I'm trying to get a sense of who likes and who dislikes the "unrec" function..

[Fumesucker]

A casual perusal of a few threads on the "unrec" function leads me to believe the the "purists" or "bashers" mostly don't like it while the "cheerleaders" or "bots" mostly do like it. I'm going by what I remember of various posters attitudes but I don't really pay all that much attention to who is posting what most of the time so I could well be off base.

Anyone else wish to contribute some observations?

I don't intend to get into an argument about the merit or lack of such of the "unrec" function on this thread, I'm really just interested in which factions have what position on the function.

I'll also point out that I only rarely view the home page, my link takes me directly to GD where I spend most of my time here on DU, so I seldom see the greatest page which means I don't really have a dog in this particular fight.

[WeDidIt]

1. I'm finding it cathartic

I unrecommend everything now, regardless of thread content.

[Fumesucker]

2. That doesn't make much sense to me..

Any particular reason?

[WeDidIt]

4. It's an expression of how I feel about the unrec feature. n/t

[Fumesucker]

8. I take it then that means you like the "unrec" feature..

Are there a lot of highly recced threads you don't like?

[WeDidIt]

15. Actually, quite the opposite

This is how I am protesting its existence.

[Fumesucker]

18. I don't grok it..

But it's your right to do as you wish, even in protest.

I'm taking a wait and see approach myself.

[WeDidIt]

68. I was wrong about it

The unrec system has not devolved into rec-unrec wars but has had a positive effect on the Greatest Page.

[provis99]

9. in other words, you're just a troll/ass

[WeDidIt]

10. Don't like me doing it?

Get the unrec feature removed.

I will unrec every thread I open so long as the feature exists.

[MADem]

14. Do what you want. Says a lot about you, though, that attitude. NT

[WeDidIt]

16. I thought DUers were all in favor of protest

This is my protest of the unrec feature.

[MADem]

25. That's not protest. That's pouting because you didn't get your way. NT

[WeDidIt]

27. That's a pretty funny take

I know some people pretty much rec everything they open. I am a counter to that activity now

[MADem]

35. That, to me, is just as silly.

Not much of life, those that do that.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

56. I protest by unrecing. Sometimes the level of discourse in a thread is ridiculous.

Away it goes to the ungreatest bit bucket...

[noamnety]

20. Yes, it says a lot about him.

It says he believes the best way to protest is to take direct action.

[WeDidIt]

28. Thanks!

there are some threads I really hate unreccing, but it's the principle of the thing.

[MADem]

31. Well, IMO it says he's going to run around clicking on every thread until he gets tired of it.

Even if he approves of the topic.

That's not protest, that is just childish and silly.

I find it funny that so many people feel threatened by the unrec function--they want it gone because they don't believe their posts will stand up to genuine scrutiny by the full membership here. The anger is pretty telling.

[Bobbie Jo]

36. That's ok...l'm just going to go right behind him

and rec just to cancel him out. :evilgrin:

[noamnety]

37. It looks like a regular form of protest to me.

I think your assessment of what a protest is, is lacking. Protesters might block a road, for instance, while believing that public access to that road is important to society.

The concern is not that a post won't stand up to "scrutiny" so much as that it will get back page billing for the exact same reasons that major media outlets give back page billing to certain types of stories. That's nothing to do with the merit of the message itself. We should have all learned that lesson in the lead up to the Iraq war.

[MADem]

46. Well, my mileage varies. Shitting in every room just because you can

is something you CAN do, sure, but....should you? What does it say about the person who does that sort of thing, mindlessly, angrily?

What people are whining about here, really, is that they'll have to WORK to get their little post on the Greatest Page. The arguments will have to be sound and logical, not angry, emotional and vindictive. Or, for that matter, silly and mindless and cheerleading.

It won't be a case of mustering up your clique of five pals to throw a load of crap up there. There will be fewer "Obama sucks" threads, AND fewer "Obama is Messiah" threads. Maybe we'll actually have REAL discussions, like "What's the best path to healthcare for all?" and "How can we extricate ourselves from this deficit mess?" on the greatest page, instead of the foolish polarizing posts.

That's why some people are pissed. It's easier to align oneself with a "team"--that way, there's no need to THINK.

I think it's funny that the concept of "democracy"--with everyone being able to weigh in on the quality of a post-- when it comes to Greatest Page posts is even a source of anger or opposition. I guess "Halfassed View Plus Five Buddies" beats "Honest Opinion of All Interested Forum Participants" in some corners of this site!

[noamnety]

54. Protesting is not "shitting in every room."

Nor do I believe that protests are "mindless."

If I really believed, like you, that the result will be less "Obama sucks" and "Obama is Messiah" threads, I'd be on board with you.

We seem to have very different beliefs about how and why people will utilize the feature. You believe people will be motivated by the substance of the post. Many of us however believe that people will use it to try to give less visibility (back page billing) to posts that don't "support the party" (in a my-party-right-or-wrong sort of way), regardless of the actual merit of the post.

[MADem]

63. Unreccing mindlessly because you're angry about a new feature

is "shitting in every room."

Like I said, you can, but should you? It suggests a real fear of the democratic process. If you think that "My party right or wrong" types will weigh in, well, so what? Don't they have a right to have their voices heard as well? Or do you want them silenced? Are you suggesting that the Greatest Page should be primarily for contrarians who hate the party? I'm not sure what you're saying, really.

It might cut down on the hectoring, bullying, in-your-face "fuck you" attitude that a lot of contrarian threads possess. It may teach people to argue more persuasively, and be forced to put forth vigorous discussion points rather than relying on a five member "Me Too" choir to slap their idea up on the GP.

The fact is, if most people here don't think a post is "Greatest," then it shouldn't be on the "Greatest" Page. We're all members here (even those people who call themselves Democrats--such a concept at Democratic Underground) and we all should have a say on what ends up on that page, representing to the world what we as a group think is "Greatest."

[noamnety]

64. through the looking glass

"Don't they have a right to have their voices heard as well? Or do you want them silenced?"

I am not sure how you can argue for the right to deliberately give some posts less visibility, while simultaneously claiming that you want this feature to make sure all voices are heard. The entire point of this exercise is to allow some factions to relegate to the back page posts that they don't agree with.

You can believe it's about ensuring only well-written posts with persuasive arguments get to the top of GP, but that's not the reason skinner gave for doing it. His reason that he gave in his initial post was that he wanted people to have the ability to remove controversial topics from the greatest page, and keep it a little more for the mainstream DUers.


"there was a tendency for highly polarizing topics to climb to the top of the Greatest Page. We believe that giving members the option to unrecommend topics will help insure that the threads at the top of the Greatest Page are those threads that have the broadest appeal to our members."

That's in part why people are recognizing this as a way to enforce some group-think onto the posts with the most visibility.

[MADem]

67. It's not "through the looking glass" though. Why should six trolls "represent" DU?

Why should six naysayers represent DU? Why should six contrarians off on the fringe of this group represent DU?

Having a "rec" feature without an "unrec" feature allows six trolls to plaster shit all over the Greatest Page, and represent that crap as "majority" opinion, when it's not.

The issue isn't "less" or "more" visibility, here, and that's where you seem to be wrapped up and confused. The "Greatest Page" is the page where DU puts the posts that are perceived by anyone visiting as "The Greatest" posts, as determined by the community. Unfortunately, because there was, prior to now, no ability to hoist the bullshit flag on lousy posts foisted on that page by a cliquish minority, a lot of specious, not-so-great shit ended up on the "Greatest" page, when it wasn't great at all, but borderline wingish, racist or discriminatory.

By your standard, while you complain about the community 'regalating to the back page posts they don't agree with,' you want the community to permit six people who don't represent the community the ability to push to the front page posts that we don't agree with.

Posts will now get "more visibility" when they EARN it. A clique of six fools with a halfassed idea can no longer represent themselves as the "voice" of DU--which is what has happened in the past. You want your ideas up front, now, you'll have to earn the approval of the entire community, not PM five friends to give a fringe view a falsely loud voice.

No one is "enforcing group think." What is being "enforced" is that bullshit will no longer be called "Greatest" because six self-important bullies say so.

If your idea generates a lot of replies, it will remain at the top of the GD or GDP listing, which is what a lot of folks go to when they look for interesting discussion items. But you won't be able to pretend, with five friends, that something is viewed by the entire community as "Greatest" when it's not.

Those days are over, and that's a good thing.

[noamnety]

70. If they are trolls or posting right wing or racist content

you are supposed to hit the alert button. If you didn't do that, that's your own fault.

I LOVE that you consider it "bullying" to write a post on a forum that gets recommended. That's hilarious.

And I am amused by your concern about "contrarian" posts (posts contrary to your point of view?) but don't see that as promoting group think.

[MADem]

71. People can post objectionable material under the guise of innocently asking a question.

It happens all the time--only someone who doesn't actually pay attention to the shit plastered all over the GP wouldn't realize that's how it gets played. If the post is within the guidelines of the rules, there's no cause for an alert and the mods will not take action.

I don't "LOVE" anything of the sort, so please don't characterize my comments with over-emotional attributions that you're making up in your own mind. I do think six nitwits shouldn't be able to represent a group as diverse as this one is, but you, apparently, have another view and believe that six people can call something "Greatest" when it's not that at all.

You'll just have to live with this new paradigm--trying to get snarky with me isn't going to change that. It's a good thing, IMO, and will reduce some of the absurd drama that a small minority here apparently crave.

A "contrarian" post (since you apparently need a definition) is a post that doesn't pass the majority smell test--something along the lines of "Don't you think the gays should just sit down and shut up in order to not endanger the Democratic majority in the Senate?"

Innocent question, or sleazy trolling presented in the guise of fostering discussion? Inquiring minds want to know. They're often labeled "concern" posts, and sometimes presented in the guise of question or comment that starts off "My rightwing relative/co-worker/friend told me that....." when no such thing actually occurred.

See, I don't find that shit "amusing" at all.

You want to get on the Greatest Page? The majority of those reading your post will have to actually think it's "great." Not just five friends that you PM and ask them to vote it up.

People who want to stoke their own vanity will just have to find another way to manage it. People who aren't into internet drama shouldn't have too much trouble adjusting, I think.

[WeDidIt]

69. No, I was wrong in my assumptions about how this would work

It's actually havd a positive effect.

Look at the Greatest PAge.

[TexasObserver]

65. Yes, it is cathartic. The Tribe has spoken. We love it!

[ZombieHorde]

3. The unrec feature is very shiny for some, but the luster will wear. nt

[ecstatic]

5. I'm getting the very same impression as you :) nt

[RB TexLa]

6. You have to add those of us who couldn't give a shit about it.

[Fumesucker]

13. I pretty much fall into that category myself..

But I find the developing (sorta) flamewar kind of interesting.

[MADem]

7. One person's basher is another person's cheerleader.

There are people who bash like crazy on a thread, who have a cadre of cheerleaders for their bashing viewpoint recommend the thread.

I think the function will give us a clearer idea of where DU's "groupthink" attitudes are--instead of having the tone set by just six people with an agenda.

[Fumesucker]

11. Like I said, I almost never see the greatest page..

So I really don't know what's on it most of the time.

And I'm not interested in "groupthink" at all..

[MADem]

23. I see it every so often, and much of it is not representative of the overall attitude

here on DU. It tends to be a very negative, whiny, angry page, punctuated by the occasional "lighthearted" thread, and the occasional "So and So is sick/died" threads about members.

Perhaps this change will provide a little more balance. Time will tell.

But, since you don't see it, it won't matter much to you in any event.

[Fumesucker]

39. You are one of the posters I recognize..

I'm not entirely sure though that there really is an overall "attitude" here, I've seen several polls on DU that would indicate we are relatively evenly split on attitude towards current events in politics.

[MADem]

52. Well, if there IS an attitude, we'll get a better sense of it now. nt

[drm604]

12. K&U... (Not Really)

When I first saw it I had a negative reaction. Now I'm thinking that I'm going to take a wait and see attitude. It may or may not work out.

[redqueen]

17. The only thread I've seen unrec'd in a way that surprised me...

unlike Ensign and Single Payer/Public Option threads - which I'd expect a few trolls to unrec... was one about how the Stimulus money is actually being spent at a reasonable rate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8518491

Make of that what you will.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I'm more of a krelboyne/stoner/wannabe-jock type, myself.

It's a waste of time to try to put everyone in factions. That's too "high school" for me.

Me: I supported Edwards then Clinton. I find myself in the minority on a number of issues, and I'm fine with that. I come here for vigorous debate, not for validation. I dislike anything which exacerbates the already existing groupthink. There is a strong undercurrent of DU culture which demands that all forms of disagreement must be shut down, exemplified by the calls to turn DU into Obama underground while the primary was still in full swing. Every day another long term DU'er was excommunicated, each event was a cause for celebration.

Ignore, "ignore thread", recommend, unrecommend and groups which by charter are designed to shut out all but *your* viewpoint. All these things are tools intended for the express purpose of turning the community into your own little echo chamber.

What would make DU more useful are topic tags like on Kos.

[Fumesucker]

32. I've never used the "ignore" or "ignore thread" functions..

I agree with you, there is already too much "groupthink" sometimes and particularly on some subjects.

[condoleeza]

21. Frankly, I think this gives the Freepers who monitor this site an "IN"

I think this place is pretty solidly realistic humans interacting politely for the most part and I just generally think it's a bad idea. If I were a Freeper, I'd tell all my fellow Freeper's to go here and Unrecommend anything that pissed me off, and therein lies the problem - as I see it.

[noamnety]

34. What the freepers will do is up in the air.

They could react by voting down anything that is critical of democrats working with corporations (what I think of as DLC positions).

Or they could react by voting up those threads, to expose corruption among democrats in power and sow dissent here.

If we could isolate and see their votes, it would be an interesting experiment to see whether they'd rather have a green party message out in the open or hidden away.

[Laelth]

22. I am very curious to know which of your four categories encompasses me.

Personally, I like controversy and real discussion amongst intelligent people.

I think the new system will squelch controversial threads.

None of mine would have ever made it onto the greatest page with this system. :rofl:

They would have been ignored, and DU would have lost several interesting discussions.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Fumesucker]

47. There were only two groups actually..

I was using two sorta generic terms for each group.

And I *know* a few of my most highly recced posts would never have become that way with the rec function, I too have some controversial opinions.

But I don't live for recs, don't really care that much about them.

[Laelth]

62. I start very few OPs.

If I am going to spend my time crafting one, I want it read, widely. I want the rec's if I am going to bother writing.

Under this system, I have little incentive to write here because I am unlikely to get widely read.

But, we'll see how it plays out.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Generic Brad]

24. I pay it no heed

Recommends mean nothing to me. Same goes for unrecommends. I'm going to read what I want to read regardless of what the rest of DU thinks.

[noamnety]

26. Maybe a good way to get a sense of this

would be a poll asking if people view themselves as moderate and like/moderate and dislike/very progressive and like/very progressive and dislike the function.

[Obamanaut]

29. It's change we can live with. nt

[Gwendolyn]

30. I'm seeing I'm a complete asshole as compared to others.

Because all the threads I like, have unrec markings. Doesn't change anything except that I didn't notice before what an asshole I am, until now. It's not really an awakening. More of a confirmation.

[Fumesucker]

38. I don't recognize your handle right offhand..

But your post doesn't seem "assholeish" to me..

There are maybe fifty to a hundred posters I really recognize, most of those because I either strongly agree or strongly disagree with them most of the time.

Most of the time I keep my disagreement to myself though, I know people I strongly disagree with I'm exceedingly unlikely to convince of the correctness of my position. :)

[Gwendolyn]

51. I remember you. Although that's not why I posted here.

That was just an observation I kind of chuckled over just now. It seems whatever interests me, repels others. And I'm a very bad feminist. lol. :)

I do remember you from a thread a long time ago, (I left for months on the job search) which was about clashing of religion and you said you had someone you knew well, gone for a drug offense. It was off topic, but I hope at least, that there is hope in sight for your loved one. I did think about what you said at that time as I had a friend I loved far away, locked up, and here's a good chance to tell you that what you said affected me. And your last paragraph is very astute. :)

[BlooInBloo]

33. I'm fine with it. I'm fine without it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

40. The what?

This is all too complicated for me. I read what I want to read, and if I click on something that turns out not to be interesting, I go to the next thing.

Perhaps some time away from DU might be in order for some folks? A breath of fresh air, a readjustment of perspective, a reminder that it's only a message board, a fun place? Hardly a place to take seriously ........................................

[Mojambo]

41. I'm against it, but it could be made better by limiting a user's number of unrecs.

I hope this happens.

[waiting for hope]

48. Daily Kos did that for a while -

You only had 5 troll ratings a day - which made you sure when you wanted to use it - the time frame to rec a diary is shorter too over there, but it's been a while since I was seriously on the site, but I think you have to post a lot to get the ability to troll rate.

[waiting for hope]

42. I think having a rec function to begin with

is sometimes silly - I've been here for four years and it seems to me that there are a lot of posters that post for the sheer numbers of recs they receive and how fast and how high up on the Greatest Page they can get. I also see a lot of potentially really good discussions sink because the subject matter is not in with the group think - I see the Unrec feature as pushing down even more of these types of threads, which the majority are not bashing, but shedding light on a subject that effects each and every one of us.

[itsrobert]

43. Let's leave feedback discussions to the admin/moderators

Who appointed you community organizer?

[Fumesucker]

44. I'm just interested in the subject..

No one appointed me anything, I simply post about the things that interest me.

After reading a few quite vituperative threads about the "unrec" function I got interested in who liked it and who didn't.

That is all.

[scarletwoman]

57. Geeze, that seems rather uncalled for. What's wrong with a DUer soliticiting opinions

from other DUers on a topic about which lots of DUers appear to have varying opinions?

Do you believe we shouldn't be allowed to discuss this among ourselves?

[slackmaster]

45. I think it gives people a way of anonymously quelling irrational exuberance

:D

[Fumesucker]

49. LOL.. I like the cut of your jib.. n/t

[timeforpeace]

50. Couldn't care less.

[Fumesucker]

53. LOL.. You cared enough to read the OP.. n/t

[timeforpeace]

55. You asked who cared about the rec/unrec functions. I definitely care about you and the OP, dear.

[pipi_k]

58. Is there an "I-don't-give-a-shit" faction?

Because if there is, I'm in it.

Honestly.

The world isn't going to explode just because someone got their topic unrec'd a few dozen or a few hundred times.


Call me crazy, call me naive, but if I (or any other normal person) am sitting here worrying about, for example, my mom possibly having to undergo heart surgery, I'm not going to be concerned about someone else whining because their topic will not be featured on the "Greatest Threads" page.

But whatever....silly me.

carry on...

:shrug:

[UTUSN]

59. You see us, your fellow DUers, as "purists" "bashers" "cheerleaders" "bots"?!1

[TexasObserver]

60. What a silly generalization and conclusion!

[RoyGBiv]

61. I don't see it as a factional issue ...

... not inherently anyway.

I do believe some people have attempted to *make* it a factional issue, thus steering the conversation in that direction.

I have avoided any and all references to a poster's ideology, assuming I even know it, in my comments. It's irrelevant. The logic some people are using against is flatly absurd, however, and the most common absurdities are coming from people who are clearly attempting to force a factional, i.e. ideologically, bent to its use or disuse.

Other than that, I like the feature. Many major discussion groups have something similar, and it works reasonably well there for what it is intended to do. Some mechanisms work better than others. If anyone really wants to see a rating system, which is what this is, that does in fact result in a lot of good stuff getting buried because certain factions don't like the subject itself, go hang out at Slashdot. Yet, somehow, Slashdot still maintains a vibrant user base with voluminous discussions and is widely considered an excellent source of information.

DU has had aborted attempts at it in the past that clearly did not work, but I think this one will. By "work" I mean thrusting into the limelight those threads that are favored by a majority of participants, which tend to be those threads most free of vitriolic swill, the latter, imo, not in any way highlighting what is best about DU regardless of the subject itself. We have, fairly often even, had intense discussions that do not devolve into such swill, and I do believe those will continue to be recommended more than un-recommended once people have blown their reserve of outrage-for-the-sake-of-outrage at perceived personal slights.

[Quantess]

66. I don't like it.

It's not because I don't like change. Change is often exciting and necessary. It's not because I don't like new things either. I loved cell phones from he very beginning, and I got my first cell phone in 1999.

But I just don't trust Unrecommend.

I check Greatest Page regularly, BTW. I don't want important news or comprehensive articles being unrecommended.