To Rec or Unrec: That is the question

[Cherchez la Femme]

It seems that there is some misunderstanding about the functions of Recommending or Unrecommending posts here on DU. For what it's worth, this is my opinion.

The purpose of recommending posts is to push them up the line so more people have the opportunity to read them. It is the dissemination of information to the DU populace which is important and which they should be knowledgeable of. When you recommend a post, to wit: actual news (discounting Faux) more people will probably read it. Is truth less important than whether it is positive to Democrats?
Unless of course you're of the opinion that a 'D' after one's name means they can do no wrong.
Yet strangely negative news regarding Republicans have been unrec'd too... go figure.

It is not your personal approval or disapproval of the post itself -- it an attempt to maximize their exposure, and the opportunity to discuss.
As in YouTube, the more positives the videos get the further it's ranked up, hence it is viewed much more. Yes, sometimes listening to some vile Repuke spew one wants to unrecommend it as it almost feels that giving it (now) a 'thumbs up' is saying 'Yeah, this is what I agree with'. But when it's downrated, you give it a lesser chance for other people to see it! Personally, when I run across those types of videos I rank them up and be sure to point out in the comments the outright ridiculousness of the verbal and visual vomit because gawdammit, I WANT more people to see this insanity!

It's really quite that simple.


I've posted some articles in LBN here sometimes far because I approved of them, but I felt that this was information my fellow Democrats should be aware of. Some criticized Democratic decisions and some were disgusting Repuke "news items" too. Surprisingly, guess I was naive, many of these posts were unrec'ed to the negatives. Disappointingly often I was told I 'should be ashamed' of posting such articles (news articles mind you, not editorials) and that I owed certain members of the DU populace an apology for daring to post such news!
--which is their right, I suppose, still unfortunate when they take it personally instead of being informed about what is being reported about our, or even 'their', politicians.


People of DU: recommending a post does NOT posit your approval, it signals information that people --we, Democrats, here-- should be aware of!


And that's all that I have to say about that other than --and I really shouldn't have to say this-- but I really don't care if my personal posts are unrec'd other than the principle I hope to have portrayed above. If you don't like what I, personally, have to say it's like water off a ducks back... I have no need for anyone's approval other than staying true to myself.

[greyl]

1. k

[Cherchez la Femme]

20. LOL That's FINE

Unrec me, like I care. Oh! I shall never, ever, get over it! Oh boo hoo hoo!
I wanted to point out the logical, not emotional reasons why to rec, I care much less if you unrec as ridiculous the reason may be.

Aah, sweet suppression under such verbiage about transparency! How droll.

But even here it's all about, for many of you, popularity and spin and fuck having an open discussion if it disagrees with your emotions and changing sensibilities due to what party is in control.
That's what's important, isn't it? That's what will contribute to help to put our country on the proper path, right?

How much we've learned the past 10 years... Devo was right, as was Zappa.

If something is worthy to be discussed or disseminated, even if you don't personally agree with it --which you certainly don't have to-- it still may be important towards future discussions especially with Repukes or interboard 'arguments' (much more common here as of late) instead of stifling them.
Yet again, my point is if it should be known to edify the population, to appraise things as they really are, and especially if it a positive is spun negatively and vice versa, it should be recommended not buried! Let people debate and even decide if they wish to that War is Peace, as obviously, debatably, the Afghan war is achieving!
Burying ones head in the sand only suffocates, shouting others down only alienates them, nothing more.

Perhaps I was wrong by giving personal experience, but I really don't care what fucking page I make it to and I certainly didn't mean to give that impression. How dare I give a taste of my own experience to reinforce my point? Bah.

BFD, anyways.
My concern is that either that information, truths, spin or blatant lies are lost, ignored or undefended when they're deliberately stifled when only The Honest Truth can be used to our --The Peoples-- advantage.
All the while an astonishing number here still claim that others argue against their own self interest!

It appears I can say it until I'm blue in the face: People should have the opportunity to know legitimate information even if it affronts their oh-so-tender sensibilities!
Faith belongs in church. Action, promised action on behalf of the electorate belongs in politics; at least in a healthy society.

But no, reduce it to simply someone who comparatively rarely posts and OP's only LBN (non Faux) as attention seeking and who's life's goal is to make the freaking fleeting Main Page, that's the spirit! Woo hoo what an accomplishment! Oui, a real self promoter, c'est moi; my life would be complete!

And if you'll kindly notice, that's the level this discourse has immediately deteriorated to in the very first post. You didn't listen, you didn't debate, you just went off. How can one resist such intelligent discourse, such intellectual back-and-forth?
Now what does that have to say? Noooo.... couldn't be projection!
Sad yet amusing at the same time.

For the last fucking time: You DON'T have to agree to the content to recommend it, don't you get it? Can't you see the principle beyond a silly popularity contest on this little board among a billion other forums and blogs compared to a truly thoughtful and informed citizenry!?

I guess not. Some of y'all must be super duper VIP's! Yessir, in a Class all by yourselves.

This place is a really something, each day it seems to resemble more and more The Lord of the Fliess
only will the officer in the Navy Whites finally show up?


LOL I'm done with this.

[pipi_k]

40. See, these two paragraphs don't even make sense...

My concern is that either that information, truths, spin or blatant lies are lost, ignored or undefended when they're deliberately stifled when only The Honest Truth can be used to our --The Peoples-- advantage.
All the while an astonishing number here still claim that others argue against their own self interest!

It appears I can say it until I'm blue in the face: People should have the opportunity to know legitimate information even if it affronts their oh-so-tender sensibilities!
Faith belongs in church. Action, promised action on behalf of the electorate belongs in politics; at least in a healthy society.



Not everything that makes it to the "Greatest" page or gets the greatest number of recs is informative, or The Truth.

And people like to think they know why their topics/threads get unrecs, but nobody can ever really know why someone else unrecced something. Maybe it was poor spelling or grammar. Maybe the topic itself was offensive (people do have the right to be offended by some topics and show their displeasure). Maybe someone is merely having a bad day. It's probably not even an issue involving wanting to "deliberately stifle" discussion. Like others are pointing out below, it doesn't matter if a thread has 300 recs and stays on the "Greatest" page for a week if the ONLY thing it has is recs but no discussion.

Some of the most active discussions have been those with lots of posts but a relatively paltry number of recs.

In fact, I've noticed that this thread has very few, if any, recs...yet as long as people keep replying to it, it will stay visible on the active threads list.

I think that's a far cry from being able to claim that discussion is being stifled.

[TexasObserver]

2. I unrecommend this thread for all the right reasons.

Happy now?

[Cherchez la Femme]

21. Go for it.

[Skink]

3. I made it onto the Greatest page once.

It was pretty cool.:bounce:

[Cherchez la Femme]

22. Well GOOD for YOU!

Now I'm sure you'll die happy & fulfilled :)

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. There you go, now three or four of us have been edified

I, however, do not think we need such bloviating here and therefore have also unrecced it like a few others. Don't take it personally, it's just NOT the best that DU has to offer.

[Sherman A1]

7. Precisely

The lecture was somewhat :boring: in my opinion.

[Cherchez la Femme]

23. Your perogative baby :)

[Ozymanithrax]

5. I never unrec, but I occasionally rec a thread. n/t

[muffin1]

9. I only unrec when someone is being a total asshat,

as in starting a thread with a statement like, "I really don't think homophobia is so rampant". Or, something similarly stupid.

[Petrushka]

6. But . . . it's possible, isn't it, to kick a thread to the top without recommending it? Let's see

now ---> :kick:

[Cherchez la Femme]

24. But why bother?

If you don't care, you don't care.
Unless this was some unique test.

[Petrushka]

28. If I'm not mistaken, a thread can only be recommended within the first 24 hours after it's posted.

Does that mean, if someone can't recommend it, no one
should bother kicking it?

:shrug:

[elocs]

8. UnRec because this issue has be rehashed and rehashed over and over again.

Here's a very simple concept: kicking a thread means more for getting people to see and read it than Recs. Get a ton of Recs and a thread may make the Home Page for a day, yet kicking a thread will bring it to the top of its forum a week later.

We already have enough Rec whores here at DU and too much obsessing over the whole thing. Enough already.

[SidDithers]

15. Well said...

Rec is about Greatest Page only. IMO this OP isn't worthy of being there, so...

Unrec.

Sid

[defendandprotect]

29. Recommending is NOT about Greatest Page only . . . it's about a recommendation

that the OP be more WIDELY seen --

That means, in the upper pathways of threads -- that's all.

Good or Bad news -- the issue is, should DU'ers be aware -- that's all.

[SidDithers]

33. WTF are "the upper pathways of threads"?...nt

Sid

[defendandprotect]

35. Gee . . . who could guess that would mean rising threads . . . ??

[SidDithers]

39. Threads rise, or remain at the top of a forum, because of replies...

A thread might have 100 recs, but if it doesn't have any replies, it'll disappear off the front page of the forum within an hour.

Sid

[defendandprotect]

42. People who "rec" usually also "kick" --

The obsession with "Greatest Page" seems to be among the "Un's" ...

The point is keeping the thread in view -- rec/kick/reply -- kick again --

[Cherchez la Femme]

25. Oh

well there must be a serious disparity somewhere, as it appears that it is the number of rec's that orders threads on Greatest Discussion Threads
Sorted by Recommendations

SUCH a faux pax! My bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. nope, it is to vote op on or off the greatest page.

And as r/u does not kick a post at all, it does not move it up in visibility on its forum page.

[City Lights]

11. Kicking a post "pushes it up the line." Rec'ing a post helps get it to the Greatest page.

You can Rec a thread without posting in it, so despite the recommendation, it would not be "pushed up the line" for more people to read.

FWIW, I care so little about the "Greatest" page that I no longer use the Rec or Unrec feature. I leave the popularity contest to others.

[sufrommich]

12. Rec or unrec does not equal readership of a thread. The proof

is in the amount of posts on a thread, most have absolutely nothing to do with the rec or unrec feature.The rec/unrec obsession here on DU is about getting to the greatest page,which for some lame reason,matters greatly to some.

[pipi_k]

17. Strange, isn't it....

I can't figure out why being on one of the "prestige pages" should matter so much to some.

I mean, it's not like there's even a Cracker Jacks box toy prize that goes along with it....


:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

37. It doesn't -- especially not in the sense some seem to be discussing it --

it's about keeping an article in the line of sight of most readers --

that's all --

So that others also get a chance to decide whether they want to read it or not --

or post or not --

"Greatest Page" is an obsession with the Un's, it seems?

[sufrommich]

41. Are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that reccing OPs

has absolutely nothing to do with a threads placement on the page?

[defendandprotect]

43. Usually people who "Rec" also "Reply" . . .

I frequently Rec something and come back to reply when I don't have time at that

moment --

I also "kick" a thread when I don't have time for an additional reply --

[TexasObserver]

44. I frequently REC without saying anything.

I have my own approach. If the thread is getting plenty of play, I'll just REC it and move on. But if it has fallen and needs a kick, I'll REC it and then post a reply, which may consist of nothing more than saying "recommend" in the subject line. I've never understood the need to add the word "kick" to "recommend" for that purpose, the kick being evident in the act.

I rarely post UNREC in a thread that I have UNRECed. Most of the time when I UNREC a thread, I also immediately HIDE it so it doesn't clutter my screen further. Of course, the biggest disasters I like watch go off the rails. Those I might post my disdain in a reply.

[defendandprotect]

45. And sometimes I find that I "reply" and forget to recommend . . .

I have never "UN'd" a thread --

Sometimes I find I can't "rec" a thread because I've missed the 24 hour limit --

but have only just first seen the thread -- which is always a question of "why?"

I think saying K&R is saying you want to give it a double boost -- that's all --

Most people when recommending a thread also post indicating their feelings about it.

This is generally not what the "UN's" do -- and we are too often left wondering why

someone would "UN" a thread which most of us feel should be widely seen.

It would help if they would explain their "UN" --

If the "UN" is worthwhile, it might help more of us understand how and why it is being

used on a thread if there were some suggestion of the "UNNER's" feelings --

[defendandprotect]

36. There are two ways or three ways to keep an article in the "line of sight" of most readers ...

That is rec'ing -- which may move it towards the Greatest Page -- and I doubt anyone

cares about that --

And, by kicking -- most who rec also kick --

And, by simply posting or reposting, showing an interest in the thread --

the "interest" may be negative or positive --

bad news also has to be seen.

But the issue involved with any of these features is saying to the reader who comes along ...

"take a look at this!" --

[SoCalDem]

13. Replying keeps the piece visible..not recommending

the rec-unrec only puts it on the "prestige pages" ( I guess some people go there)


I prefer contributions to a thread, via replies, to some number at the bottom, that sends it to a page I never go anyway :)

[pipi_k]

16. I was about to post the same thing...all this rec vs unrec bullshit

is just that...bullshit.


Like you, I prefer real contributions to a thread in the form of posts. Discussion.

Not once have I ever opened a thread because it was on the "Greatest" page.

And in fact, some threads with minimal recs but lots of replies have had shelf lives as long as, or longer than, some other threads with a lot of recs but little discussion.


I think it's time to bury this whole rec/unrec issue in the compost pile where it can rot in peace.

[defendandprotect]

38. Most who Recommend also Reply or kick --

[sendero]

14. I never visit..

... the "greatest" page, and I'm betting I'm with the majority. Good threads get responses, and responses keep them near the top of the forum list.

The "greatest" page is just not that important.

That said, I occasionally rec a post, and very very rarely unrec one.

[Javaman]

18. I guess you weren't around last year for the great unrec battle of the twits.

many of the said players are now eating granite pizza.

This issue has long been resolved. The result: no one cares. Few people read the greatest page anyway.

But the reality is: if you write a thought provoking piece that stands on it's own merit, people will recognize you for it. The rec function is merely for bragging rights, nothing more.

[Cherchez la Femme]

26. Nope, didn't see it

nor am I arguing the Unrec option in general. Doesn't bother me one bit.
By this time if my meaning isn't clear, it never will be. No worries.
After all, it appears I'm just a troll after all, with nothing pertinent to say.

An apt metaphor would be me being so disgusted with Sarah Palin's approval of shooting wolves from an aircraft, then offering $150 bounty of each foreleg that I would give it a thumbs down on YouTube, unrec it as it were, here. So what that by helping to make it less visible, that fewer people would be apt to see it.

So I done good then, right?

Lesson learned. Thanks, DU! :hi:

[Javaman]

27. The issue is...

the unrec function is just a function. But there were some on DU that saw it as the one all be all. Some went so far as calling it a way to silence people. I know, way over the top.

There were furious emails exchanged back and forth over the issue which amounted to nothing more than people whining about something that really didn't matter a whit.

And because it was such a gigantic none issue, anytime anyone now posts anything regarding the unrec/rec function, you better be prepared to meet the full force of the DU death star in regards to it. It may have finally cooled down a bit. not sure.

A few crazies destroyed any opportunity for a ration discussion with their nutty proclamations. And as such, the unrec/rec topic became radioactive for a long time. It doesn't have a short half life.

Since you are relatively new, you didn't know what went down last year and should be cut a little slack, but as friendly advice, if you choose to bring it up again, more than likely, people on here will tell you to give it a rest. LOL

Cheers.

PS (on edit): regarding the logic of your post, yes, it makes complete sense, but don't ever confuse real world logic with the logic sometimes displayed here on DU. LOL

[Obamanaut]

31. OP is not all that new, was here all of 2009 according to profile

"Member since Feb 21st 2008"

Many opportunities to witness the 'unrec wars'

[Javaman]

32. Ahhh, good catch...

I didn't do my foot work.

Well then, the OP reveals themselves as a fool.

[SidDithers]

34. !!...

:rofl:

You have a wonderful way with words :)

Sid

[kwassa]

19. I don't care at all about recs or unrecs. Many here don't.

It is like a junior high popularity contest, and I was never one of the cool kids anyways.

What interests me is what interests me, and much here doesn't, so why waste time?

[defendandprotect]

30. kickey -- 'cause it's obvious many here are still confused about what a Rec means...