I noticed that I am able to rate my own stories, and that rating influences that story's rating.
Is this intentional?
Is there a reason an author would not vote their own story a 10? If not, can we just assume that vote?
I realize this is getting into voting system discussion again, but I mostly want to understand the motivation in this particular corner case.
Is this intentional?
To prevent that from happening would require the voting system to test to see if the author and the person voting had the same account.
Is there a reason an author would not vote their own story a 10?
I can see two reasons. The first might be that after the story has been up a while the author reads it and decides to give it a vote based on how they would rate a similar story written by someone else.
The second would be to see the effect a single vote of a particular number might have on the overall score.
Looking at the number of votes for your stories, my guess is that the difference would be less than a tenth of a point for any of them.
Since the lowest and highest 10% of the votes are discarded, it might even be possible that a one vote in a story might actually increase the displayed score.
Since the lowest and highest 10% of the votes are discarded, it might even be possible that a one vote in a story might actually increase the displayed score.
This has to be the thread with the confusing replies, or I'm not fully awake yet.
Since the lowest and highest 10% of the votes are discarded, it might even be possible that a one vote in a story might actually increase the displayed score.
I'm struggling to come up with an example where that would be the case.
Since the lowest and highest 10% of the votes are discarded, it might even be possible that a one vote in a story might actually increase the displayed score.
I'm struggling to come up with an example where that would be the case.
When I was testing changes to the scoring system with Lazeez, I gave one of my stories a 10. The score went down. The reason is, the last time the score was calculated the (what I call) fudge factor was different than when it recalculated the story with the new 10.
Maybe that's what he means. It's more the recalculation than the new score.
The reason is, the last time the score was calculated the (what I call) fudge factor was different than when it recalculated the story with the new 10.
If I understand your Fudge factor correctly, my ratings are in part based on the ratings of other authors. Thus a rating on one of my stories can go up or down when recalculated even if no one submits or changes a rating.
If I understand your Fudge factor correctly, my ratings are in part based on the ratings of other authors. Thus a rating on one of my stories can go up or down when recalculated even if no one submits or changes a rating.
Yup, and Switch is right. I didn't think of that. It really could happen; most unlikely but it could.
Thus a rating on one of my stories can go up or down when recalculated even if no one submits or changes a rating.
Except that's the only time your story is recalculated. When someone votes on it.
Except that's the only time your story is recalculated. When someone votes on it.
My stories' scores have moved up or down despite no new votes having been recorded. From the frequency with which it happens, I wouldn't have thought it likely to be due to readers changing their votes.
AJ
My stories' scores have moved up or down despite no new votes having been recorded.
Maybe someone who has already voted changed their vote. Since their old vote is just changed to their new vote, there would probably be no new vote recorded.
When someone votes on it.
So assuming I had voted on a story and there had been no additional votes or changes to an existing vote, I could go to my story and resubmit my vote without changing the rating. Would that trigger a recalculation?
without changing the rating. Would that trigger a recalculation?
I'm not the authority on the scoring system. My guess is a new vote would have to be cast or a vote changed to trigger a recalculation. Why would the system recalculate a story's score if nothing changed?
To prevent that from happening would require the voting system to test to see if the author and the person voting had the same account.
Given that there's a map from account to pen names (since it shows up in Author stuff), I don't feel like this is really much of a technical impediment.
Is this intentional?
As far as I know, an author has always been able to vote on his own story.
The only time I've seen that happen is when a person wasn't properly logged in for some reason.
The only time I've seen that happen is when a person wasn't properly logged in for some reason.
Huh? I don't understand. Seen what happening? Someone voting on his own story? Like SB I thought that was always possible.
Seen what happening?
Seen someone not able to vote on a story - they had an issue with the cookies and had to log out, log in and then they could vote. It was either a stale cookie locking something up or logged out while the page still displayed - I don't know, but a log out and in fixed it.
I realize this is getting into voting system discussion again, but I mostly want to understand the motivation in this particular corner case.
I think you look at it the wrong way. Allowing an author to vote on his own story is no additional implemented feature. My question would be, why should Lazeez invest any effort to prevent it?
In every voting system I've implemented (for various internal things), we've always treated the author of the thing specially when it came to voting, either by not letting them vote on their own stuff, or by assuming they vote for it at the highest level.
In every voting system I've implemented (for various internal things), we've always treated the author of the thing specially when it came to voting, either by not letting them vote on their own stuff, or by assuming they vote for it at the highest level.
That's reasonable for a relative small group of voters and in cases where a further decision is depending on the outcome of the voting. That's not the case here. So I have to ask again, why should Lazeez spent any time and effort to exclude authors from voting on their own stories?
To avoid skewing the results relative to the authors who realize they can game the system by voting for their own things.
I recognize volume of votes probably makes this effect negligible, but it is still a thing I found curious.
"Yes, it's intentional, because the volume of votes is large enough to make the author's self vote negligible, so it's not worth the additional code to prevent it" would also have been a perfectly fine answer.
"Yes, it's intentional, because the volume of votes is large enough to make the author's self vote negligible, so it's not worth the additional code to prevent it" would also have been a perfectly fine answer.
I couldn't give you that answer because I've no insight about Lazeez' possible intentions.
I couldn't give you that answer because I've no insight about Lazeez' possible intentions.
The way you answered my original query strongly implied that you did.
The way you answered my original query strongly implied that you did.
Huh? This was my initial answer/question:
I think you look at it the wrong way. Allowing an author to vote on his own story is no additional implemented feature. My question would be, why should Lazeez invest any effort to prevent it?
Where does it imply I'd know what Lazeez reasons may be?
Reasons != intentions.
My request was whether the self-voting ability was intended or not. Your answer asking why Lazeez would implement it implies that it was intended.
(I.e. if it were not intended, and was therefore a bug, the question of "why would he implement [thing he intended to implement]?" makes no sense)
My request was whether the self-voting ability was intended or not. Your answer asking why Lazeez would implement it implies that it was intended.
I stated 'Allowing an author to vote on his own story is no additional implemented feature'. So my question why Lazeez should prevent authors from voting didn't imply anything except my own interest for such a suggestion.
To avoid skewing the results relative to the authors who realize they can game the system by voting for their own things.
They only get 1 vote, so it won't have much effect.
BTW it a 10% cut of the top 5% and the bottom 5% of votes to kill off most fanbois and hate voters.
I believe someone has previously made the observation that people can open multiple accounts with different e-mail addresses and vote for their own works many times. And that's the reason only paying members can vote in competitions. They can still game the system, but at least they have to pay for the privilege.
I have never voted for my own stories, so those 1-bombs were from someone else :(
AJ
I have never voted for my own stories, so those 1-bombs were from someone else :(
Dammit! You'd have been my prime suspect.
I have never voted for my own stories, so those 1-bombs were from someone else :(
Do I detect a hate for your own stories?
Do I detect a hate for your own stories?
I'm proud of my writing. 'Rue Britannia' collected the full range of possible votes, 1-10, within the first 23 votes cast. How many writers here have bettered that? ;)
AJ
'Rue Britannia'
Speaking of which, after his new haircut, doesn't Prince Wilhelm look the spitting image of his biological father, Prince Philo!
AJ
people can open multiple accounts with different e-mail addresses and vote for their own works many times.
Ah, yes, that would be an issue, and given the ease of doing that, I can see why it's probably not worth keeping an author from just self-voting.
I am a little surprised that this thread has not yet devolved into masturbation jokes.