, average. And all utility of the voting system is lost. Authors need to realize voting is for the readers. They do it and it is recorded for their use in selecting stories to read. Downloads are for authors, and feedback sent by readers if the author's email address is enabled and the author reads it. Reviews are somewhat in the middle, but tend more to be for readers than authors, at least as currently working. At least I have seen very few reviews that are set up as guidance to the author. Most suggest that readers either read or consider reading the story reviewed. There seems to be some statistical information that is given authors, alone, that is intended to assist them. But scores are NOT for authors, and those that obsess over them are losing the point. Broad brush, what authors want is readers. If a one-bomber read the story, that was why it was posted. A reader is a reader is a reader. Even if he consistently reads your stories to give you a one, he is a loyal reader. Be happy and go on to write and post your next story. Turning off voting will deny other readers of information they need to make an informed choice whether to read the story or not. If you really, really can't stand to get one votes, consider if you would prefer to just be given a score of six by everyone. I think the opportunity for tens out weigh the occasional one. Illegetimi non carborundum (don't let the bastards wear you down.) The system as currently implemented works, don't agitate to change it, especially not to something worse.

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Grant
Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@ustourist


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.

Switch Blayde

@richardshagrin

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.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

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".

Grant

@ustourist

Any restriction or adjustment applied to the low end should be equally applied to high end scores to make it fair.

I agree, although probably not as strict in regards to the percentage of total votes as for the low votes.

Grant

@richardshagrin

Eliminating ones and tens and then ones and twos and nines and tens, etc. leads to all votes being recorded as sixes, average.

Like the Uber driver rating- it is meaningless.
Which is why only those that have a high proportion of extreme value votes (high or low) have them not recorded.
Those that don't use the scoring to hammer or boost their least favourite/favourite author are not affected.

Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

too much data to be stored and tracked, and too difficult in the way of code to manage problem. So I'd say it ain't going to happen.


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.

Now Laz could probably throw together some algorithms to check for high/low scores that correlate to story tags for certain voters and start filtering them out by that means as well. Ie, if someone had voted on 20 stories, 10 of which have MM, Mm, or mm present and all 10 of those "gay male" stories get 1's then that person's votes get pulled from the aggregate score on the grounds that they're not even attempting consider that there is any kind of merit to stories with that hot code.

A few other techniques could be employed for other scenarios such as the guy who'll create throwaway accounts to facilitate 1 bombing (or any other kind of score bombing), so accounts with a more diverse range of scores being given out start getting stronger weighting in the composite/aggregate number. (The more they vote/rate stories, the more their ratings have an impact... But then you have to start watching for their randomly rating other stories to generate noise for any such algorithm to chew through, and that is going to be nearly impossibly to catch)

The big thing, and more concerning issue I have as a reader seeing how authors tend to react to their encounters with them, is the person who 1 bombs as soon as they know something squicky to them is in the story, without regard to any other merits of the story. There may be 10 bombers out there doing the reverse to encourage their preferred tags or authors, but I generally think they are the lesser concern.

Either way, I think that someone(Laz) could probably start doing some Data mining regarding voting patterns regarding people who give stories a 1 vs certain story tags that are known to be very strong squick factors for people. I would be highly surprised if he didn't come back with all kinds of correlations tied to specific accounts and specific story codes(and/or authors).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID


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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

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.


...As someone who has written and created SQL databases in the past, I can assure that if it was setup properly the additional overhead would be little more than a few bytes per vote registered. You can even optimize performance somewhat by creating a secondary lookup table(which would be used as the primary in all truth) to prevent needing to recalculate story scores every time you load a page that requests them. In other words, it only needs to update the lookup table for a given story when someone (re)votes.

I'm not going to dispute that Laz may not be configured that way, and has potentially made obtaining that information as inconvenient as possible. Inconvenient by design at that, but the underlying capability exists for someone with the access, know how, and determination to do so to get at those details.

So in that respect it may not be worthwhile for him to spend the time needed to get at that information or make any significant use of it. But it is likewise true that information does exist in some form for recent voting on stories.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

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.


That gets into a recode that is rather involved, and if structured that way, then yes it is a duplication, but at that point it also becomes a question of why keep the flat files? Doing away with the flat file data that is now in the DB ends the duplication. (and if that was the only thing in the flat file, it could actually have the ironic outcome of resulting in less disk space being used, as the files are ___ Bytes in size rounded up to next block size increment for the filesystem. So if you have 1024 byte file on a drive that is partitioned for 4,096 byte block sizes, that file actually uses 4,096 bytes, not 1024 bytes.)

As to tracking read stories, who said anything about doing that?

I was talking about cross-checking voting habits. Don't want your story voting habits tracked? Don't vote on stories(you don't want to be tied back to).

Of course, you're also forgetting the premium users have story bookmarks, which would have to tie users to certain stories in order to be functional.

Edit lol, I guess I hit reply to the wrong post, that quote isn't me talking to myself. That was Ernest Bywater.

Not_a_ID

@Not_a_ID

I'm not going to dispute that Laz may not be configured that way, and has potentially made obtaining that information as inconvenient as possible. Inconvenient by design at that, but the underlying capability exists for someone with the access, know how, and determination to do so to get at those details.

So in that respect it may not be worthwhile for him to spend the time needed to get at that information or make any significant use of it. But it is likewise true that information does exist in some form for recent voting on stories.


Ok, after discussing a related item elsewhere, I'll concede its possible there may be some form of psudeo-cryptography going on in which case there is no (easy) way to return the data back to its initial form, unless you knew what the "initial form" was to begin with, and even that isn't exactly the use case there. However, it would potentially work for what he's doing with the voting/scoring system.

Which isn't to say it(the information) still couldn't be recovered, it would just be a major pain in the butt to do so, above and well beyond the "simple" challenge of setting a data mining spider loose on a bunch of flat files to compile all of the relevant data into a single database as it adds steps.

However, I somehow doubt Laz has gone to that extreme just yet. The "additional security" would be minimal in all reality(a governmental entity would get through it relatively quickly), and adds a lot of complexity into things. But it would stop a casual hacker from getting anything useful to them if all they obtained was the database.

Replies:   The Slim Rhino
The Slim Rhino
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

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.

Replies:   Jim S  Ernest Bywater
Jim S

@The Slim Rhino

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.


There is no good way to reject outlying scores. I think what LZ is doing is probably the best that can be expected though I suspect it has the tendency to lower the average score for a story. Admittedly, there are multi-variate data analysis techniques that can be employed given the data this site probably stores. That said, I doubt LZ wants to hire a PhD analyst to handle the chore. And it can be a chore, believe me.

Ernest Bywater

@The Slim Rhino

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.

Replies:   The Slim Rhino
The Slim Rhino

@Ernest Bywater

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.

Switch Blayde

@The Slim Rhino

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.

Crumbly Writer

@The Slim Rhino

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.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

(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.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

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.)

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

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


I agree with CW, I think it's more likely that if Trump tried something like that with Megan Kelly she'd kick his ass, film it and put the video of Trump being handed his ass by a woman on YouTube.

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 also generally avoid female dom/male sub stories, though I detest Trump enough that I might make an exception if you reverse the plot on that story.

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

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).

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


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


If you do go ahead with your idea, be sure to include his tiny, tiny hands in the story! 'D

Here's hoping Gina of BtFH never reads this forum, or I may find myself banned from the site! ;P

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

for a long time, they received a deservedly bad reputation for fairness and journalism, since they back and repeated such patently false claims.


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.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

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*

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

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.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

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


Yeah, so? The last time something like that existed in Europe was probably before the invention of the printing press.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


Here's hoping Gina of BtFH never reads this forum, or I may find myself banned from the site! ;P


That's why Gina Maria and I are not on speaking terms. It goes way back to the Iraq War. I said it would be a stupid idea and she went on a war-mongering binge and personal attacks of me. I said it would make Iran stronger, and they were our true enemy, and it did.

EDITED TO ADD Oh, all she said was we needed to kill all the "Camel Jockeys."

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
richardshagrin

From the standpoint of Little Red Riding Hood, WOLF is lots worse than FOX. FOX hunters are the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

Free Press: freedom for the owner of a press. Newspapers were even worse in the early days of the country. I think University Journalism Schools advocated fairness in reporting. Before then, the Golden Rule prevailed. He who has the gold, makes the Rules. More exactly, he who paid gold to the owners of the newspaper made the rules.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

That's why Gina Maria and I are not on speaking terms. It goes way back to the Iraq War. I said it would be a stupid idea and she went on a war-mongering binge and personal attacks of me. I said it would make Iran stronger, and they were our true enemy, and it did.

That's why anyone attempting to post to BtFH needs to be warned to NEVER mention anything political on the site. Gina, for all her faults, refuses to allow her site to be used to promote any opinion she objects to. So, I simply post and stay away from politics on the site. As a result, I tend to avoid the discussion forum, as it's only a temptation to weigh in on issues better avoided. Think of her forum as a huge author/reader trap. If you're stupid enough to nibble at it, you're history on the site.

But, alas, it's her site to run anyway she desires. I doubt she's likely to change anytime soon, and she rarely discusses politics unless provoked, so I see the uneasy truce as a sensible compromise. However, the problem is that no one advises potential authors about the pitfalls on her site. Like you, they only learn of the danger once it's too late!

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

However, the problem is that no one advises potential authors about the pitfalls on her site


It was in the ASSTR Forum.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

It was in the ASSTR Forum.

She attacked you for a post on a forum on another site? Hmm, that blows my pet theory of limited abuse of power.

Argon

Anyone casting a vote of 3 (= pretty bad) or less should be barred from reading future chapters of that story. If the vote was honest, no loss for the reader. If it was a frivolous vote, think before you score!

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Argon

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.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

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.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

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.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

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.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


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

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

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).

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

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.

Back to Top