At the moment, when you look at the story score page, it just gives you the amount of the largest column of votes. Is it possible to replace/include a scale with that table/graph, so that the total numbers of the other values can be more accurately known? Or possibly a little pop up when you place the mouse over the column, like '57' when you hover over the bar for 5, '6' when you hover over the bar for 7 etc, etc.
No.
I'm contemplating removing the vote distribution graph altogether, I'm not about to enhance it.
I'm contemplating removing the vote distribution graph altogether, I'm not about to enhance it.
In my opinion, that would be a retrograde step. I find the graph furnishes valuable information about my readers.
AJ
In my opinion, that would be a retrograde step. I find the graph furnishes valuable information about my readers.
And furnishes authors with reasons to be upset with the voting system.
It's much easier to accept the score one gets if one does not see the graph. And since the scoring system is not about to be changed, the graph is a source of grief.
Implementing the graph is the one thing that I regret doing in the site's engine.
And furnishes authors with reasons to be upset with the voting system.
The following is an observation, not a complaint or a request.
If a story's rating was based solely on the average of the voter's raw scores with or without the removal of the top and bottom 5% of the votes from the histogram and average (with removal would be best), instead of adjusting the ratings based on other author's works, your response to anyone that objected to the scoring system could be:
If you want better ratings, you need to: write better plots, develop your characters better, and/or reduce the number of grammatical errors and typos.
If you want better ratings, you need to: write better plots, develop your characters better, and/or reduce the number of grammatical errors and typos.
Those things matter... to an extent.
But on a site dealing with adult content, let's be honest... if you want high scores, you need to write the kind of content that appeals most to the voters, and dissuade those who dislike that content from voting.
Some writers may want high scores enough for that. Others will just respond "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."
you need to write the kind of content that appeals most to the voters
Content will affect whether a reader will read your stories and it also stops some readers from reading your stories. Content will affect scores; however, I do not see how content relates to the way the voting system works. My understand the relationship doesn't really matter, so if it does relate, just consider it to be something to add to those items I listed.
Content will affect scores; however, I do not see how content relates to the way the voting system works.
You remove context where I specified that if a writer cared only about high scores, my next comment applied.
However, many readers would use a carrot/stick approach, and give '1' to content they didn't like, and '10' to content they did like... which led to the wildly skewed raw scores over a decade ago, which led to Laz implementing a new scoring mechanism. So it was somewhat applicable, even though I'd specified a much more restrictive topic.
However, many readers would use a carrot/stick approach, and give '1' to content they didn't like, and '10' to content they did like... which led to the wildly skewed raw scores
Not so (to my knowledge, anyway). Way back when, people only voted for stories they liked or finished or something like that, so the scores were almost all high. That led to inflated scores. That made the system useless as a tool for readers to decide what to read so Lazeez took action.
I think the carrot/stick approach is used today to encourage authors to write what they like and not write what they don't.
Not so (to my knowledge, anyway).
People who wrote content that certain groups objected to, definitely got it. rache wasn't the only one, it's just that rache was the only one who reacted to that by bringing more of the same.
People who wrote content that certain groups objected to, definitely got it.
In that case, all the scores wouldn't have been so high. That's what I remember from the discussions. All the scores were in the 9's so Lazeez had to make an adjustment.
Most stories stuck to the 'popular' kinks. Teenage incest harems and such, or straight up mf romance. The content that wasn't popular was much rarer. Mostly because the '1'bombs chased off a lot of writers.
Still, I'm pretty sure that before the current voting system, there was a mechanism to reduce the impact that '1' votes had.
my next comment applied.
If I understand what you said, your modified sentence is that readers score content they like high and content they don't like low. That is the way all rating systems work be it a literary work, a dog show, or the Olympics.
In theory, in Olympic competition, there is some objective standard used, at least in part. Then there's bribes and horsetrading to get the 'artistic impression' scores to shift who is where on the podium.
There is also national pride affecting the hosting nation's judges. All judges are also influenced by their personal opinions of the contestants and whether the contestants have paid their dues.
These two factors are equivalent to 1) readers having favorite authors, so they give the author higher scores than the story warrants and 2) whether the author is new or has a track record. The track record can be either good or bad in the reader's opinion. For example: before I stopped reading a certain author's stories, I gave him a lower score than the story I was scoring may have warranted, because of his habitual poor grammar and adamant refusal to use an editor to correct those flaws.
It doesn't matter if you're scoring a Bo-Taoshi or Tiddlywinks tournament, there will always be someone somewhere unhappy with the results.
Whatever method used for scoring, consistency is the key for the usefulness of it. Changing a system repeatedly negates any real or perceived usefulness.
I agree there will always be unhappy authors and consistency is important.
Having a system that puts the onus back on the authors if they don't like their scores is the ideal. My philosophy is don't complain about problems, if you can't suggest a viable solution to the problem. I don't know how to create that the ideal rating system, so I don't complain about what is in place. Of course, I only use my story scores, as shown on the histogram, to provide an indication of how good of a job I and my editor did in writing and proofing the story. Regardless of the overall rating, I figure we did a good job if most of the individual scores were 6 or higher.
It's much easier to accept the score one gets if one does not see the graph.
I disagree. The score is almost meaningless without the detail numbers. Does a 5 mean everyone gave it a 5 or does it mean half the people gave it a 1 and half gave it a 10. Big difference. Huge difference.
I thought the graph was only shown to people who promised not to complain about the scoring system. If someone complains, take the graph away from THEM.
I thought the graph was only shown to people who promised not to complain about the scoring system. If someone complains, take the graph away from THEM.
My understanding is that every author gets the basic graph except a few who ask nicely and promise not to criticise the scoring system - in return they get a graph of all the votes with column counts. I believe EB may be one such recipient.
AJ
My understanding is that every author gets the basic graph except a few who ask nicely and promise not to criticise the scoring system - in return they get a graph of all the votes with column counts. I believe EB may be one such recipient.
As far as I know Switch is the only person to get the full picture. I didn't agree to not discuss the scores any more, but then I never disagree with them, but I do support what Lazeez does on them and how he does it. So I usually get involved in the discussions on his side.
I look at the scores as simply being a relative indicator, and leave it at that. Mind you, the only time I look at the scores is when we have discussions on them.
As far as I know Switch is the only person to get the full picture.
Apologies, my bad.
Having implemented a scoring system in a previous existence, I find the subject fascinating. It also means I understand how impossible it is to satisfy everybody.
AJ
the only time I look at the scores is when we have discussions on them.
The only time I look is when I post a new story to see how it's accepted.
I don't get a "full picture." I see the graph the OP mentioned.
Now that I think about it, maybe it's the VA Score that I see for not complaining about the system. Maybe everyone sees the graph.
I don't get a "full picture." I see the graph the OP mentioned.
Switch,
My understanding from way back when the special approval was offered, you get to see the graph with all of the votes while I, like the ordinary mortals, get to see the graph after the 5% votes are cut out.
My understanding from way back when the special approval was offered, you get to see the graph with all of the votes while I, like the ordinary mortals, get to see the graph after the 5% votes are cut out.
I don't think so, but I have no way of knowing. I think I get to see the VA Score which is the raw score.
I'm contemplating removing the vote distribution graph altogether, I'm not about to enhance it.
IMHO another backwards step. Rather, it should be enhanced, including showing the 'discarded' values on either end, and the total number of votes at each level shown.
If people complain, ignore them. I have my problems with the scoring system (which I've expressed in the past, and will not be repeated as you've made it clear the topic is not open for discussion), but taking away information from authors is a seriously retrograde step.
Transparency is key to trust, and more obfuscation will, I think, lead to even more questions about the voting system.
Rather, it should be enhanced, including showing the 'discarded' values on either end, and the total number of votes at each level shown.
Agree. I'm hitting the "Like" button.
I'm contemplating removing the vote distribution graph altogether
I don't check stats often, but that graph is the most informative one I look at. It would be better if it had what the OP asked for, but even if you don't enhance it, I beg that you don't remove it. It really is valuable.
I have to admit that removing the graph totally would be detrimental to my enjoyment of posting. I appreciate that it may be the source of constant grief- hell the scoring system really beggars belief sometimes- But removing the breakdown also removes from the author the one ability we have to see if we are improving or how a story is reacting with the reader ship. If you remove that point of contact we have with our readers,you are removing another reason to be here.
I agree with AJ, that to do so would be a terrible mistake and not in the sites best interest. But I would be intrigued to see what other writers here think of that step.
I agree with Michael. Pls ignore the complaints and keep the graph. There's no graph on FS and I miss the feedback it provides. I would like more information along the lines of earlier suggestions, not less.
I wonder how much the currently displayed score for readers really differs from a plain average of all votes.
I'm not an author but if I were I would like to have access to the raw voting data. Dump them in a spreadsheet and with a little fiddling you can have all the graphs you want.
I wonder how much the currently displayed score for readers really differs from a plain average of all votes.
It's pretty drastic.
At the time the changes were implemented, any half-decent story had a score above 9. A score of 8 either meant a barely readable story, or content that a rabid group objected to.
Now, what was a 9.7 is more like a 8, and what was a 7 is now a 5 or lower.
I'm pretty sure the raw scores dropped some when the voting options became non-numeric, too.
It's pretty drastic.
At the time the changes were implemented, any half-decent story had a score above 9. A score of 8 either meant a barely readable story, or content that a rabid group objected to.
Now, what was a 9.7 is more like a 8, and what was a 7 is now a 5 or lower.
I'm pretty sure the raw scores dropped some when the voting options became non-numeric, too.
In that case it looks like Lazeez' algorithm is doing a very good job in displaying more realistic scores.
