Forum: Bug Report and Feature Requests

Individual particularly virulent feedback might get a strong suggestion from other readers or even from Management of the site, but blocking access is entirely contrary to the spirit of the site.

As an author, I'm not concerned with individuals expressing their opinion. My only objection, which we've discussed extensively and try to minimize, are readers who seek out stories they disagree with, merely to 1-bomb them to prevent anyone from reading something they disagree with (politics, sexual identity, sexual picadillos, etc.)

The current system deal with the outliers quite well by dumping the op and bottom 5% of votes - thus dumping the 1 bombers and the fanboi 10s - before calculating the displayed score for the story.

Are you suggesting that a brilliantly written story is best rated 9?

no, just that the system cuts the top 5% of scores by fanbois and the bottom 5% of scores by bombers (regardless of the number) to calculate the score based on the average of what's left. If a story gets 100 scores at 10 and that's all they get, then the calculation will be based on 90 scores of 10.

If you restrict the 1-scores, you must also restrict the other end, the 10-scores. Both is already done, since the top and bottom 5 percent are not counted for the adjusted mean scores. If somebody gets more than 5% 1s and 2s on a story, chances are that many readers want to make a point :o). After all, the vast majority of the readers are very fair and supportive in their scoring, and forgiving of small mistakes.

If you restrict the 1-scores, you must also restrict the other end, the 10-scores. Both is already done, since the top and bottom 5 percent are not counted for the adjusted mean scores. If somebody gets more than 5% 1s and 2s on a story, chances are that many readers want to make a point :o). After all, the vast majority of the readers are very fair and supportive in their scoring, and forgiving of small mistakes.

The fact of the matter is, few readers will even bother to vote anything lower than a 5. Instead, they'll simply quit reading after the first chapter.

The 1-bombers typically seek out stories they despise, JUST so they can harm the author. Thus we're tossing out 5% of valid 10 votes, in exchange for a few malicious attacks. The solution works, but again, it largely punishes authors (a little big) for the sins of a small handful of readers (who pull the same trick often).

The current 'feedback by email' system will be phased out and replaced by an on-site private messaging system. The new system will have troll blocking built in.

Sounds good, though as I mentioned earlier, few 'Trolls' continue attacking anyone via email, instead switching to votes once it becomes clear the author isn't listening any more.

I actually like the 'feedback by email'

Me too. I've had some interesting discussions with readers via e-mail and to maintain equivalent functionality would require a sophisticated e-mail type service and a significant amount of bandwidth.

Would you and any other administrators have access to the contents of private messages? I can see that might be a concern for some.

AJ

My mistake :(

AJ

I've had some interesting discussions with readers via e-mail and to maintain equivalent functionality would require a sophisticated e-mail type service and a significant amount of bandwidth.

I've always saved the majority of my reader feedback (other than the occasional "Thanks"), so I'd prefer keeping the feedback in email, even if I have to export it in email format.

Not only is it a great ego boost, but I often include the responses as positive reviews in my books and on my website (after altering the poster, that is).

I understand that an author can choose not to receive comments. Perhaps Lazeez could arrange for the facility for an author to tell him "no more messages from ******" to me". Too many messages from different authors about the same source and Lazeez would know there is an apparent problem with the named sender.

The problem is, most authors don't object to the emails, as we feel everyone is entitled to their opinions. Typically the 1-bombs follow the email exchanges, or are completely independent of email responses. Thus blocking 1-bombers wouldn't help anyone.

However, reporting 1-bombers, or even better, if Lezeez could identify anyone who routinely 1-bombed specific authors or certain types of stories, he could intervene, or at least identify how big of an issue it was, once and for all. So far, it seems limited to a small subset of individuals with very specific tastes, who prefer attacking authors indirectly, rather than directly addressing them.

Since there are lots more ones than expected by a normal curve, clearly votes on SOL aren't normal.

Readers' votes tend to form a smoothish curve with 'false' peaks at 1 (the 1-bombers) and 10 (the fanbois). If anything, the fanbois are a bigger problem than the 1-bombers. However it should be possible to ignore the number of 1 and 10 votes and estimate what they should be from the rest of the voting, leading to story scores which are more suitable for comparisons.

This wouldn't actually work for long in practice. Readers determined to game the system would soon learn to give 2s to stories they hate and 9s to authors they love.

AJ

This wouldn't actually work for long in practice. Readers determined to game the system would soon learn to give 2s to stories they hate and 9s to authors they love.

Add in some readers feel a story deserves a real 10 and you come down to why the current system of the top and bottom 5% are dropped. The more votes a story gets, the less influence the fanbois and 1 bombers have on the score, because more votes on each end drop out.

The more votes a story gets, the less influence the fanbois and 1 bombers have on the score, because more votes on each end drop out.

By and large, I get more 10s than I do anything else, though the 6s and 7s temper the 10s more than the few 1s. (Note: I need to double check my scores to see where the majority of my votes fall, though I do remember a LOT of 10 votes, mainly because that's what I look at first!). :)

It doesn't appear as if the 1s and 10s are completely discarded

They aren't all discarded. The system takes the total number of votes, calculates 5% (rounding down to a whole number), then removes that number of votes starting from both ends, then does the calculations on the rest as if those votes don't exist.

What is interesting is that some votes don't have much of an effect, while others do.

80 votes are lodged. 5% of 80 is 4 votes. Thus the 4 highest votes and the 4 lowest votes are discarded. Time moves on, and 90 votes are now in. 5% of 90 is 4.5 votes - rounds down to 4 votes and takes the 4 votes off each end. 99 votes are in, and it will still only remove 4 votes off each end. However, when the 100th vote is lodged the system will now take 5 votes off each end because the 5% is now the whole number of 5 votes. This does cause some odd fluctuations with low numbers of votes.

Another oddity is the vote spread effect. In a case with 85 votes and 4 being cut off each end, and the 4 lowest votes are two 1s, a 4, and a 5. Some 1 bomber votes a 1 which now changes the cuts to three 1s and the 4, so the 1 vote now makes the 5 vote eligible for inclusion. The same sort of thing can happen at the other end. It all depends on the spread of the actual votes lodged.

The number of 1-bombers and fanbois are usually unbalanced. In some cases, the fanbois dishing out 10s purely because they like the author, rather than judging a story on its merits, results in the false peak of 10 votes being larger than the true peak.

While omitting the extreme 5%s is better than nothing, not tackling the fanbois properly means that new writers who submit a good story might get 7.5-8.0, say, whereas a cult author would get 9.1-9.2 for an equivalent story.

That might help towards 'keeping our writers' but the downside is that it discourages new writers.

AJ

That might help towards 'keeping our writers' but the downside is that it discourages new writers.

That might be true of authors who keep a close watch on their scores, the scores of others, and give a damn about what they're seeing. I know some authors do, but most authors I've exchanged emails with don't.

However it should be possible to ignore the number of 1 and 10 votes and estimate what they should be from the rest of the voting, leading to story scores which are more suitable for comparisons.

I'm not so sure about that. True, 'fanboys' rate certain stories up, but that's because those stories appeal the most to them, rather than they ONLY pass out 10s to every story they read (i.e. they focus on the stories they prefer), whereas the fewer 1-bombers actively (in my experience) go out of their way to down-vote stories (say anything involving gay sex, or scat stories).

But again, we need a broader picture of the 10-voters. Do they in fact vote 10 for everyone, or only for their favorite authors?

Likewise, in most cases, the 1-bombers will vote their favorite stories up, only attacking those they despise with their favored 1-bombs. In neither case is it an 'all or nothing' strategy.

(and he has more right to it than me!)

Minor editorial nit: "than I".

Putting my email address on messages seems automatic within "the system". I don't bother to put my real name because when authors write back to me the copy of my message always shows they have received my real name.

For years, I'd use one account to send author comments, just so they wouldn't be influenced by my reputation (especially with new authors, or when I'd suggest alternate techniques). That way I knew they'd consider the suggestions based on their content, rather than what they thought they were 'supposed' to do.

A bit of history, I joined SOL with one ID, then created a new, unaffiliated 'author ID', so some authors know me by one ID, while most know me by the one I use on the Forum.

I for one would be happy to stand behind all the votes I've given, and I don't send anonymous feedback. It might be worth a little discomfort for some if we can keep authors from leaving in disgust.

Sorry, but there have been a few exchanges between authors which, after becoming heated, ended up with reports of abuse. I'd rather not have my private conversations about sexual kinks up for review by anyone other than the participants. If one of the participants WANTS to reveal what was said to prove a point, that's one thing, however having Lezeez (or any outsider) making that decision on their own is problematic, at best.

As Lazeez pointed out, he never considered the protest that started this whole conversation to be that offensive. One man's offense may be another's 'helpful suggestion'.

I just wanted authors to be able to see who sent any email or contact, and who voted what score.

I don't know about the "and who voted what score" part. That should be private, just like when you cast your vote in an election.

that's the whole idea behind a secret ballot.

The secret ballot is for the final election - the Primaries are for the party members to choose a candidate, and that's a different matter.

Which is why it should be illegal for them to require you to register for the party you intend to vote for. Kind of takes the 'secret' out of 'secret ballot', doesn't it.

There's an easy solution to that (at least in the U.S.). Just register as an Independent, then you can vote for whoever you want. The only penalty is, you're no longer eligible to vote in political primaries. So pick your poison, vote whoever you want in the final election, or retain your ability to determine who the final candidates are.

when political pollsters or supporters call and ask who I plan to vote

Next time they call, say, "I don't know yet, all the Academy Award nominations aren't in yet."

I don't know how my post was interpreted to mean that anyone or everyone could see all dialogues, because that was never my intention.

The response was over Lazeez building in a facility to review individual posts to authors, or build a record of everyone's votes. That sounds even more chilling than trolls trying to degrade a story to advance a minority view. After all, the trolls are easily countered, as there are never more than a few of them at a time. However, the monitoring is permanent.

My counter proposal, to keep things the way they are, argues that it's OK for someone to send Lazeez a copy of an offensive message (a private email), if they feel it was purposefully malicious. However, it's questionable whether he should have the ability to review ALL private messages.

Knowing him, I doubt he'd ever violate anyone's privacy, but I'd rather not build such over-reaching tools into the system. After all, all it would take is a single court order, and Every private SOL message would be reviewable by an overeager prosecutor!

I'm happy to receive anonymous e-mails. Yes, a few readers go over the top, but generally they seem prepared to be more forthright when they know they don't have to worry about snarky responses from pouty authors.

Accepting anonymous e-mails also seems to have encouraged more votes in my 'is this a Fairy Tale?' poll - the ayes now clearly exceed the nays. (Stop Press - mine is now not the only Fairy Tale, despite the new tag not being publicised by the site news.)

Perhaps there should be a proper reader-polling facility which authors can initiate, although that would probably appear very low on the list of potential site enhancements.

AJ

Yes, a few readers go over the top, but generally they seem prepared to be more forthright when they know they don't have to worry about snarky responses from pouty authors.

I know what you mean, and also allow anonymous emails. however, what I absolutely hate is when I get an anonymous email that includes a question they want answered. It's a bit hard to send them an answer in that situation.

That's a dilemma. Netiquette says you shouldn't publicly share the contents of a private message without permission. I treat the question as rhetorical but that's unsatisfactory because sometimes it's a very incisive question.

AJ

What I absolutely hate is when I get an anonymous email that includes a question they want answered

This drives me crazy. Why ask a question if you send your feedback without a way to respond to it. Maddening.

Why ask a question if you send your feedback without a way to respond to it.

Probably because they didn't realize it was going anonymously.

This drives me crazy. Why ask a question if you send your feedback without a way to respond to it. Maddening.

The same thing happens when they send a normal response, but mistype their email address (since it wasn't always automatically filled in).

I'm happy to receive anonymous e-mails. Yes, a few readers go over the top, but generally they seem prepared to be more forthright when they know they don't have to worry about snarky responses from pouty authors.

As I stated earlier, I don't get many helpful anonymous emails. Mostly, their either wholey critical, or more often, "I don't mean to waste your time with a written response, but ..." (often asking specific questions I can't answer).

I think poll question are the exception, as they realize you don't care about detailed discussions, just yeah or nah votes.

Having tried to add polling software to my website, I wouldn't want to try to program it for an entire website!

In the United Kingdom all eligible persons should be registered with their local council.

We don't call it a "local council" but that's how it works here.

The council then advise what building is to be used to cast your vote.

Same here. The building is often a school or church.

Vote is marked on ballot paper, folded and placed in box. Voting is supervised by council officials, some full time officers assisted by occasional officials.

Same here except it's usually an electronic machine. There are people supervising the voting.

Representatives of candidates may be present but you do not have to tell anyone about your vote.

No politicing is allow within so many feet of the voting place.

So it's not really different.

People are also allowed to register for postal votes. Intended for the elderly, the disabled and people unable to get to a polling station, postal votes have proved popular in immigrant communities with no culture of democracy. The postal votes are collected by the 'village elders' who decide how they should be cast.

AJ

Intended for the elderly, the disabled and people unable to get to a polling station, postal votes have proved popular in immigrant communities with no culture of democracy.

It's also heavily used by servicemen, both those overseas and those stationed far from home who can't make it home in time to vote.

It's also heavily used by servicemen, both those overseas and those stationed far from home who can't make it home in time to vote.

Absentee voting (by mail) is not only used by the disabled or servicemen or other people away from home. I always vote by mail. I can't remember the last time I went to a voting place.

Absentee voting (by mail) is not only used by the disabled or servicemen or other people away from home. I always vote by mail. I can't remember the last time I went to a voting place.

It's also used by zombies, vampires (who can't go out during the day) and monsters (who get attacked by villages whenever they venture out to the local voting areas). It's not just the deceased that need alternate voting options!

I always vote by mail

So do I. Last time I voted at a voting place, I must have timed it wrong for had to stand in line for almost an hour.

For the last election they were all restricted to being no closer than 100metres from the polling station.

Bliss. No more running the gauntlet & having "How to vote" cards from 15 different people thrust at you.

It's only 500 feet in the U.S., and you still have to run a guantlet of people from the various parties trying to shove pamplets at you, trying to talk up their candidate.

Plus, the Justice department decided NOT to actively pursue voting irregularities this year, unless specifically invited to do so (only 10 municipalities are required to by the courts). This is despite the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned the "Voting Rights Act" not specifying any such restrictions. Thus while Trump supporters are suggesting "monitoring voting" in force, there's no one to constrain them if they take things into their own hands. :(

Of course, it could go the other way too. After all, Gary Johnson might wrestle some voter to the ground--in the wrong state, of course! :)

Where? I've never encountered anything like that.

I'm in N.C. at the moment (in a very contentious election, since the entire country is protesting the actions of the Governor). When I went to vote (early voting) there was a designated area where anyone handing out materials were required to stand, however they asked anyone walking through the parking lot whether they 'wanted information' about who to vote for.

Rather than get into an argument, or risk cursing at them, I simply declared "I already know who I'm voting for," and kept walking.

In Washington sometimes the ballot is so long it requires 68 cents postage, instead of the normal 47 cents.

Seems us Aussies are ahead of you on that. Here, a postal vote is done via a postage free envelope sent with the ballot papers.

Seems us Aussies are ahead of you on that. Here, a postal vote is done via a postage free envelope sent with the ballot papers.

It's postage free here too. He was being satirical.

It's postage free here too. He was being satirical.

see what happens when you leave the tags off! People believe what you say.