Should the sites like Scribble Hub use the 5-star rating system?

[Alski]

5 star system but you should be required to write a review of at least 100 words.

Considering the amount of people who already leave reviews, and the effort involved. You will likely see more negative reviews than positive. People are more motivated to share their opinion about things they hate on the internet.

 

[Properlytagyourstory]

I think it’s a fair enough way of judging a story at a glance.

 

[beast_regards]

I do not care about stars or thumbs. Do whatever you would like. However, please do not require me to write 100+ word reviews.

The reason this has been requested in the past on the Royal Road was simple:

It would allow the writers to challenge the review with the moderators.

You couldn't challenge the anonymous ratings. There was no way to report them.

You knew they were there, but they were anonymous.

If there was a written review, even the couple of words, then you could report it, challenge it with moderation, and have at least the tiny chance to have it removed. There would be a block of text with a report button, something you won't get with anonymous ratings.

Knowing what you did wrong was an excuse. You couldn't improve from ratings, because the rating persisted even after you edited your story and remove the errors, or whatever they complained about. Ratings were (Doom) eternal, and the only way out was to delete the account, and start anew.

Idea you could challenge the rating with moderators however soon crumbled, as the Moderator John and this posse didn't react, or even made it worse on purpose as necessity to fight the bad rating increased traffic, and thus site's ad revenue.

 

[ZombieHat]

The 5-star rating system is the dishonest and manipulative marketing tool masquerading as the method of gathering the customer feedback, designed to create the perceived (and often false) impression of the added value for the money spent.

A customer aiming for the lower price is easily swayed by the impression that the more expensive product is somehow better only because it has been rated higher, but the ratings are rarely the accurate and objective measurement of quality, often manipulated by the sales and marketing departments to maximise the profits.

While this system has its place on commercial sites (after all, you couldn’t do marketing without marketing tools)...

… the 5-star rating system has no place on the hobbyist sites (which Scribble Hub seemingly is)…

The hobbyist writers are amateurs, usually without any education or training on both writing and marketing, and even if they did, they are robbed of all tools the marketing departments use to manipulate the ratings. They couldn’t delete reviews, or make their own, and are rarely even interested in doing so.

The hobbyist writers aren’t interested in selling the product.

They invest their free time they could have spent elsewhere to provide the free entertainment for others and are often only interested in presenting the novel in front of people who would enjoy it. Note “enjoy it”, the drive is usually for approval from like minded individuals, it is not about money or wondering the best marketing strategies.

In fact, the 5-star rating scale works directly against the hobbyist.

Not only they don’t care about marketing, they don't know about marketing, and they don’t have any tools to perform it properly even if they did …

… it also makes their experience on the Internet much, much worse.

Because of the anonymous nature of the Internet, the majority of the reactions are going to be negative, and the rating systems only worse the situation for people who seek positive affirmation for the work they did in their spare time without any financial reward in sight.

No longer they only have to deal with the usual hate messages, i.e. you post on the Internet, you risk the reply, now the negative and hostile actors have more tools to attack you, and destroy your experience with basic math.

One dislike and one like isn’t the mixed reaction anymore.

It isn’t … oh well one guy disliked work, but one liked it …

It is now 3-star, and while it theoretically shows “average” or “middle ground” it is not how the rating works.

Keep in mind, the whole rating system is to create an impression of added value, it is not the scale:

All people are subconsciously drawn to the highest values, that’s why the system was even invented, and ultimately, any rating other than the five is considered bad because of that. The readers always, always choose higher values subconsciously.

It is never used, or thought, in terms of scale, even if it pretends it is one.

This mixed with the hostile (critical) nature of the Internet, people who want to do harm will always choose the lowest value in order to cause the greatest damage possible.

Additionally, even without the inherent maliciousness, the system never comes with the explanation of what individual values even mean, allowing the people to interpret them as they like.

Person who says “Oh, 3 is average” is rarely reading stories that are rated below 4.5. It is counterintuitive, confusing, and demotivating for amateur writers who looked for “friends” or “fun” (or something along the lines). Only thing the amateur writer does is to watch the numbers drop, or to leave, never writing again.

The readers also aren’t any better off, as once again, no one knows what those numbers mean!

In the end, the rating system, seemingly being the scale of what the “most would like”, becomes the tool that only frustrates and demotivates the amateur writers which aren’t interested in the marketing strategies, and could have done something different with their time than providing you with the free entertainment.

Instead, the “like & dislike” is a much better term for the hobbyist to understand…

If you get 5 dislikes, you would be angry, but if you have 5 likes too, you have five people who encourage you to continue without even speaking up, and you want to continue for the positive five, not the negative one.

But with 3-star, you are probably doomed that the people manipulated by the marketing strategy will never read your story, because 3 is lower than five and people struggle (or won’t be bothered) to analyze the mathematical average entry values.

Since there have recently been attempts to change the site, what are your opinion on the stars scale?

(whether it is 1-10 the Royal Road uses, or the true 1-5 here on the Scribble Hub)

Yeah I agree with the 5 star system. It's missleading and can be abused easily, especially with works with few ratings. Any system will be abused, but a like/dislike might make it better for readers to find new works they like instead of seeing 3 stars and going, "nope".

 

[ResidentDeviant]

I'd say the reviews should keep 5-star score, but the website shouldn't show average score of all reviews.
Though the rating itself should be using like and dislike system.

 

[Lysander_Works]

I think the only problem with the rating system is when people are allowed to cast negative ratings without cause or explanation.
Maybe I'm naive to say this, but it just irks me when anything, mine or someone else's gets low ratings with no attached reviews, no comments explaining it, not even a DM. Like, why?

Any system that allows this, I just can't trust the star-rating alone. I read reviews if any exist, (typically 2-4 stars are least likely to be bots or unreasonable responses). This goes for things beyond just books by the way.

TLDR: Allow the rating only with a required comment or review.

 

[ReadingPerson]

Holy cow. Beast is still around and still obsessed with rating systems and RoyalRoad?

Bro. You made literally hundreds of posts about this over on RR. You made a half a dozen throwaway accounts to keep doing so, both before and after you claimed you were leaving the site entirely. You've also made a ton of posts and comments about it on reddit across multiple subreddits with multiple accounts. No idea how many posts you've made on other sites or this one about it. Though going by your posting history here, I am saddened to see that I am entirely unsurprised by the results.

This hasn't just been a manic flurry of one-off activity, either. No, this obsession has somehow gone on, consistently, for well over half a decade now.

See a therapist. That's not a joke or a burn, that's a serious suggestion. If you don't think you have a problem, use a notepad to start keeping count of how many times a day you think about rating systems and/or RoyalRoad. A lot of therapists would have you take that step regardless. It will quickly highlight how much of your life you're wasting obsessing over this stuff.

 

[beast_regards]

Holy cow. Beast is still around and still obsessed with rating systems and RoyalRoad?

Bro. You made literally hundreds of posts about this over on RR. You made a half a dozen throwaway accounts to keep doing so, both before and after you claimed you were leaving the site entirely. You've also made a ton of posts and comments about it on reddit across multiple subreddits with multiple accounts. No idea how many posts you've made on other sites or this one about it. Though going by your posting history here, I am saddened to see that I am entirely unsurprised by the results.

This hasn't just been a manic flurry of one-off activity, either. No, this obsession has somehow gone on, consistently, for well over half a decade now.

See a therapist. That's not a joke or a burn, that's a serious suggestion. If you don't think you have a problem, use a notepad to start keeping count of how many times a day you think about rating systems and/or RoyalRoad. A lot of therapists would have you take that step regardless. It will quickly highlight how much of your life you're wasting obsessing over this stuff.

So, you are now attributing all the complaints made over in a course of several years to the single person because ...

... because the multi-bullion dollar corporation couldn't be wrong?

Curiously, if anyone paid the attention to the reaction of large publishers and journalist to failing of the recent gaming and movies released, you would notice that they too made the same argument - that rating has been manipulated by trolls, which ...

...normally, shouldn't be possible as the ratings are using the similar algorithm and logic as one so praised on the Royal Road site, and as we were told, there is supposedly nothing wrong with it, and the complaints of the authors are to be ignored as they are supposedly children, and only Kadanaj and the other two knows the best.

Or, perhaps, your rating system is a trash and was never meant to be used by the public, and only utilized by the content of media in the controlled environment, because that is the only way to prevent the public reaction.

Ironically, review swaps and other way of manipulating the score are the intended way to use your algorithm, as this is how it is handled - with much larger budget - through the interaction between the publishers and access media, making the resulting access a joke.

However, in your case, you rely on the constant influx of the works provided to you freely, yet refuse to use the system it is intended, and pretend that all the criticism was made by only a single person rather than thousands of disgruntled writers which didn't sign to your bullying campaigns. In your case, it is mostly the creators complaining, as they were given the short straw, not the actual publisher (who isn't publisher at all) ...

...but ultimately, it's very similar, if not same.

Public is wrong, and everything is the fault of the Russian Bots. Or me, in case of the Roadkill Route, it's all me!

 

[RepresentingWrath]

it's all me!

You are a ru bot.

 

[beast_regards]

You are a ru bot.

I am reacting to the guy which have their profile disabled so he couldn't be blocked...

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I am reacting to the guy which have their profile disabled so he couldn't be blocked...

My reply was a joke. Don't take it too seriously.

 

[Aaqil]

I am reacting to the guy which have their profile disabled so he couldn't be blocked...

Click on their pfp/name, or hover over it for a bit,

 

[ReadingPerson]

... because the multi-bullion dollar corporation couldn't be wrong?

You think RoyalRoad is a multi-billion dollar corporation? I can not handle these kinds of statements, dude. This is easily disproven nonsense. You say stuff like this, people try to explain why you're wrong, and then you keep on saying the untrue things anyways. Even just browsing your posting history shows more of the same delusions that people constantly correct you on.

I need you to understand. You are genuinely not well. Your post history on here showing your obsession with RoyalRoad and rating systems is absolutely bonkers. That's totally ignoring that this has been going on for over half a decade, and how many posts and accounts you've made over various sites about this. Some stalkers are less dedicated and obsessed than you are.

If you have a significant other, I want you to picture showing them your posting history on here. Or imagine it if you don't have one. Would you feel embarrassed at all or scared to show them? Would you be worried about their opinion?

Look. Healthy people should see therapists, too. It's a great idea for anyone. If I'm wrong and you're totally healthy, then seeing a therapist would still be good for you! So please, for the love of god, do so. Even if it's just to prove me wrong.

Do you guys care about Beast at all? Do you think they're well? Like I get it, we thought it was kinda funny and laughed at this stuff over on RR. At first. It gradually became concerning. But if you could try to convince them to seek help, I think they could use it.

 

[Lysander_Works]

@beast_regards @ReadingPerson

TLDR: numeric ratings without any attached information (reviews, comments, DMS, ect.) have become meaningless.
There is plenty more which could be said, but I think this one statement sums it all up enough for an entire thread.

Saying this before someone says something unhinged.

 

[beast_regards]

This illustrates it nicely.

There is a scale which is supposed to somehow objectively measure the customer’s satisfaction - or reader’s satisfaction, in the case of novels - yet most contributors to said ratings are more often than not the accounts like this:

Not only they couldn’t be guaranteed to actually read the story, they couldn’t even be guaranteed to operate under good faith, are completely anonymous, and more importantly, replaceable. Even assuming their rating is justifiable, there is impossible to even understand from where they come from.

There is no way to block this account, nor is there a way to see their history, even if they argue about yours.

An argument could be made against the throwaway accounts …

… but if you are making an argument against throwaway accounts with a throwaway account, it feels a little hypocritical.

Not to mention, puts the writer at a little of disadvantage, as they couldn’t choose to disable the rating on their story the same way the rating user could prevent even the blocking or reporting.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

This illustrates it nicely.

There is a scale which is supposed to somehow objectively measure the customer’s satisfaction - or reader’s satisfaction, in the case of novels - yet most contributors to said ratings are more often than not the accounts like this:

Not only they couldn’t be guaranteed to actually read the story, they couldn’t even be guaranteed to operate under good faith, are completely anonymous, and more importantly, replaceable. Even assuming their rating is justifiable, there is impossible to even understand from where they come from.

There is no way to block this account, nor is there a way to see their history, even if they argue about yours.

An argument could be made against the throwaway accounts …

… but if you are making an argument against throwaway accounts with a throwaway account, it feels a little hypocritical.

Not to mention, puts the writer at a little of disadvantage, as they couldn’t choose to disable the rating on their story the same way the rating user could prevent even the blocking or reporting.

You can block this user on PC. Hover your mouse over their profile and press ignore.

Edit. It's not a "well ackhchually" but an advice in case you find irritating people and want to block them but don't know how.

 

[ReadingPerson]

Beast. I'm not trying to troll you here. This isn't some sort of ploy or mockery or 13 step conspiracy against you. I'm not rating your story, I didn't try to make myself "unblockable" somehow. I saw you still posting about this stuff, saw your posting history and I am actually suggesting you get help.

Point blank. Do you think you are mentally well? Do you think over a half a decade of obsessing over this is normal behavior? Do you think making countless throwaway accounts and posts about this to rant about it is healthy? Would you be okay with people in your life being able to see all the posts you've made about this, even just from this forum alone and not including other outlets you've constantly written about this?

Please, dude. See a therapist or a doctor. Sincerely. You don't need to prove you saw one or anything, you don't need to justify it to me or anyone else. Just see someone.

 

[beast_regards]

You can block this user on PC. Hover your mouse over their profile and press ignore.

It doesn't matter. There will be five more accounts tomorrow.

The Internet is like this. The people are "purposefully mean on the Internet" because there is anonymity with zero consequences.

It's expected behaviour causes as much harm as possible because "it is the Internet".

The problem is that the rating system ignores how the people usually behave on the Internet, and assumes that the reactions given in rating are (somehow) instead completely objective, and genuine...

That's contradictory.

On the one hand, you have the environment that you agree encourages openly hostile behaviour, then you have a system that relies on people at the opposite. It's it a little paradoxical?

Either to expect people to act to cause harm, or they do not.

Worse yet, the raters (people giving rating) even argue that they have the right to attack the author because he (or she) exposed himself by posting the story on the Internet, but the ratings are considered objective even if the person giving it admitted to actively malicious behaviour.

I know, the site will not change, they have their reasons to be this way...

...but doesn't it feel a little pointless to be creative in the environment where the default reaction is the malicious act?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

It doesn't matter. There will be five more accounts tomorrow.

The Internet is like this. The people are "purposefully mean on the Internet" because there is anonymity with zero consequences.

It's expected behaviour causes as much harm as possible because "it is the Internet".

The problem is that the rating system ignores how the people usually behave on the Internet, and assumes that the reactions given in rating are (somehow) instead completely objective, and genuine...

That's contradictory.

On the one hand, you have the environment that you agree encourages openly hostile behaviour, then you have a system that relies on people at the opposite. It's it a little paradoxical?

Either to expect people to act to cause harm, or they do not.

Worse yet, the raters (people giving rating) even argue that they have the right to attack the author because he (or she) exposed himself by posting the story on the Internet, but the ratings are considered objective even if the person giving it admitted to actively malicious behaviour.

I know, the site will not change, they have their reasons to be this way...

...but doesn't it feel a little pointless to be creative in the environment where the default reaction is the malicious act?

I've already shared my view on rating. You can go and reread it.

 

[Anonjohn20]

The Internet is like this. The people are "purposefully mean on the Internet" because there is anonymity with zero consequences.

Unabomber-maxxing! Fuck the internet, go live in the woods. lol jk