Is < 0 gone?

[Renew Deal]

:shrug:

[cliffordu]

1. That's the rumor. I wonder why.

[KittyWampus]

2. Here is what I got by Unreccing your thread, which I did only for reference & not as an opinion

on you or the subject matter of this thread.

Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)

So it does look like the Feature has been tweaked by the PTB.

[bigtree]

3. looks like

I just tried to unrec this one. I like the change.

[Dr. Strange]

4. I unrecced as a test. (Hope you don't mind.)

It says: Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)

[bigtree]

5. I wonder if the unrecs still build up

. . . and make it harder to get to +1 etc.?

[Dr. Strange]

15. I'm guessing it does.

[pipi_k]

17. I would guess they do...

otherwise why bother having an unrec to begin with...

[WheelWalker]

6. I just gave it a rec and it didn't move it past zero...

Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: +1)

[FourScore]

I just tried giving this thread a rec and it's not showing up. n/t

[951-Riverside]

7. Looks like it.

The "who unrec'd my post!?!" crybabies got their way. The feature is completely useless now.

[bigtree]

10. ha ha!

they got their way!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. The Unrec Patrol is NOT pleased.

[Dr. Strange]

16. The one on the right looks somewhat pleased.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. You must understand....

....he's got the inside track on dating the sole female Unrec Patroler. He's able to effectively play off the whole, "Unlike the other dorks here, I slightly resemble Boston Red Sox slugger Kevin Youkilis....isn't that cool, huh?"

So naturally he has something to smile about. That, and he's holding Snuggy Bear.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Deleted dupe nt

[pipi_k]

19. No, it's not

it appears that the unrec votes are cumulative

they just don't show up...

which makes it harder for people to wretch about negative recs if they don't even know about them.

[Renew Deal]

24. The feature was completely useless in the first place

And it was people like you that made the feature a problem.

[951-Riverside]

26. "it was people like you that made the feature a problem."

...What did I say that made you come to that conclusion?

[Renew Deal]

35. The "who unrec'd my post!?!" crybabies got their way

The unrec mob was causing a lot of bad feelings on this site. The problem was that perfectly non-controversial posts were getting unrecced, sometimes for the dumbest of reasons.

[Bobbie Jo]

34. You spoke too soon.

Someone has ALREADY complained because their number went down.

Good grief. :eyes:

[Maine-ah]

8. had to try it

I admit to my unrec :)

[pipi_k]

9. It sure is...nice, isn't it?

So now even if someone jumps in and unrecs a thread two seconds after it's posted, that < 0 thing won't show up and that should end the, "OMG...WHO UNRECC'ED MY TOPIC????" stuff.

[HughMoran]

29. Yep

This was a great compromise - it really puts a damper on those who get their jollies having their least favorite poster see "<0" within seconds of posting. I like it :)

[arcadian]

11. That sucks.

They should show the actual negative amounts. This kind of shows that the function was not being used as it was intended, it was being used by packs of like minded people who have an agenda.

[Heidi]

13. With apologies, I just unrecommended your thread to try it.

I bet it still exists behind the scenes, but it apparently doesn't show up as an unrec. :hi:

[myrna minx]

I did too.

:hi:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. I unrecc'd also, no offense intended

just checking.

Plus, I've never unrecc'd a thread before, gotta do it before the unrec vanishes altogether.

:hi:

[cliffordu]

18. I that you were talking about a DU'r with a USERNAME of

<0

Which is about as stupid as I've been in years.




:rofl:

[EFerrari]

23. I thought this thread was about LoZo.

lol

Time to beef up the coffee.

[bullwinkle428]

25. GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE!!

:rofl:

[nyc 4 Biden]

22. ur right!

Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)

after I unrec'd this for test purposes.

[HughMoran]

27. OMG!!!!!

I think this was a very good idea. No need to know is a post is below zero - 0 is 0 and won't make it to the Greatest Page. This is the best compromise yet. Now people won't feel put upon when they see the <0 - they simply won't know and it adds a disincentive for the negative rec as there is little satisfaction without the <0. I will repeat, I think this is the best compromise yet.

[Subdivisions]

28. I noticed a change too. I'm sure there will be an explanation from

the admins any minute now.

[Gold Metal Flake]

30. Silly.

Just show how many recs and how many unrecs and be done with it. The people complaining about the unrecs are just being dramatic and hyperbolic. A good thread will often receive a few unrecs at the star and then go one to be highly recced later so there is no reason to worry about it. I see no reason to hide some aspect of the process. The way it was was flawed because an aspect of the process was hidden. The way it is now is flawed because an aspect of the process is hidden. If forum management would stop treating member like babies and just present the whole rec vs. unrec count we could all stop worrying about it.

[laughingliberal]

37. I don't see it as flawed as long as the system keeps up with net recs or unrecs

I believe rec numbers were always the number of recs minus the unreccs leaving the net total.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

31. We'll have to provide some other outlet for lurking freeps who don't like the Palin threads.

:rofl:

[Capn Sunshine]

32. I just unrecced you to see

apparently the new rubric is "net votes -1"

[tekisui]

33. It's gone, but I still wish we could see how many unrecs

an OP gets. Reccing a 0, when it has more uncrecs, just sucks up my rec like a vacuum and stays 0. I think a total count on recs and unrecs would be helpful.

I also think this is a way to let chronic unreccers know that their votes are recorded and observable. With each rec or unrec, your vote is listed next to the total.

[Echo In Light]

36. The refusal to display unrecs only serves to fuel suspicions

[tekisui]

39. In effect an individual's reccing ability

could be turned off. Or the unreccing for threads could be disabled, and no one would know.

I think it should ALL be public. Who recced, who unrecced and the total count of each. No anonymity on the vote. That would go a far way in stopping unrec trolls.

[Echo In Light]

40. Here's my take on it from the other day. Not a popular view, but I stand by it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7835898&mesg_id=7836432

[EarlG]

38. To clarify

The system continues to count the number of unrecs below zero, and the number of unrecs is still not displayed. That has not changed. All we did was remove the "<" sign. (We also added the line that tells you how you voted on a particular thread.)

[Heidi]

41. Good idea.

I do think the unrec feature was often used as a weapon of sorts against folks unrecommenders didn't like. But I think the rec feature is often used in an opposite, but much the same, way: people recommending the threads based on fandom for the poster, rather than the content of the OP. :hi:

[Bill McBlueState]

42. I like this

It may cut down on the number of threads in which the first dozen responses are people griping about the early display of '<0'

[hunter]

43. Hooray! No more less than zero.

:)

[Stinky The Clown]

44. What a screwed up mess .....

..... first we got to see how far underwater a thread was

Then we got to see only that it was underwater, but not how deep

Now we don't see shit, but a hundred recs mean nothing.

When can we finally admit the whole damned idea was a bad one that caused nothing but more rancor and bad feelings and just scrap the whole thing?

[SidDithers]

45. Looks like it...

I'll be glad to see the complaining about unrec stop, now that fragile egos are protected from the dreaded <0.

Sid