I am new to this whole thing. I am trying to figure out the ratings system. Is there numerical measuring stick I can go by for reference? Thanks in advance.
I am new to this whole thing. I am trying to figure out the ratings system. Is there numerical measuring stick I can go by for reference? Thanks in advance.
When you see the choice to lodge a vote at the end of the story it has the choice in words to make it easier for people to decide what score to give. However, the system uses the letter related to the rating, and they're in ascending value in the list provided. The letter is converted to a number from a = 1 through to j = 10. The process is below, from:
https://storiesonline.net/h/8/how-are-scores-calculated-and-how-does-scoring-work-in-general
How is the score calculated? And how does scoring work in general?
It may seem like a score should be a straight forward affair with all the votes tallied and divided by their count to arrive at the score. Unfortunately, that would only work for a small number of stories and a small number of voters for a short period of time. After that, many elements start affecting how scoring happens.
Factors that affect scores:
Voters' Self-selection:
Not all readers vote. So voters are self selective and not necessarily a real representation of the general readership.
Voters' Niceness:
People are nice in general (unless they have an agenda). They don't like to punish or discourage. The general tendency is to only vote when they like a story.
People are lazy: Readers don't vote on stories they don't finish. To finish a story, they have to like it. So the general tendency is to get votes from those who liked the story in general.
People are easily influenced:
If most scores are higher than 8, then voting less than 8 becomes psychologically impossible for most people. How can you give a story a vote lower than the average when it's fairly readable?
For all the above reasons, a simple, average-the-votes-and-display-the-results-as-a-score voting system doesn't work.
We needed something more sophisticated: A voting system that weights raw scores and makes them into something more logical.
How does it work then?
The system calculates a story's raw average vote after dropping the top 5% and the bottom 5% of the votes to eliminate outliers.
The system knows all the stories raw scores and knows the median of these raw scores.
The score weighting formula figures where the story's raw score sits between this median and the extremes of 1 and 10. Then it calculates the same relative location for a median of 6.00. So if a story's raw score is equal to the raw scores median, it will end up with a score of 6. if it has a perfect 10 score, it remains at 10. If it has a raw score of 1, then it stays at 1. Stories with raw scores closest to the raw median are moved the most on the scale. Stories closer to the extremes are moved less. The raw scores median is calculated twice per day.
The weighted score gets used as the story's score for display on the site.
This weighting algorithm preserves the relative order of the stories. So if you sort the stories by raw score and by weighted score, you'll get the exact same line up of stories.
To put it simply, the score weighting algorithm shifts scores to create an artificial median of 6.00.
People are lazy: Readers don't vote on stories they don't finish. To finish a story, they have to like it.
At one time, votes for non-premium readers didn't count unless you had read all chapters of a story, and enough time had gone by between downloading chapters to make it likely that each chapter had really been read. Or at least, the official explanation gave that impression! I don't know if it still works that way, but I suspect not.
The moral of the story is don't worry about the exact score, and do expect the scoring algorithms to change over time!
Another, subjective way of looking at it:
If a story has a score above 8 its probably going to be a very good read, regardless of subject matter. Some will be good enough to publish commercially and its not uncommon for high scoring stories to be end up on Amazon or SOL's equivalent, Bookapy.
7 to 8 is probably good enough to waste some time on, especially if over 7.5.
6 to 7 is where stories will hold your interest if its a subject, kink or fetish that interests you or an author whose style you enjoy.
An example: Tony Spencer has a very British style to his stories. His MC's stoicly endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune & bad weather. Not everyone's cup of tea, especially for coffee drinkers who want MCs to be billionaire retired Seals. But he has his fans and they vote high. On another site, under another pen name, his story 'When it Snows' has a score of 82.6%. Here its adjusted to 6.36. Less than 1/2 of one percent of readers voted on that story, so its likely the majority of votes were his fans.
Without adjustment its fan club vs fan club scoring. With adjustment theres some chance for the reader to quickly scan scores and decide if they want to read a particular story, even if its out of their preferred genre.
The deletion of the lowest 5% of votes from the adjusted score removes the trolls who vote 1 and leave a comment of "pathetic cuck shit" on 20 stories in five minutes. It also knocks out the fans who vote 10 when their favorite author posts a two paragraph prologue to a new series.
BTW, I'm not knocking Tony Spencer. I enjoy Tea & Coffee.
BTW, I'm not knocking Tony Spencer. I enjoy Tea & Coffee.
Tea is poison, Coffee is the elixir of life ;)
Carcinogenic or sugary?
Neither.
1. https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/can-soft-drinks-cause-cancer
There have also been claims that chemicals in soft drinks can increase cancer risk. While some studies have detected very low levels of chemicals such as benzene and 4-methylimidazole (4-Mel) in certain soft drinks, there is no evidence they increase the risk of cancer at the low levels found in soft drinks. The chemicals have been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing) in other types of exposures, but at far higher levels than present in food or drink.
2. Few soft drinks in the US have any sugar in them these days. Thanks to the US government propping up sugar prices, most soda companies have switched to using corn syrup as the sweetener.
IMO 1. is bollocks propagated by rapacious food producers. The chemicals cause cancer. Even consuming minute quantities is likely to cause some cell structure disruption. It's possible the body's defences can identify and kill the rogue cells but eventually they'll lose - it's just a question of how long before it becomes evident.
AJ
The chemicals cause cancer. Even consuming minute quantities is likely to cause some cell structure disruption.
That's bull.
The most fundamental rule of toxicology is "The dose makes the poison".
Even pure water is toxic if ingested in sufficiently large doses.
There is no exception to this rule for carcinogens.
The notion pushed by anti-chemical and anti-nuclear activists of "no safe dose" has exactly zero scientific support.
ETA: Also, that quote I made was not from a food company, but from an Australian cancer charity.
https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us
Wherever cancer is, we are. We are Australia's leading cancer charity, and the only Australian charity working across every aspect of every cancer, from research to prevention and support. Our vision is a cancer free future, and every day across the country our federation is working towards that, helping to reduce the physical, emotional and financial burden of cancer on the lives of all Australians.
The most fundamental rule of toxicology is "The dose makes the poison".
Immaterial.
All it takes is for one cell to be compromised to start a tumour.
AJ
Immaterial.
When talking about toxins, dose is never immaterial.
Try looking at and understanding the massive doses used in the studies that supposedly prove these substances are carcinogens.
Lets take one example, Alar used on apples as a pesticide.
Rat studies showed it was a carcinogen, but if look at the doses involved in those studies, the human equivalent dose (from eating apples) would come to 10 pounds of apples every day for 80 years.
Oh, and the rats used for those studies have been genetically manipulated to be super prone to developing cancer.
When talking about toxins, dose is never immaterial.
Immaterial. We're not discussion toxins. Diet coke doesn't contain eg arsenic that can't cause cells to produce more arsenic, it contains a mutagen.
There is no 100% safe dose of a carcinogen. It's described in terms of 'acceptable risk'. 10 pounds of apples for 80 years: taking an average of three apples per pound, makes 2400 years. 1 in every 2,400 apple-a-day eaters would contract cancer each year. Multiply that up by the number of people who eat apples and that's a significant number of unnecessary cancers.
AJ
There is no 100% safe dose of a carcinogen.
There is zero scientific backing for that claim.
There is zero scientific backing for that claim.
All the studies claiming acceptable risk admit there is no 100% safe level of carcinogens. Which is all of them: definitely non-zero.
AJ
All the studies claiming acceptable risk admit there is no 100% safe level of carcinogens.
They assert/assume it.
There is no research specifically on that point.
There has been no effort to actually test the impact of minute exposures to anything under laboratory conditions.
They test massive doses then apply formulas for calculating estimates of cases at lower exposures that have the no safe dose assumption built in.
There is no 100% safe dose of a carcinogen.
There is zero scientific backing for that claim.
bollocks propagated by rapacious food producers.
Not from a food producer.
https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us
Wherever cancer is, we are. We are Australia's leading cancer charity, and the only Australian charity working across every aspect of every cancer, from research to prevention and support. Our vision is a cancer free future, and every day across the country our federation is working towards that, helping to reduce the physical, emotional and financial burden of cancer on the lives of all Australians.
Not from a food producer.
'Some studies'. No mention of who conducted those studies. You can be pretty certain they weren't conduct by independents like Cancer Council. Even the FDA replies on data submitted by food producers.
AJ
most soda companies have switched to using corn syrup as the sweetener.
HFCS 55 is what they use (High Fructose Corn Syrup).
Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, while HFCS 55 is 45% glucose and 55% fructose.
Considering that fructose is only metabolized in the liver and not the whole body, HFCS 55 is worse for the health as it leads eventually to liver cirrhosis (very similar to alcoholism).
Best if you were to avoid sweetened stuff, whether it's sugar or HFCS. However, it's better if sugar were used. Or Even better HFCS 42 (misnomer - it should be LFCS), at 42% fructose it has less fructose than sugar.
it's better if sugar were used.
It's almost impossible to find sugar sweetened soda in the US and the reason is government sugar subsidies raising the cost of sugar.
I prefer my caffeine cold and carbonated. :)
Nope, just strong and hot coffee, no milk or sugar added. The only acceptable cold and carbonated is beer. :)
Diet Mountain Dew. Nectar of the gods.
:)
We have a SodaStream dispenser so that we can have plenty of cold and carbonated options, most of which do not come with caffeine.
We have a SodaStream dispenser so that we can have plenty of cold and carbonated options
I once saw a kid at a McDonald's fill his cup at the soda dispenser by putting a little of each type in the cup. I can't even imagine what that tasted like.
Btw, I recently asked my plumber how to get the ring out of the toilet bowl. One option was to use Coke.
Btw, I recently asked my plumber how to get the ring out of the toilet bowl. One option was to use Coke.
It's also useful to put rusty tools in to clean them. Makes you think what it can do to your digestive system, clean or damage...
Makes you think what it can do to your digestive system, clean or damage...
Get a full chemical analysis of what is in your stomach, mix it up, and watch in horror as you see what that does to tools and toilet bowls.
Get a full chemical analysis of what is in your stomach, mix it up, and watch in horror as you see what that does to tools and toilet bowls.
True, stomach acids are a chemical factory on their own.
True, stomach acids are a chemical factory on their own.
and are one that coke doesn't stand a chance against, except to make gas when they get together.
Makes you think what it can do to your digestive system, clean or damage...
It's not so much what it does to your digestive system as much as how it potentially can mess with your skeletal system. Stomach acid is typically between ph1 and 2 when empty, Coke is normally between 2.5 and 4. It's actually slightly less acidic than white vinegar, but if you're cleaning tools and such, it smells a hell of a lot better than white vinegar.
Have you ever seen the video from the McIlhenny Tabasco Sauce warehouse, where they age the sauce? They have to replace the forklift in there ever four or five years because the fumes simply eat it and destroy it.
That kid was an amateur. I've seen at least four different people fill their cups by getting a bit of every beverage served in the dorm (including each type of milk, coffee, and tea).
Then drink it.
All of it.
*Makes a note to have someone do that the next time the characters are eating at a dorm*
Pepsi-cola hits the spot. Twelve full ounces, that's a lot. Twice as much for a nickel too. Pepsi-Cola is the drink for you.
Alternatively,
"It hasta be Shasta."
There may be praise for Coca Cola. But why would anyone drink something with coke in it, either the drug or burnt coal.
But why would anyone drink something with coke in it, either the drug or burnt coal.
Pregnant women have been known to crave charcoal ;-)
AJ
Pregnant women have been known to crave charcoal ;-)
Charcoal is burnt wood, not burn coal.
Aren't both mainly carbon?
Yes, and charcoal may be similar in composition to raw coal though the latter has a much higher density.
However coke as used here is coal that has been processed in a way that alters it's composition.
However coke as used here is coal that has been processed in a way that alters it's composition
Converting coal to coke is similar to converting wood to charcoal. You heat it in the absence of air so the lighter components evaporate as coal gas and coke remains.
HM.
Converting coal to coke is similar to converting wood to charcoal. You heat it in the absence of air so the lighter components evaporate as coal gas and coke remains.
That doesn't make coke and charcoal similar from a compositional standpoint.
doesn't make coke and charcoal similar from a compositional standpoint
You should first check the facts before answering.
HM.
You should first check the facts before answering.
You should quote facts that are relevant if that's the argument you are making.
That doesn't make coke and charcoal similar from a compositional standpoint.
For pregnant women with a desperate craving for carbon, I'm not sure they'll be too fussed about the difference.
AJ
For pregnant women with a desperate craving for carbon, I'm not sure they'll be too fussed about the difference.
Considering charcoal is easily obtained at a consumer retail level and coked coal isn't, I'm sure they would be even if there isn't a relevant compositional difference.
I thought this post was about how the voting works at SOL. Sad how these posts take on a life of their own instead of staying on topic.
I thought this post was about how the voting works at SOL. Sad how these posts take on a life of their own instead of staying on topic.
After Death and Taxes, thread drift is the third certainty on SOL.
After Death and Taxes, thread drift is the third certainty on SOL.
All SOL contributors eventually die but I'm not 100% certain they all pay taxes.
AJ
All SOL contributors eventually die but I'm not 100% certain they all pay taxes.
I don't see how they can circumvent all VAT taxes.
I don't see how they can circumvent all VAT taxes.
SOL is in Canada. Does Canada have a VAT tax system?
I don't see how they can circumvent all VAT taxes.
I think I've read of one or two tax-free regimes worldwide.
I suppose imported goods would have had taxes levied on them by the exporting regime.
And don't some despotic regimes exempt their dear leaders from paying taxes?
AJ
There are some regimes without income tax. IIRC Monaco for example relies on VAT and the casino. Some of the Carribean nations & Pacific Island nations don't rely on income tax, but they do charge a lump sum 'donation' for a foreigner after a second passport, a donation that would be equivalent to a lifetime of taxes for one of their indigenous citizens.
There is a strong push for a 'global minimum tax' from the usual suspects at the World Bank, UN and World Economic Forum. The World Bank's COVID response plan runs until 2025, so thats probably the time frame they are looking at. I suspect it will be like income tax in Britain. only tuppence a pound until the Napoleonic war debt is paid off...
All regimes are despotic in these days of electronic "Papers please!" To enter shops, hold a job or travel and no Dear Leaders actually pay tax. See the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers for multiple examples.
Its not uncommon for exports to be VAT exempt. German & Dutch built super yachts, which can run from fifty to five hundred million euro hoist a flag off convenience on hand over, then sail to Norway and anchor overnight before returning for shakedown and warranty work. Having been 'exported' they are VAT exempt. Gibralter does a lot of business on VAT exempt fuel 'exported' to shipping tanking up before and after crossing the Atlantic. Saving 20% on 250,000 liters helps Roman Abromavich pay his players.
Holy mother or God, we went from answers on the ratings system to coke and then coke, coal, and charcoal. Pregnancy cravings somehow got in there. Then further still into VAT?! How in the F--- did that happen? What makes it worse, it's some of the most seamless transitions I have ever seen.
Haha, I am well versed in message board tangents and topic changes midstream. Just glad I could supply a thread topic that sparked such conversation and debate.
Just glad I could supply a thread topic that sparked such conversation and debate.
Actually the thread creep is entirely YOUR fault.
You obviously chose the wrong topic for your original post…
San Andrea's does tend to push things apart...
Actually, my understanding is that the San Andreas Fault is a side slip fault. Western California isn't headed out to sea, it's headed in the direction of Anchorage Alaska.
San Andrea's does tend to push things apart...
American State law is utterly insane. Nothing else explains why in California one can get a "no fault" divorce.
State laws
They keep leaving the f out of laws. It should be state flaws.
Christmas is coming, look out for Santa Flaws.
What makes it worse, it's some of the most seamless transitions I have ever seen.
Here on SOL we have some of the best thread drift masters. In most cases very entertaining!
And you are the king of tedium.
Whilst many here will share your sentiments, might I suggest that little dicky might construe your comment as slightly uncomplimentary.
Rather than suggest any ability to rule over thread drift, wouldn't it be fairer to suggest that he embodies the definition of tedium, repetitively setting an example for others to learn from…?