O/T-Why does DU have "Net recommendation" when it goes no lower than zero?

[jenmito]

Poll question: O/T-Why does DU have "Net recommendation" when it goes no lower than zero?

How is that "net"? I don't understand-do people think we can't "handle the truth" that some threads are very unpopular? Why can't we know how popular OR how unpopular threads are? Please comment on your reason either way.




(If I get lots of unrecommends, I'm glad I won't know just how bad it really is.) ;)

[On the Road]

1. Like Many Things in This World,

it is a relic of a prior state of affairs, one in which negative numbers were included. That was changed after negative posting was abused by trolls and partisans, and the fallout was worse then the feature.

My feeling about relics is you let them stand unless there's a compelling reason not to.

[jenmito]

2. So then why do we have the feature at ALL? n/t

[On the Road]

9. You've Been Here Long Enough

It was a process with several stages:

-Positive recommendations,
-Negative recommendations
-Removal of negative recommendations

"Net" recommendations is an accurate term if the net is over zero. It is, as you point out, inaccurate if the real net is below zero. And, as you know, it was changed due to abuse and controversy.

[jenmito]

11. Just because I've been here doesn't mean I've been following the REASON

for the changes in the process. Yes, "net" recommendations is accurate IF the net is above zero. If they're worried about abuse and controversy, that could happen both ways. I'm sure some people rec threads just because they like the poster who started the thread just as some do the opposite.

[ret5hd]

3. Unrec'd for whining about unrec

[jenmito]

4. I WANT to see the number of unrecs. Now if 100 people unrec this thread, I'll have no idea. n/t

[elocs]

5. Lord knows we used to have whining without end about UnRec.

I thought we were past that, evidently not.

I also give an automatic UnRec for whining about UnRec. There are way too many DUers who are obsessed about the whole thing.

[Posteritatis]

6. People *can't* handle the truth that some of their threads are unpopular

That's why just about every thread on this site has an unrec whine in the first couple of comments.

[jenmito]

7. Then maybe we shouldn't have the rec/unrec feature at ALL. If we should know

how great a thread is, we should know how terrible a thread is, too, IMO. I feel like we're at a school where nobody gets failing grades because it would hurt morale.

[HughMoran]

12. A good percentage of unrecs have nothing to do with popularity of the post

Vengeful unrecs against the poster are very common here.

[Posteritatis]

13. The prosecution rests. (nt)

[HughMoran]

16. Many threads have unrecs before anybody could have read them

I've noticed this dozens of times, your putrid implication aside...

[Posteritatis]

17. Keep right on writing my material here; you're off to a great start!

Also, it's not an "implication" so much when I state something outright.

[Wickerman]

8. Complaining about the Rec/UnRec system is SO 2009!

But yeah, I'd like to see the number or unreccs. There was quite a lot of discussion on it back when the whole Recc system started and I think this was the best compromise in the sum of the discussion and in the minds of the Admin. :shrug:

I guess I'd like to see when it dips below zero - a simple -1 would suffice as it would differentiate between the negative threads and the ones that simply got no reaction.

[jenmito]

10. I think it got worse from 2009 when at least they had the

IMO, of course.

[EarlG]

14. It's pretty simple

The software counts votes above and below zero, it just doesn't display the number if it is below zero. Previously, the number of votes was displayed as "<0", but we had to change it because large numbers of people ASSUMED that every time someone unrecommended their thread it MUST have been a troll, and then they would complain about it in the first few replies. Eventually this became extremely tiresome, so we got rid of the "<" and since then the problem has pretty much vanished. So basically, no, people can't really handle the truth. Given the amount of complaining about "<0" I would hate to imagine the uproar if people could actually see the total number of unrecs.

For the record, we did not make this change because the rec/unrec system was being abused by trolls. The admins have the ability to monitor who recs and unrecs threads, and we have never seen any evidence that vast numbers of trolls are abusing the function. There might be one or two people who go out of their way to unrec stuff for what may seem like dubious reasons, but they are so outnumbered by the people who are using the system responsibly that it really has no effect on the overall outcome - which is how the system was intended to work.

[Aramchek]

18. so you gave in to the whiners?

that sucks.

[EarlG]

20. Sort of but not really

It wasn't like we were getting loads of complaints from people demanding that we get rid of the "<" which then forced us to change it. We (and I think a lot of other people) were getting tired of the way that so many threads started off with someone posting "What stinking troll unrec'd this?" even if the thread then went on to pick up dozens and dozens of recs. It seemed like a pretty annoying flaw in the system, so we simply got rid of the "<" and voila, problem (mostly) solved.

[Posteritatis]

19. Of course, they're still complaining about it even now a lot. (nt)

[jenmito]

22. So why don't you keep the true net # and put in the rules that we can't complain to administrators

about the amount of recs/unrecs (since you said you "have never seen any evidence that vast numbers of trolls are abusing the function"? Tell them to "deal with it" or stop starting threads. Everyone should HAVE to "handle the truth." The results of my poll shows the majority wants it that way. :shrug:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

29. That's a stupid statement...

Who are the "groupies of a toy to entertain themselves at everyone's expense"? There are those who automatically UNREC threads by certain posters just as there are those who automatically REC threads by certain posters. It goes both ways, only nobody complains when the ones who automatically rec win out.

What do you think I need to feel better about? NOT knowing how many people unrecc'ed my thread? :eyes: I would just like some accurate representation either way. And an administrator on this very thread said there is NOT a lot of unrecc'ing by trolls.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Aramchek]

35. you know what the truth is.

90% or more of your threads are Anti-Obama.

And they accomplish nothing at all.

[IndianaGreen]

36. I am a progressive that supports progressive policies

Personality cults such as the ones we saw in Stalinist Russia, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Peron's Argentina, etc., are invariably undemocratic and authoritarian.

[Aramchek]

37. how about anti-personality cults? cause you're a card carrying member of one

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Someday we may have the ability to rec comments to an OP

like for example this one.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. who gives a flying fuck?

[branders seine]

21. to protect the DLC contingent,

who were routinely unrec'ed into oblivion with their republo-crap posts.

Now, instead of "-798" or thereabouts, their posts are all "0."

[jenmito]

23. I'm pretty sure it's to protect ALL posters. n/t

[branders seine]

24. gee, ya think?

:rofl:

[awoke_in_2003]

25. K&U

[Sheepshank]

27. It seemed like people were unrecing

just because the didn't like the topic...had nothing to do with the content, the properties or the manner of the OP.

[JNelson6563]

28. Yeah, when I noticed it I knew immediately

The level of whining about un-recs must've been very high and relentless. Gotta undo that unrec feature otherwise someone may get their widdle feelings hurt. Pathetic.

Julie

[Aramchek]

34. rather than accept that nobody likes their posts,

they hold onto the belief that everyone who unrecs them is some Troll Agent.

It's beyond pathetic.

And bowing to their demands to hide the true count, just allows them to further insulate themselves from reality.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Because, best intentions aside, the whole "unrec" feature has ended up becoming a weapon at best...

...troll bait at worst, and the mods don't know how to gracefully back out of it.

NGU.

[Rabrrrrrr]

38. Oh, for the love of Christ, WHO FUCKING CARES?!

Goddamn, are people's egos so fucking miserable and fragile that they actually fucking care if someone rec or unrecs their threads? Is that all they have in life? That on their death bed they can at least say that they managed to get a thread on an anonymous political discussion board recommended? Seriously - that's their sole goal? Their sole success in life, that they have to bitch and whine and constantly hit 'reload' to see what the count is?

If so, then I say 'fuck 'em'. Let 'em whine and piss and moan and type their fingers raw in poutrage. If they're that pathetic, they SHOULD be wasting their time at the computer and not reproducing or otherwise fucking up the collective unconscious.

Fucking hell.

:eyes:

Seriously.

[jenmito]

40. Wow-you REALLY didn't understand my post at ALL if you think I was

complaining about NOT getting threads recommended. In your zeal to curse me out about my supposed whining about how people unrec threads, you clearly missed the point. As you see, my "rec" count is at "0" which I WISH would show "-20" or whatever the REAL net "unrec's" is. I just want as accurate a representation of NEG. recs. as POSITIVE recs.

And nobody forced you to post on this thread.
:eyes:
Duh.

[Rabrrrrrr]

41. Oh, I completely understood your post.

I just think that caring about recs or unrecs at all is the equivalent of zealously attaching your colostomy bag to your intubation tube.

Who fucking cares?

Obviously, some people do.

I sure as fucking hell don't.

I'll judge the merits of any posts I make by how people actually respond using language, not whether they push some fucking anonymous "recommend" or "not recommend" button.

Seriously.

And if you think my post was accusing you of whining that people hit 'unrecommend', then you didn't bother to fucking read it, did you? And since you didn't bother to read it, why are you even responding?

Responding to posts you haven't bothered to read is the equivalent of... well, you know the picture. Seriously.

[jenmito]

42. No you didn't. If you did, you wouldn't have said,

"Goddamn, are people's egos so fucking miserable and fragile that they actually fucking care if someone rec or unrecs their threads?" It has NOTHING to do with ego. It has to do with accuracy. Nothing more.

And you were talking to me and everyone you think feels the same way you think I feel.

Your cursing shows your inability to express yourself intelligently. :hi:

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Because I *did* understand your post is why I said what I said.

My point is this: it's ludicrous to care what a thread's rec or unrec total is. It's pointless and ignorant and senseless. Whether the unrec total is given as an actual total or as a nebulous "less than zero" is irrelevant - it's fucking stupid to care.

I took your post to a meta-level.

I know that you are whinging that a thread that has more unrecs than unrecs just says "less than zero" instead of giving the actual total.

But I'm taking it a level higher and saying that whether it says the actual total or just says "less than zero", it's still fucking stupid to care about.

Here's an analogy: you're saying that the tablecloths for the church dinner should be yellow, instead of white. I'm saying it's fucking stupid to even have tablecloths.

You're trying to engage me in an argument about the particulars of something, which specific something I don't think is even worth caring about to begin with.

[jenmito]

44. The more you try to explain, the more you prove you DIDN'T understand my point.

Now you're saying it's "pointless and ignorant and senseless" which is not the same as having a fragile ego.

And your analogy is totally off, too. Your problem in your FIRST post to me was about how people who care about the actual net number of recs/unrecs have fragile egos. NOW your problem is that it's stupid to HAVE a rec/unrec feature (which has nothing to do with me or anyone who agrees with me).

You're showing your ignorance more and more with each response. But feel free to keep arguing about something you don't even feel is worth caring about in the first place. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. Oh, for fuck's sake.

No wonder you don't understand anything I post.

:eyes:

It's pointless, ignorant and senseless - which therefore means that the only people who care are people of fragile egos.

I can't be any more clear than I already have been.

But let me try here:

You came out whinging because the system doesn't show the actual number if a thread is unrecced more than recced.

I came out saying it's fucking ignorant and fragile-ego ludicrousness to even fucking care what the score is.

Which is to say this:

You: it's awful that negative recommend scores aren't shown with the actual amount!

Me: you're a fucking fragile-ego moron if you even think the number of recs or unrecs matters.

Which is to say this:

My FIRST post to you was about how people who care about the actual net number of recs/unrecs have fragile egos, AND THEREFORE it's stupid to HAVE a rec/unrec feature.

you keep attempting to push some ignorant dichotomy between these two statements, as though I hadn't thought it through, when in fact, in my mind, they are inextricably linked.

If you want to argue with me, fine; but argue against what I've actually said and believe, instead of arguing about shit you make up that I said.




There. Is that clear enough? It's precisely the table cloth analogy I offered.

This isn't rocket science. This is shit that a third-grader can understand.

[jenmito]

46. You're wrong and you're claiming you said things in your first post that you never said.

The beauty is that anyone can go back to your first post and see that.

These statements in your latest post do NOT make sense/are not true:

"It's pointless, ignorant and senseless - which therefore means that the only people who care are people of fragile egos."


"My FIRST post to you was about how people who care about the actual net number of recs/unrecs have fragile egos, AND THEREFORE it's stupid to HAVE a rec/unrec feature."

Keep trying if you want.

[Lord Helmet]

39. It's the special olympics of the internet. nt