I don’t like being forced to vote to add an item to favorites or not. Why is this here?

I was just thinking of that.
Maybe if NO was pre-selected it wouldn’t be so irritating.

::Nods in agreement::

Forcing an answer means more people will choose yes if they really are a fan. So everyone will have more fans – and know who they are.

I like it. I’ve always had a habit of overlooking the feature or paying it no mind. I’m sure a lot of new members miss it, as well.

Then just make it a checkbox. If checked -> you become a fan. If left unchecked – life goes on as usual.
No forcing there.

I agree with jeb.

You’ll adapt to it. The rankings annoyed people at first. They’re still necessitated and people eventually got used to it. A lot of people make a habit of deleting their rankings, then readding the same ones until they top the list, though. Seems like the feature became a popularity contest. Retry over and over until you get enough random-reviewers popping 10’s.

I would think it would be difficult to keep rankings from becoming a popularity contest ;P

Not if you were not allowed to create new ones and were stuck to basic ones. I use to top quite a few rankings that were very heavily competed, now I only top some of those that are not so heavy in traffic.

I only meant it in jest. Rankings are intended for popularity. It is their definition.

Encarte Dictionary (yes, the one from Word, haha):

Rank – Status in relation to others: the degree of importance or excellence of somebody or something in relation to other members of a group.

That’s popularity.

I’m such a nerd I have to explain my jokes…that’s so sad, lol.

Rank is also a colloquialism for stench.

0.02

Hehe…well, now I know where my high ranks come from ;P

I think the site’s rankings and facebookish quality are great and fun. But I hate them because they feed my cybernarcissism and I can’t get any good writing done because I can’t stop changing my profile picture.

I loves me some good karma. That much is undeniable. ;P

The main point is that you can remove the ranking, then turn around and add it back or more to reset it. Rinse, repeat until you get a high result.

That’s diabolical! Does anyone actually do this though? I mean, if one were to do this, they’d have all sorts of jumbled rankings—7.5 in the humor category (2 reviews) 8.75 in poetry category (7 reviews) 13 reviews overall and so on . . . It kind of seems like a lot of work. But then again, people will always find ways of getting something they want whether it’s high rankings, popularity, or whatever.

That’s why ranked items should have at least 7 reviews (I’m for 10, but then everyone else is going to start crying…)

True and true.

You’ve never noticed it’s possible? When you go to edit, like you would to change the writer’s notes, you can choose to edit the rankings by deleting old ones piecemeal and by adding new ones. If you remove one, then readd it, it resets your rank for that category. You need five new votes, but you start with a clean slate and since you can your score out of 10 even with a single review, you can restart with every bad vote.

I won’t call names, but I’ve seen people do this. It’s generally the same people who add their item to every ranking they can click on…or create new ones. I swear, the ranking system needs an overhaul.

The following are actual categories, unedited:
1. To write an interesting and dark na rrative that combines fantasy with noir an transgressive elements. Vivid and dream-like descriptions interlaced with dead-pan comedy and subtle satire.

2. To work on direct description. And to prove to my parents that I really can.

3. TO SMASH THE PRETENDERS IN THIS CONTEST INTO A SNUFFED MULF-WULF SKUM SKULL 9.0™

4. To overcome my WoW addiction.

I understand the need for a few niches, but damn…

No, actually I never really thought about it. But like I said, people who did this would obviously be “exposed” because anyone who knows about this “trick” would see right through it. Same goes for the top ranked pieces that have only been voted upon by “a new member” who never reviews anything again—in other words, a “multi”.

As it stands, the rankings page is kind of a joke. Myself and a few others have been petitioning for the limit of reviews to be increased before an item is ranked—7 at the least or 10 at the most. I think this would bring a bit more legitimacy to the Rankings overall and make it tougher for the attention-seeking frauds to get over.

As for the categories:
1.) This person was obviously shooting for a specific goal. Can’t fault them for that. Besides, it sounds like something I’d be interested in reading.

2.) Kind of dumb.

3.) I know this guy. Not personally, but it’s part of his “schtick”. He’s carved out a certain niche of writing that I find hilarious and entertaining.

4.) Kind of dumb.

Things like these do get on people’s nerves, I understand. But we can always just choose to skip an item because of them. Or slap down a 1 for a person’s WoW addiction rating.

Well, those make little difference. Regardless of what you rank them, they are going to be #1

Yeah, would like to see those review limits raised soon. We need to agree on a number. Perhaps 10 for 2000 words or less and 7 for 2001+ words?

People will find a way to cheat the system. It sucks, but the leeches are out there. Heh, no pun intended. The best we can do is try to make the system harder to cheat.

Can we have it to where if someone removes a criteria from their submission, they can’t re-add that same one? Should this be brought up on a new thread I guess? I can see removing a criteria because you realize it really isn’t an element your interested in anymore, and perhaps adding a different one because now you’re, say, more interested in characterization. But being able to remove and add again the same concept (again brings us to filtering criteria) is a really negative aspect.

That’s a pretty good solution, Karma.

I agree with Karma that if a rating criteria is removed it shouldn’t be allowed to be picked again. I disagree with her about making the review limits different for longer and shorter pieces. And I still think that we should delete the silly criteria categories, and condense the most popular ones down into a more streamlined set, so that the rankings/ratings actually mean something…

Wow – I didn’t know people paid that much attention to their rankings. 2 & 4 are (admittedly probably unintentional) genius.

I’d go with a monitored list of rankings—to add something someone else (RGs?) has to check it’s sensible.

And once it’s added it’s added—you can’t remove it, just add more, if you so desire.