Perusing the stats for my latest affront to writing, I noticed the stats said 169 votes and the detailed stats said 150 votes. I know the votes get topped and tailed but those numbers trouble me - were the top 9.5 votes and the bottom 9.5 votes removed?
AJ
The 169 votes were the total cast, and the 150 votes were the ones used to calculate your score.
I think the point is that an odd number of votes were removed, which means that an unequal number of votes were removed from the top and the bottom, which is weird.
Yes, you got it!
I switched between views to confirm the numbers and they stayed the same. However that doesn't rule out the possibility that the raw data for the two views is updated at different intervals.
AJ
However that doesn't rule out the possibility that the raw data for the two views is updated at different intervals.
No, but the fact that Lazeez explicitly announced that he change the histogram of the raw votes to only show the votes used to calculate the score does.
I managed to catch my latest heap of doggy-do when the gross vote count was 280. A multiple of 20 means that there shouldn't be any issue with rounding. If I understand correctly, the top 14 and the bottom 14 votes should have been dropped. However the histogram view stated a net total of 249 votes.
(Edit) Just caught it again: Gross 300, Net 267.
Confused I am.
AJ
Confused I am.
welcome to the club. Now you know why I don't look at that, except for use in a discussion.
I sometimes suspect the system knows when you vote on your own stories and doesn't include them - but have no proof.
I sometimes suspect the system knows when you vote on your own stories and doesn't include them - but have no proof.
Does that mean you've tried voting on your own stories? I have to admit that's something I wouldn't do, a bit like liking my own facebook posts.
I came across another thing that struck me as slightly odd. I had used up my daily ration of 16 stories and wanted to check the end note of one of my own creations. I couldn't! I quickly worked out an alternative route - manage stories and edit the end note, but it struck me as a bit odd that my own stories count against my 16 per day.
AJ
Does that mean you've tried voting on your own stories?
It came up in a very old discussion way back when - so I tried it, and it can be done.
As to story count, it counts all stories you access because it's too much work to write the code to ignore your stories. But when you get enough story points you'll get a free premium account.
It came up in a very old discussion way back when - so I tried it, and it can be done.
Since people can open multiple accounts, I don't suppose it's absolutely possible to stop them voting on their own stories. Still, I'd be intrigued to know how many authors have overtly done that and why.
AJ
Since people can open multiple accounts, I don't suppose it's absolutely possible to stop them voting on their own stories. Still, I'd be intrigued to know how many authors have overtly done that and why.
Most authors vote on their own works. I don't make any effort to stop it as it's almost pointless when a story gets hundreds of votes.
I try to stop those who create a lot of accounts to boost their stories. One time the site lost an author and his stories when he found that I knew what he was doing when I deleted all 275 accounts that he created.
Most authors vote on their own works.
Thank you.
Trying to imagine setting up and maintaining 275 accounts is mind-blowing, and for what purpose?
AJ
I deleted all 275 accounts that he created.
That sounds like a lot of hard work for next to nothing in return. Maybe he read a heck of a lot and that's how he gets enough stories to read each day.
I don't suppose it's absolutely possible to stop them voting on their own stories.
I have the one account, only ever had the one account. I didn't used to vote on my own stories, until I tried it once to see what happened, and shortly after that a readers told me, "If you don't think your stories are worth voting for, why should anyone else?" I had no answer to that, so I have since then, because it's only ever one vote.
My son lives with me and we share the Internet. I know he opened an account at SoL and FS, but I don't think he's used it in a long while, so not sure about it's status. He spends more time with a couple of FanFic sites than at SoL or FS, always has. I don't think he's ever voted on a story, but don't know for sure. I keep passing on story titles for him tor ead, and he keeps saying "sure, alter," but never talks about them.
If you don't think your stories are worth voting for, why should anyone else?
This is going to sound very naive but I'm very interested in what readers think of my stories. To that end, I don't want to pollute the data pool with my own opinion. But as you say, it would only be one vote.
AJ
I quickly worked out an alternative route - manage stories and edit the end note, but it struck me as a bit odd that my own stories count against my 16 per day.
I don't believe Lazeez ever considered the limit as limiting authors, since it directed towards readers and authors have an accepted 'out' of the system (if they stick to writing long enough to win sufficient points).
Lazeez probably secretly hopes I stop writing after the pain inflicted on his eyeballs by the story segment I asked him to vet, but I'm very slowly edging towards the magic total :)
AJ
I sometimes suspect the system knows when you vote on your own stories and doesn't include them - but have no proof.
I have proof it does count them.
I helped Lazeez test changes to the scoring system. The stories I used were my own since I could see the results. I remember giving one of my stories a 10 (naturally :P) and the score went down. So it did accept a vote from me for my own story.
Another of my stories has just ticked over to 180 votes gross. The net vote count for assessing its score is 162, which I believe to be correct. So it's not all stories which defy my understanding.
AJ
Was the other story involved one that was submitted in more than one part - so there could have been duplication of voting and therefore discounting of those?
More of a question for Lazeez, but also more rhetorical than needing an answer.
so there could have been duplication of voting and therefore discounting of those?
The system amends an earlier vote if you lodge a second vote on a story, os it's still only one vote.
The system amends an earlier vote if you lodge a second vote on a story, os it's still only one vote.
Back when voting was controlled with cookies, it wasn't easy, but it was possible to duplicate votes. All you needed to do was wait for the cookies to age out, delete them yourself, or use a different computer (laptop, phone, etc.). However, Lazeez corrected that lookhole, tying scores to each user ID and eliminating any old scores with the newest one.
Was the other story involved one that was submitted in more than one part
I've only looked at a few but my multi-chapter stories seem to have less comprehensible net vote counts. However the sample population is too small to draw any firm conclusion.
AJ
I think everybody should have as many premier accounts, ones they paid for, as they want. If that lets them vote 275 times, well, that's a lot of membership money the site can make good use of. Annual memberships, now, not short term vote and stop paying ones.
I think everybody should have as many premier accounts, ones they paid for, as they want. If that lets them vote 275 times,
If he'd paid for the accounts I doubt Lazeez would've done a thing about it, thus I'm very sure they were free accounts.
When I first started listing stories on goodreads.com, I couldn't figure out how to post comments on stories without voting on it, thus I was forced to vote on my own stories, and I felt hypercritical voting 5-stars for my own stories when no one else on the site had ever heard of me.
By the time I finally figured out how to post comments without voting on it, I'd convinced my SOL fans to vote on my stories, so now I'm a known entity on goodreads.
I still don't like voting for my own stories, I prefer seeing how others review my work, rather than trying to convince everyone that my work is the best possible.
I know that 1,2,3, votes are not shown or counted in the vote score but are they counted in the raw total?
1,2,3, votes are not shown or counted in the vote score
They are counted in the score (after the bottom 5% is dropped). Lazeez thinks hiding the actual numbers makes authors feel good, but it doesn't. That was a mistake caused by one author's meltdown.
They are counted in the score (after the bottom 5% is dropped). Lazeez thinks hiding the actual numbers makes authors feel good, but it doesn't. That was a mistake caused by one author's meltdown.
It was more the result of years of continual bitching about scores by authors. Better not to reveal the magic than have people questioning how many balls you're juggling under the shells. Personally, given how much flak we've given him over the years, I don't blame him in the least.
I've been persisting with this topic because, based on the description of how votes are discarded to work out the score, there may be a maths error in the calculations.
From the silence of others, I get the impression they don't see a discrepancy between their gross and net vote counts.
AJ
From the silence of others, I get the impression they don't see a discrepancy between their gross and net vote counts.
or they don't care enough to look.
The only times I've seen a discrepancy is when the percentages provide a fractional vote. For example, the throw aways for 198 votes aren't a full figure, so it may not add up, while the figures for 200 votes should.
It was more the result of years of continual bitching about scores by authors. Better not to reveal the magic than have people questioning how many balls you're juggling under the shells. Personally, given how much flak we've given him over the years, I don't blame him in the least.
I don't blame him. I believe he reacted from the hip and made a mistake.
Showing the raw scores was due to the bitching. You only see them if you agree not to bitch anymore. For me, it was a great change that took the mystery out of the scores (I only care about raw scores, not the final, manipulated score).
But the last change hides some of those raw scores. It's important for me to see the 1s. They have meaning to me. Now it's all a mystery again.
I hardly ever look at scores, but when I do I want to see all the raw scores.
I don't blame him. I believe he reacted from the hip and made a mistake.
The site lost a lot of authors because of few 1 votes. Not because of the weighed scores. Despite doing what's needed to handle edge votes (1s and 2s), I kept facing the moaning about "1, 2, 3 BOMBS" as so many authors put it.
The system used to show the 1, 2 and 3 regardless of whether they affected the score or not. And those particular values affected authors' psyches negatively. So why show something hurtful if it's not truly affecting their scores to begin with.
Yes, few authors who were using the graph for what it was designed for lost something. But honestly how many authors are like you? Keeping in mind that the site has over 450 pen names active in the last 6 months.
Keeping in mind that the site has over 450 pen names active in the last 6 months.
Given the discussions, at least 3 of us, still, we three need to accept that we're in the minority. As I said, since the votes removed don't affect the score, I don't object to their being removed, especially if leaving them only sows discord. Frankly, highlighting the few mostly random protest scores doesn't help anyone other than those with an agenda, intending to hurt anyone who disagrees with them.
Could the raw scores be made an option for authors who ask nicely?
(I've contributed significantly to discussions about readers' voting habits but I've tried to be observational rather than critical.)
AJ
So why show something hurtful if it's not truly affecting their scores to begin with.
I guess I don't understand the thin-skin some authors have.
I didn't realize it was more than one author so I apologize for saying you shot from the hip. I wouldn't want your headaches.
I didn't realize it was more than one author so I apologize for saying you shot from the hip. I wouldn't want your headaches.
The one author brought the situation to a boil, but it had been simmering for a long time (lots of continual complaints). However, as I said, removing the non-meaningful 1 votes robs the resident trolls of their single ability to penalize authors (by getting under their skins).
On the other hand, by removing the our ability to examine how the outlier readers think, it also removes our dependence on the overall scores (which also reduces our complaints). In either way, it's a win for Lazeez.
If you think the comments about vote counting in this thread are bad, consider what President elect Trump says about his election.
I had rather not. If you ignore something long enough, it may go away.
That's what people thought when Bill was President, but the Clintons are still around.
May be its time to go to a like or dislike system. One vote per story when finished, like or hate. No other score. May be then we want have a new thread every two weeks on vote scoring.
Lazeez can't win. Whatever he does, people will think up ways to game the system. I think it's a good thing when ways of gaming the system are exposed in open debate, but that doesn't necessarily mean 'improvements' are desirable or even possible.
AJ
Lazeez can't win.
Its Entropy: the three laws are
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.
May be its time to go to a like or dislike system. One vote per story when finished, like or hate. No other score. May be then we want have a new thread every two weeks on vote scoring.
Except, at the moment, the only people complaining about scoring (other than to rant about popular stories they object to) are authors. SOL readers appreciate the scoring system, and many authors admit they rely on scores to determine what to read (i.e. an indication of the quality of writing, rather than a vote on a story's popularity).
Why throw out a system that works, merely because authors get their feelings hurt when they look under the carpet. As the old saying proclaims: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. In our case, if you don't like bad news, then don't pick at your score details!
