About those Unrec's, folks..

[dgibby]

It's been my observation that almost all posts in GDP and GD are being unrec'd by someone who remains anonymous. It's sort of like a drive-by shooting or guerrilla warfare. I referred to them yesterday as a "serial unreccer".

These unrecs are occurring to both "positive" and "negative" threads, and don't appear to be directed at specific posters. An op about babies, kitties, and puppies will get an unrec as fast as something critical of Obama.

Although I can't begin to ascertain the intent of the unreccers, the effect is clear-more flame bait, more divisiveness, more name calling, more finger-pointing, as if we don't have enough of that already.

I really believe that the only way to combat this is to totally ignore it. Commenting only serves to encourage whoever's doing it. Ignoring it may not make it stop, but it certainly will go a long way toward taking the fun and satisfaction out of the process for those doing it.

Behaviour doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone is getting something out of this attention getting mechanism, whether they choose to remain anonymous or not.

[stray cat]

1. How do people have time to count unrecs?

[dgibby]

2. I don't know.

I've just noticed a trend, and I've noticed the resulting fallout from it.

[MNDemNY]

55. Fallout??????

:o :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LynneSin]

4. No fricking idea

Which is why I unrec this thread.

It's like some great giant conspiracy theory out there to 'get ya' by unrec what people perceive should be posts on the home page.

Think about this - DU probably gets hundreds of new posts each and every day but only about 4-5 of them can make the top of the DU homepage. It isn't a conspiracy theory that keeps some threads off the homepage but just a law of average.

I have seen this - if a post is really really good, homepage quality good, it will make the DU homepage even if a few numskulls think it's silly to unrec the thread. That's why I stopped worrying about 'unrecs' about 10 minutes after DU introduced them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Why is this such a big deal??

Who cares whether you are loved by the popular group? I didn't care in high school and I don't care now either.

It's just all so silly. :shrug:

[LynneSin]

5. BECAUSE DAMNIT YOU MUST LOVE MY POST - YOU JUST MUST YOU ALL MUST

:rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

14. ROFL

:rofl:

[trotsky]

22. ...

:rofl:
:thumbsup:

[dgibby]

9. I agree,

but the result isn't silly. I've seen several threads lately that are accusing the cheerleaders of unreccing anything that's critical of Obama and the "haters" of unreccing anything that's supportive of Obama. It just adds to the hate and discontent and divides us more. It also highjacks the thread.

[xiamiam]

18. its not silly although that is the talking point which has become quite tiresome..

this poster has a legitimate concern yet all of the responses are the same..and derisive..why?

[dgibby]

25. Thanks.

I appreciate your support. The derisivness titer is kinda high, isn't it. Good thing I have the hide of a rhino!:rofl: :rofl:

[MNDemNY]

56. silly

:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

[dysfunctional press]

63. how is it not completely silly...? PLEASE explain.

please?

[MH1]

6. Huh?

"attention getting mechanism" yet they remain anonymous? :shrug:

"like a drive-by shooting or guerrilla warfare" :freak: :rofl: :yernutz: :yoiks:

THIS is what you worry about and take time to post about? :wow:

[cali]

7. ignore it. seriously, of all the things to care about, this should be low on

anyone's list.

[Toucano]

19. +1 n/t

[GodlessBiker]

8. Why didn't you take your own advice? Ignore it and don't comment on it.

[jdlh8894]

12. I've got more marbles than you! n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. Someone didn't get enough recs as a child.

It really has lost any impact. You just kind of figure you're starting each post with a rec-deficit of one or two. I agree, don't give them the satisfaction of pointing it out.

[xiamiam]

11. people un rec information as well as opinions..like we're supposed to stay in the dark

that's what i see...i dont understand it but i wish they would just leave the informational threads alone...its worrisome..ive been on here a lot for the past few days but usually i check in briefly..a lot of really good threads are on the third or 4th pages and i dont have that kind of time..i dont think its just one...or two...hell, we already have a msm that doesn't get us the news so i depend on duers posting links that i wouldnt normally see..now, i have to take time to find them..unless of course its about a celebrity

[dgibby]

13. Good point! n/t

[Ms. Toad]

21. If you really need popular (and only positive) polls

to decide what to read, go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

bottom right of the page.

[xiamiam]

24. thanks..never saw that before..nt

[Ms. Toad]

15. I agree with this point: Just ignore it.

Fixating on it just makes it a game.

If all of you who are still licking your wounds from not being elected homecoming queen/king had just ignored it (1) the early, apparently random, unrecs would not be inevitable now and (2) they will likely just stop when the second or third post in nearly every thread isn't a derogatory comment about the "unreccers."

[dgibby]

17. Thanks.

You said it better than I did.

[ZombieHorde]

16. I think it is just the anti-unrec crowd trying to make a point. nt

[dgibby]

20. That's certainly a possibility.

Looks like it might be working.

[sailor65]

23. Unrec because....

I felt left out :-)

[SidDithers]

26. Unrec...

Sid

[TexasObserver]

27. Bullshit. You overreact to a normal feature, and think it's the fault of those who unrec.

The problem is your inability to accept that your opinion on threads is not shared by a majority of those voting on such threads. It's all in your head. There's no reality to your supposition. It's just another delusion you've invented to make sense of something you find inexplicable: why others don't share your opinion on the value of a given thread.

Instead of simply accepting it, you construct these outrageous and unsupported fables to explain to yourself why your point of view isn't shared by most.

Unrecommend doesn't stop anyone from posting, doesn't stop any thread from being read, or being replied to, or having a ton of replies. There's no logical or factual basis for your statements.

FYI - I unrecommend all threads about kittens, cats, dogs, etc. I don't give a God Damn about Fluffy, what he ate, what he won't eat, or how cute he looks when he displays that 4 IQ. I can't believe any adult would post such a thread, or post on it, or recommend it. Go to a cat board if you can't stand NOT talking about your cat. It's Lounge drivel, at best.

And let's be clear. The whining about the anonymity is also bullshit. It doesn't matter whether one tells the OP why they unrecommend or not, the whining never stops. I've told numerous complainers why I unrecommend their thread, very specifically, and they all then want to argue about why they think it IS worthy of recommend and why unrecommending is still wrong. Respect the fact that your opinion on many subjects is not shared by most here.

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. Well said!

:applause: :applause: :woohoo:

[dgibby]

30. For what it's worth,

I have NEVER complained about unrecs on anything I've ever posted. I DO understand that not everyone here shares my opinion just as I don't share theirs.

I would have to say, though, that I don't quite understand the intensity of your vitriol or the ad hominin attack, but if that's what it takes to make you feel good, then have at it, and have a good day, too.:hi:

[TexasObserver]

32. Don't start threads lambasting those who unrec and call yourself an innocent.

Poor you. All you're doing is slamming others who don't agree with you.

Are you always so oblivious to your own offensiveness? :hi:

[dgibby]

33. Like I said,

have a good day.

[G_j]

60. you MUST like the unrec function, you MUST like the unrec function, you MUST....

not voice your opinion about the unrec function....



:banghead:

[A HERETIC I AM]

37. Perhaps your assumption that there is some nefarious purpose behind a simple vote..

makes you a target for vitriol, and it is well deserved.

Here's your Original Post in Bold;

It's been my observation that almost all posts in GDP and GD are being unrec'd by someone who remains anonymous. It's sort of like a drive-by shooting or guerrilla warfare. I referred to them yesterday as a "serial unreccer".

It may be your "observation" but it is in no way provable that it is a specific "someone" nor is it even remotely reasonable for you to suggest that "all posts in GDP and GP are being unrec'd" because they aren't. 2 seconds looking at the list of threads will show plenty that have zero in the "recs" column.

These unrecs are occurring to both "positive" and "negative" threads, and don't appear to be directed at specific posters. An op about babies, kitties, and puppies will get an unrec as fast as something critical of Obama.

There are thousands and thousands of regular posters on this website. The fact that not all of them would agree on what subject matter qualifies as "greatest threads" material should be a no-brainer for you.

Although I can't begin to ascertain the intent of the unreccers, the effect is clear-more flame bait, more divisiveness, more name calling, more finger-pointing, as if we don't have enough of that already.

Here, let me help you ascertain the intent. The intent is to express a vote on whether a particular thread is worthy of making it to the greatest threads page. THAT'S ALL IT IS! It isn't "flame-bait" or "finger pointing" until someone makes a comment about it, which is (rightly so) seen as whining by many on DU. What astounds me is that so many posters will respond to their own threads with a complaint about having an unrec vote being cast by a fellow board member, often as the FIRST reply in response to an OP.

I really believe that the only way to combat this is to totally ignore it. Commenting only serves to encourage whoever's doing it. Ignoring it may not make it stop, but it certainly will go a long way toward taking the fun and satisfaction out of the process for those doing it.

So, just to be clear on your point here, you are suggesting everyone ignore the unrec's but determined the best way to further that goal was to put up YET ANOTHER THREAD about this subject. Got it.

Behaviour doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone is getting something out of this attention getting mechanism, whether they choose to remain anonymous or not.

I can certainly tell you that I orgasm every time I click unrec. I mean, what other reason could I have other than some personal pleasure? Sheesh.

[TexasObserver]

38. Indeed. How one OPs with such broad brush attacks, and feigns innocence ...

... is truly remarkable, isn't it?

And yet, those who create their fables about the unrecommenders always have some Taintzesque OP explaining how the unrecommenders are foiling all that is right at DU.

[dgibby]

42. Bless your heart, TO,that's some big burr you have under your saddle.

So far, you've called me a lying, delusional, offensive whiner. Got anything else in your little bag of invective you'd like to hurl at me?

[TexasObserver]

44. You reap what you sow.

But you are incapable of seeing that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

46. You responded to MY post, not Texas Observer's....

So far, you've called me a lying, delusional, offensive whiner.

You really need to go back and read Texas Observer's TWO posts on this thread and then go back and re-read my post above. TO didn't call you "delusional". He said "It's just another delusion you've invented". He didn't say you were "lying" or an "offensive whiner". What is clear now however, is that you have a difficult time understanding the written word.

Got anything else in your little bag of invective you'd like to hurl at me?

Yeah. Stop worrying about why other members of this board use an administrator approved and installed function in exactly the way it was intended. Not invective, merely a friendly suggestion.

The burr I have under my saddle regarding this issue is that it is pretty much settled law as far as the admins are concerned yet, on a regular basis, someone who is offended or bothered that other members use the feature, feels compelled to put up yet another OP about this subject. It is like the repetitious arguments I've had with Fundamentalist Christians for years before I gave them up. It's my opinion your position is illogical, not supported by facts and held completely because it makes you feel better to hold it than to risk looking at it from a more reasoned perspective.

Sooner or later I'll stop commenting about the unrec feature on threads like this and others for the same reason I don't post in the "Religion/Theology" forum. At some point the interest will go away and it will bore me to tears.

Almost there.

[dgibby]

48. Oops!

My bad. It's hard to tell the two of you apart. Sorry! You have a good day, too.

[LynneSin]

31. WAIT YOU UNREC MY KITTY THREADS

Why do you make Baby Jesus cry

:cry:

[TexasObserver]

34. Little known fact. Jesus hated cats.

When he was in the manger, one tried to jump on him and suck his breath away.

Why do people want to tell pet stories in GD? They obviously go in the Lounge. It's like your pet getting into the trash. They know they're not supposed to do it, and that's why they do it.

All threads about pets or kids should be shipped to the Lounge. They're strictly ego driven vanity threads that have no place in GD. Threads by posters who think we need to hear about every minor illness they have, too.

[LynneSin]

35. OMG you're evil reincarnate

:hide:


(btw :pals: )

[StarfarerBill]

39. Which is why I don't believe in him.

Ailurophobic jerk.

[NYC_SKP]

51. I KNOW! I had a puppy thread yesterday, who doesn't love puppies??

AND kitties?

x(

[sabrina 1]

40. Wow, why would you let someone's opinion

on anything, get you so worked up! The OP simply stated his/her opinion. Why not ignore it if it upsets you this much, kind of like you claim everyone should ignore the rec/unrec issue.

Sorry, nothing personal, it's just that your post seems to be doing exactly what you accuse the OP of doing. Giving a lot of attention to something you say doesn't deserve any attention. Kind of ironic really.

[TexasObserver]

43. Wow. You clearly didn't read the OP.

How could read it and not see how it is a broad brush attack on those who use the feature?

This isn't new. These obnoxious OPs have flooded GD for months, and it's always the same idiotic OP, always claiming the unreccers are up to no good. There are a lot of threads that don't deserve recommending. I realize that's completely over the head of many here, and they prove it over and over by starting these threads.

[sabrina 1]

50. Well, that may or may not be, I don't have enough

interest in who recs or unrecs who to know. All I'm saying is what difference does it make that there are people who hate the feature and who do think it is being abused, which it probably is by some. That's the problem with rating systems on forums. They are going to be abused to some extent. It always happens.

But it is what it is and complaining about from either pov, seems like a waste of everyone's time.

Check out those who say they are unrec'ing this OP simply because of the subject matter, nothing to do with the substance of it. Others unrec' because they don't like the person who writes an OP. So, when there are reasons like that for using the feature, it makes it worthless.

And your own contention that you always unrec OPs about animals, why? What satisfaction does that give you and how does it change it anything? How is that a valuable contribution in any way? Why not just ignore topics you are not interested in as most people do?

Anyhow, I've now wasted three minutes on a useless argument that will solve none of the problems facing this country today.

[Buzz Clik]

28. k&u. (not anonymous)

[Xenotime]

36. There should be a list where people can view.

[MineralMan]

41. Maybe we need a new dungeon for unrec threads.

Then they wouldn't appear in the Latest list. This is becoming very tiresome. Email Skinner about it. He's the only one who can change things like that.

Leave the rest of us alone, OK?

[cry baby]

45. My own personal opinion, DU was a better place before the rec/unrec feature. nt

[Lance_Boyle]

52. most. fitting. username. ever. n/t

[cry baby]

53. I chose this name right after boosh got elected again...I cried a lot for this country.

have a nice day

[frebrd]

47. K&UR! n/t

[arcadian]

49. auto-unrec for mentioning rec function

link to your other thread?

[MNDemNY]

54. Someone is taking this "place" waaayyy too serious!

:rofl: :tinfoilhat:

[spanone]

57. i can take all the unrecs they wanna give....who cares?

[MilesColtrane]

58. "I really believe that the only way to combat this is to totally ignore it."

Said the one who started a thread about unrec.

You get one from me, for sure.

[LostInAnomie]

59. Who the fuck cares?

Who even bothers to look at the number of recs a thread has?

If it was part of some kind of grand scheme by infiltrators, why would they pick a tactic that the has absolutely no effect on anyone's ability to enjoy, participate, or communicate positions in a thread? It would be pointless.

People need to get over this childish nonsense regarding unrec. It's ridiculous.

[hootinholler]

61. "I really believe that the only way to combat this is to totally ignore it."

FAIL

:rofl:

-Hoot

[Orangepeel]

62. So what? If others would ignore them, they'd probably stop

and at the least, be drowned out by everyone else. It wouldn't be flame bait if people would just let an unrec be a dud.