o Grammar (or Readability)
o Story (or Plot, Character development, Creativity, Originality)
o Sex (or Erotic enuf/Pornographic enuf)

This is a Sex/Erotic/Pornographic story site and voting shd be biased towards this. You shd be treated accordingly if you wear ultra-minis to church or a nun’s habit to a strip-joint. Writers who include ‘no-sex’ code shd not expect a high vote in a sex story site; however, shd be encouraged enuf by the high download counts (if his/her piece is really that good).

I DO give 10 and 1 scores but they will always be a comment sent out to the writers, explaining why they deserve them. I hate to have to put any writer down, and therefore gave more 10s than 1s, opting not to vote for those that I shd have given a 1. If you write trash, I shdnt even give you the time of day?

I disagree with those that said a 10 has to mean ‘the best ever’. I think this as more of a ‘bestseller’ list; this week’s bestseller may have a lower quality than last year’s, but it may be ‘the best in awhile’, therefore deserves my 10. The ‘best of the best’ will then be seen from the download and vote counts.

Lazeez, whatever voting method you move to, pls find a good way to keep them moral Nazis from coloring the votes. For eg, if I’m homophobic (or anti necro-scat) and I only see ‘mm’, ‘ff’ and/or ‘scat’ codes there, I shd have known to stay away. Some Nazis will take the trouble to go in and simply vote these stories down without any merit. Perhaps your system could keep a user’s ‘voting average’ (ala betting average) to be exposed just to the writers?

At the same time, I wld like to see a voting system that discourages writers fr churning out unerotic, unsexy and demoralizingly emotional stories and getting high scores just because they have popular/fitting endings – cheaters & homosexuals finally ended with AIDS, cheated (aka losers/lamers) lived a happy-ever-after life, etc. Protagonist can lose and antogonist can win – that’s life, deal with it! Get down fr yr soapbox and take yr bleeding heart somewhere else! This is a sex site where sex & eroticsm wins in the end!

However, I think to address the issue of score inflation, you might want to consider using the kind of descriptors (like you now use with the old scoring system) instead of the 1-10 numerical scores.

There are some authors on SOL that I do not read anymore. All of them are among the top scorers. I did not like the stories I did read – usually because either the author or a character got up on some inappropriate soapbox and started ranting.

Other authors I have enjoyed so much that I look for their stories, and ignore the scores.

That’s how I operate when I like/hate the author. If a story is in-between, I probably won’t remember the author’s name until I have read several stories by that author.

Likewise, there are some story codes that I will not read, and other story codes that I search for.

I only vote when I want to give a thumbs up or thumbs down. When I want the author to know I like them, I send feedback. When I want the author to know I hate them, I don’t.

What does that all mean? It means that if I hate an author, I don’t read or vote on their story, and the story’s score is unaffected. If I like a story, the author gets feedback, and I give the story a high score to promote it.

Conversely, a story’s score only matters to me if I don’t recognize the author’s name, and I am indifferent to the story codes.

Cast your detailed vote for: “storyname”

Technical Merit: Select Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Spelling, grammar and overall readability
Plot: Select Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Creativity, storyline and character development
Personal Appeal: Select Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Story’s emotional and/or intellectual impact on you

Switch to Basic voting form
Expanded voting form is now your default

Now to see if there’s more realistic, honest voting;
& thus if it can actually become an useful & usable tool…

thanx Lazeez; again, you’ve gone above & beyond, nicely done!
w_newd (editor for hire)
nonof_urbiz@sbcglobal.net

My main “gripe” in seeing the scores that my fellow readers attach to each story. I have read many stories where the author and editor doesn’t know the difference between there, their or they’re. This ignorance extends to you and you’re. The watering down of values goes along with the dumbing down of standards in our schools and colleges.

Thanks for all the work you put into the site, and to all the authors (yourself included) for sharing.

From my point of view the three categories breakdown as

Quality: whether or not the author used/needed a good editor–these are issues that can detract from the story. A rating of 1 means it was so bad that I couldn’t read it and a rating of 10 means that I didn’t notice anything.

Plot: How well the story was written–both characters and storyline. Again this is a rating of the author’s skill at storycraft, not whether the subject appealed to me.

As-Advertised: How well the author told me what the story would be about–both synposis and codes. Again not did I like it, but did I get what I was told to expect. I would expect this category to have the votes heavily shifted to the ten range.

A high score in the latter two categories would tell someone that they will like the sotry if they like the codes and synopsis. A high plot with a low advertised score would mean well written story, but you will have no idea what it is about until you read it. For example, the inital advertising of Miracle on 34th Street made no mention of Christmas or Santa Claus because it was released in the summer.

I may start reading a story, and find that I don’t like it, but if I have a chance to rate it on whether or not the author did their job as opposed to how well I like it, I can do a much better job of leaving feedback for both the author and for other readers.

I also think that you need to give authors the chance to respond to ratings and remove a certain number of them when they make a revision. For example, if someone posts a story and it gets a low ‘as advertised’ score because there is no sex in it. After adding the correct code, the previous ‘as advertised’ rating is no longer valid.

My final comment about the scores is to show each area instead of trying to combine them. This allows the readers to decide how to weight them. For sorting purposes, you could use the advertised score a percent to multiply times the plot.

I think showing each category is important since a Plot of 10 may outway a technical of 5 (if I am engrossed in a the story, I may not notice that ‘the too of them wlked two the store’–which I would rate a lot lower than a 5).

If I am reading the comments from several of the autors I follow correctly, their biggest complaint with a scoring system seems to be with being compared with other authors and having their stories rated low because someone doesn’t like it which may have nothing to do with the quality of the story.

I would also suggest that you do away with anonymous voting. Give readers a check box to hide their identity, but make them log in and keep their identity with the vote. That way everytime a person votes on a story, they are changing their vote not posting an additional vote.

Also, the one useful statistical tool you could apply would be to have how I vote compared to others. You could present a raw average for each category and a weighted average. The weighted average would look at the fact that I generally rate stories in the 7 range because I am trying to give meaningful feedback and want to reserve higher scores for what should be award winners, but if most readers vote in the 9-10 range, my votes would be scaled in the weighted average.

The final suggestion I would make would be to say you can vote 4-7 for plot without comment, but a very low score or very high score would require a comment. Similarly, I a score below 8 for as-advertised should require a comment. If the comments are gibberish or obviously pasted boilerplate, the author could appeal to have the vote removed. I would also suggest scoring guidelines. If we were starting over with a fair system, I would expect plot scores of 10 to be works worthy of Hugo and Nebula awards, and an 8 or better would mean that the story is good enough to be published. If the average rating of plot for stories is above 7, then you know that people are inflating the votes.

One additonal point about the ratings to continue using the previous example. I have read some stories that have one Hugo and Nebula awards that I have hated, but they have all been well written. To me, that is the value of the plot rating for the authors, the reader is saying how well they did their job.

I would also suggest having a page that anyone can go to that shows the current averages across all categories for all the stories. This would let everyone see if the scores are starting to inflate.

Hmmm…this might be an interesting concept.

You could have stats like:

Story A -
54% up
46% down

Story B -
87% up
13% down

Story C -
28% up
72% down

Though if this measure took off, it would completely alter the scoring and I am not sure people would like that.

I believe that if you limit the range to three scores: Poor, Good, Excellent the problem of score inflation will be largely solved.

Technical Quality: [0-10] Spelling, grammar, style and overall readability.

Story: [0-10] Plot, character-development, originality, and overall interest.

Appeal: [0-10] Emotional, intellectual, and sexual impact: in short, how much you liked the story overall.

Maybe a _Separate_ catagory for “Stoke Value”, NOT rolled in to the Quality/Story/Appeal combined score (and should have a “N/A” option). ???

I’d say your suggested weightings are just fine. Those who find less-than-perfect grammar and spelling to be so _very_ deleterious will also rate appeal as poor.

More importantly, an “Appeal” rating will allow readers to say in effect: “Despite this story’s short-comings, I still liked it very much.” or “The problems with this story notwithstanding, it was an interesting concept.” Or even “This was written quite well, but it still didn’t hold my interest.

In other words, readers will (I believe) feel freer to be critical or laudatory, knowing that they can do so without exessively damaging their perception of where the story’s score belongs.

The readers vote for your story based on 2 criteria:

Story and Technical

Next we borrow from Siskle and Ebert and Roeper and give a simple Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down in each category.

After all, it’s all subjective, so why try to slice and dice it into a scale of 1 to 10, 1 to 100, or whatever.

Just a simple “I dig it” or “Dude, what were you thinking”.

If enough negative votes in the technical category doesn’t send the author off on an editor hunt, then (s)he’s a lost cause anyway.

Same for the Story category. A simple Up or Down vote should be enough to tell the author whether the story is hitting with the readers or not.

And if the reader just HAS to explain in finer detail why it was a gem or junk, they can always send an email to the author.

This would make voting simple enough that the task can be accomplished quickly and with a minimum of analysis

To be honest, the only score that interests me is a story’s Technical rating. I’ve read, or started to read enough boring, worthless, and uninteresting stories in High School and College literature classes that starting one more isn’t going to kill me. But another nugget from the grammatically challenged will certainly put me over the edge. Prior warning would be wonderful.

As I’ve said in a previous post, I look to the authors description and the story codes to convince me to read something from an untried author. The author should be able to “sell” their own story.

Well, that’s another 2 cents from me.

-jp-

I look foward to the opportunity to use the new system.

A lot has been stated abut how the expanded voting form will encourage and/or discourage voting.

I would point out that it is tricky generalization. We’re dealing with a large population of readers. With as many individuals that there are, that’s how many mindsets.

For myself, trained as an accountant, I can’t wait to start breaking down my votes into their component parts, and seeing the same on votes on my work. I’ll probably think of new ways to break them down after it’s implemented. [I know, it's a sickness and I stopped taking my meds.]

On the other extreme are readers with a completely intuitive way of looking at things and would be repulsed by any attempt to quantify their feelings. And, of course, there is everything in- between.

What kind of readers do we, as authors, want reading our work? The answer is all kinds, of course. I think that we need feedback channels that appeal to as many mindsets as possible.

The expanded voting may result in similar vote numbers, and we will think that we haven’t changed anything. The truth could well be that we are changing who is voting, a potential outcome that we will never be able to identify.

When I read another author’s work I almost always vote. I start out with the attitude that I want to give it a ‘ten’. I take away for certain things, such as blatant lack of editing, and unneeded vulgarity. I add back for things that I liked, such as creativity, originality or skillful description or dialogue. I am not convinced that all readers vote that way. I wish that there could be a way to encourage that, either in the voting routine, or as a guide somewhere on the site.

A final comment: it’s possible that all of this prolonged debate over the fine points of vote tabulation may be a factor that discourages future voters (just a thought-and I plead ‘Guilty’).

Now, I have run out of things to say, so I have no choice except to go back to work.

Best regards,

Autumn Writer

And as for Jeff’s comment:
Not everyone thought the old system was any good. Many of us just ignored it because of its uselessness. And would like to see scores that would be of benefit in choosing stories. Certainly, knowing which ones are at least readable would be nice, but currently, people seldom give any indication of that in their votes. That’s why this new system has the potential to be superior.

That could be meaningful.

The most vocal, and at time rather nasty comments I have received have been on the lack of grammatical proficiency in my early chapters of Robin. I have copies if you don’t believe me. I have a thick skin, but I know other authors who would have most likely stopped writing because of the venom this one self-indulgent person wrote to me.

I frankly sucked when I started writing, and when I go back and look, I cringe. I did get emails telling me to get an editor, because my story was good enough.

With the proposed scoring, along with some well-meaning emails, writers can get information they need. If I wrote a story and got bad marks for it, and that was all because the reader had a hard time reading it, but actually loved the story, how would I know? Most authors would stop writing.

I know most of us authors would love to have more emails. I begged and used everything I could to get a load of them once. As I personally write an individual reply to each one, I found responding to the well over a hundred that came in, a daunting process. We don’t get the written feedback often enough, and frankly if we don’t reply why would a reader send anything to us? So having more info of what the readers think would be a good thing. I can use that sort of information.

John Smith
Author of Robin

I’d suggest lumping all the “poor” ratings into one “unsatisfactory level” rating of 1, and letting the reader feedback choose among scores of 7-10 for satisfactory ratings. (appears suspiciously like a 5-point scale, doesn’t it?)

2) Facility with language is critically important in telling a story. Both the negatives, such as misspellings, and also the positives, such as lyrical phrases or apt word choices.

3) Negatively evaluating with a numeral (or with a comment selected by checking a box) instead of writing a subjective comment is often more easily given by a reader and frequently better received by a writer. It doesn’t feel as much like “piling on” when predefined categories are selected. (Certainly, if a reader has the time and skill to write good, evaluative comments, they can be very useful.)

4) “Appeal” should be more a subjective overall evaluation than a component part. If Appeal is assumed to be Stroke Appeal, then Story Codes need to be considered.

5) I would enjoy rating stories objectively on Language Use 30%; Plot/Characters/Originality 50%; Fidelity to Story Codes 20%. An additional subjective evaluation might be Appeal to Reader as an overall, How-Did-I-Like-It? score.

Erik Thread

I, personally, find it amazing that readers would only score the stories that they like. This automatically gives better scores to poorly written stories. Add to that the results of giving inflated scores so as not to “hurt the authors’ feelings” and we end up with stories that are virtually unreadable receiving scores in the mid-nines and the authors having no clue that their work is less than excellent.

Many of us probably think that any author can judge his own work fairly well. Anyone who has seen even one episode of “American Idol” must be aware that even those with no talent can delude themselves completely.

Hopefully, a three-tier voting system will lead to more realistic voting.
ajohnson

I don’t think the additional voting categories will change that one little bit. My guess is that if a person likes a story, and there are three voting categories, that person will award a top score in all categories. If a person dislikes a story, he/she will uniformly award a lower score in all categories. I expect that very few people will give the matter so much thought that they will vote greatly different scores in each separate category.

So my preference is to keep the current, simple, single category system.

However, if you do decide to use multiple categories Lazeez, please watch how individual people vote. If I am right about how the multicategory system will be used, then please drop it becasue that adds no value to the scoring system.

Personally, I find it difficult to vote on a story before it is completed, especially if I intend to give it a high score. If I don’t like a story, and I don’t intend to finish it, then I vote when I quit reading, or I don’t vote at all.

Yes, there has been “score escalation” over time, and a 9.7 score is more common now than it was a couple of years ago. But so what? It is easy enough to realize that, and thus give the proper interpretation of the score. I don’t see that problem as warranting a total overhaul of the scoring system.

~~~ The Old Professor

As a reader, I doubt I will want to spend a lot of time grading the works I have read. Once is enough.

One of the problems with voting is that it is one sided. The Writer is forced to identify him for obvious reasons. But, readers can slam, or inflate a story from behind their cloak of annonimity.

Maybe the reader’s vote’s should not be anonymous, maybe they should have to be logged in before they vote, maybe readers should be rated as well…and if a reader exhibits questionable voting practices, they would have their voting privileges taken away.

And again, as I have stated before, I would like to see an option for the reader to opt out any voting. I would certainly use it.

I can see the appeal for statisticians as to a better way of scoring a story. In fact, it would be good to see the average score for each author in the index. From XNXX, I see the somewhat futile way in which some authors are persuaded to improve their writing, as they usually become contrary.

It strikes me that an appeal rating to personal taste would be a bit irrelevant, as why would you read enough of the story to be able to rate it with any complexibility, when it wasn’t?

Accuracy of grammar is marked in essays for exams, but do we need to start marking each other down (which is an easier option then providing constructive feedback)? With numerous English certificates and bits of poetry of my own, I am none too keen on dodgy spelling or phrasing, but this has not stopped me from having a good time on instant messenging with a young lady where timing can be the essence. She has not complained so far!

However, if it is a stroke/rub story where you are on your own, it is better if you have a decent proof-reader, if only to just use the spelling or grammar tools in “Word”.

With plot, you often have difficulty rating with stories in progress. If I think a story has become repetitive I just stop and successfully find another – I have 22 Active Serials at the moment. I might come back later to see whether the author has resolved the problem in subsequent chapters, or just rewritten the earlier part rather than “burn the book”. Hopefully not literally burning the computer!

There are reasons which encourage me to read more of the story; and some of these also encourage me to read more of the author’s work, which is why I suggest a mark for the author too.

It is the authors that we need to encourage.

While we readers are mostly the reason why authors write, without the authors there would be nothing for us to read.

Special thanks to them from me.

All the best

Chris

There are several reasons why votes are “so high” and I don’t really see a way to avoid them.

First, as a reader with limited time, I use the scores to help decide which stories to “take a chance on”. This (hopefully) means that most of the stories I read are the “better” ones. Hence, the stories I read are better-than-average.

Secondly, if I start to read a story which is obviously poorly written, I usually just give up on it quickly and don’t bother to vote on it.

Since it is very unlikely that I will actually start, finish, and vote on a bad story, the votes that I do make tend to be high ones. I certainly give way more 9s and 10s than I do 1s or 2s.

I doubt that I am alone in this behavior. In a perfect world, we would all have time to read and review every story, in which case you might get a more realistic average vote.

I suspect that if Ebert only reviewed movies that other reviewers already liked, he’d be giving a lot more “thumbs up” votes. This is what we have.

Changing the voting form to have more categories (whatever the wording or percentages) is not going to change this behavior.

I think you should leave it as it is.

The problems (score inflation, writer whining, negative response because reader doesn’t like the plot line, etc.) have been discussed ad nauseum.

Human nature being what it is, no voting system of any kind is going to make everyone (or is that anyone) happy. And some unhappy people will still do what they can to mess it up.

I appreciate all you have done for us (the writers) with this excellent website. And, as a reader, your site is easy to work with.

It seems the scores are becoming obessive for more than person. I hate to see you waste your time with something that will ultimately just cause more whining.

Best regards,

E. Z. Riter

My understanding as to the purpose of this three level scoring is that it gives both the author and reader a clearer idea of what the reader is thinking. Or at least I see that as the intent. I have been in favor of this for some time. Maybe others only read stories that are over 9, but I have found some very well written stories in the 8’s. Somewhere along the line someone didn’t like the story for some reason and it got bad marks. When I read that story, it was obvious it wasn’t from a plot or grammar point. Should an author be regulated to write only the type of garbage that the mass reader wants, or suffer a low single score?

As an author I think it would be a lot easier for the site people to pick up on abusive scoring. If others are scoring 8-9 in quality, and 7-8 in plot, but 5-6 in appeal, and someone voted 3’s across the board there is a problem with that vote.

Again, this is change. People don’t like change. If when we came to this site, the voting system was in place as being talked about, would we have posted? Probably. Change is inevitable in our life, and in the life of a site. The best thing we can do is not complain about it, but work with the change to make it as expectable to us as possible, knowing change will happen.

So my suggestion?

Quality needs to be changed to something else. It is misleading in its initial reader understanding and any explanation after has to penetrate the first impression. There have been a few good suggestions as to different names to call it. I don’t have anything better than what has already been suggested.

John
Author of Robin

I don’t believe you new system will totally eliminate flaws. We all have our favorites and will continue to favor those regardless of literary content.

When a story moves me or ‘peeks’ my interest, I will take the time to use your excellent feedback mailer. I rarely fail to vote and will continue to do so if you expand from one to three boxes.

I think that the grammar should be more heavily weighted though. I do not claim to be an english major but I, probably all of us, have seen stories that are just plain unreadable because of poor grammar.

Having no better system to offer, let me advise only to remember the KISS principle. If a system’s complexity discourages it’s use, it is self-defeating.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Size | Dnlds | Votes | Score | Qua P/C App | Q-Score
#### | ##### | ##### | 09.33 | 6.7 5.5 7.2 | 06.22

Optional expanded voting; rate how well-written this story is:

Quality: 012345678910
grammar, language-usage, structure, syntax, spelling
[coherence legibility clarity comprehensibility lucidity]

Plot/Characters: N/A012345678910
creative & entertaining storyline & character creation
[intriguing compelling provocative engaging worthwhile interesting]

Appeal: N/A012345678910
how personally stimulating, intellectually &/or sexually
[pleasurable captivating engrossing enthralling fascinating]

1) 1st want to reiterate: using “how personally stimulating, intellectually &/or sexually” covers everything from ‘no-sex’ to ‘pure-stroke’ equally & without prejudice–keeping, if not everyone, then most happy.

2) Agree wholeheartedly & enthusiastically with numerous posters; if these new categories are going to be meaningful in any way, for both writers & readers, then they’re gonna HAVE to be shown separately–EVERYONE has different priorities.

3) If you’re gonna have a ‘combined-single-value’, though, also agree that ‘Quality’ could count for more, but disagree that ‘Appeal’ should count for far less. I say count ‘em all equal!, 33.33% each!–a compromise hopefully helping most to not be entirely unhappy.

4) Use the ‘combined-single-value’ (or ‘average’ of the 3 ‘E-Scores’) as a ‘vote’ in the basic/original ‘Score’–see!, how neat & tidy & logical (suggesting easy-to-calculate, easy-on-the-resources ‘averages’ all-around; but however you end out ‘figuring’ it, use it as a ‘vote’ in ‘Score’)

5) It wouldn’t have to take much screen real-estate, ie:

Size | Dnlds | Votes | Score | Qua P/C App | Q-Score
#### ##### ##### 9.33 6.7 5.5 7.2 6.22

…note that one can tell at-a-glance that the ‘Qua-P/C-App’ (‘E-Score’) average is ~6, which, along with the mean-weighted ‘Q-Score’, compared with the ‘Score’, shows that this story has a high-scoring readership. OR, if the reader doesn’t care anything about #s of other readers, then her/his own most-important-to-them individual ‘Qua’ &/or ‘P/C’ &/or ‘App’ score can be, again, noted at a glance. With the ‘E-Score’ average (or ‘combined-single-value’) fed back into the ‘Score’, then ‘Score’ becomes more closely a true ‘Overall-Score’.

thanx, as always, to Lazeez & writers,
w_newd
nonof_urbiz@sbcglobal.net
(ps: I’m an editor for hire)

I would like to emphasize the point first made by Gina — Sex Appeal just can not be used as part of the score. There are just far too many well-written stories on this site that have minimal or no sexual content in them. To me, this also seems the most personal qualification, and thus the least predictable as some indicator of good content.

I’m not in favor of adding together Quality / Plot / Appeal, regardless of any selection of weights, to generate a total score (steveh11 first brought up this point, I belive). I think much of the “discussion” about the which weights should be used indicates just how uniquely each individual feels about what makes a good story.

The best indication of this is in the “Quality” score (grammar / spelling). Many previous comments have indicated that some feel this should be very heavily weighted (40% or more) — people who would rather not read stories with significant numbers of grammatical or spelling errors. Generally I place myself in this category — except for the stories I like (sometimes very much like) in spite of their poor “quality.” Why? Because they have engaging plots, characters, or (dare I say it?) because they’re erotic. I guess we’re calling this “Plot.”

To me, the relative weights of “Quality” and “Plot” is inherently personal. It is too personal to be fixed at a server level and used for a story’s final score. I use that weak muscle between my ears to determine how much to weigh each category in mentally computing a final score. I don’t like giving up that right, even to Lazeez.

I see myself having to fudge the “category scores” to adjust them such that a score ends up with the score I want, which defeats the entire purpose of the “category scores.”

So I’m saying that if we must add these expanded categories, I still
want to have the ability to vote for the relevant “final score” independently of the category scores. If forced to give up this ability, then I would just stop voting (and yes, I’m one of the yahoos who claimed to vote “almost always.’).

Thanks to Lazeez for soliciting comments.

Quick show of hands; who would use the expanded vote thing?

I’m a writer and it ain’t going to happen.

IF I were to ever use it, it would be for an author who had the tools but was making a mishmash of things.

That way to say

By the way… “GET AN EDITOR!”

Quality —> 1
Plot –> 10
Appeal –> 10

But rather than do that… I would send an anonymous feedback email in which I rewrote a chapter or section to show the person what they were doing wrong.

(By the way, I’ve never done the last before… not even if you received an email about dropping 9 out 10 uses of the word that… that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

And personally, I doubt that the trolls will be intelligent enough to figure out the new voting system. Or motivated enough to try.

I suspect some authors would use it, and I worry that some autors would use it as a way to protest the current farce the scores have become, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing in itself.

I also don’t agree with anon who said, “A badly written story – even with great stroke value – shouldn’t outscore, or even approach the score, of a finely crafted tale with little or no stroke value.”
The current situation shows ample evidence to the contrary, and as long as the core issues aren’t solved, no new system is worth effort. You open a new and more elaborate scoring system to all users, and you’re inviting the trolls and cheerleaders.
Limiting the new scoring system to paid members and authors is a good measure. Unless the troll is a dedicated one and is willing to shell out some bucks, well… I guess Lazeez may at least benefit from it to support the site, and yet it will limit the number of trolls, whereas opening that kind of scoring to the whole public will just turn it into another ineffective scoring system. It’s also an easy to test condition. Keep track of votes from everybody, but store the votes from paid member and author separately, and after a few months compare the results. Heh! For that kind of test you don’t even need to change the scoring system. Just store author and paid member votes separately for a few weeks!

How about a 1 or 2 word title for each option that links to a fuller explanation? I know that creates a bit more context switching on the server, but it won’t be oft repeated by any one user.

I’m with autumn writer about the N/A option. Either remove the sexual appeal completely, because I think that is the source of some of the crazy numbers now. [i.e., some of the sexual relationships are outside the mainstream and many are uncomfortable with the it, which will drag down the story's scores]

I would break the scores into 2 sections: technical & story telling. [KISS]

You already have a cadre of reviewers who have a multi-facet scoring venue. I think the more in-depth scoring should be reserved for the more analytical among us.

DirtyH

Try reading a story where the football player takes note of what his “couches” are saying. Yep, I’ve actually seen that in a story. Hey, Sofa, can you say that again? I didn’t hear you? I’m sorry, but when I almost fall out of a chair laughing, and the scene isn’t supposed to be funny, the story isn’t hitting on all fronts.

I don’t want to read a poorly written story. If I can see that people voted their “Appeal” score a 10, but gave it’s quality a 5, I’m not reading it. And I’d like to know that other readers thought it was poorly written. Of course, most readers will probably hand out 10′s anyways.

But aside from writing my reviews or sending a message to the author, having a single score to vote means that I can’t say the plot was good, but the writing quality was horrid.

If I was an author, I’d want to know that my quality wasn’t that good, but my plot and characterizations were found to be excellent. You can correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation to make a story more readable. That’s really not that hard, since a good editor can help you fix those things.

But a good editor can’t help you make characters jump off your monitor. They can’t create dynamic dialogue. And they cannot create a brilliant plot. They aren’t supposed to do those things. They are supposed to make it more pleasing by being easier to read, not by making the plot or characters better.

Don’t encourage poor writing with inflated scores, and don’t take away the quality score. I’d like to see the three separate values, or even the 4 we reviewers have. Let the overall appeal be a stand-alone value. Stroke is something that can score low or be N/A and it doesn’t have to hurt the overall score. Plot is self explanatory. And Technical Quality should stand give other readers some of the best information they could get.

I like the concept of the new system, but I really want to see the breakdown myself. Some people can read a poorly written story and still feel they really enjoyed it and it was worth a 10. Kudos to them. But even they should hopefully be able to give a real Quality score, so more discerning readers have a chance at something valuable.

I was not suggesting that a poorly written story should score nearly as high as a better written one but dont forget we have a few authors for whom english is not their first language.

First, don’t assume everyone is as illiterate as you obviously are. To many, a poorly written story is just unreadable.

Secondly… of what use is “How much the story appeals to you” to me? I most likely don’t share your tastes. Such a blatantly subjective matter is practically meaningless.

Thirdly… “Did you like the storyline” is more a matter of plot… the storyline is the plot. There’s more to plot (for scoring), obviously, but appeal is just how much you liked the subject matter. (Or kink, if you prefer).

To NicolasG: A badly written story – even with great stroke value – shouldn’t outscore, or even approach the score, of a finely crafted tale with little or no stroke value.

To Dave: Since the new scoring is supposed to be something people opt-in for, I can’t see how it could possibly reduce the amount of people voting, unless a significant percentage of current voters are people – authors or author boosters – using multiple accounts, who feel that the new scoring system won’t be as easily played with.

To little blue: Thank you. I thought I was quite reasonable too. (I really should sign my posts at some point…)

I also feed back to promising stories that have some “glitches” – logical consistency – homonym usage – poor spelling etc. Often I get a note back from the author with a thanks for pointing the issue out.

I would find it helpful if I had a shorthand way of providing feedback via a rating system something like you have proposed Lazeez – but with some modifications.

Many posters have suggested some additional description verbiage and I agree that your initial proposal is a bit sparse. Choose what language suits – but make it descriptive enough to have meaning.

Appeal has been suggested to be a personal thing and I agree. And I believe that quality and plot should be weighted much heavier than appeal. 20% AT MOST for appeal IMO.

Now, a new thought. In this new QPA section why have a score of 9.6 of 7.5? Why not stick with whole numbers and combine the 3 scores, rounding off the the next higher number.

IMO it would be more useful for a reader to see a score of 8.8.4 or 10.9.9 or 4.8.7 or even 10.10.10 for a truly outstanding story.

At least in this way I’d see a composite score that reflected an overall view of the story as a whole.

As for the idea of who can vote on this optional voting system. Paid Premium members should get this “privilege” and it should be marketed as a paid membership benefit. My reasoning is that paid members 1) want to support the site, 2) read lots of stories and 3) may be a bit more likely to take the time to vote and provide feedback.

Perhaps you could also include authors and other “trusted” members – but not the freebie folks. Let those folks be limited to the standard voting system.

Revert to the old system and encourage your loyal writers to continue!

I would suspect that less than 10% of readers vote and I doubt whether you wil retain that level if you make the system more complicated.

Lets just stick to whats working!!!!

I consider that a gratifyingly high score but given the relative absence of feedback I don’t know why it is that high so some sort of breakdown would be useful even just something aong the lines of “you have received 56 x10 3×3 1×2″.

I do think that in general the scores on SOL are too high – I have 8 stories posted all scoring between 8.56 and 9.51. In theory this places all my work in the top 15% which seems ridiculously high to me (if anyone cares to argue on that point please do! )

On that basis I feel that some more rigorous form of scoring would be worthwhile for the writers as it would direct their attention towards their weaker areas. If I was consistently getting high scores for style and stroke factor and low for plot for example I would know what I needed to concentrate on to improve.

Personally I think the four criteria used by the reviewers are probably adequate and a realistic way of scoring the stories on the site and would welcome some variation of that for all readers. I think that as this is primarily an erotic story site the inclusion of stroke factor is justified although obviously if a story is “no sex” its theoretical maximum score becomes 7.5 so perhaps the fairest way is to drop the lowest of the four scores – whichever it is and produce a weighted average of the other 3 with the full breakdown shown on the title page.

This way a well written and plotted story with no sex can score well and equally a badly written story plagued with typos but with a good basic plot and red hot sex scenes can also do well. Once a reader sees the 4 separate scores they can decide whether to continue.

NicholasG

this is because readers, like me, are here to enjoy the writing first, be a critic second
If we can help writers no what we like without messaging them that is a bonus – me I send authors comments if only a thank you.