Holy DOG!! The Greatest Page!!! Wow!!

[jobycom]

It's still there, and actually has substance!!!! I was told that wasn't going to happen with the Unrec.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. The # of votes seems to be lower though, don't you think?

[POAS]

2. It's not the size of the vote, it's the way you use it!

[Spazito]

3. LOL, I keep checking it to see the "utter crap", etc, that is supposed to appear there!

Damn, somebody lied to me, no utter crap there at all, some interesting threads though!

[Renew Deal]

4. Was there "utter crap" there before?

I think we're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

[Spazito]

5. Yes, at times, there were threads that, while receiving the requisite 5 recs...

when one read the thread, the vast majority of DUers did NOT agree with the premise espoused by the OP yet had no way to balance off the recs in order to have their opinion reflected as to what should be on the Greatest.

There was a problem regarding a true reflection of what the majority of DUers believed should be on the Greatest page, that problem has been addressed by the admins with the option to unrecommend, imo.

[Renew Deal]

6. Yes, and if people didn't truly agree, it never got past 5-10 recs.

The good stuff was always at 20+.

[Spazito]

8. The point, I think, is that 5 - 10 was enough to get those threads onto the Greatest...

without a way to voice opposition to the thread reaching Greatest, now there is a fix for that. The good threads still receive +20 and more, that has not and will not, imo, change. The difference is more DUers get to "voice" their opinion in the option of rec/unrec.

Beyond the affect on the Greatest, the option to rec/unrec does nothing to threads in the various forums yet, it seems, to some it is the "oppression" of free speech, etc. I can't quite get my head around that one, lol.

[DireStrike]

9. I think it's important that they show the total recs and unrecs on a thread

I'm not clear as to why this feature was removed. Were people really getting dizzy and confused subtracting one number from another?

[Spazito]

13. Yes, there seemed to some confusion in calculating how many were...

unrecs vs recs when they option first appeared so the admins decided to remove the feature for simplicity I think. I actually like not having the total of unrecs vs recs available because we can tell if the OP is decidedly unpopular, for whatever reason, by the <0 tally and, as before, those which are supported by their net + number. Any further info really is superfluous, imo.

[DireStrike]

19. But you CANNOT tell.

we can tell if the OP is decidedly unpopular, for whatever reason, by the <0 tally

A post which has 300 recs and 301 unrecs is certainly not "Decidedly unpopular".

This information is far from superfluous. It would allow the users to see and judge how the unrec feature is being used, on what kind of threads, and how it has affected conversation overall. We could look into trends and everything. Most importantly, we would be able to tell at a glance if an unrec'd thread is heavily unpopular or simply controversial - just barely outside of the majority opinion.

I assume the admins can still see and will be watching this, but I would like to know, personally, what the effects are.

I'd also like to see an ungreatest page.

[Spazito]

22. I guess if one uses the # of recs to determine the value of an OP....

or whether they should read it or not the ability to note the number of recs vs unrecs could be of value. Given the rec feature affects only the Greatest page in any real sense I am not seeing the intrinsic value of knowing the exact number of both recs and unrecs as they do NOT affect the placement, etc, of the OP in any way beyond the Greatest.

I am quite certain the admins can, indeed, see how it is being used and have noted in this thread that they will be watching closely:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6021143

"We are going to closely monitor this new system, to make certain that it actually does what it is intended to do, and to ensure that it makes DU better for most of our members."

As to having an UnGreatest, I don't see the value in that.

[DireStrike]

23. I'm mostly interested in how a system like this is used by a group to affect the discourse

I want to see how things would have been if not for the unrec feature, alongside how they are with it implemented.

The ungreatest would be for fun, mostly, but also metadiscussion. What sort of topics are strongly hated in this forum? I'm curious. I wonder how many good discussions would show up there.

Oh, and they do affect placement aside from the greatest - the top 5.

[Spazito]

24. I would agree it will be interesting to see if it makes much difference beyond what...

appears on the Greatest or if it even affects that very much. A quick glance at the threads currently showing on GD seems to say the wheat is rising above the chaff, as it were, assuming the threads solely debating the merits of the new option do not belong on the Greatest and are being 'rated' accordingly.

One can see, imo, that negative ratings many threads has not seemed to inhibit DUers posting in them.

My bet is, once the new 'toy' has been played with for a few days, it will be misused by a very tiny minority of DUers on all sides of various issues/personalities.

[MADem]

11. I agree with you. NT

[GreenArrow]

17. "when one read the thread, the vast majority...

of DUers did NOT agree with the premise espoused by the OP..."

Not everyone who recs also posts. There may indeed be a loud majority of posters dissenting on such threads, but there is also a silent majority which registers its opinion by way of the rec button or via one of the incessant DU polls.

[Spazito]

18. Your post shows why it is eminently fair that each opinion has an option...

Prior to this change, only those who supported the OP had two ways of expressing their support, one by actually posting in the thread and the second by recommending it whereas those who did not support the OP had only one avenue to express their dissent and that was by posting within the thread. Now everyone has TWO options, eminently fair don't you think?

[GreenArrow]

21. That's a fair point

I tend to think it was fair enough the way it was, but I seldom rec anything and don't judge the value of a given post by the number of it recs anyway, so rec or unrec, it's all the same to me.

[LynneSin]

7. I like the concept that all people at DU decide what is on the home page

and not a small group trying to push their agenda on the home page.

If you write a damn good post then it'll get on the home page.

[BlooInBloo]

10. I think everyone having the same amount of say on what goes there is good, too.

[provis99]

12. I hope we see the end of the

"Recommend this if you agree with me" type of page. I can't stand those ridiculous, egotistical calls for attention.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Really? Someone said there would be no substance? WOW!!!!!

Who said that?

[jobycom]

20. No, of course not. All the people saying the sky has fallen think there will be MORE substance!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6022595&mesg_id=6022595

dum s

[Luminous Animal]

25. People say the sky is falling? Really?

I can't believe that people are saying the sky is falling!

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. You mean this?

I'd call it exhibit 1.

But no, I won't unrecommend it.

[BuyingThyme]

16. Not if you want to find out what Obama thinks of CIA secrecy and like that there.

In other words, the Greatest page sucks ass.

[Luminous Animal]

26. There is no need to mischaracterize peoples' positions

in order to offer a critique. If you were really interested in having a dialog with those you disagree with, you should have challenged them directly rather than set up this strawman.

[jobycom]

27. Same to you. nt

[Luminous Animal]

28. Same to me, what?

Are we now playing school yard games?

[jobycom]

29. "There is no need to mischaracterize peoples' positions

in order to offer a critique. If you were really interested in having a dialog with those you disagree with, you should have challenged them directly rather than set up this strawman."

Take your advice. Be honest. Quit the passive-aggressive "show me someone doing exactly what you say" dodge when you know what I'm talking about. Offer an honest discussion, you'll get one.

[Luminous Animal]

30. I do not know what you are talking about

because no one said what you claimed in your OP. It is impossible to have to have an honest discussion when the presented premise is based on a fantasy.

I could start a thread titled, "OMG jobycom fucks goats!" But it would be, clearly, be the wrong way to start an honest discussion.