I've been gone. What happened to <0 designation?

[uppityperson]

I see we can still rec/unrec, but it used to show minus, not none do. Thanks.

Edited to change > to <.

[el_bryanto]

1. i thought they got rid of that pretty quick?

I seem to recall it just saying that a post has been unrecommended but not by how much.

I find it frusterating because I can't see just how much people hate my polls.

Bryant

[uppityperson]

3. lowest it can go is now zero, not the >0. Thinking Skinner may have posted

but search for recent skinner post shows me nothing. So, thought I'd ask.

[MineralMan]

2. It got unrecced by the admins, the scoundrels!

[Jamastiene]

4. Oops, I uncrecced you to see what you were talking about.

Sorry. That wasn't an "on purpose" unrec, so I'll :kick: I'd like to know too.

[superduperfarleft]

5. I would guess the mods got sick of listening to the constant whining about it.

Can't say I blame them. Personally, I miss it.

[elocs]

20. Yes, the constant, constant whining about an UnRec.

Especially on a thread that was so important that the 1st response had to be about an UnRec.
"How DARE somebody UnRec my thread." :nopity:

[ixion]

6. just a note: That is "Greater than 0" I think you mean "Less than 0" which is 0<

it's a minor point in this context, admittedly. In the programming realm, though, it would make all the difference in the world. :)

[uppityperson]

9. You are right, I'm dyslexic today. It is fine with me, just noticed the change. Thanks.

[ixion]

11. heh heh heh...sure thing...

:hi:

[tekisui]

7. I was a way to mitigate the inevitable "This thread has already

been unrecced" sub-threads that accompanied every thread.

But, now, recs and unrecs are sucked up into a vacuum. I think we still need to see how many unrecs and how many recs a piece gets. Stuck on zero doesn't tell much about the interest of the piece, even if it had gotten 15 recs, but had 16 unrecs.

A total positive and a total negative would be better, IMO.

[TexasObserver]

8. It does seem to soothe the angry beast.

I wish we had all the recs and unrecs listed for each thread. One would think adults at a Democratic site would have the maturity to accept numbers that show approval or disapproval, but apparently some cannot handle such a world.

[CTyankee]

10. You can get the "interest of the piece" by reading it for yourself.

Personally, I don't care whether something is recced or unrecced. I care about the subject first, then I read the responses to see what is actually being said, primarily because I might learn something. The unrec/rec thing is of no help...could be friends reccing other friends or unreccing people they see as enemies. This ain't high school...

[tekisui]

12. I agree. But, there are some threads whose headline

doesn't get enough of my interest to open it and read it. Even if it has a lot of responses. If that thread gets a large number of recs, I may give it a look, since it seems to be important to the DU community.

Of course recs and unreccs will be abused, but I think it is safe to say the abuse will be regular and predictable.

What I like seeing is how the DU readers feel about a piece. If a thread had 20 unrecs and 24 recs, I would be more likely to read it than one that just showed 4 recs. When we can't see the total numbers, an inaccurate picture of the 'sense of the piece' is given.

[CTyankee]

16. That's just not the way I roll. I feel it is better to read more to get more

of the sense. And I often find helpful information...which is one of THE major reasons I come to DU. I have eclectic interests and if I am interested in a subject I want to read more. I have never cared whether something is recced or unrecced. It has absolutely no bearing on whether I will read it or not...and besides, what other people may find boring I might find fascinating and vice versa. I trust my own judgment.

[xultar]

13. I will admit to missing it. I can't believe there are so many sensitive types

who can't handle shit like that.

It makes me laugh that some off the DU bullies can't take a little unrec action. :rofl:

[CTyankee]

17. That's not my issue. I don't let others do my thinking for me! nt

[TexasObserver]

23. Indeed. Who would think labeling a thread a zero would be better?

And the crowd chanted "now we're not less than!!"

[Mike 03]

14. To be honest, I think this is a great idea. I never liked the Un-Rec option

for a lot of reasons which are not worth going into here, but I felt it was being abused and that good posts were being un-rec'd not because they were unimportant, but because of the message being conveyed by the messenger.

ON EDIT:

I also agree with the other poster who said they see no correlation whatsoever between the quality of a post and the number of recs.

[SoCalDem]

21. Me too,, This will probably spoil the "fun" of all the snipers though

I'm sure they liked seeing their handiwork in action :rofl:
It would be interesting to see if this has an effect on the actual numbers of unrecs...compared to before... Skinnnnnnnner!

[CTyankee]

22. Who cares? Does anyone serious about DU give a hot damn about the Unrec feature?

I don't get it myself. But then, I never did...no hostility, just didn't "get it".

[Zywiec]

15. Too many hurt feelings with a

:nopity:

[leftstreet]

18. Zero is the new 'UnRec'd to Oblivion and Beyond'

:-)

[damntexdem]

19. I hadn't noticed, so I tried -- and indeed, it didn't go below 0.

Sorry for the unrec, but I had to try.

Well, that's a shame -- and I guess I will stop using the rec/unrec feature.

Hey, Admin, we want the minus recs feature back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UTUSN]

24. Did you ------------------ LIKE -------------- that crap?!1 n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

25. The whining must have got to be too much for the admins.

[NoPasaran]

26. Too bad they didn't just TS all the crybabies

[Quantess]

27. Damn it! I really liked the negative integer.

Unrec was the best thing since sliced bread. I guess you can still unrec, but you can't get a thread to rate <0.