Proving that the Star System is useless

[leo_20]

I'm going to pick a few books for study.

First, the top of the trending list right now, "A strange new life.".
148 5-stars, 9 4-stars, 2 3-stars, 1 2-star, and 1 1-star.
Second, at last place on the tranding list right now, "Slime Girl."
146 5-stars, 38 4-stars, 18 3-stars, 8 2-stars, 10 1-stars.
Third, a random story picked from the find-random-story button: "The sidekick story - I reincarnated as...".
6 5-stars, 1 4-star, 1 3-star, 1 2-star, 1 1-star.
Fourth, the most recently updates: "The Last Rae of Hope".
1 5-star. No other ratings.

So yea. In all four cases, both the mode and median ratings are 5-stars.

Why don't you try reading revenge's requiem: The isekai journey

 

[Deleted member 84247]

A robot invaded my statistics thread. Maybe it can tell me what it knows about objective ratings?

 

[Tyranomaster]

True. People will always be biased, so the statistical analysis most often becomes a biased conclusion. You can tell me to rate things different based on different genres. To me it doesn't make sense, but many are perfectly okay with that. Or even rating things different on different sites. For example, a 4.0 here is probably worse than a 4.0 in RR if given the same sample size. And this is even a biased conclusion.

People should just rate how they feel. There isn't a reason not to, because ultimately, everyone will always rate how they feel, and you can't convince the masses to change their ratings in any way. So just rate how you want. Everyone rates differently, and that's fine. The best you can do is be careful about how you phrase ratings questions to people who will be asked to rate.

My question becomes. What can the reader learn from it when they see it?

Depending on sample size (obviously less than 10 ratings is practically a coin flip), the best they can hope for is whether or not the story will be very poorly written or not. A brand new reader might not gain much, but someone who's tried a few dozen stories will get a feel for it. Beyond that, most people, as is my understanding, have some personal tolerance level that they accept, and that's about it. (Min 4.5 etc). The more niche their tastes, the more they're usually willing to deviate from good stories.

To bring McDonalds up for the 15th time in this thread (because it's a good example, not because I'm hungry...), if I'm driving cross country and want McDonalds, I don't really check the rating at all. I know what I'm looking for. If, however, I'm stopped for an hour in a medium sized town, looking for lunch, and the local McDonalds is a 2.5 rating, and there is a local place rated 4.4, I won't be going to McDonalds.

It's just another subjective tool that people will occasionally use for selecting a choice. Just like how "Fast Food" is a type of restaurant, "Isekai" is a genre. Within fast food, I may have a particular tolerance for quality on any given day. Just another tool for making selections on any given day.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

I guess the one thing they might do is tell you is how polarising the content of the story is. For example, a story with a comparatively vast amount of 5-star ratings, hence at a 4.8, nobody who read it felt the need to give it a 1-star out of hate.

On the other hand, a 4.2 rating means that some people gave it a 1-star out of hate, hence the content matter in the book itself is somethat that has the potential to aggravate people. (Maybe being too "cringe", too "edgy", too "childish" or too "SoL" or so forth.").

But yea, the more I think about it, and reflect on the stories I thought were really good but get low ratings, the more useless I feel it is.

 

[Tyranomaster]

I guess the one thing they might do is tell you is how polarising the content of the story is. For example, a story with a comparatively vast amount of 5-star ratings, hence at a 4.8, nobody who read it felt the need to give it a 1-star out of hate.

On the other hand, a 4.2 rating means that some people gave it a 1-star out of hate, hence the content matter in the book itself is somethat that has the potential to aggravate people. (Maybe being too "cringe", too "edgy", too "childish" or too "SoL" or so forth.").

But yea, the more I think about it, and reflect on the stories I thought were really good but get low ratings, the more useless I feel it is.

You've hit the nail on the head. It's far more useful to the author than it is to the reader. It lets you know how much of your potential audience feels alienated by some aspect of the story. A lower rating to a reader only gives them a lower probabilistic chance they'll either enjoy or not enjoy it.

 

[RepresentingCaution]

Stars have sharp edges, and a toddler can scratch you with them. It's best to avoid them.

 

[3guanoff]

I was expecting a thread on star sheets and different map projections of the star system showing why the classification of different parts of the universe into "star systems" is useless. Imagine my disappointment.

 

[RedMuffin]

I was expecting a thread on star sheets and different map projections of the star system showing why the classification of different parts of the universe into "star systems" is useless. Imagine my disappointment.

It was a...

 

[beast_regards]

I haven't stabbed anyone yet, but if I do, I would do it with the quality tool like this. 5-stars!

 

[Tyranomaster]

I was expecting a thread on star sheets and different map projections of the star system showing why the classification of different parts of the universe into "star systems" is useless. Imagine my disappointment.

I actually initially wanted this too. Sadge. Now I'm forced to use my degree in mathematics instead.

 

[JayMark]

the star system is not useless, but it is far from perfect.

It is easy to weaponize against upstart authors with few ratings. Yeah, statistics level things out if a story gets big enough, but when all the haters pile on first, it demoralizes writers and kills even potentially good stories in the growth stage. These writers give-up, which is part often the goal of the raters. This effect is aggrevated when low rated stories get shoved into an invisibility bin by the algorithm and by the dogpiling effect (Once enough blood is in the water the sharks come to feast.)

It also punishes authors who refuse to follow the 'tried and true' fictional formula to the letter and encourages pandering to the collective. *You could argue that's a good thing or bad thing, I guess.* I think all the stories just start to look the same.

Stars have sharp edges, and a toddler can scratch you with them. It's best to avoid them.

Though since writers are a dime a dozen, maybe they need to be culled by the star shredder. Less competition for the rest of us. *I'm about halfway through the RR shredder myself, when I come out the other end I hope my pieces will still be writing out of spite*

Instead of flying to close to the sun, I walked too close to the star shredder. Those stars do have some sharp edges.

If one can craft a quality product and have a strong enough mind to survive the shredder, perhaps some degree of success is waiting at the other end? From the production side, ratings should only matter for established players. For us neophytes who want to be more, the rating system is just one more enemy we have to endure along the way. Seven people who hate your work shouldn't be enough to end it.

In other words, if a writer doesn't understand that trolls and their competition is going to come for them when they are most vulnerable, they are going to get YEETED.

 

[georgelee5786]

This is why SH lets you see how many times it has gotten a certain number of stars

 

[BLIGHT_ZERO]

You have your profile posts turned off but if you did I would post a huge picture of garlic to be spiteful
matter of fact

 

[JayMark]

You have your profile posts turned off but if you did I would post a huge picture of garlic to be spiteful
matter of fact

Fun fact: Vampires actually secretly love garlic.

 

[RedMuffin]

Fun fact: Vampires actually secretly love garlic.

More Fun Fact: That's because some vampires are masochists.

 

[JayMark]

More Fun Fact: That's because some vampires are masochists.

MOre moRe Fun facT: RedMuffin KehknowS tHis FOR a reasOn.

 

[RedMuffin]

MOre moRe Fun facT: RedMuffin KehknowS tHis FOR a reasOn.

True~ I baked garlic bread for them~

 

[Tsuru]

I posted this in discord first, but I decided to do it here. Yes, I made up all of the numbers using intuition, bite me.
I have to say this somewhere, or it will never leave my brain. I am willing to guess that you can mathematically prove that the star system on SH is useless.
In statistics the average is the sum of all variables in a data set, divided by the amount of variables. In a 5 star system you can calculate that the average is 3
(1+2+3+4+5)/5 = 3
Now, keep this in mind. The median (middle number of ascending values) is also 3. But I will use intuition and thought experiment based off numbers I imagined.
I assume most novels mostly get a 5 star rating. The most common occurring number in a data set is called the Mode. Anyway, I bet if you calculated all of the numbers for ratings on SH you would get a median of 5 (Based on a sample like this: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,). The mode would also be 5 because it's the most occurring number, and the average would be closer to 4. You could make the statement that "most novels on scribble hub are better than average" and be correct but dishonest.

Interesting pov
I totally agree 200% that the star system is just dishonest and should be removed (for good old ones).


As for me, the explanation is different while far simpler (lol in math too).
Lets say there is a series 3/5
For lot of people, its superior to the average and worth giving a try or VERY VERY GOOD, when in fact some people want to click 2.5/5 because its totally boring/average but CANT bc there is no CUT STARS
Maybe its easier to "click stars" and "cooler" but for perfectionist people like me, its annoying that you can't more precisely give a vote, as in the mind a 16/20 and a 17/20 is a HUGE difference.



What if i want to vote 19/20, that its near perfect series, a crazy masterpiece with flaws (probably bc of small details OR author is bad for romance but worth ignoring)
Welp, now i'm stuck to choose between 4/5 or 5/5
That means in eyes of others its 16/20 good-but-not-a-masterpiece or 20/20 perfection series, which btw some people would find the review dishonest or biased (bc its a 5/5 shiny stars and that most voters indeed are biased for maximum voting).


Then the nail of annoyance of all annoyance of this system of stars.
What if the series is utterly garbage that you should dodge it ?
WELP.
THERE IS NO 0/5 voting function.
That means a utterly waste of time series, is a 1/5 hence 5/20 = a series bad in "meh-bad" lvl
A series having some "worth" to it. Like a first try series for a noob, when the truth is its a utterly nonsense series full of bs and nationalism and pure pain to read book.



And the big nuke to conclude everything, is that the final score is the average of all stars vote.
With a 5 stars system, your own vote have influence on the whole.
Give a 1/5 is nothing on spammed 5/5 compared to a 0/20

 

[Puji-Maki]

Once I started seeing numbers, my mind stopped working. So yeah, uh, I just want to say nice post. My comment has no contribution to the post at all but I just want to comment.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Interesting pov
I totally agree 200% that the star system is just dishonest and should be removed (for good old ones).


As for me, the explanation is different while far simpler (lol in math too).
Lets say there is a series 3/5
For lot of people, its superior to the average and worth giving a try or VERY VERY GOOD, when in fact some people want to click 2.5/5 because its totally boring/average but CANT bc there is no CUT STARS
Maybe its easier to "click stars" and "cooler" but for perfectionist people like me, its annoying that you can't more precisely give a vote, as in the mind a 16/20 and a 17/20 is a HUGE difference.



What if i want to vote 19/20, that its near perfect series, a crazy masterpiece with flaws (probably bc of small details OR author is bad for romance but worth ignoring)
Welp, now i'm stuck to choose between 4/5 or 5/5
That means in eyes of others its 16/20 good-but-not-a-masterpiece or 20/20 perfection series, which btw some people would find the review dishonest or biased (bc its a 5/5 shiny stars and that most voters indeed are biased for maximum voting).


Then the nail of annoyance of all annoyance of this system of stars.
What if the series is utterly garbage that you should dodge it ?
WELP.
THERE IS NO 0/5 voting function.
That means a utterly waste of time series, is a 1/5 hence 5/20 = a series bad in "meh-bad" lvl
A series having some "worth" to it. Like a first try series for a noob, when the truth is its a utterly nonsense series full of bs and nationalism and pure pain to read book.



And the big nuke to conclude everything, is that the final score is the average of all stars vote.
With a 5 stars system, your own vote have influence on the whole.
Give a 1/5 is nothing on spammed 5/5 compared to a 0/20

Yeah I can see that argument as well, but I think it should adopt steam system. Or you know what how about there are no stars but you can rate it like: worst, bad, okay, good, great. As it is now, there's no objective star system. Because a 3 star to one person is different than a 3 star to the next.

Once I started seeing numbers, my mind stopped working. So yeah, uh, I just want to say nice post. My comment has no contribution to the post at all but I just want to comment.

Thanks for your contribution *pat pat*