Forum: Bug Report and Feature Requests

6-0-0

I think the aim is to force voters to read a selection of stories rather than just voting for Starfleet Carl without reading any of the others. So your suggestion wouldn't be an improvement if all six votes could be allocated to the same author.

AJ

I had similar feelings several years ago. I wasn't going to vote for stories I hadn't read, and I wasn't going to read a story that didn't interest me, so I could vote for just 1 or 2 stories that I had read.

My solution was to not participate in the Clitorides.

the others still have some merit, otherwise they wouldn't have made it as finalists

Merit by whom? That's the issue.

Other people feel a story (or author) is great so it's on the list. But another person thinks it stinks. Why should that latter person give a story it thinks stinks even a 2nd or 3rd place vote? Just because others thought it was great?

Maybe they should be allowed to vote for 1, 2, or 3 stories in the category. Voting for first means they thought that was their favorite. Second means they liked that story too, but not as much as the one they rated first. By not voting on a third means they didn't like any of the others.

Then when you add up all the votes, each is weighted. A first place is a higher number than a second place which is a higher number than a third place. So maybe first place = 5, second = 3, and third = 1. If I voted Story-A first, Story-B second, and did not vote for a third story, then Story-A earned 5 points, Story-B earned 3 points, and that's all.

Other people feel a story (or author) is great so it's on the list. But another person thinks it stinks. Why should that latter person give a story it thinks stinks even a 2nd or 3rd place vote?

Because all the other stories stink even more, in the opinion of the voter?

AJ

Because all the other stories stink even more, in the opinion of the voter?

But the Clitorides is different than other contests, like the Halloween contest.

With the other contests, you're not voting on your favorite. You're rating each story (contest entry). At the end of the voting period, the story with the highest score wins.

With the Clitorides, you're voting on your favorite. And if you have them, your second favorite and your third favorite. But if you don't have a third favorite, what are you going to vote for?

In the Halloween contest, you aren't required to score every story in the contest for your opinion to count.

But if you don't have a third favorite, what are you going to vote for?

Does that mean you rate all the other stories equally?

The Clitoride voting seems to be similar to the Oscars - the judges don't have to watch and rate every film but they have to watch and rate more than one IIRC.

AJ

The Clitoride voting seems to be similar to the Oscars

Tabulation for most categories is simple — the nominee that gets the most votes wins. [So everyone votes for their favorite in the category — one vote].

Best picture, on the other hand, employs ranked-choice voting (also known as preferential voting). Voters order the nominees by preference; if one movie comes away with more than 50% of the first-place votes in the first round, that's the winner. But if no movie meets that threshold, then the one with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated — people who had ranked that film first will have their votes transferred to their second choices. And so on it goes until some movie wins a majority. [this is like the Alaska general election voting. I guess for Oscar voting, everyone voting votes on all of the movies nominated for Best Picture in the order of their favorite to least favorite. I'm sure they saw all the nominees in order to vote. I'm also sure their voting is biased. There's a lot of politics involved and, today, diversity considerations].

So the Clitorides can be like all of the Oscar categories except Best Picture — everyone casts one vote for each category. This would be the easiest and alleviate the problems people are bringing up here. Just vote for your one favorite or don't vote that category.

Or it can be some flavor of the Best Picture category without casting a vote on every entry in the category (too many). But a person shouldn't be required to vote for three because they may not have read three or felt more than one (or two) deserve their vote.

I'm sure they saw all the nominees in order to vote.

That's not as reported in my newspaper.

So the Clitorides can be like all of the Oscar categories except Best Picture — everyone casts one vote for each category. This would be the easiest and alleviate the problems people are bringing up here.

No, it exacerbates the fanboi problem, not alleviating it. And it also biases the results towards SOL authors, since the voters hopping over from SOL, will unknowingly be prejudiced against authors from other sites compared to names they recognise.

I reckon Lazeez has done an okay job, and making voters read at least three stories in the categories they want to vote in is hardly an onerous task (except possibly in the 'epic' category).

AJ

making voters read at least three stories in the categories they want to vote in

Making a person do something is the problem.

I don't believe it proper to vote for a story that I have not read. It is my right to not read stories that I don't like. It is also my right to decide not to read a story, if the story's description and codes indicate the story is of no interest to me.

Do I not have rights? Lazeez does have the right to set the rules of the Clitorides contest. However, his rules are intended to get readers to read the stories. For many of us, his rules are offensive.

If you decide to read stories of no interest to you, then go ahead and read them. If you want to only vote for one story and decide to arbitrarily pick two additional stories, so your one vote will count, go ahead and do that. Of course that also means, a story that would only receive a 4 rating when posted could receive 1st place.

I believe that voting for a story is a form of me recommending the story be read by others. It would be wrong of me to tell others that a story is worth being read, if I haven't read the story.

However, if you vote for stories you have not read or for those you believe are not worthy of being awarded the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place in the contest, then you invalidate the validity of the Clitorides contest's results.

I don't believe it proper to vote for a story that I have not read. It is my right to not read stories that I don't like. It is also my right to decide not to read a story, if the story's description and codes indicate the story is of no interest to me.

Do you consider yourself qualified to vote in a category if you're only interested in reading one of the stories, despite the other stories being nominated by your peers?

AJ

Do you consider yourself qualified to vote in a category

Dumb question. Of course I'm qualified. My opinion is as valid as my peers' opinions.

The fact that I only read one of the stories has no bearing on whether I should read the other stories in a category. If those stories do not appeal to me, then I would rather spend my time reading a story that does appeal to me.

I currently have 75 stories bookmarked in my Library. I want to read all 75 of the stories, but there are 2 things stopping me:

1) I have to wait for the author to post the next chapter of some stories.

2) I am not a speed reader, so I have difficulty finding the time to read many of the stories.

if you vote for stories you have not read or for those you believe are not worthy of being awarded the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place in the contest, then you invalidate the validity of the Clitorides contest's results.

This is the crux of the problem.

I'm currently imagining an award for 'best sex position' in which a GOT character wants to vote only for doggy-style because it's the only one he's tried and he doesn't fancy trying any of the others ;-)

AJ

a GOT character wants to vote only for doggy-style because it's the only one he's tried and he doesn't fancy trying any of the others

Khaleesi finally got him to change, though.

Best sex position from GOT would have to be that one girl with Podrick. The contortionist that you could be standing and having sex with and she could also lick your balls at the same time, since she could bend in half that much.

I'm sure they saw all the nominees in order to vote.

That's not as reported in my newspaper.

If that's true, the politics and biases are even more prevalent than I thought.

All the Oscars are is a way for Hollywood to celebrate themselves.

All the Oscars are is a way for Hollywood to celebrate themselves.

That's true!

I recall a previous year's awards about which it was alleged that the 'surprise' Best Picture winner had been viewed by less than half the judges.

AJ

It should be up to 3.

We'll have to disagree on that.

The stories in each category are supposed to be creme de la creme from last year. If the OP is a widely-read connoisseur of the category and feels only one is any good, why didn't they share their expertise by nominating better stories in the first place?

AJ

The stories in each category are supposed to be creme de la creme from last year

Based on what qualifications of those who voted?

You should be able to vote for one or two or three. And your one counts more than your two (if you have one) which counts more than your three.

And your one counts more than your two (if you have one) which counts more than your three.

Isn't that how the 1st/2nd/3rd works?

ETA if a voter can and does vote for only one story in a particular category, then logically it should be weighted as a 3rd place choice to protect against fanbois exerting too much influence.

AJ

The stories in each category are supposed to be creme de la creme from last year.

I would agree that the stories nominated for consideration are supposed to be the best stories of the year. However, 'supposed to be' and 'are' can be two different things. All it takes is for one reader to submit an author's story for it to be considered for an award.

If the number of submissions is low, say 5 or less, then a submitted story is likely to place in the awards. If you have to vote for 3 stories, then each story has a 60+% chance of receiving an award. If only 3 stories are submitted, then each story has a 100% chance of getting an award.

"If the OP is a widely-read connoisseur of the category and feels only one is any good, why didn't they share their expertise by nominating better stories in the first place?"

You are once again basing your opinion on an assumption that may not be valid. You are assuming the person voting for a story is a 'widely-read connoisseur of the category'. Reality is, many of the people voting in a category are not what others would consider a 'connoisseur' of the categories in which they vote. But, their vote has the same 'weight' as a connoisseur's vote.

In the past, I read a single story in a category that I rarely read because I liked the authors' stories and hoped they would be worthy of being read. In more than one instance, there was only 1 story I had read and had no interest in reading the other stories. That means I had to vote for 2 stories that I hadn't read and had no interest in reading. I just picked 2 unread stories at random and voted for them.

2) You are also assuming your connoisseur only submitted a story.

I recall that in past Clitorides Awards there were only 1 story submitted for consideration in some categories. Of course, the author received 1st place for their storyf regardless of whether it was or was not worthy of consideration.

If all voters read the stories and felt only 1 story was worthy of placing, then they would be required to vote for 2 unworthy stories. Two unworthy stories would then place in the awards.

If the 'worthy' story had never been nominated, then three unworthy stories would be placed. But at least there'd be some confidence in the order they were ranked.

1) You are assuming the person submitting the story for consideration is a 'widely-read connoisseur of the category'.

You seem to be conflating the originator of this thread with a person nominating a story for an award.

AJ

You seem to be conflating the originator of this thread with a person nominating a story for an award.

Actually, I am responding to your posts, not the originator of the thread.

You seem to be supporting Lazeez's rule of must vote for 3 stories. I disagree with that rule. It is the primary reason I no longer participate in the Clitorides Awards. I would participate if I could vote for a single story if it was the only story I had read or if it was the only story I believed worthy of an award.

In an ideal world, I believe a voter should have to prove they'd read all the nominees in a category before being allowed to vote in order to give each story a fair chance.

Obviously that's impractical, especially if there are,say, fifteen entries. Only a handful would bother.

If a voter can vote without having to give consideration to any stories other than the one they'd read outside the awards, it's unfair on the other stories and leaves the voting wide open to exploitation by fanbois.

Having to vote for three stories seems to me a reasonable compromise. Obviously that is still open to abuse - fanbois can vote for their favourite author and pick two others at random for second and third picks, for example.

The Clitorides has to get a lot of ducks in a row to be successful. Authors have to write the stories, readers have to nominate them, and voters have to vote for them. I find it rather ironic that what's probably the easiest step is proving so controversial.

AJ

In an ideal world, I believe a voter should have to prove they'd read all the nominees in a category before being allowed to vote in order to give each story a fair chance.

First, I never voted on the Clitorides. I don't even look at them. I think I looked at the authors once or twice when the winners were announced just out of curiosity. So I probably shouldn't even be commenting on the awards.

However…

I thought the Clitorides wasn't a contest. It didn't put one story against another, one author against another, to determine a winner. It's purpose (I thought) was to point out a story or author that was a favorite of yours. So if an author wins "best author" category or whatever it's called, that means that author was a favorite of more people than any other author. Same with a story.

The net result is another way for readers to discover stories and authors.

So if Joe is my favorite new author, I would choose him. And then if I saw Sam on the list I would be thrilled because I liked him too. Then I have to choose which I like more and that one is my favorite and the other is my second favorite. If I don't care for any of the others on the list why would I arbitrarily choose one as a third favorite?

Sounds like a contest to me.

FWIW, IIRC there are two categories with no nominations and one category with only two nominations. So you don't always have to vote for your top three in order :-(

I believe the Booker prize (or whatever it's called these days) judges read all the finalists then place them in order of preference, so it has passing similarities to the Clitorides.

ETA Apparently when the Booker Judges have whittled the entrants down to a shortlist, the final order is settled more discursively (and opaquely).

AJ

Sounds like a contest to me.

Okay, I went to the Clitorides page and clicked on "about." This is what I found (the highlighting is mine):

The Clitorides Awards were created in 1999 by Maria Gonzales and John A with the purpose of helping promote good stories and good authors, and, at the same time, stroking the ego of the authors. :)

It was also suggested that there is a dearth of "acceptable reviewers", and the various awards serve to spotlight stories that someone felt were worthy of a read. (Maria herself stated that this was one of her chief goals) :-)

Not everything is competitive.

The SOL scoring system's purpose isn't to pit one story against another. It's simply to indicate how much the story was liked (or disliked). The only time it's actually used for competitive reasons is in the SOL contests. But even then, readers aren't voting for one story over another. They're not ranking them. They don't even have to read all the stories. SOL, rather cleverly, uses its scoring system to determine the winner.

SOL, rather cleverly, uses its scoring system to determine the winner.

That is one way to look at it.

However, when a reader assigns a rating to a story, they are ranking the story on the basis of like/dislike relative to how they liked/disliked other stories. The Clitorides Awards is a contest, and in the contest, the voters are ranking (pitting) the stories on some basis be it their liking/disliking the authors or the stories, or a mix of both.

they are ranking the story on the basis of like/dislike relative to how they liked/disliked other stories.

On SOL? Do you really think that? That the reader takes into account other stories?

I can say yes as far as I am concerned. I other threads I recall posters saying similar things.

I can say yes as far as I am concerned.

Rating a story on SOL, I take into account that the authors are amateurs and I expect much less from them than from a professional author. So I rate the story accordingly. Sort of a bell curve mentality. If I didn't do that, my scores would be much lower.

But I'm not comparing one story to another. I'm comparing the story I just read to the general population of stories on SOL.

But I'm not comparing one story to another. I'm comparing the story I just read to the general population of stories on SOL.

That statement blows my mind. In the first sentence, you claim that you do not compare the story you are voting on to another story. In the second sentence, you claim that you compare the story you are voting on to other stories.

Each of the two sentences is saying the opposite of the other. One of those sentences has to be not true for comparing a story to a single story or a group of stories is comparing the story to another story or stories.

Each of the two sentences is saying the opposite of the other.

No. My fault for not being clear.

I take into account the quality of the SOL stories in general and score accordingly. So by saying that I'm comparing the story to the general population of stories on SOL, all I mean is that my expectations are lower. The bell curve I mentioned earlier.

I'm comparing the story

If you rated a story on your personal likes and dislikes, I would agree you are not basing you rating on other SOL stories.

But, the moment you base your rating on any aspect of other SOL stories, regardless of how much weight you give that aspect, then you are using one or more stories as, at least part of, your basis for your rating.

To be clear, comparing a story to any aspect of another story or stories is basing your rating on another story, in my opinion.

That the reader takes into account other stories?

Do I count as a reader and not just an author?

Since I'm a fairly fast reader - and I have SOL available on all my devices, so I can read on my phone when I'm sitting in stupid conferences - I can honestly say that I've read every story in the two categories my story is nominated in, and I've also read about half of the other stories in the other categories.

Actually, I spent a day just going through them, clicking, and reading stories in categories I DON'T have a story in, because I'm always interested in other author's work.

That the reader takes into account other stories?

I was responding to voting on SOL stories, not Clitorides stories.

I agree with the majority of what you posted.

There is one thing that you overlooked in the quote of my text.

Yes, I did say like/dislike of a story relative to other stories. I deliberately avoided the aspect of the story the voter was considering for people rate stories based on many different things, which I do not control and I have no knowledge of what a reader is using as the basis of their rating.

For example: Readers vote for who the author is, they vote for the types of sexual activities included (or lack of sex), or for some other aspect that has no bearing on the quality of the story. If you recall, when the topic of why voters vote the way they do was addressed in another thread, one poster said they always rate the story as a 10 because the author put in a lot of time and effort writing the story.

Even if one was considerably longer than all the others, the others still have some merit

Actually, I've seen stories that, in my opinion, had no business being nominated because they were so bad. While I understand you want us to rank them relative to each other, but I compare this to some of our local elections.

Some offices have 'vote for no more than three' and my vote counts if I vote for only one or two. If I don't think any of the other candidates are at all qualified, I'm not forced to vote for them.

Planned. There are a few nominations from other sites. And they sometimes win awards.

AJ

clitoridesawards.org

I wonder whether domain penidesawards.org has been taken.

If not, those who complain about the clitorides awards voting structure might like to claim it for their 'improved' awards competition ;-)

AJ

Wouldn't entering the penidesawards be limited to CBT stories??

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy stories? Would anyone read them?

Alternatively orchidesawards.org ;-)

AJ

Piercings ruin a perfectly good playground

Is that a general rule? Some men find that a tongue stud enhances a blowjob and some women find that a clit piercing enhances their sensitivity.

AJ

what sounded like two young ladies in ecstasy

I can imagine that the young lady with the clit ring might find that enjoyable, but surely not the young lady with the tongue stud ;-)

AJ

There are some people that don't have nipples (people who have had a mastectomy due to breast cancer, and yes, men can get breast cancer too).

Anus would me more inclusive

Actually, there are more people lacking an anus than there are lacking nipples.

there's no more than one anus

Technically, those who have had an ostomy could claim they have an artificial anus. It sure as hell doesn't get used for analingus or anal sex though ;-)

AJ

but the anus is not actually removed

I suppose that does depend on the severity and where (country) the surgery is/was carried out. For instance, my partner has had their bowel removed and sewn shut, so where most people have a 'hole' there is just skin.

It is, as we often joke, a shit subject....

NippleAwards.org sounds more erotic.

aroslav would vote for that. Emphasis on nipples is one of his 'tells'.

AJ