Do you agree with the decision to do away with Unrec?

[itsrobert]

Poll question: Do you agree with the decision to do away with Unrec?

I believe UnRecs have stabilized the Greatest Page, keeping unworthy post (i.e. attention whore post)off the greatest page. Do you agree with the decision to delete the un-recommend feature?

[gateley]

1. I don't care either way, but who are we to judge what is an attention-whore post?

What if people enjoy reading it? We're not forced to click on it.

[meow mix]

2. no. and im suprised they let a few loud people run this board for them

seems that the management is out of touch these days

[emilyg]

4. It is a shame.

[Codeine]

72. But entirely predictable. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I remember when we didn't have them...

And I'm glad we're going back to that.

Not all DU's experiments work, and this was one that didn't.

[emilyg]

6. You're entitled to your opiniom - my feeling

is if you have rec. then must have unrec.

[jp11]

83. My thoughts exactly, they should both go if one goes.

[Poboy]

131. My thinking as well.

[itsrobert]

7. Huh, It worked great

And I think most people here agree. IMO, of course. I respect your opinion, however, it's a wrong conclusion.

[EFerrari]

52. I didn't like it loud and annoyingly at first.

But they're just part of the landscape now.

The Great Unrec Debate reminds me of that scene in "High Anxiety" where Mel Brooks and Madeleine Cohn have to get through a metal detector at the airport and he says, Be loud and obnoxious because then, psychologically, people will ignore you!

lol

:)

[GeorgeGist]

112. regression is good ...

eh?

[petronius]

5. Don't really care, but I'd vote to keep it just because the incessant whining

about it makes me giggle. :)

In truth, rec/unrec is not a board feature I use, and I rarely look at the Greatest page. However, if the admins want to keep the rec system to boost posts to the GP, I think it's logical to have the counterbalance of unrec - why not just hide the numbers altogether, and posts will either appear on the GP or they won't?

[itsrobert]

9. What is really funny is the people who don't like unrec or the ones unec this thread

Would that be called irony?

[slay]

20. lol

:rofl:

[emilyg]

87. That's one word for it. There are a few more.

[CTyankee]

102. I don't really care but I thought that the Rec feature was going away too.

It matters not to me. I rarely read the Greatest Page and the Rec/Unrec fight is a big bore with one side screaming "Coward!" and the other side screaming "Whiner!" It is theatre of the absurd...

[madinmaryland]

106. Who you calling a whiner, Willis??

:P

:hi:

[CTyankee]

109. hee hee, good one...

[KansasVoter]

8. People are too short sighted to see the need for unrec......

Even totally wrong posts will have a set of idiots who rec them! And no way to counter! People need to think!

[mistertrickster]

18. "a set of idiots" . . . those are not words I would use to describe my

fellow post-ers here at DU.

I think we progressives don't have the luxury of calling people who believe in our ideals "idiots."

Also, it in itself runs counter to our ideals.

[bluestate10]

91. I firmly disagree. Carve idiot posts up. Unrec is a soft way out. nt

[kentuck]

163. That's the bottom line...

in my opinion. If idiots post idiotic posts, carve them up. Don't hit the little unrec button and move on...

[AsahinaKimi]

10. I really come here for News and Opinon

not the Greatest Page.

[mistertrickster]

11. I've seen "MLK is good" posts getting un-recc'ed. Some people enjoy the

feeling of being able to anonymously cause pain to others.

Glad it's gone.

If the Greatest page gets too cluttered, the Admins can just up the number of recs needed for a post to show on the Greatest page.

[KansasVoter]

12. And now you will see "Obama is dumb" posts getting recced! Get it?

[mistertrickster]

14. No, I don't get it. Not really. What I often saw happening were good posts

getting BURIED with un-recs, then all of a sudden, getting a large number of recs--like 20-40 plus.

This suggests to me that the un-recc'ers were not typical of the majority of readers.

I suspect that some of that un-recc'ing was from folks who were quick on the un-reccing and slow on the "think it through."

Or they could just be FReep troll disruptors.

Either way, why make it easy for them?

[KansasVoter]

22. You WILL make it easy for trolls to rec posts and NO WAY to unrec them? GET IT?

[itsrobert]

24. I don't believe their is a significant number of trolls to effect the rec/unrec feature

I believe 'trolls' are way outnumbered at DU.

[slay]

25. I see your point but I also saw a lot of abuse of the unrec feature too

i voted yes to stop the unrec abuse but you do make a good point. i guess the site can always try it without unrec and see how it goes and bring it back if need be. DU didn't used to have it and I honestly haven't noticed a big difference. :shrug:

[mistertrickster]

32. Ditto what they said. nt

[intheflow]

57. There is a hidden life to DU

in the form of IMs to friends on the board to rec or unrec any given post. I'm not sure you can equivocally say a post suddenly getting 20 recs indicates anything other than the post was brought to the attention of more people, possibly through underground networks, or just exposure on the GP. I've also seen plenty of posts that appear to have been rec'd by people only reading the headline and not actually reading the link or engaging in critical thinking. So both rec/unrec have their place on DU. imho. :)

[Codeine]

70. I've been here since 2003 and I've never seen a single PM

asking me to rec or unrec a single thread. I doubt such a secret culture exists.

[pipi_k]

78. Well, me neither, but...

that could just mean that some of us are out of the loop, so to speak...


:shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

94. Not here as much...other places on the web.

The call goes out, the swarm of recs comes back.

Easy to find if one looks.

[bettyellen]

132. it sure does! i just think those people have a feeling you'd tell em to fuck off, ha!

[Codeine]

142. This is entirely possible.

;)

[bettyellen]

165. I'm sure! people stopped asking me after I ignored their rec requests, but it is certainly

something that still goes on around here.

[pipi_k]

76. Good point....

and one I hadn't thought of.


No doubt it's the same as when people post here about "DU-ing a poll" on some other site. Something I just don't get, because what the hell does it matter? If polls had the could actually change things in this country, then OK. But they don't. So basically people waste their time going to XYZ site and DU-ing the poll, skewing the results which nobody pays attention to anyway, and which won't matter in a week or so.


So yeah...I can imagine people here sending messages to each other behind the scenes to both rec and unrec certain threads.

[Joe the Revelator]

89. Don't be paranoid.

[intheflow]

97. I'm not paranoid.

I'm reality-based, having witnessed such behavior through the eyes of being a former moderator of this site. Believe me, this goes on a lot, and a lot of it isn't nearly so benign as working the rec/unrec feature.

[Joe the Revelator]

110. So you're saying that mods can read PMs not addressed to them?

[intheflow]

214. NO, I'm not saying that.

Mods can only read PMs addressed to them. But people alert on such messages sometimes, or there are patterns that emerge with long time posters. Some mods have been here since the beginning and know who has a history of "rallying the troops" which is prohibited by DU's rules. Rec/unrec is the most benign troop rallying there is; most involve calling on people to respond in any given thread either in favor of or against the OP or a particular OP response, which can get ugly fast.

*Edited for clarity.

[mistertrickster]

149. Interesting . . . that explains a few things I've seen that otherwise didn't make sense.

I called it "dog-piling." This bizarre converganece of a number of people who are all reading a post in the worst possible light.

"Martin Luther King was good??!! Well, what kind of a racist are you to not already know that??!! Un-rec!"

[polmaven]

208. Do you deny

that sometimes people may disagree on what is or is not a good post?

[LoZoccolo]

42. That also happened to my post telling people to consider donating bone marrow for leukemia patients.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7528170

[mistertrickster]

154. Perfect example. The dildo unrecced that just because he could. nt

[LostInAnomie]

139. Playing Devil's Advocate here, but does a thread simply stating "MLK is good"...

... really deserve to be on the greatest page? I mean, that's not really a ground breaking statement or noteworthy.

I think that's one of the problems I have with the complaints about the rec system. Just because a statement is made that everyone agrees with doesn't mean that it belongs to be on the greatest page. The greatest page should be the best that DU has to offer for that day. It shouldn't be affirmations of the obvious or even necessarily the consensus of DU's zeitgeist.

If, as you stated, an OP was simply "MLK is good", then I wouldn't say it deserves to be on the greatest page unless it's followed up with something rec worthy. Too many people on here love to post truisms just to see their name on the greatest page.

[mistertrickster]

153. Perhaps not. But it doesn't need to be un-recced. nt

[snagglepuss]

155. An excellent point that people have valid reasons to unrec. even a worthy topic like MLK for

the reasons you cited. A solution would be to have 4 options. 1 - Agree 2 - Agree and rec 3 - Disagree 3 - Disagree and unrec

[rucky]

13. I think we know shit when we smell it.

It'll make no difference, except the "I hate unrec" threads will be replaced with "bring back unrec" threads.

[meow mix]

39. yup progressives are pretty united in unreccing together, i can see why "some people" have a problem

suprised by the decison it was enjoyable watching crap troll threads go down in flames.

[woo me with science]

15. I'd like to see unrec and rec go away together.

I support the quaint, old-fashioned practice of responding to an argument with complete, articulated thoughts.

[pinboy3niner]

16. No. I had no problem with it.

And I had no problem with unreccer's not being identified, or not being required to post objections.

It was useful in voting down threads containing false information or ridiculous assertions, but in the end the rec's and unrec's mattered less than the kicks.

I very rarely look at the Greatest Page, so I'm less concerned than those who go there a lot. To me, it's a very minor issue, so I'm happy to go along with whatever the Admins decide. I can understand their being tired of the whining about it, and the continuing infighting about it. Plus all the petitions to them to modify the function in various ways. I don't blame them for wanting to escape all that crap--though I probably would have left it alone and ignored all of the hysteria.

But I can understand their frustration, and I'm happy to go along with their decision. I hope it makes their job easier.

[slay]

17. I voted "Yes" because people abuse it - probably not regular posters

but i see threads that so many people agree with getting un-reced with no reason - and we've all seen people complain about the unrec trolls. If there was a way to limit it to regular posters or people with over 1000 post i'd be fine with keeping it.

[mistertrickster]

21. Agreed. nt

[johnnie]

19. So far it's looking like the 27% majority has won

I don't understand why people dislike it so much, but then again when I post something I don't look at the rec/unrec. I say what I wanted to say and know that some people might not agree with me...oh well.

[KansasVoter]

23. Yep, minority wins again!

[slay]

27. Hey! You got something against minorities?

:P :P :P :P :P

[mistertrickster]

31. Well . . . this isn't in any respect a "scientific" poll, i.e., a sample that

represents the population.

[Mojambo]

26. Don't care.

There will be whining either way.

Time for a different flavor I guess.

[flvegan]

28. Not my website, not my decision.

[Joe the Revelator]

93. The star on your name says you're a share holder.

[Lance_Boyle]

210. Says no such thing.

Donations to DU do not buy "shares" any more than a donation to the Sal Army bellringer buys you a portion of his bell.

[hootinholler]

29. I feel it could be highly useful, but...

The ranking of articles solely by the net result is not so useful.

Say a post is highly recommended only. it climbs to the top of the greatest page and stays. Ok fine and dandy.

Say a post is controversial and gets a large number of both recs and unrecs with the net being +5 barely makes it onto the same page. There is value in understanding the controversy, listening to both sides.

The third category is one that is buried under an avalanche of unrecs. Still there is value in seeing what is so unpopular.

The real problem is, we do not have a standard view of what the feature is about. Should one recommend a post because I agree with it? Should I recommend a post that should be seen and discussed without regard to whether or not I agree with it?

-Hoot

[snagglepuss]

160. Excellent points. nt

[Safetykitten]

30. I think as an homage to our party we should have a "kinda" .

[mistertrickster]

34. Good one. And all too true. nt

[Foo Fighter]

35. Or better yet, just ask those in the top 1% bracket.

After al, that would be a more accurate representation of what the Dem party represents.

Or if that's not possible, just go right to the top and ask the execs at Goldman-Sachs. Same difference.

[Safetykitten]

36. I give this 5 out of 5 Goldmans.

[Foo Fighter]

44. LOL!

I think you just came up with the new rec/unrec rule.

You can only rec something if the fine people at Goldman-Sachs (aka, the Dem party) would approve.

If the above-mentioned parties wouldn't approve of a post, it's your duty to delete it. And you WILL obey.

Hell, why not make those the new rules? That's pretty much what they amount to anyway.

[Buns_of_Fire]

65. Well, if you're going to have "Goldmans," you should also have "Olbermanns"

And maybe even "Rumsfelds" and "Moores." Of course one "Olbermann" is worth at least 25 "Goldmans" and 22.7 "Rumsfelds," just like one "Moore" is worth a hell of a lot more than a "Cheney" -- say 527.25:1. Now, we'll have to come up with an equivalence chart to determine the relative worth of a "Maddow" vs. an "Olbermann" vs. a "Moore," but that should keep everyone busy arguing until the 2012 election at least.

I've got it all written down on paper, somewhere.

[EFerrari]

54. LOL

[Upton]

33. I believe the rec/unrec feature is a useful tool..

unfortunately, those that moan and cry the loudest and longest often eventually get their way...even if they are in the distinct minority..

[struggle4progress]

37. I kinda liked the earlier culture of kicking threads

[SlipperySlope]

38. I never really like them when they were added.

I like the idea of recommending posts I think are interesting. It is a way of supporting each other.

Having unrec always seemed a little divisive to me. They were an invitation to pull each other down.

[Akoto]

40. I can't find the post announcing this, but ...

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the decision. The unrec feature is too easily and often abused. At times, it seems as though people just go straight down the list of posts, unreccing each one along the way. It has most certainly led to a more contentious atmosphere, and the one thing DU doesn't need right now is even more internal anger.

[LoZoccolo]

41. No; it's one of the funniest things I've seen on the Internet.

It's been here for like a year and a half and it just keeps on giving.

[McCamy Taylor]

43. Yes, number of corporate trolls rose when they could unrec stories that hurt their business,

[NBachers]

45. But what will happen to the "First Posters Who Complain About Unrecs Already" crowd?

"I'm the first poster and someone already unrecced and it's Not Acceptable!" should've gone the way of "Frist!"

[EFerrari]

46. Didn't Skinner say that the upgrade demo was missing features

that would be in the final? IOW, are you sure unrec is gone in the upgrade?

[jannyk]

48. So it is said in this ATA thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x1733

[EFerrari]

50. Thanks, jannyk.

I have to check ATA more often!

[SoCalDem]

47. Ahhh. a very intersting exercise..not unlike the current TV polling

Contrarians LOVE to be polled, and are always ready to toss in their two cents.. Calmer types, more analytical types may not even care what the bomb-throwers think, and may not even bother to BE polled..

Teabag Summer proves this out.. Loudmouth disruptors from the right swarmed all over the country interrupting town hall meetings and creating general mayhem. Their numbers were never that large, but the media loved their outrageous "faux-rage" & their "energy", and their willingness to get in faces & be LOUD.

On the left, we saw nothing of the sort, because most true lefties had better things to do than to ride around in a bus for hours and then stalk & taunt republican legislators..

So it breaks this way:

1. people here who neither rec or unrec, but choose to weigh the merits of a thread and then post or not post. these folks do not see themselves as the "thought police", whose "job" it is, to monitor what is worthy/unworthy

2. people who have a stenopad at the ready (with names of people who may have slighted them at one time) who have their fingers poised to hit the "u"-button, so they can get that jolt of self-righteous revenge... reading the thread or participation not needed..

3. people who rec but do not reply, which kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion board, since a thread with no actual replies is not much of a discussion..

People who are angry/anti-whatever, will always be ready to "vote NO"..to just about anything. Obama's first 2 years proves this.

It's not a very practical long-term strategy though:)

[Turborama]

49. To get a proper indication, this should be asked in all the main forums

A lot of DUers don't come to GD and spend their time in one of the other main forums and vice versa.

Unless this gets rec'd so much no one can miss it on the front page, which would kind of prove the value of the recommendation function.

[Raine]

51. It doesn't really matter one way or the other to me

I rarely Rec or UnRec threads.

[intheflow]

53. I think the recs/unrecs balance each other out.

I see a lot of fluff getting on the Greatest Page as is, I hate to think what it would be like without unrec to balance it out.

Here's an example of fluff that was recently on the GP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=222978&mesg_id=222978

26 recs - are you freakin' kidding me?!

[canetoad]

55. I go to performance works

To fringe theatre, to plays and orations that are removed from the mainstream. Many of these works are bad. So fucking bad that I feel sorry for the artist.

Civility prevents me from booing and hissing. I show my lack of enthusiasm by refraining from applauding loudly.

Many here will not understand the concept of restraining their approval. Instead they wish to have free rein for their disapproval. So be it. I just find it very tacky, very populist and, dare I say it, very American.

I would like to see people exercise a small amount of restrain in their posts. DREAM ON CANETOAD

[snagglepuss]

170. That people want free rein for their disapproval is an interesting observation. nt

[xchrom]

56. no, i don't. nt

[elocs]

58. Just wait for an egregious thread that most find distasteful or just offensive,

such as "KO sucks!" which can be Recced by enough posters to make the Greatest, but cannot be UnRecced by those who disagree.

So when UnRec is gone we will clearly learn the lesson that whining pays off. And did some people ever whine and cry about UnRec, even minutes after a thread is posted.

[mistertrickster]

157. I disagree. Now one will have to actually take the time to post WHY one objects.

Before it was just hit and run.

I've seen a lot of well-researched posts that people had put time on and were on an important issue just get sunk without the decency of an explanation.

And they weren't just mine, heh.

[Tesha]

59. The only thing wrong with rec/unrec was that only the sum was reported.

It would have been far more useful if the individual
totals of recs and unrecs had also been reported,
because then it would have been far more obvious
whether a thread was simply not interesting (attracting
neither recs nor unrecs) or highly-interesting but
either balancing on the knife-edge of small positive
numbers or over the edge into negative numbers.

Tesha

[snagglepuss]

173. +1

[Codeine]

60. The Heckler's Veto wins again.

The whiny wheel got the grease, I'm afraid.

[cordelia]

61. No

[Catherina]

62. Not at all. So a small group doesn't like it, so what? Keep it, we need it. Rec'd. n/t

[mmonk]

63. Actually, unrecs can keep varied opinions off the Greatest Page.

You get a few that band together to keep certain posts they disagree with down. I think it actually keeps posts of merit away since it is a matter of opinion what is "worthy" or "unworthy".

[dsc]

64. I am very glad to see it gone in its present form

For a period of months no gay poster could post so much as the sky is blue on DU without a dozen or so unrecs in 30 seconds. Since unrecs weren't IDed we couldn't figure out who the bigots were and any discussion of gay issues just disappeared, along with quite a few gay posters. It wasn't just unrecs that all but destroyed gay DU but they played a part. Apparently people who the admins actually care about have problems with unrecs so now they are gone. Too little too late for gays here but still a good thing.

[seabeyond]

66. you need neither, or you need both. nt

[SidDithers]

67. Yes, but only if recs are also mothballed...

If recs, or like, remain then there needs to be a corresponding unrec or dislike for balance. It's more democratic that way.

Sid

[Jester Messiah]

68. I vote "other", here's my idea:

Update the unrec feature such that an unrec can only be made as part of a post. That way there can be no invisible "unrec brigade." Each unrec would have a name attached, and hopefully some sort of accompanying justification.

[mistertrickster]

161. Good idea. nt

[golddigger]

69. I would like to see a 5 star rating system instead.

[PBS Poll-435]

71. They could even make it color coded!

:P

[golddigger]

74. Okay, I'll shut up!

:hide:

[Posteritatis]

85. Meh, people would only ever give one or five star ratings

That's why sites like Youtube got rid of that system.

And if it was implemented the same people would scream and whine about getting low ratings on their threads.

[kentuck]

162. I think that is a worthy idea.

I hope it might be considered in the future.

[Still a Democrat]

73. Unrec creates an echo chamber

For example, when the anti-Obama fever is running high, legitimate articles and arguments bolstering his position are mindlessly buried by an army of unrec's - not because the article is offensive or incorrect, members are just lashing out and trying to bury information that doesn't fit the current meme.

This propels only anti-Obama threads to the Greatest, hardening opinion and stifling input that may open minds.

This type of scenario is possible on any issue, not just the anti/pro Obama debate.

[EFerrari]

119. And how do you know this?

[Bobbie Jo]

205. Exactly. nt

[pipi_k]

75. I know some feel it was the cause of a lot of incivility here, but...

like someone else upthread pointed out, perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to keep rec and unrec and just make the totals invisible.

It's not so much the unrec itself, but the fact that people could sit and refresh a thread and "see" the rec total drop, and that became the impetus for the whining.

Just make it all invisible and threads either end up on the GP or not.

how simple is that....

[Renew Deal]

77. Unrec hasn't done anything about attention whores.

Especially those that are working for the right johns.

Of course, when you refer to attention whores you're probably talking about people with different opinions then you. In that way, you may consider it successful.

[jonnyblitz]

79. i agree with the folks that say if UNREC is shitcanned, REC

needs to go as well.

[Very_Boring_Name]

80. There's no reason to get rid of unrec. I think it's a helpful feature.

[mzteris]

81. Why only "FIVE" recs to get to the "greatest page"?

FIVE proponents of a topic doesn't qualify as "greatest" in my book.

Seems a little silly to me that it only takes FIVE to kick it there. Shouldn't it be more - a LOT more - to be "Great"?

[snagglepuss]

175. Exactly. Now with no unrec the number of rec necessary should be upped

substantially.

[Phentex]

82. Yes. I hope it never comes back.

It has caused nothing but trouble.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. I recently changed my mind

I just saw a thread the other day that was unrecced. It was someone asking for prayers for a sick family member.

So now I think it should be abolished.

However, I've said all along that only donors or members with a specific posting history (maybe a year?) should be allowed to rec and unrec. I've been convinced all along the majority of our unreccers are trolls because they enjoy talking about it on those other boards that can't be linked here.

[LostInAnomie]

86. People seem to have forgotten how shitty the "Greatest Page" was before unrec.

It was full of shitty threads like "Rec if you think Rush Limpballz is an asshole!!!". No content after that. Just the thread title, and since there was no way to counter all the recs, it would make it all the way to the top of the greatest page.

You would also have little motivated cliques reccing the shit out of their pet issue. And, since there was no way of counter acting them, you would have a greatest page flooded with "brilliant" threads like "Anyone that thinks Cindy Sheehan isn't a goddess is an idiot".

The ability of the entirety of DU to decide what makes it to the greatest page shouldn't be something we throw away for a few insistent whiners.

[Joe the Revelator]

88. I don't agree with it at all. I used it to decide if I should open a thread or not. It's a shame....

....that the vocal minority got what they wanted. It's silly.

[bluestate10]

90. Yes. And I hope the Ignore feature is next.

DU should be a forum where we come to discuss and battle over ideas. As long as name calling is not allowed, I am ok if a Liberal takes me to task for being a moderate, I can defend my views and why I hold them.

[Iggo]

92. No.

[kentuck]

95. It's a popularity contest or unpopularity contest ...

depending on who you like or dislike. It really doesn't matter what the substance of the post might be. You don't like the person, you unrec it. It makes you feel better.

[Quantess]

96. Speak for yourself. That isn't true for me.

I rec or unrec solely based on the substance.

[Joe the Revelator]

111. Or me. If you think it is, you're taking this place way too seriously as a social outlet.

[SheilaT]

98. I don't think we need either

a recommend or unrecommend. I have never clicked on either button myself. Never.

[undeterred]

99. I truly and deeply do not care.

[apocalypsehow]

100. No. It was a quite useful tool, that was only opposed by those upon whom it was *most* useful, i.e.,

a tiny band of posters who insist on littering the greatest page with bilge & dross.

I am really very sorry to see it go. :thumbsdown:

[meow mix]

103. i guess we'll have to be more aggressive with verbal unrecs.

towards the people in question.

if they think thats better... so be it.

[apocalypsehow]

101. Further, the *manner* in which it was finally taken from the vast majority of posters who liked it

has a very unfortunate quality to it. It rewards ax-grinders and special pleaders.

Nothing would delight me more than to log onto DU one day and find that "UnRec" has indeed "gone away" - only to replaced with an even more useful version of the same application.

[mistertrickster]

164. Unfortunately for folks like you, technology does not allow you to administer painful electric shock

through the victim's keyboard yet.

But just imagine all the bilge and dross it would eliminate!

[apocalypsehow]

182. This is how laughable the argument against the UnRec system has become: it's akin to administering a

"painful electric shock" to a "victim" through their keyboard, according to one replier. If that isn't, well, a bit more than over the top, I don't know what is. :eyes:

"But just imagine all the bilge and dross it would eliminate!"

I imagine I'm going to eliminate ever having to see some other "bilge and dross" on DU again right now this moment, thanks to another handy tool the Admins have thoughtfully provided us, via the *ignore* button. Good evening and goodbye. :thumbsup:

[mistertrickster]

185. Thank you. It saves me the trouble. We've crossed paths before

and you were equally the way you are then too.

[Quantess]

104. BRING BACK UNREC!

[Bobbie Jo]

105. Only if "rec" is eliminated too.

As it is equally manipulated and "gamed."

Believe it.

[reformist2]

107. ?! It just accepted my "unrec" for this thread!

[timtom]

108. For what it's worth...

I have no horse in this race. I will say, however, that I used "rec" many, many times, while "unrec" maybe once.

[Stevenmarc]

113. Get rid of the Greatest Page, then

you won't have worry about people being so emotionally wound up in their own virtual self importance.

[Iggo]

115. +1

Perfect solution.

[Joe the Revelator]

133. +2

[gristy]

138. +3

[kentuck]

114. A simple question?

Why are people that rec threads not afraid to add their name to the post? And those that unrec threads are afraid to add their names? Why is that? It's sort of a cowardly act, in my opinion.

[johnaries]

117. It's not a matter of bravery or cowardice, it's about kicking/not kicking. nt

[kentuck]

118. kick and unrec...

just out of general principle.

[LostInAnomie]

120. You're right. It's takes amazing bravery to post "k&r".

:eyes:

[kentuck]

122. You can still "unrec"...

You just don't get counted. You can make your comments and maybe, if you can make a cogent argument, you make keep a lot of the other dumbasses from just doing a K&R... Think of all the power now in your hands.

[LostInAnomie]

125. The power was in the entirety of DU's hands with unrec.

I could do all that (and did) with the current unrec system. Soon though, the rec system will be a one way street (very undemocratic IMHO).

So, if you can find five morons willing to rec "Obamacare is just like Nazism", there is nothing that the rest of DU will be able do to keep it off the greatest page.

That's going to be a great system. :puke:

[kentuck]

127. Seems to me there are people here that are smart enough to respond...

..to such nonsense. If you can't make a strong enough argument against the post, then maybe your argument is not as strong as you think it is? Persuade others.

[LostInAnomie]

130. Ugh... You're being disingenuous.

The rec/unrec system never kept anyone from making arguments for or against any topic. Threads with zero recs would have 200 posts, and threads with five posts would have 100 recs. It was not a tool of censorship, and in no way kept anyone from expressing their ideas in any way, shape, or form.

What the rec/unrec system did was allow the entirety of DU to have feedback on what represents the best of DU on the greatest page.

If we go back to the old system, you could have literally thousands of the most well thought out and persuasive posts made by thousands of DUers excoriating the points made in "Obamacare is Nazism" but it wouldn't matter one damn bit, because 5, 10, 15 morons agreed and recced it onto the greatest page. Hell, if you can find 25 people to rec it, half the time it would make it to the front page (and the people kicking it by posting disagreements would only help it on there).

[kentuck]

145. So what?

If it makes it to the greatest page? BFD!

[LostInAnomie]

197. Maybe because...

... if the greatest page is used for its designated purpose, it would be a forum for the best threads DU has to offer. And, since this is a Democratic forum were we supposedly believe in democracy, we would allow the entirety of DU to have a vote on what does or does not belong there. This is especially true when some of the "Obamacare is Nazism" like posts can make it to the front page if a small/motivated group is going to rec it all to hell. I, personally, don't want the front page flooded with "Rec if you like kittens" or fringe bullshit just because there is no way to vote it off.

Do you really even have an argument or are you just stomping you feet and yelling "I don't like unrec!"?

[kentuck]

198. I can understand your argument...

And I would agree that some trivial topics, in my opinion, get to the "greatest page". What is the "designated purpose" of the greatest page? And who gets to decide what is suitable for the greatest page?

In my opinion, the "unrec" voters have little influence on most popular posts. It is minimal in its influence. However, on controversial subjects, it does tend to balance out the "rec" votes. But it is doubtful that it would get to the top of the page with "rec" votes only, because the "unreccers" will obviously not vote to put it on top of the page. It's a simple mathematical equation.

Much of the opinion on either side depends on the "designated purpose" of the greatest page. I would not put too much stock in that "purpose".

[LostInAnomie]

213. The designated purpose of the Greatest Page is...

... to be a page containing the best threads DU has to offer for that day. Now, admittedly, the idea of "great" is subjective. I have certain standards I use for reccing a thread.

1. Is the OP well thought out?
2. Is the OP well written?
3. Is the OP thought provoking and inviting to discussion?
4. If the OP is lacking any of the aforementioned qualities, is the discussion that takes place in the thread worthy of reading?
5. Would I recommend this thread to anyone new to DU?

I'm sure others on this board have different standards for their recs and what they consider "great". And, I'm sure there are thousands of different ideas of what qualifies as a "great thread". So, to have a "greatest page" you are going to have to have some kind of consensus of all those views.

The question you have to ask then is, what kind of system best allows for that consensus? Is it the pre-unrec system where the recs only went one way? Or, is it a system where the entirety of DU has an up or down vote? I think the answer is obvious.

[Quantess]

121. People announce that they Unrec'd all the time.

I proudly announce my Unrecs. There is a thread on the front page right now, where I stated why I felt the thread deserved a -

[kentuck]

123. A few do.

Most do not comment at all. If you disagree with a very popular opinion, shouldn't you have the courage to say why??

[apocalypsehow]

124. The question is based on TWO false premises:

1. That every "rec" by every single poster on every single OP is followed up by a comment on the OP - this is patently false. I have seen OP's with hundreds of Recs, and far fewer replies. For most of us, it's a mix. Some of the Recs we give OP's are followed by a substantive comment; others by a simple "K & R" or "Kick, Rec"; and still others with simply nothing at all, other than the Rec itself.

You know this - you simply don't like the UnRec system.

2. There are any number of times I've seen posters comment on OP's that they have given that post an UnRec. Again, for most of us it's a mix. Some of the UnRec we give OP's are followed by a substantive criticism of the OP; others by a simple "K & U" or "UnRec"; and still others, just as with Recs, with simply nothing at all. The notion that it is "cowardly" not to leave a comment after an UnRec is simply untrue, any more than leaving a comment after one alerts a thread or a post is "cowardly." By your standard, we should do away with the alert button and allow any & allow posts/threads to stand unmoderated because it is "cowardly" to alert on a thread or post, and then not leave a corresponding comment.

You know this - you simply don't like the UnRec system.

Lesson concluded.

[kentuck]

126. Lesson continued.

You are wrong.

If there is a consensus with most of the posters here on a certain topic, then "k&r" simply says that you agree with the OP. There have been posts that have offered tributes to sick DUers or other posts of compassion that get "unrecs". Why? I can only assume they are cowards, don't agree with the post, or they are a freeper? Perhaps you have not seen them? I did not bookmark them but they are there.

I don't hold these folks in high regard, to be honest with you.

[apocalypsehow]

129. This reply is non-responsive, and makes assertions not backed by a shred of evidence or a link.

My reply above stands un-refuted.

Discussion concluded.

[kentuck]

152. We can only hope.

It is concluded. You are still wrong, in my opinion.

[A HERETIC I AM]

136. Can you explain to me why a thread about a sick DU'r qualifies as a Greatest Thread?

Seriously.

What is it that makes a thread about someone being sick or a relative who passed away or a "(insert Du'rs name here) Tribute thread" a great thread? Some of them are complete and utter self serving bullshit or pity parties.

Many of those in my opinion are just venues for people who don't know each other a chance to commiserate and sympathize with someone they have never met. I find that incredibly odd.

There was a "tribute" thread a few months back that received a lot of unrecs for whatever reason. Perhaps the target of the thread garnered hostility or posted controversial topics or what ever it was, but the mere fact that it got unrec'd got a whole bunch of people who posted on the thread all bent out of shape. I found that funny as hell, but it still doesn't mean the thread was deserving of placement on the greatest page.

It seems to me that many think that an unrec is something it is not and/or that absolutely NO thread whatsoever, regardless of subject matter should be unrecommended.

[LostInAnomie]

140. +1

The greatest page is about the best threads that DU has to offer. It shouldn't be the home of "Threads that should never be unrecced!!!".

[kentuck]

148. You're entitled to your opinion.

That doesn't make it right. Democracy = majority rule. Is this "Democratic" Underground?

[A HERETIC I AM]

151. LOL.....

Yes, sure. Majority rules. And even though a clear majority of DU'rs like the feature and would prefer it be kept as is (demonstrated in poll after poll over the last few years) a MINORITY of incessant members have made the subject such a pain in the eyes for the Admins, they have decided to shit-can it.

So.....majority rules, eh?

It is my opinion that threads about sick DU'rs or the death of a family member have NO PLACE on the Greatest Threads page.

That is my opinion and I am right.

You, for what it's worth, didn't answer my question, did you?

[kentuck]

169. I think your name explains your position quite well.

If a DUer dies or is sick or a family member dies, you feel better hitting the "unrec" button than explaining your position in words, is that correct?

[A HERETIC I AM]

177. Oh, for crying out fucking loud.

If a DUer dies or is sick or a family member dies, you feel better hitting the "unrec" button than explaining your position in words, is that correct?

No, it is not correct. You assume I unrec such threads when I indicated nothing of the sort. What POSSIBLE "position" could I hope to have regarding the death or illness of a complete and utter stranger? How the fucking hell is that of any consequence to me? The hundreds of DU'rs, the millions of people in this country and the billions around the world who have an illness in their family or the death of a loved one have my sympathies, but that is the extent of it. It is a fact of life and doesn't directly affect me.

The fact is, and it is truly none of your damned business, but I rarely if ever click on or read such threads. They're depressing and life is difficult enough without reading something that I know will make me feel bad. I come to DU to be entertained and occasionally informed. The idea that a complete stranger would solicit sympathy on a message board for a tragedy in their own life strikes me as completely odd and is not something I would even consider doing. If others want to do it, it is OK with me, I just don't think threads on such subjects rise to being "great". They are mundane, common, banal and all too personal for them to have relevance in the larger scheme of things vis-a-vis the stated purposes of this website. I am truly sorry others experience pain, but such is life and I have no interest in hearing about it. I have enough of my own and I don't start threads or try and make hay about them on a message board.

Now I realize that online communities such as this mean an awful lot to some people. To some, it is their only social setting of any kind. To others, they see the strings of letters, words and sentences attached to a psuedonym as real, face to face conversation.

It isn't.

You STILL haven't answered my question.

Why do such threads deserve placement on a page that is supposed to contain the best/greatest threads this forum has to offer?

[kentuck]

180. My answer is:

Why not?

[A HERETIC I AM]

183. That answer:

Sucks.

[kentuck]

188. I think...

you may be hung up on the "greatest page" and it bothers you if "crap" makes it to the "greatest page"? The problem arises with your definition of "crap". Some folks, perhaps the majority here, think it may be worthy. I'm sure some posts that you think are worthy of the greatest page would be considered "crap" by others.

I have not been the most vocal opponent of the "unrec" function. In the scheme of things, I think it is rather a trivial matter.

[mistertrickster]

202. "You still haven't answered my question--why are sick DUers on the Greatest page?"

Because unlike RepubliCONs, we give a damn about each other?

Yeah, I think that's it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

204. Why use quote marks if you aren't going to quote me?

The words in your subject line surrounded by quote marks represent nothing I said.

And "we give a damn about each other" (see how that works?) is a given, but it still does not answer my question.



I'll rephrase;
What is it about such threads that makes them "Great"?

Please keep in mind that I asked that question in response to this snippet from Kentuck's post above:

"There have been posts that have offered tributes to sick DUers or other posts of compassion that get "unrecs". Why?"

I just want to know what is so sacrosanct about such threads? They are heartfelt, to be sure, but why must they be voted onto the greatest page?

It just strikes me as odd that so many get so worked up when certain threads get negative votes in this regard. Shouldn't the greatest threads page contain threads that are actually "great"?

[kentuck]

206. But aren't "greatest" page threads totally subjective?

Who decides what is "great"? That seems to me to be the greater censorship, if that is what it is? Nobody's voice is being silenced. Let's make that clear. You still have the opportunity to respond to every post, regardless if the "unrec" button is there or not, right?

[pipi_k]

144. Of course, it's easy to call others cowards...

without even considering whether there's some other explanation.

Like, oh, how about if someone intends to rec a thread but accidentally unrecs it instead?

Somebody could do that and be too embarrassed to admit it.

I've done it.

Maybe others have as well.

Those of us who have done that...are we "cowards"?

Are we trolls?


Some have claimed that the unrec option was, itself, the source of much unrest. I disagree. I think it's the shitty opinions the unrec haters have toward the imaginary cowards and trolls they're convinced must be overrunning the boards, like rats in the sewer.

[kentuck]

146. You certainly make a great argument for it.

Not!

[johnaries]

116. Although I do enjoy open discussion, I have seen way too many

OPS where I thought "you just can't argue with stupid" - especially the vitriolic and "knee-jerk" ones. These OPS I certainly don't want to kick by posting my disagreement, so I enjoyed being able to just "unrec" and move on.

Also, there are a lot of people on DU who prefer to lurk rather than post - but could still regeister their opinion by rec or unrec.

Finally, I definitely agree with your assessment that it helps to stablize the Greatest page, not only from "attention whores" but also from trolls.

[Ohio Joe]

128. Other

Skinner seems to be indicating that we will no longer have un-rec and that rec will not be in it's current form:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x1766

I expect that the admins have decided on a new system that they feel will work better then rec/un-rec to get the best stuff to the greatest and still keep the junk off of it. Until I know what the new system is, I cannot say if it is better.

I do know two things though, one - if it does not work as they hope for it to work, they will change it again. Two - people will cry about it.

[LeftishBrit]

134. I'm unreccing!

Actually I don't really care!

[me b zola]

135. No

It favors the majority view, which I believe is useful. It reveals the strength how DU as a community feels about a subject.

[Liberal_in_LA]

137. get rid of the unrec

[inna]

141. no. bad idea. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

143. No I do not. It was useful. It kept clique-ish and cult garbage from gaining the appearance of

legitimacy. Like the anti-vax nutter cult, for example.

[DainBramaged]

147. Useful tools are for those who hold grudges, and the unrecing crew does

goodbye to rubbish....

[Beacool]

150. I never liked the unrec feature.

Even if a post is considered asinine by some, people have a right to express their opinions. I have never used it, then again, I have never alerted on anyone either. What's the point in having the word "democratic" as part of the name of a board if people can't express themselves freely?

;)

[stevenleser]

209. Nor did I. Good idea in theory, in practice, not so much. n/t

[roody]

156. This is great news. The right-wing trolls

keep important info from the Latin America forum from getting to the Greatest.

[mistertrickster]

159. Agreed. A lot of serious issues were getting buried in favor of the "outrage d' jour." nt

[kentuck]

158. Which side is the most obnoxious??

The "rec" side or the "unrec" side?

Seems like we have been thru this discussion before?

[mistertrickster]

166. Un-reccers. No contest. nt

[Upton]

172. Those who have whined almost non stop about the unrec option..

[Quantess]

174. The "rec" side is more obnoxious, due to the level of whining,

and the volume of threads created to complain about Unrec.

[mistertrickster]

186. Odd, isn't it. Pointing out abuse is "whining" now. nt

[City Lights]

167. No. But if it's going, it should take "Recommend" with it.

Recommend without Unrecommend is :thumbsdown:.

[mistertrickster]

168. Apparently, no one considered that perhaps the Admins are in a better position to evaluate

whether un-recs are good or bad than individual post-ers.

I for one am willing to say, they own the site, they put the time in to run it, let them decide what's best in this case.

[kentuck]

171. We went with their decision before...

and we will go with their decision this time also. I fail to see the gravity of it??

[seabeyond]

189. you know the child that continually whines and eventually gets his way. not a matter

of good or bad, ... just dont want to hear the whine anymore.

[mistertrickster]

200. Our admins = bad parents. Sorry, I don't buy it. nt

[Bonobo]

176. Not at all.

Without unrecs, you et terribly unbalanced OPs getting huge numbers.

Whether they are fatuous, Obama=idealizing threads or over-the-top Obama demonizing threads, there is no balance and it leaves an erroneous impression.

150 recs for a picture of Sasha with puppies? Is that what we want the world to think of the intellectual content of DU?

[lefty2000]

178. First I heard about it. Que Pasa? n/t

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

181. It can be fun to do, but if this was my site there never would have

been such a thing. It is not mine, so I do not really care. But it is a foolish concept for many reasons.

[JimGinPA]

184. I'd Like To See Everyone Who Recs or UnRecs A Thread Be Listed Right Below The OP...

I sure wouldn't mind making it public which threads I Rec or UnRec. I'd also like to be able to Rec or UnRec downthread posts and have those listed as well. Some posts are better than the OP's.

[mistertrickster]

187. How about no recs but ONLY UN-RECS. The ones that make it to the Greatest

Page would be the ones that get unrecced the least.

It's a stupid idea, but it would allow and encourage mean-spirited people to be what they are . . .

[Laelth]

190. I opposed "unrec" from the beginning, and I oppose it now.

Truth be told, the "unrec" feature worked to the benefit of liberals on this site (the clear majority), but I still oppose it as I believe strong minorities should have their opinions featured on the Greatest Page too.

That said, it appears that the Greatest Page will be eliminated on DU3, so both "recs" and "unrecs" will be irrelevant, and the site owners will, in the future, completely control what appears on DU's homepage (which, of course, is their right). The era of allowing site members to control what appears on the Home Page will soon come to an end, for better or for worse.

-Laelth

[kenny blankenship]

191. Unrec didn't stop assholes from posting their goosestepping shit in GD

but it did help see that they got minimal visibility.

I guess it's a sign.

[liberalhistorian]

192. Yes, absolutely the Unrec feature should be

immediately and permanently done away with. I'm sick to death of threads devolving into nothing more than arguments over the unreccing of the thread, with accusations of trolling and whatnot flying back and forth until the thread subject itself is forgotten. It's caused a lot of incivility and problems on the site and it needs to go. Period.

[iamthebandfanman]

193. oh get rid of it, we wouldnt want to hurt peoples feelings

when they are in the wrong on something.

lmao

[meegbear]

194. I've seen many "attention whore posts" aka "K&R if ...." posts on the Greatest Page ...

so I think in that regard it's moot. But it does serve a purpose and should stay.

The other side of the coin is all posts would be like "Tell me what you think of this ... positive comments only!"

[kentuck]

196. I think a good argument against a post is better than an "unrec"...

An "unrec" vote is not persuasive. A good argument may prevent a deluge of "rec" votes?

Perhaps the moderators and Admins know more about those folks that use unrec than we do?

Personally, I would prefer to hear more people speak up on those posts they disagree with rather than using an "unrec" button.

If the Admins decide to do away with both rec and unrec, it would be no great loss. However, the members like to think they have some control over what is on the front page. Maybe they will post the most controversial or most "talked about" threads up front? That will be up to the Admins.

[RedCloud]

195. I would love to buy an un-wreck.

[taught_me_patience]

199. This poll proves the silent majority are ok with unrec

But I guess the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

[mistertrickster]

203. Really, this poll "proves" that? You should work for Rassmussen, heh. nt

[samsingh]

201. yes

[skip fox]

207. A matter 0f weighing disadvantages with disadvantages.

Without the unrecommend button a only a few unworthy posts would make it to The Greatest Page every month or so. With the unrecommend button, a number of the negative sort unrecommend everything they dislike, and they dislike many things for many reasons, many of which have nothing to do with the value of the post.

[kentuck]

211. If we have apples, we must have oranges?

If we have recs then we must have unrecs in order to be fair and democratic, right?

We can't have one without the other, can we?

Perhaps we should only have the "unrec" vote available? Would that be any different from having only the "rec" vote available?

Or is about something else entirely?

Is it that sometimes somebody posts something that many on DU think should be on the front page? It is just an acclamation of support for an idea or story. Those that say they should have a right to "unrec" it make a good point.

But that's the rub, ain't it?

[Inchworm]

212. I think folks should get X number of rec/unrecs a day

It is a weird controversy to watch here on DU. I couldn't really care less either way. I never was big on other's ratings over just reading OPs and deciding for myself.

I kinda get a kick out of people mentioning recs/unrecs after the point has been made in OP. Like it is a stick with either a carrot or a rock on it.

:shrug: