Would it be possible to implement an option to the voting list that would allow a reader to remove their vote?
Would it be possible to implement an option to the voting list that would allow a reader to remove their vote?
Would it be possible to implement an option to the voting list that would allow a reader to remove their vote?
Why not just change it?
Why not just change it?
I've decided to exit a story without finishing it. I gave it a medium rating since I didn't care for it. I later decided it wasn't right to rate the story when I read less than 20% of it and exited it because I didn't care for the direction the storyline was going. I would have liked to be able to cancel my vote instead of leaving what might be an unfair rating and since I hadn't finished the story, I didn't know what a fair rating would be.
I've decided to exit a story without finishing it. I gave it a medium rating since I didn't care for it. I later decided it wasn't right to rate the story when I read less than 20% of it and exited it because I didn't care for the direction the storyline was going. I would have liked to be able to cancel my vote instead of leaving what might be an unfair rating and since I hadn't finished the story, I didn't know what a fair rating would be.
At first I thought the same, why not just change the vote. But this is a very good reason to remove a vote instead of changing it.
I tried to do this through My Library > History. You can change votes there in a list but you can't change them back to 'select score'.
At first I thought the same, why not just change the vote. But this is a very good reason to remove a vote instead of changing it.
To me it sounds like a classic reason to give the story a lowish score because it didn't appeal to the reader. And if it didn't appeal to one reader, it won't appeal to some others either.
What's the point of scoring a story's appeal, if readers only score a story if they really like it? That's dishonest.
AJ
To me it sounds like a classic reason to give the story a lowish score because it didn't appeal to the reader. And if it didn't appeal to one reader, it won't appeal to some others either.
Isn't that a bit unfair to the readers it would appeal to (assuming well written)?
What's the point of scoring a story's appeal, if readers only score a story if they really like it? That's dishonest.
I have to disagree. If only readers who find a story appealing vote on its appeal, the score isn't a genuine reflection on the story's general appeal.
As to whether stories are 'unfairly' voted down because they hit a reader's squick, I think you have to trust readers to make that decision for themselves.
AJ
the score isn't a genuine reflection on the story's general appeal.
Why should the score reflect general appeal as opposed to it's appeal to it's specific target audience?
Why should the score reflect general appeal as opposed to it's appeal to it's specific target audience?
The fact that the reader started to read the story indicates they believed they were part of the target audience.
AJ
The fact that the reader started to read the story indicates they believed they were part of the target audience.
No, it doesn't. I've had readers deliberately ignore the codes and then complain about coded for content.
@awnlee jawking
The fact that the reader started to read the story indicates they believed they were part of the target audience.
No, it doesn't. I've had readers deliberately ignore the codes and then complain about coded for content.
To expand on this:
If the reader feels the story was deceptively marketed, that's a legitimate reason to give it a low score
On the other hand, if a reader who doesn't like and therefore generally doesn't read science fiction, comes across a story clearly marked as science fiction, decides to try reading it anyway and then couldn't get into the story because it was science fiction, that's a different matter.
What's the point of scoring a story's appeal, if readers only score a story if they really like it? That's dishonest.
The point was removing a score because only a (small) part of the story was read and it didn't appeal enough to continue reading. It's more reasonable for the author to have such a vote removed than keeping a low vote because the reader didn't like where the story was going but he can't remove the vote. I agree that the reader shouldn't have voted so soon but if a serial is posted, every time after the last post the voting is visible so for some it's challenging NOT to vote, even after a first installment. If a vote could be removed some of the low scores might be taken of the list.
You appear to be saying that if a reader votes a story down because it doesn't appeal to them enough to complete the whole story, then they shouldn't vote.
I consider that to compromise the appeal rating.
In some ways the low scores are more valuable than the low scores because of the number of readers who allocate a 10 because they like the author's other stories, or just because the author bothered to write and post a story.
AJ
You appear to be saying that if a reader votes a story down because it doesn't appeal to them enough to complete the whole story, then they shouldn't vote.
No, it's for times when the reader misinterpreted what he started to read, it wasn't what he thought it would be but had already voted on it. The (low) vote was not because the story was bad but because the reader found it wasn't what he wanted to read after all. In such a case he shouldn't have voted but if you already did before you got to that point you can't remove it.
The (low) vote was not because the story was bad
In other words, the story wasn't bad but didn't appeal.
AJ
The (low) vote was not because the story was bad but because the reader found it wasn't what he wanted to read after all.
In such a case, isn't it likely that there'd be other readers who'd - in the absence of a low score warning them - perhaps similarly be misled into wasting their time on the story?
In such a case, isn't it likely that there'd be other readers who'd - in the absence of a low score warning them - perhaps similarly be misled into wasting their time on the story?
Except you don't know that the first reader was in fact mislead. Maybe they just took a chance on something they wouldn't normally read.
Except you don't know that the first reader was in fact mislead. Maybe they just took a chance on something they wouldn't normally read.
It could be the the first parts of the story were within a particular reader's comfort level so they voted on the story. Some parts posted later caused the reader to chose to abandon the story.
It would provide an alternative to leaving a score that might reflect on the technical quality of the story while be the time the reader hated it, or the reader giving a story a 1-3 vote simply because it turns out they simply don't like the overall theme.
I've decided to exit a story without finishing it. I gave it a medium rating since I didn't care for it.
I assume that when you started to read the story, nothing in the title, description or story codes was objectionable to you, and that if the story was part of a series or universe then you weren't unhappy with that series. (If book 1 did not appeal, later book in a series are less likely to do so; as only fans continue on, it's not surprising that ratings normally rise for later parts in a series.) If that's right, your low score is a valuable hint to other readers, please don't change or remove it. For example, I would mark down a story if I found out it hit one of my major squicks, if I felt that I should have been warned. (Off-screen mentions of the squick don't automatically count, though.) If, however, the squick had been mentioned in the description or codes, or the caution tag had been used, I would be wrong to mark down, and would not vote. It's a question of being fair both to the author and to other readers.
(I don't read stories where the description warns that new codes will be added later. I also won't read stories with voting disabled, unless I like the author's other stories.
Among other factors, reader scores affect whether I will read a story, so to help others with a similar attitude I'll vote on a serial as soon as there is enough published for me to have a firm opinion - and I'll revise my vote as the story progresses.)
You didn't like the story. So a low score is appropriate.
Too many people think that scores should only be given to stories they like. That leads to score inflation, which Laz has to find ways to counteract.
Not all stories are good. Not all scores should be, either.
I'm a "late voter", waiting until I'm a long way into a multipart story - or have finished a single-chapter one - before voting. Occasionally I'll go though my "Historical Access" list and add votes for stories which were missed altogether, or remove stories where I read a couple of paragraphs and abandoned them.
Hysterical Access is only offered for Premier members.
Obviously a large number of authors facilitate late voting by not turning voting on until they have posted a number of chapters.
Hysterical Access is only offered for Premier members.
"Hysterical means "marked by uncontrollable, extreme emotion." If your favorite sports team wins a championship, you might get hysterical and started weeping and screaming all at once. Hysterical can also mean "extremely funny," even more so than hilarious."
Would it be possible to implement an option to the voting list that would allow a reader to remove their vote?
Yes it would be possible BUT why should it be made available?? Isn't it reasonable to expect a reader to vote responsibly?
If a reader chooses to vote on a story before it is completed then they are able to change their vote. If a reader dislikes not being able to remove their vote, the solution is simple. Don't vote until you've read the entire story.
To state the blindingly obvious, would you accept an examiner marking your work after only reading a part of your exam answers? No.
I'm not suggesting that readers refrain from voting, I am suggesting that if you choose to act, you accept the consequences. So vote wisely.
What some seem to overlook is the reader who starts a story because it seems to be interesting but the description is lacking the detail of what the story was really about.
As I described above, I was in that situation. I was upset at myself for failing to approach the story with a 'this may not be what I think it is attitude'. As a result, I gave it a low score. I subsequently realized my anger was at myself, not the author; although the author contributed by providing a poor description. What I wanted to do was rescind my vote, but it wasn't possible. I did modify my rating, but couldn't give the story an informed rating for I wasn't willing to read more of the story. While the story did not appeal to me, it did appeal to many readers.
What I wanted to do was rescind my vote, but it wasn't possible. I did modify my rating, but couldn't give the story an informed rating for I wasn't willing to read more of the story.
So your original score was uninformed? Or is a partial read sufficient to be informed?
Not that it matters. There is little consensus upon how to score a story and absolutely no way to 'police' scoring. It is after all subjective. Shouldn't it matter more that we encourage readers to vote, rather than try to dictate how they score a story?
So your original score was uninformed?
No. The score was a knee-jerk reaction to being angry that the description mislead me to read the first chapter.
I agree we should encourage voting. It would be nice if the votes reflected the readers' opinions of the story rather than some of the previously expressed rationales presented in this Forum. Such as, I always give the story a 10 because the author put out the effort to write the story.
You are all missing the point. It's not whether the reader was tricked into reading a story or if they made a mistake starting it, it's simply the case of the reader giving the story a score and then regretting doing that and wanting to undo it.
No, that was understood. I merely was pointing out that there would be good reasons for leaving the lower score - specificly that since it was implied that the reader had expected to like the story, but ended up not liking it, it's reasonable that other readers might make the same mistake, but if the story had a lower score perhaps they'd be less likely to invest their time to find out.
specificly that since it was implied that the reader had expected to like the story, but ended up not liking it, it's reasonable that other readers might make the same mistake
No, that's not necessarily reasonable.
1. Occasionally a reader somehow makes the stupid assumption that coded for content will be "off screen" and reads a story despite squick codes. In such a case, down voting the story is unfair to both the author (who couldn't have done anything different to help that reader) and the intended audience.
2. Sometimes a reader will take knowingly take a chance on something outside of what they normally read. I've done this myself occasionally. It does not reasonably imply anything about other readers. Down voting the story because the reader knowingly took a risk is unfair to both the author and the intended audience.