I need genuine options, like
"god awful shit, written by an AI"
"god awful shit, written by someone that doesnt know shit."
I need genuine options, like
"god awful shit, written by an AI"
"god awful shit, written by someone that doesnt know shit."
If it's god awful shit, I don't give a shit if it's AI generated or human generated.
I don't disagree.
The problem in my opinion is with the raters. They handout scores higher or lower than a story deserves and their reason for doing so isn't very good.
The problem in my opinion is with the raters.
I watched a movie last night on Netflix that I never heard of. I watched it because it said it was a thriller. I like thrillers. I watched it because the Rotten Tomatoes rating was something like 6.9 or 7. That's a good rating for Rotten Tomatoes.
The movie was awful. I can't believe it was rated that high. So those raters should be hanged.
I don't agree with many ratings on SOL and elsewhere. Not everyone has the same tastes as me so they wouldn't rate a story the same as I would. We probably even use different criteria.
I recall many writers saying things that indicate they are rating the author not the story.
I posted this as a blog a few days ago, but I think it applies to this discussion also, because it might be an example of raters ratng the author, not the story:
Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm writing the same stuff over and over, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Here are the scores of my most active posts, based on weekly downloads:
6.99, 6.86, 7.09, 7.00, 7.80. 6.81, 7.01, 6.67, 7.18
So, at least I'm consistent. I guess I've found my lane and should stay in it, even though it can be frustrating.
What was the movie?
"A House of Dynamite." A 2025 movie.
It wasn't even a thriller. It started as one when a missile is heading to the U.S. and will hit in 19 minutes if they can't intercept it. But then that same 19 minutes is repeated from another POV, and then another POV, and then another. Talk about boring. And where was the thrill when you knew what was going to happen after the 1st POV?
I don't recommend it.
Common crapoid scheme of a story line. commone to hollywood.
I remember several time loop stories from star trek the next generation. After ten minutes, you just let you slaw hang slack and drool.
So I have no dogs in this fight, but you my friend seem toxic... I have yet to see one positive post from you. You only seem to comment negative. Again no issues with what your saying or you personally....but multiple threads across multiple forum topics..... all negative. Hey if that what you want your reputation to be good on you.
hm disagreement of opinion on your end pip squeak.
I dont care if some random stranger on the internet likes me or not. I dont care.
Watched that a couple of days ago. It was sort of okay, but the ending was pointless. I think Kathryn Bigelow was aiming for rage bait, as I doubt those close to her said ending it like that was going to be a good thing.
It's certainly soured a lot of people and it's going to hit the viewership of her next film hard.
Edit: What The Critical Drinker thinks of it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4LKuvAikso
"Or lower"?
Any chance you're talking about the 1-bombers?
If, as an author, you monitor your scores regularly, you can reverse engineer a score from time to time. I can count on any story I write getting a handful of ratings of "1" even though the average score is well above 7. Their rating pretty clearly has nothing to do with story quality. I've never understood why some people feel the need to do just slam a story for the sake of slamming it.
About 20 years ago, there actually was a pattern. Any story that cropped up into the top 20 immediately started getting all these low votes to push it back out of the top 20. That doesn't seem to be the pattern these days because the 1 votes show up before the story can crack the top lists. I can guarantee that one of the first votes I get (on the first day a story starts) will be a 1.
I'm not the only author who gets 1-bombed, but it's a major reason I've stopped taking scores seriously.
l was referring to the 1-bombers and the readers who have said they give an automatic 10 because the author put out work to write the story or the author happens to be a favorite of theirs.
the system is fucked up, if you read the rating system,
the "hate it option" seems to give it a HIGHER rating then the you call this a story? one
the "hate it option" seems to give it a HIGHER rating then the you call this a story? one
Which there's an argument for.
If you see "you call this a story" as reserved for things that are literally not stories*, the arguably hate it should rate higher.
*Yes, that's happened, people have posted political rants without even the pretense of wrapping a story around it.
what should be the lowest, is actually higher then it should be.
if i hit "you call this a story?" the implication is "this is godawful tripe shit" and it should get a .10
not a fucking 3.0 that it seems to give.
thus being able to hit an option labelled "god awful shit" and a pointage value of .1 or less... it would be working.
or just go to an actual click an empty circle, to manually make people click on 4 circles to make it a 4 "star" rating.
would also get buy bots better.
what should be the lowest, is actually higher then it should be.
if i hit "you call this a story?" the implication is "this is godawful tripe shit" and it should get a .10
10 is the highest and 1 is the lowest and there are no fractional values for individual votes.
"You call this a story?" gets a 1 from your vote.
not a fucking 3.0 that it seems to give.
What you are missing is that the 3.0 is not the score from your vote alone. It's a weighted average of all the votes (excluding the highest and lowest 5%). And unless the story has a rather large number of both total votes and 1 votes, it's very likely that your vote is being excluded from the score in the situation you described.
You can run into situations where the score changes in an way that may not make sense immediately.
For example at 20 votes, 5% of 20 = 1, so at 20 votes it excludes the 1 lowest and 1 highest votes. Then at 40 votes it starts excluding the 2 lowest and 2 highest votes.
This can result in a case where depending on the exact vote distribution, if you give a story a 1 (this is not a story) and it's the 40th vote, it is mathematically possible for your vote to cause the score (weighted average of 36 of the 40 votes) to increase.