For all authors who hate the SOL scoring system, read Joe J's latest blog. I think it actually explains why I love the system. https://storiesonline.net/ablog/Joe_J
For all authors who hate the SOL scoring system, read Joe J's latest blog. I think it actually explains why I love the system. https://storiesonline.net/ablog/Joe_J
left-handed Albanian vegetarians
There's that left handed bias again. I'm sure Albanians and Vegetarians won't be happy either. Where's the safe spaces?
Should have been left-handed Chinese strippers.
Should have been left-handed Chinese strippers.
So what's wrong with ambidextrous paint strippers...?
So what's wrong with ambidextrous paint strippers...?
Not random enough. Could have used left hooved Tibetan Mtn goats as well.
Not random enough. Could have used left hooved Tibetan Mtn goats as well.
random
adjective
made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision
If you have ever watched paint strippers at work, especially those in the 'diy' genre, random pretty much defines their actions. Being ambidextrous simply doubles the randomness.
Tibetan Mountain 'goats' are actually Tibetan 'argali' which are wild sheep. As such they are not random in nature, forming small flocks that move around seasonally in a predictable and therefore not random fashion.
Admittedly if you were to train argali to strip paint they would most definitely act in a random manner, but that would be entirely due to their inhaling the fumes from the paint stripper, not due to their natural behaviour.
If you really want random, convert the Alamo into a Mosque...
the fumes from the paint stripper, not due to their natural behaviour.
I don't understand why you think the odors from an exotic dancer with lots of tattoos would be toxic to sheep.
I don't understand why you think the odors from an exotic dancer with lots of tattoos would be toxic to sheep.
She drinks only cocktails concocted by mixing turpentine with methylated spirit, so her breath is enough to both strip paint and intoxicate Tibetan sheep. (Who are Buddhist and tea-total)
For all authors who hate the SOL scoring system, read Joe J's latest blog. I think it actually explains why I love the system
I, for one (as a reader, not an author), do not understand the anger at the SOL scoring system. I use the scoring system to help decide which story to read next, realizing that some stories will have high scores (and still don't suit my tastes), and some stories will have lower scores (that suit my fancy). Since the scores are mostly for comparative shopping by readers, are they not equally fair or unfair to all authors?
It's a voting system. Not everybody votes on all stories. But the thing about a voting system is that I get to decide for myself how I judge a story - and whether the author (or anybody else) has a different opinion of the story doesn't sway my vote. I have own biases. I like a good story written by a good storyteller. If the author makes me care what happens to the characters, I'll give the story a high score - regardless of whether there are typos or grammar errors or misused punctuation. Others, judging from comments I've seen, put more emphasis on the technical aspects.
I never give a story a rating below six. This is a site for amateurs, and I wish to encourage them to write. Their very next story may have improved - as some of you have indicated that your own later stories are better than your earlier ones. If there are others who score stories the way I do (i.e., no low scores) - then that puts into the scoring system a bias toward higher scores.
are they not equally fair or unfair to all authors?
In general they are. What the current system does is to minimize the influence the story haters and fanbois have on the scores. However, I suspect some people hate the system because it's not a direct vote count system where 100 votes of 8 over 20 years don't add up to 800.
The scoring system is meant for the readers and not the authors, plus it is also meant to give an accumulated measure of how the readers liked the story. The current system is good at doing that and it treats all stories in the same manner so everything stays reasonably relative.
The current scoring system's major components are:
1. The votes collected under the several different scoring systems in the past 20 years are processed relative to the votes of that system period. There's an algorithm to relate all of the systems and votes to each other in a meaningful way by having each system have a mean score of 6 for the whole period of its operation.
2. The top and bottom 5% of the votes given in the current system are dropped prior to the calculation of the score to eliminate the influence of the 1 bomber story haters and the 10 hitter fanbois prior to the calculation of the current score.
3. The score gives a fair representation of the accumulated votes over all of the periods.
I get to decide for myself how I judge a story
There's a news program Sunday mornings with Jane Pauley that has little episodes on various topics. This Sunday had one on a famous painter. The art critics and museum curators said such bullshit that I almost threw up. Which is what the paintings looked like to me. The artist basically watered down (oil base actually) paint and poured it on large canvases.
They called it impressionism. Give me a break. If I had seen it I would have thought a kindergarten kid did it.
They called it impressionism. Give me a break. If I had seen it I would have thought a kindergarten kid did it.
Just my opinion, but I think modern Impressionists are incredible con-men. Have you ever seen early works by Picasso or Van Gogh? They had total control of their paint brush and put paint on canvas exactly where they wanted it. They CHOSE not to do realism, but were completely capable of delivering it.
I agree.
I don't know if they still have them, but have you ever gone to a fair or amusement park where they have the booth for creating your own painting. They mount a piece of paper on a horizontal platform that rotates and start it spinning. You drip paint from plastic catsup/mustard dispensers containing different colors of paint onto the paper. I seem to recall that the table then spins at a higher speed to spread your paint drops across the paper.
The result is similar to what some of the Impressionists produce. No real artistic talent required. Just the use of a different means of randomly applying paint to canvas.