We have Ignore, Alert, and Hide Thread. Now "Unrecommend." How fragile are you people?

[Political Heretic]

No site in the universe gives more options for hyper sensitive fragile hearts to avoid all forms to discussion or disagreement than this one. That's not exactly something to be proud of, in my book.

It's embarrassing the wide number of tools this site gives to marginalize different points of view, when they don't break any of the DU rules but still unsettle some over privileged DUers.

I believe that this is the first (and last) thread I've ever made exactly about the unrecommend "feature," and I made it only because Skinner has posted that its here to say. How silly and childish. Is it the end of the world? Of course not. It just means that the "Latest" page is now better than the "Greatest" page for me.

As I've said before, maybe it is desirable for the clique of mainstream members to have a page where they can quickly browse all their establishment opinion without facing any difference or challenge. Or put nicer, maybe a page where the "majority" can browse "majority" opinion is desirable for some.

But if DU had any sort of intellectual honesty, it would rename that page from "Greatest" to "Most Popular" - because that's all it is anymore, a giant, childish popularity contest. Honestly, I didn't know until this move that the "Greatest" page was such a big deal. The threshold was always pretty low for getting on it, I liked it because it was a snapshot of a lot of diverse topics and opinion on one page.

Now its just bland, homogenized silliness. The evolution of DU into bland, mainstream and gutless has been really sad to watch for me. And yet, unless I'm kicked out for my criticism in this post, I'll likely continue to post here. It is one of the few places on the internet this big that creates the opportunity for broader topical discussion in sub-forums.

Sigh... I guess I just liked this place better when it was underground than I do now that its mainstream. And yet in many ways its the only game in town, so...

[Skink]

1. We need a worst page.

[Kolesar]

2. For this thread?

[cboy4]

For all of the unrecommend discussion threads? I agree

:crazy:

[Kittycat]

7. That might actually be kind of fun to visit

:rofl: I love reading troll threads.

[Political Heretic]

10. I'd like that. Though I'd suggest it be "Unpopular" rather than "Worst"

As a life long holder of minority opinions, I'm sure I'd enjoy that page quite a bit :)

[WHAT]

45. how 'bout a tally of hide thread ( number here)...

I'd like to keep track of that. I used to look at the posters on threads with a lot of recommends to see if it was worth reading. Now, when I unrecommend, I usually hide. To me, the old recommend was like citing corporate media when less and less people are watching it...the unrecommend gives more accuracy. Imagine if your tv had a button you could push that displayed "dog shit liar" on the screen. I think it would more accurately show confidence in the program's engagement with a relevant issue.

[Political Heretic]

59. Except that this isn't about lying. It's about the continuing increasing ability of a majority to

crush a minority.

Now, I fully understand that many people would actually WANT this. Of course that's true, that's why the unrec feature has more supporters than detractors. I get that.

But that's not what I want. As a life long holder of minority opinions, I believe minority points of view are important and often extremely valuable correctives to group think. I like institutions/organizations that promote and make room for minority viewpoints along with majority viewpoints without letting one squelch out the other.

To me, I think unrec goes too far and has a lot of unintended negative consequences that haven't been carefully thought out.

[ElboRuum]

87. Crushing the minority?

Perhaps, rather than as lambasting the "oppressive majority", it may help to think of it as cleaning the dross off the front page. If you truly have a "minority opinion" that you wish to become a part of the majority opinion, isn't it incumbent on you to be more persuasive? I mean, the whole point of the less popular view is that it is held by fewer people.

That is NOT to say that DU cannot be persuaded by minority opinion, NOR does it mean that there is an oppressive majority looking to quell dissent. I personally think that you are not giving the system enough of a chance to prove itself out. If progressives are about change, why do so many seem to think that all change will be negative. My prediction will be that it will be good for the board, getting rid of the esoteric fluff and self-flagellating posts from the front page and replace it with the stuff that is of good quality and not unilateral of point... you know, things that you can actually debate and discuss, rather than just rec'ing.

[Political Heretic]

98. Okay, my choice of words was too exaggerated. :)

And like I said to a poster further down, your comments are also very good and I appreciate them.

We'll see what happens, I guess.

You know I almost never come to DU via the front page, so maybe I'm not sensitive enough to the points people are making about it. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

112. Agree . . .I think there will be unintended consequences . .

[GOTV]

95. I've often been curious about the hide thread count ....

... Although I know I hide threads for two different reasons. I might think the subject is ridiculous and I don't want to see it any more or sometime I hide a reasonable thread that is just not interesting to me anymore but it still keeps getting bumped to the top of the list.

So not all of my hides should be interpreted as a negative vote against the subject or OP.

Maybe that's a good reason not to show the hide count.

[WHAT]

105. I hide for those reasons, also...

but don't consider them equivalent. There's a difference in hiding something you've already read, I wouldn't unrecommend something like that. I wonder how unrecommend relates to hide. I suspect spam du jour threads would have a high correlation between hide and unrecommend. I see the same phenomena at work, here, as at corporate media...a lot of noise that noone really watches,... or reads. I would like to pull the discussions back to informative, imaginative, witty discourse. I see how discourse can be degraded but am curious how it might be elevated.

[defendandprotect]

114. I'm not concerned about threads that hang around . . . it's the threads that disappear too quickly..

articles that need discussion but are met with aggressive dismissals --

[Laelth]

78. Me too. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[redqueen]

3. ...

nevermind :)

[derby378]

4. I agree

Too many fragile, fevered egos around here. We need to take a collective chill pill.

[Mojambo]

5. "And yet in many ways its the only game in town, so... "

Funnily enough that last sentence pretty much perfectly describes my feelings toward the modern Democratic party.

[defendandprotect]

115. Well, it's not . . . I think you'd find that most people here who really want to know ...

what's going on in the world aren't one website people -- ?????

[BlooInBloo]

6. And threads getting to "Greatest" with merely 5 'yes' votes is intellectually honest?

Seriously?

[Red Shift]

12. Promoting is not inherently the same as detracting

[BlooInBloo]

17. True- voting 'no' is not the same as voting 'yes'. That's kind of the point.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[scheming daemons]

35. A review of the Greatest Page over the past 4 days shows your theories to be false

Plenty of threads critical of Obama are making it there.

[BlooInBloo]

41. And then there's that. Theoretically PH's idea is bad, and no harm has been shown. Done, and done.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

71. "No harm has been shown."

That might, very arguably, be true of all we were talking about was "threads critical to Obama" as the previous poster said.

But I'm not, in fact I never mentioned that at all.

Also what is missing is any topic of minority interest. Thus variety, diversity. In the last four days what I haven't seen is the wide array of subjects I once did.

Again, I obviously get that some find that to be a good thing. That's what some want. That's not what I want. But I'll live.

[BlooInBloo]

85. "what is missing is any topic of minority interest" - Just plain false.

[BlooInBloo]

37. Battle? The way you want things, 5 people vote yes, and it's done. There's no battle.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[BlooInBloo]

48. I like that everybody has to ability to vote 'yes', 'no' or abstain from voting...

for a thread to be on Greatest. As simple as that.

[Red Shift]

49. However, that is not the only thing in play here

There is also the matter of the front page and which threads appear there

[BlooInBloo]

51. Mutatis mutandis.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[BlooInBloo]

61. (shrug) I suppose it depends on what level of abstraction one is looking at it on...

I think of it as single-faceted: Anywhere one has the ability to vote 'yes', one should also have the ability to vote 'no', in addition to abstaining.

It's possible, I suppose, to view every specific page impacted by such a vote, or even every individual vote itself, as a "different facet". I don't see what is gained by so considering, however.

[Political Heretic]

72. Except that holders of majority views have more numbers with which to rec (or un rec)

[BlooInBloo]

104. I agree you have a correct understanding of what "majority" means.

[rcrush]

8. I lol when the internets takes themselves too seriously.

[Echo In Light]

9. "Mainstream" anything sucks on toast. Maybe we need a moderate GD & a Leftist GD forum?

At least that way it would clearly identify people per a generalized overview of their perceptions and priorities, and like-minded kindred spirits could feel more at home among those who will fill threads w/more direct data rather than having to re-re-re-explain/reiterate basic, stated political positions for the moderate types who often times will simply enter such threads to call others names.

[Red Shift]

11. I agree

I am more interested in the "Leftist GD" that you propose that would hopefully dispense with some of the underhandedness that scares people off the site

[Echo In Light]

19. It may serve as a purge valve since the GD is primarily comprised of those two

Yes, most of us realize that the average person holds simultaneous, conflicting views on any subject, and cannot always be categorized that easily ... but I doubt many of the leftward leaning, and/or out and out Leftists here would object to a forum that's free from defenders of orthodoxy/status quo/crusading conspiracy denier types, and their hostile provocations. And the mods could do their thing and not be put off by those who question the validity/legitimacy of the status quo, the two party system, various 'conspiracies,' etc

Actually I think that would make for a very revealing online experiment aside from offering practical advantages. The problem would be reluctance and resentment from the moderate percentage, and this site's owners/operators would never go for it since it may yield unfavorable/unwelcome results.

[redqueen]

53. What is this 'underhandedness that scares people off the site'? (nt)

[defendandprotect]

116. I think you mean left/progressive vs center-right . . .

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Hepburn]

15. A-fucking-men....

...and I added an R to this thread, too.

What a bunch of bullshit ~~ we need all of this in order to hide from things we do not like? Sounds more like RW assholes than like progressives to me.

JMHO

[Political Heretic]

31. Those are not the excact words I would use.

I would say that Dems are, by and large, a bunch of pro-establishment corporatists who lack the political will and intestinal fortitude to bring needed change to this broken system of government.

We need to take the party back or replace it - I don't care which it is, as long as it ends this era of establishment, privileged, insider baseball bullshit in washington.

[sharp_stick]

14. Probably not as fragile

as those around here that NEED to have their opinions miraculously validated by getting five equally needy people to click on a rec button so it can go on some pedestal called the Greatest Page.

I really had no idea there were so many around here that required so much weird support.

[Political Heretic]

34. Honestly, I'd rather have NO greatest page

Than one that functions like this.

So its not so much about loving the 5 recs = greatest system. It's about strongly disapproving of the new unrec system.

[defendandprotect]

117. I agree . . . "UN" is intended not to show disfavor openly, but to hide threads . . .

[WI_DEM]

16. Well I don't care if I make the greatest page or not, so not too fragile.

[Political Heretic]

36. I don't realy care if I do either, but that doesn't have much to do with what I think of the system

As I said above, I'd rather have NO greatest page than one that functions this way. So its not my love for the +5=greatest form, its just this is worse to me.

Just my opinion.

[ShamelessHussy]

18. lol - i wish they would show us the scores though, how many pro and con

I also wish they would let us rate/rank everything, especially individual comments, and then let us filter them based on the score.

:hi:

[Spazito]

20. "you people"?

Why would you deliberately put that phrase in your header if not to provoke angry responses? If your intent was to initiate discussion, your header is the wrong way to go about it, imo.

As to your contention that DU's Greatest Page is now "just bland, homogenized silliness", I strongly disagree. I find the Greatest Page to offer diverse topics which, we now know, are supported by the majority of Duers because now we ALL have a say in what, in each our own opinion, should appear there.

I find your statement " And yet, unless I'm kicked out for my criticism in this post, I'll likely continue to post here." to be incredibly self-serving. You know quite well criticism such as you have posted does not bring on banning or being "kicked out", it doesn't even generate warnings.

[aquart]

21. "YOU people"? If you're not one of us, why are you here?

[Political Heretic]

29. Yes "You" people - you people who think unrec is a positive feature

you people who share a mainstream, establishment ideology and desire to suppress or remove different perspectives that still fall within the rules of the site.

That's the "you people" I happily refer to.

[Deja Q]

22. K& +R

[ZombieHorde]

23. "Now its just bland, homogenized silliness."

Have you tried not looking at it?

"It just means that the "Latest" page is now better than the "Greatest" page for me."

Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One of the redundant thread lists is now less enjoyable!

"I guess I just liked this place better when it was underground than I do now that its mainstream."

Du is still the same, only the "Greatest" page, which is a redundant page, has changed.

[Political Heretic]

40. In my opinion, It changed long before this feature

But this is just another example of a direction that I don't favor.

[chill_wind]

24. Here's what's sad. For the most fragile and small subset of (mystifyingly) Sore Winners,

it still won't be enough. I **double guarantee**it.

[Laelth]

84. That is a horrifying prophecy that has a distinct ring of truth.

I hope you are wrong.

:dem:

-Laelth

[defendandprotect]

118. True . . . you've called it. Those who want CONTROL over others are never satisfied. ...

[zipplewrath]

25. Less than perfect

I'm not going to suggest that the current system is perfect by any stretch, and I'd suspect neither would skinner. However, your complaint seems to be grounded as much in semantics as in any real functional issue. This is a site of dynamic content. As such, the mods are looking for ways to organize it. Some of the titles are tools for personal organization, some are so the participants can help organize the dynamic content. The real functionality of the "greatest" page was to take some topic of general interest and keep them elevated to a place where there could be wide participation. Furthermore, it was a place to elevate topics from any forum that showed a high level of interest. The "lastest" on the other hand had a tendency to have topics quickly move off the list and as such, unless you were there at the period of time that it was posted, you might miss it. This had the tendency to result in multiple posts on the same topic.

However, the "Greatest" page was suffering from a few problems, amongst them was that it took so few votes to get there that the content was quickly becoming as dynamic as the "latest" pages. Also, similar "popular" topics were often all getting elevated. The "unrecommended" tool was a way to address this. Repetative topics can begin to decline because as people feel that the subjects have been beat to death, they can express such a view with the "unrecommended" feature.

Is the system perfect? Not by any stretch. And I think the suggest that there be some forum where folks can see the "most unrecommended" posts might be an interesting idea. If for no other reason that folks can that recommend it if they so choose. Alternately, or in addition, some feature which merely counts the total number of both and presents "the most volatile" or something.

It's about organizing dynamic content. It isn't something that alot of places do well, DU does better than others. Google, Yahoo, and others try to do it with their news content. I suspect there will be alot more interest in the topic in the coming future as web based news replaces papers.

[Political Heretic]

63. Thank you for a great response. Really well thought out.

I appreciate your points.

I guess its better now to think about ways to modify the unrec system to address continuing problems since its going to be with us no matter what.

[SpartanDem]

26. How fragile are you?

Seems it's people like you that hate this feature are ones that are truly afraid to have your ideas challenged. If you valued intellectual honesty I'd think that you'd oppose a system that only allowed those that agreed with you to recommend your thread. I don't see this as an majority vs minority issue it one of fairness you have to give people equal opportunities to express their views.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

39. Welcome to DU. Maybe you should put some time in the kitchen before

you declare yourself Chef de Cuisine. Do you go into people's homes and piss about their houselkeeping? I don't care if you've been lurking for months or years, I don't think you are in a position to change the culture of the site on your first visist.

Poor typing intentionally undedited, I rarely bother nor do I criticize others for unintentional mistakes.

[zorahopkins]

28. Fragile? Doesn't That Mean "Made In Italy"?

I recall Ralphie's father, in "A Christmas Story", upon seeing a crate marked "Fragile" (which he pronounced 'fra-gil-e"), saying something like, "It's probably made in Italy".

I'm not Italian.

[theHandpuppet]

30. Couldn't agree with you more

:thumbsup:

[PretzelWarrior]

33. you are a highly combative person who rails against authority

so your viewpoint is not a surprise in the least.

Is it undemocratic for the Senate to throw out disruptive protesters? I don't think that's undemocratic. I think that is some minority group trying to get their opinions amplified despite what the majority has decided on.

This is the same as on this board. Democracy doesn't equal "Free for all".

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

42. I don't belive you can find anywhere where I said it was undemocratic for the Senate to throw out

protesters. IF you can though, I'd like to see it, because that doesn't sound like what I would say, so i'd like to know the context.

I believe what I said was that, I support civil disobedience as an act of conscience. Which is not the same as saying I think the senate should just stop everything and sit there while they protest for an hour or something.

Civil disobedience comes with the expectation that there will be consequences.

[PretzelWarrior]

70. well, I find it analogous to this case. You can still post

you can still kick your own threads. I don't see people chilling debate with this unrec thread. It is just laying ground rules.

Regarding Ignore and hide thread. I think they're "head in sand" features, but I don't care if people use them. Whatever they choose to do is up to them. If it helps more people participate in DU and not get overly frustrated then I'm fine with those features.

Same with this new feature (only difference is that I use this one and think it actually makes life easier for MANY readers--not just the ones who are unrec'ing).

[defendandprotect]

119. Now those who recommend are engaged in a "Free for all" . . .???

It is undemocratic for the Senate to have protesters arrested . . .

Protestors are the voice of the people to government --

And what an overconfidence in "majority" decision making and "majority" rule!!

[KittyWampus]

43. "You People"? If you listened to what DU'ers are actually saying you'd know it's not about fragility

It's about civility.

[Political Heretic]

50. "civility" is too frequently code for suppression.

I'm a strong believer in civility too. Right up until the point where "civility" becomes code for suppressing disagreement.

Take this tread - its not "uncivil." In fact I've got out of my way to be civil while still voicing my clear disagreement. But I'm sure there's someone out there who will equate my audacity to have a different point of view and give a stern and strong opinion with incivility.

"You people" - yes, you people who support the unrec function as a way to "clean up" the board, which effectively means homogenizing the greatest page and reinforcing the mainstream status quo opinion.

[dionysus]

46. seems to me the fragile ones are the people sobbing about it daily...

:shrug:

[redqueen]

55. Same here.

I'd change 'sobbing' to 'ranting'... but yeah.

[dionysus]

62. can i borrow a roffle?

;)

[Jennicut]

86. You think? Some people need a hobby....more than just DU it seems.

[Laelth]

88. Sobbing?

Thinking, testing, examining, testing, arguing, voicing our studied opinions, challenging. Those I will give you.

But sobbing? Where?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[dionysus]

100. sobbing is a metaphor for posting about it over, and over, and over, and over....

[Laelth]

102. LOL. Admittedly, the topic did generate a lot of discourse.

Of course, iirc, both sides of the debate seemed to post a lot of threads on it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[dionysus]

106. yes they do.

[defendandprotect]

120. The discussion should have taken place BEFORE the change . .. not after it --

[Number23]

132. Bingo!

[Stinky The Clown]

47. I think Unrec-ers are chickenshit jerkoffs and cowards unless they .......

.... own their action by saying they unrec-ed a thread and why. There's a sort of honor in anonymously doing a positive (a rec). There is only cowardice in anonymously slamming a thread (unrec).

I'll leave the epithet you all know belongs here unsaid.

[Political Heretic]

52. Well then! That's stronger than what I would say, but.... I lol'ed and give a thumbs up

:D

[CakeGrrl]

127. Maybe stronger than you would say on THIS thread. Seems you got over that pretty quick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8529702#8529829

:rofl:

This whole unrec thing is a silly, trivial business. It's the damned Internet where people try to stuff their views down other people's throats. Same as it ever was and will always be.

[redqueen]

58. "a sort of honor in anonymously doing a positive (a rec)."

Yes, like in the thread about how 'blow job' was said on the teevee, right?

I'd like it if the names of users rec'ing and unrec'ing were posted.

[Laelth]

91. Hear, hear. And your argument supports the OP's point.

Its purpose, in part, is to protect sensitive eyes.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LWolf]

54. I agree. nt

[Xenotime]

56. I'm offended by being called "hyper sensitive"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. It's the DU equivalent of mooning and spitballs.

Happily, so far, lynching is still off the table.

[liberalhistorian]

64. I'm in total agreement with you. We complain about

freepers sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "lalalalala, I can't hear you" whenever they're confronted with something they don't like or they have to listen to different views, opinions and perspectives. But this place can often be the same damned way and it seems such people are the ones protected. Echo chambers and circle jerking are bad no matter who's doing it, us or them.

[bertman]

65. I recommended this thread, but apparently it's been UNrecommended more than the other.

So, thank you Political Heretic for your accurate assessment of the frail state of some of our DU compatriots. But, hey, they are only following in the footsteps of our current party leaders, Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi.

[pipi_k]

66. Bland, homogenized silliness...

sometimes it's not such a bad thing, you know?


There are plenty of people who could use a shot of homogenized silliness in their lives. They take take way too many things...including themselves...way too seriously.

We all come here for different reasons...

I like getting information, but I also like laughing my ass off at the silliness.

anyway, I never paid much attention to the GP anyway. I'm more into the Latest. Seems to be much more of a variety there

:)

[Political Heretic]

68. Making that switch myself. Latest page seems much more valuable now.

[lukasahero]

67. Yawn

I can't get over how big an issue this is to people on either side. Get over it already.

[Number23]

134. +521

[Wickerman]

69. Not everything is going to work for everyone else

I have no need for the greatest page. Others might. I have used the recc button as I understand some might use and I like to reward posters for intelligent, well-thought out posts. I haven't much used the unrecc button but I don't see the big deal, either.

In the back of my mind I have to think the whole greatest issue is a crock of shit, anyway. I know what I think is good. I hope most people here can too, without the GP and all the horseshit drama that it entails.

[Political Heretic]

75. Honestly I didn't even start using the greatest page until recently

Maybe that's why its a bigger deal in my mind... I liked the diversity of opinion that was there. I liked what some people are calling the "pet issues" that were there. The broader the better.

In the last four days, its been bland as hell. Turned over to the latest page instead.

[DainBramaged]

73. Yeah how fragile are YOU people????

fragile, must be Italian.....

[Joanie Baloney]

74. Whaddya mean...

..you people??



Hee, hee!

-JB

[Political Heretic]

76. I mean exactly what I said ?

if you read my post... people who think the unrec feature is a great addition.

[Joanie Baloney]

92. Guess you didn't see the movie

I recommend it. (LOLOL)

-JB

[Political Heretic]

97. I didn't!! :D Sorry I missed the reference

People keep telling me I need to see it. :)

[Prism]

77. I don't think any of it is adequate

I would personally like it if a mod or admin could come to my house, load DU, and pre-emptively ignore posters and hide threads they know would passingly upset me emotionally and physically. Yes, physically. Shirt rending is a messy business.

It would be the political message board equivalent of removing the crust from my bread. Which I'd also like the mods and admins to do.

Also, story time. Actually, no story time. The mods and admins should come to my house and read threads I'd enjoy aloud in a pleasing, measured tone designed to lull and soothe. And only wear neutral colors. And also refrain from making any sudden movements.

Should I become upset by any post, topic, or unexpected kitten graphic, there are white pages and a baseball bat on the kitchen table. The mods and admins should know what to do.

Thank you.

[chill_wind]

107. :-)

[izzybeans]

79. The only fragility I see are in those afraid of being unrec'd.

Afraid their feelings will be heart because their opinions aren't uniformly popular.

[ElboRuum]

I would disagree with your premise.

You say that Ignore, Alert, and Hide Thread are tools for the fragile (at least paraphrasing).

The unrecommend feature, I pose, is the opposite. In my view, the ability to recommend positively without the abililty to recommend negatively is also a tool for the fragile. This would protect the fragility of the OP by simply saying how many thought the post was worthy or recommendation while keeping unknown the quantity who thought it drek. The recommend without unrecommend also allows for posts that are, as you put it, "popularity" fluff ("Rec this if you think <blank> is <blank>!") to get on the greatest page with 238 recs without the obvious reality that quite an untrivial number of DUers absolutely abhor those kind of "hey, let me get my name on the greatest page without actually doing anything to earn it" posts.

Personally, I think you argue against your own purposes. Greatest, at least in the context of OPs, is (IMHO) 75% about QUALITY, 25% about sentiment/content. With an unrec feature, you can at least see that if you get there, your post garners recommendation for its quality with few detractors. In other words, it puts the quality up front. DUers, most of whom are NOT petty, won't unrec well-written posts which are insightful, even if they don't agree with the content. Note that this is a prediction on my part, and time will, of course, tell if this bears out.

As you said, Skinner says it's here to stay, so complaining, at least before we can see the effects clearly, is really of no point at this time. If it requires a minor attitude course correction on your part, what's the problem if it improves the board a little?

[Maru Kitteh]

80. Just how fragile are the Unrecapocalypse hysterics?

How fragile are the egos of those who require validation of their status as a brilliant contrarian and superior mind, that they simply *must* see their post on the Greatest Page, or if they cannot, insist that the page isn't really the greatest page after all?

You are familiar with Aesops's fable of The Fox and the Grapes, yes?

[Political Heretic]

103. I lol'ed at "Unrecapocalypse"

Well done, sir.

Damn funny. :thumbsup:

[timeforpeace]

81. Fragile. You sure struck a nerve.

[HughMoran]

110. Heh, you said it

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

82. Thankfully we all have the ability to UNignore people and UNhide threads, too.

[ElboRuum]

90. I was wondering when someone would point out this little piece of obvious...

It does just kind of make quick work of the argument, doesn't it.

[BlooInBloo]

96. :) I'm a little slow this morning.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

99. Yes, you people.

You people who think the unrec feature is a great addition to the site. I feel I made that pretty clear.

[snooper2]

89. A bunch of folks who need to get outside or something...

Jesus H. Fucking Christ...

It's a fucking message board...go change the oil on you car or weed the garden or do something productive!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Jennicut]

93. I doubt I have ever had a post on the Greatest Page.

And I really don't care either way.
I must admit I prefer to comment than start original posts...maybe once in awhile I start one if some kind of info strikes me as interesting. But to need the constant ego boost of being on the GP is a very fragile state indeed.

[Desertrose]

94. I agree....

DU-Underground was a different place than DU-mainstream.


"rename that page from "Greatest" to "Most Popular"
Yup.

[ohheckyeah]

101. Yeah, people should have to

wade through 50 threads about MJ or Susan Boyle. How dare they not want to deal with the same subject over and over and over and over. Kind of like all the threads about unrecommend. How many threads about the exact same subject does a person need to read to be "well infomred"?

[juno jones]

108. Why aren't we allowed to see the numbers for 'unrec'?

I come here for adult conversation. If I want trolling and negativity, I'll just go and hang out with the chans because at least they're funny.

I want to see how many people are 'unreccing' LBN stories. I want to see how many are 'unreccing' human rights OPs. I want to see how many are 'unreccing' threads about important political players of our day like Obama and Palin. I just want to know how many people are voting down the very liberal and open elements that bring me here. I'm not gonna waste my time at a place that tries to bury important news stories or human rights issues on ANY page whatsoever, let alone the 'Greatest'.


On edit: One way to get rid of the MJ type-stuff on the greatest is to create a celebrity ghetto wherein all threads about popualar celebs in non-political situations would be dumped with no reccing powers ala the 911 dungeon. We can solve problems without negativity, methinks.

Perhaps putting polls in the lounge would help too.

[defendandprotect]

121. Agree with you entirely . . . including re celebrity threads . . .

EXCEPT Michael Moore --

[juno jones]

123. But Michael Moore is pretty entwined with the political as a matter of his media and message.

I saw Roger and Me in the theatre back in early 90. I admired his bravery then and I am happy about the subjects to which he has applied his outspokeness.

There will always be an exception for MM. :)

[ShamelessHussy]

135. if they let us free tag posts the community could categorize them and filter them ourselves

that way the end user is in control of his or her experience and not the mob.

[HughMoran]

109. Apparently not half as sensitive as you

Jesus - you're making yourself look like a hypocritical ass with post after post whining about this feature.

[defendandprotect]

111. They're trying hard not to know . . . most of us are here to see and read all we can -- !!!

[Political Heretic]

122. Apparently most of us aren't, cause it seems clear that the majority favors this "feature"

[graywarrior]

113. I need to call my therapist

[xultar]

124. Aww SHIT! I missed this bute

[question everything]

125. Worse. It celebrates grade school style cliques

and it promotes the cowards.

When a post becomes "less than zero" within a few seconds and with less than 10 viewers, you know that whoever chose the "U" has an agenda. And, apparently, part of the agenda is "to prevent the post from reaching the most popular page." And they do it behind the anonymity of the Internet. Since when do DUers do not express their opinions?

One can ignore a post, let it sink, just leave it alone. A very small percentage of posts reached that "most popular girl" page. But, sadly, DUers are become the mirror image of RWers, where the world is seen in black and white.

We had the "Valentine hearts" that were a measure of popularity, and now we have the "U" which are a measure of the last kid picked for the team.

What is it about DUers who have to pass judgment on every one and every post? I think that the best contributors and the most respected DUers left after the elections to discover other aspects of life. The ones that stayed, the ones who are here constantly find judging DUers and their post as the most important aspect of their life.

[CakeGrrl]

129. People can be as "cowardly" behind a Rec depending on the topic.

I for one would have no problem "owning" a Rec or Unrec, but overall I think any rating system becomes a hot button for egos who can't abide the thought of a vote against their viewpoint, period.

[waiting for hope]

131. +1

Grade school - it seems like High School cliques to me - I would hate for my grade school child to use some of the language I see on this board ... ;)

[blindpig]

126. Too late to rec but here's a kick n/t

[annabanana]

128. "some over privileged DUers". . ?

What makes some DUers over privileged?.. Is there some kind of second invisible "star" that I should wish I had or what?

[WillyT]

130. LOL...

Pretty Fucking Fragile...

Apparently...

:shrug:

[Adsos Letter]

133. Yes.

Fragile






:)

[Sterling]

136. If I read your post correctly…

If I read your post correctly…

I take what you are getting at to be the trend towards a kind of “thought control” that actually started a long time ago. I was a very frequent poster/donor to the site years back when DU was still a baby. I consider myself to be a moderate to progressive political thinker and found over time opinions and discussions I found interesting were subject to an effort to suppress those dialogues to suit “the mainstream” viewpoint. It really took a lot of the value that finding DU originally had for me out of the experience. I check back in maybe once every year or so and I always see that that trend has grown into more suppression of ideas that are not in line with the views of the site owners or maybe a core group of people that would like to see this site only as a tool to promote whatever the Democratic party is interested in at the moment.

Unfortunately within the people who vote Democratic there are a wide rang of philosophical view points and in my opinion they all belong on a site like this. I miss the old days here where I found myself reading and posting about things that were not being discussed on the mainstream media. More and more the site comes across as more of a reflection of that culture than what it was when I found it. When I found it the site was a great comfort to me in a dark political climate. I learned so much from fellow members. Now I find that I get interested in a thread and before I can even post a thoughtful polite view point it is locked or disappears and the ideas at play are suddenly forbidden. The site would be much more interesting and useful if there were less suppression of ideas, even the ideas I strongly disagree with.