I wonder if some people don't understand how the Unrec is supposed to work.

[Ian David]

Just in case this is happening, please let me explain something.

If someone posts something that makes you feel sad, or that sounds like "bad news," you're not supposed to Unrec the thread as a show of disapproval for the information contained in the post.

Example: "Man Kills Kittens" should NOT get an Unrec because killing kittens is bad. That is NOT what Unrec is for.

However, if the post is about how wonderful it is that the man killed the damn kittens who had it coming, THEN you might want to use Unrec.

Also, a thread titled "Man Kills Kittens, Uses Them to Cure Cancer" MIGHT get an Unrec if you believe, for example, that the claim that dead kittens cure cancer is bullshit.

"Obama Slips 5% in Rasmussin Poll" MIGHT get an Unrec if you believe Rasmussin polls are conservatively biased. However, it should NOT get an Unrec just because you don't like the idea of President Obama slipping 5% in a poll.

[Bicoastal]

1. Your post depressed me...

...I'm gonna unrec you SO BAD! x(

[rd_kent]

2. UnRec for making sense.....

stop pointing out the obvious......UNREC FOR YOU!!!!

[Cetacea]

3. I agree with your analyses. nt.

[Ian David]

4. Thanks. Do you think this might be what some people are doing?

Because I'm finding some Unrecs in some really odd places.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. That, and, some people just like to stir the shit.

Fourteen year old contrarians. Trolls. Drunks. Whatever.

[Major Hogwash]

75. That's craptastic.

Damn 14-year olds!
They should be in school staring blankly at the chalkboard like I did when I was their age.

[Cetacea]

14. Yes. That and what RaleighNCDUer posted.

I beleive you are corrrect as I see many threads where nearly everyone is in agreement with the OP, yet there are like sixty unrecs.

[ret5hd]

55. Pray tell, how can you see if it is 1 or 60 unrecs?

[Cetacea]

77. I'm psychic.

Anything else to contribute?

[imdjh]

24. Some people don't read the post, others read it but it somehow translates itself into...

.... whatever it is that they imagine that they have read. There are a number of people on board here, whom even a charitable person would wonder about.

[City of Mills]

5. Rec, now off to the greatest page with ye!

Someone had to bring it up, it's about time someone opens the discussion regarding the unrec function.

[Better Today]

7. Unrecs are often accidental, as the unrec is somehow in the more intuitive place to click regardless

of one's intentions.

Secondly, WTFareyou, to decide how it is used. If I don't want to see "man kills kitty kat" as one of the best topics on DU, I'll damn well click unrec.

[Ian David]

13. That would be a valid reason to Unrec.

I'm just saying that the purpose for which Unrec was created was not to rate whether something was happy news or sad news.

Not wanting to see "Man Kills Kittens" on the greatest page is a legitimate reason.

Killing Kittens is bad is not a legitimate reason.

Otherwise, something like, "300,000 Men, Women and Kittens Die in Los Angeles Earthquake" would get like a hundred unrecs because it's really, really sad.

[NashVegas]

8. Sorry, No

Until the admins specifically state under which circumstances we should use rec, you've got no business telling people.

And anyone can go to any junk news source to read all about Man Kills Kittens.

[JVS]

9. Who are you to tell people how to use the unrec function? I unrec this thread!

[Sherman A1]

65. Agreed

and UnRec'ed as well .


A nice lecture, but I will make my own decisions... Thank You Very Much.

[Ian David]

67. And you're so entitled. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

10. I'm sorry, I should never have suggested it in the first place!

Who knew they were going to do it!!
It's the first time they ever used one of my suggestions!
It was a dumb idea when I first came up with it, it's a dumb idea now.

[stray cat]

11. Why do you think people need help with the unrecommend function?

[Ian David]

17. I've been seeing some strange unrecs in unexpected places.

It struck me that most of the anomalous unrecs seemed to be in posts about "bad news."

[harun]

12. Unrec, for the freedom to be able to unrec for whatever stupid reason I want.

[Ian David]

19. Nobody's trying to pry your Unrec from your cold, dead hands.

I'm just saying that I think there are a few people who misunderstand the spirit in which Skinner provided it for us.

[tridim]

15. Obama isn't doing something that *I* want, so therefore he sucks

That's not change we can believe in! :eyes:

Those are the only posts I unrec every time.

[Ian David]

18. Oh, me too. I usually UnRec those. n/t

[flvegan]

16. So...the kittens are okay, right?

[Ian David]

23. Depends on whether or not this thread makes it to the Greatest Page.

Rec This Thread or The Kitten Gets It

[ohheckyeah]

20. Who says?

People recommend posts just because they have something in them that makes them feel good.

[Ian David]

26. That is true. But News and Facts aren't supposed to be suppressed just because it's sad.

Lack Of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths In US, Study Shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6901744&mesg_id=6901744

That's very sad.

But we kick it to the front page because it's important, and maybe we can do something about it.

[ohheckyeah]

53. I didn't see any regulations regarding

recommending or unrecommending. If people recommend just because it's happy news, then it's to be expected that people would unrecommend because it's sad.

[bigtree]

21. urecs are anti-intellectual

I can understand recommending that a piece be read, but I think it's a waste to discourage the reading of a post in a way that discourages folks from even opening it. This makes the rec feature some sort of beauty contest instead of the referral I think it serves best as.

[Kaleva]

32. An opinion that can't be supported by facts

It wouldn't hard to find threads with a great number of unrecs but which also have a great number of comments and views.

[bigtree]

38. I hadn't considered whether this was a dominant concern overall

. . . just a dominant concern of mine that it happens at all (which I'm certain it does)

[pipi_k]

42. Yep, I've seen the same thing...

Threads with lots of unrecs but also lots of replies will often stay visible longer than threads with lots of recs but fewer replies.

Seems to me that people aren't really complaining about lack of visibility as much as they are complaining that threads aren't being judged as "Greatest" just because THEY think the threads deserve it.

[Ian David]

45. I'm not really complaining so much as puzzling out seemingly random unrecs in odd places.

I go to Rec someone else's thread, and find that it's been Unrec'd and think, "WTF? Why would someone Unrec THAT?"

And then it occurred to me that it seems like it's mostly "sad" news that's getting the "strange" Unrecs.

So, I thought I would start a thread to explore that possibility.

[Forkboy]

48. That's really on the shallow people who base what they read based on recs or unrecs though.

If seeing a post with too many unrecs discourages someone from reading that thread that's really their own fault. What does it say about a person who is swayed by such shallow and superficial things?

And what's the cut off point? Is 9 unrecs still a readable thread, but 10 too many? Who is basing the intake of knowledge on such a vapid premise, and should we really even care what these people think? If someone is so shallow as to skip a thread based on the number of unrecs I'm not sure we should really care overly much about what opinions they have anyways. :shrug:

[TexasObserver]

60. That post is anti-intellectual.

Why can you not accept that it isn't your place to decide what others should use as their standard for Unrecommending? You have your vote and I have mine. I think your approach is nuts, and I'm sure you'd think likewise of mine. I think most threads should be Unrecommended, based strictly upon the weak OPs.

[Ian David]

62. A weak OP is a valid reason.

"Tsunami Warning Issued for California, millions may die despite evacuation efforts" should NOT be Unrec'd just because you think it's sad that millions of people may die.

Who knows?

Getting the thread to the Greatest Page my help a few people see it soon enough to evacuate.

[TexasObserver]

64. So is a topic I simply don't want to see on the Greatest Page.

Such as Limbaugh, Freepers, Free Republic, Joe the Plumber, Beck, O'Reilly, Fox News, Rasmussen, or Palin. Such as anything about pets, or about other DUers, or about someone's rant of the day. I don't find any of that worthy of anything but Unrecommend.

If I recommend a thread, its OP is worth reading.

[Ian David]

66. See, THAT makes sense.

My puzzlement is that people may be using Unrec on things that are important just because they news is "sad."

That they're using it for disapproval of the fact content of the news, rather than disapproval of the post.

For example, if the following were true: "Meteor to hit United States in Three Days." -- Unrec because it's tragic.

That sort of thing.

[TexasObserver]

70. It's the bad news and the good news I want to talk about.

Anything that makes Dems look better, I want to talk about.

Anything that makes DU look bad, I don't want to have on the Greatest Page. I have my own opinion of what that is. Trite things, personal things, vanity threads, rants - these are not the things I want to recommend. I understand that this is my approach, and others may have a different one.

[Ian David]

72. Your approach makes sense. You are correct on all points. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

69. Oh shit! So that's how it works

Damn!

Probably why you call yourself "TexasObserver", you've been observing this kind of stuff.

I shoulda know better.

[tjwash]

22. Click...

...no, it works just like it's supposed to.

:thumbsup:

[CBGLuthier]

25. I prefer to decide for myself what posts are worth reading

Don't use the greatest page. Never have. WTF would anyone care what articles are "popular." Is this high school or something?

[Better Believe It]

27. Unrecommends are undemocratic. That's how it's suppose to work!

[arcadian]

28. Plus there is the bug that lets you rec/unrec a post multiple times.

Those of us that know it don't abuse it but I don't think it can be trusted with the rest of you.

[Ian David]

29. Well, please don't tell me or anyone (except Skinner) about it. n/t

[Orsino]

30. Rec/unrec is the one vote you get on an OP or thread...

...and members will cast their votes for various reasons.

The only way unrec is "supposed" to work is that everyone who cares gets one vote.

[earth mom]

31. The unrec is used to kill dissent and criticism about Obama & his administration.

That's really it's sole purpose here on DU.

Let's stop pretending otherwise.

[tridim]

37. The rec is used to encourage dissent and criticism about Obama & his administration.

That's really it's sole purpose here on DU.

Let's stop pretending otherwise.

[Codeine]

84. And yet all that stuff is still here.

It may not float to the top of the Greatest Page, but that is conceptually a pretty stupid and shallow thing anyway.

[pipi_k]

33. Unrec etiquette...cool!

We're so lucky to have our very own DU Gloria Vanderbilt!


Now that we've all been put in our proper places, I'm sure things will be much more civilized from now on...

Fork on the left...knife on the right...don't use "unrec" just because the OP brings up subject matter we don't like.

Got it.

:+

[Ian David]

35. Hey, I'm here to help. n/t

[pipi_k]

44. I'm sure your motives are honorable and all...

it's just that the issue isn't really that earth shattering, you know?

I mean, life will go on even if threads don't make it to the "Greatest" page. If they're important/interesting enough, they'll survive multiple unrecs and get read on their own merit...

:shrug:

[Ian David]

47. You are correct on all counts.

And you won't starve to death if your fork is placed on the wrong side of your plate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Based on the result this post got, it looks as if most DU'ers have a different understanding.

But thanks for trying to explain it to us simple folk anyway.

[Jokerman]

36. I unrec threads where the unrec feature is discussed. n/t

[Ian David]

39. Fair enough. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. You should add that unrec doesn't magically make the thread disappear

or be buried or be hidden.

[Major Hogwash]

74. I thought we already discussed this in that thread that disappeared

Well, there was a thread that was here that wasn't here all of a sudden-like and I was confused, angry, and sad.
All at once.
So, I went and ate a gallon of ice cream.

[chrisa]

41. I think some people take it too seriously.

Who cares? I barely notice it half of the time.

[MilesColtrane]

43. K&U

[hayu_lol]

46. Now that this matter is settled...

explain to the 'REC' hounds what that is used for.

I unrec threads that essentially waste time and space...or that I totally disagree with.

[Ian David]

49. Well, judging by the popularity of THIS thread, I think I'll leave that to someone else. n/t

[Heidi]

50. While I don't use unrec a lot, I don't hesitate

foe a moment to unrec unreasoned, knee-jerk, whiney and/or authoritarian BS that flies in the face of progessive thought and practice. The unrec feature, like Rec and Ignore, is provided by the Admins and I don't believe any DUer should be shunned or called to account for using it.

[Ian David]

51. Lack Of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths In US, Study Shows

Maybe I should have started with a real-world example, instead of the thing with the kittens...

Lack Of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths In US, Study Shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6901744&mesg_id=6901744

That's very sad.

But we kick it to the front page, where more people might see it, because it's important, and maybe we can do something about it.

We don't Unrec it because 17,000 children dying is sad.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. The Unrec Punk

[Ian David]

54. LOL! Thanks! n/t

[DFW]

56. I've never used it, but I know it works

Since it was introduced, I haven't started a thread yet that hasn't received one LOL!!

Luckily, due my stealth and survival training, none of the unrecs has yet to reach out of
the screen to bite my head off, so I never really count it among those mortal dangers most
likely to cause my ultimate demise.

Maybe I'm being too frivolous in ignoring the danger.:sarcasm:

[Ian David]

57. It's all fun and games until someone Unrecs an eye. n/t

[DFW]

58. Probably so.

Besides, I'm sitting here in beautiful downtown Sprout City. They'd need a long reach, AND I'd never
get them any more chocolate. That usually makes ANYONE in their right mind think twice :rofl:

[TexasObserver]

59. The standard for Unrecommend is what the poster chooses to consider.

This is not your vote, so your opinion about what should be unrecommended is good for one person: YOU. Everyone else has their own standard. It's like voting for anything else. I don't have to explain to you or justify to you why I choose to Unrecommend a thread.

I have standards for recommending, and that means most threads get an unrecommend if I bother to rate the thread.

Example: "Man Kills Kittens" would get my Unrecommend because I don't think threads about cats can ever be worthy or anything but Unrecommend. Talk about it all you want, but it's not the stuff I think is worthy of a second look.

Example: "Obama Slips 5% in Rasmussin Poll" would also get my Unrecommend, because I routinely Unrecommend any thread about Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, or any other GOP slug, such as Rasmussen.

Your post is great to know how YOU decide, and mine is great to know how I decide, but neither one of our posts is anything more than our personal opinion.

[Ian David]

63. The reasons you gave are all valid. n/t

[skip fox]

61. Petulance drives the "unrecommended" choice as much as anything else.

I had some explain to me that it simply keeps the piece from "Greatest," but things only get to be "greatest" with upward of 50 recommendations. People just like to fart in public if they are not accountable. Call it "The Glenn Beck Phenomenon."

[A HERETIC I AM]

68. Time for a poem.

Oh unrec, you message board feature sublime,
Have you simply appeared ahead of your time?
Why is it you gather such silly attention?
When all you want is a little affection.

At times your usage makes some come unglued
when your result is simply nonsense subdued.
Even though your application is most voluntary
the contempt for you is oddly quite scary

It's as if in your absence, a thread that's not hot
still warranted a greatest page-ward swat.
Some will insist the jury's still out
But the job you've done is nothing but stout.

Eliminating crap and gratuitous clutter.
Place self serving bullshit in a well deserved gutter.
"I WON'T POST! I WON'T POST! I WON'T POST NO MORE!
IT'S YOU UNRECCERS MAKING LIFE SUCH A CHORE!"

Suggesting all threads of obscure import
deserve to be making the greatest page sort
is like saying a toddlers crude block construction
earns inclusion in Architecture Today's production


Oh unrec, oh unrec, you feature supreme
make it easy to see if a thread holds esteem
by a majority of our fine message board
instead of just five that are easily scored.

[Ian David]

73. If your poem was in its own thread, I would give it a Rec. n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

76. It was.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6659289

[skip fox]

71. I take it "supposed to" means "how it would work ideally." In this case,

you seem perfectly right. (And we can leave the gang of chuckleheads at the children's table.)

[billh58]

78. Would the same

"advice" apply to the way I vote for politicians, or in a poll, or for a local Resolution? Are there "you're supposed to..." rules for other personal decisions that you'd like to lay down for those of us who are too ignorant to be able to make independent choices?

Fail, and unrec...;-)

[TrogL]

79. Un-rec'd - our internal business does not belong on the Greatest Page

[Ian David]

81. That's a good point. n/t

[Kurovski]

80. Kittens?

What kittens?

[Nikki Stone1]

82. Ian, people will use the unrec the way they want to.

In my case, they use it as a weapon against every thread I put up. I could put up a benign thread titled "I love kittens" and within 90 seconds, someone will have unrec'd it just because I am the one who posted it.

As long as the reason for the unrec is secret and people are too cowardly to tell you why they did it, we will have people who unrec for all kinds of silly reasons.

[Ian David]

86. Send me a list of your threads in a PM once a day, and I'll rec them all. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

88. Are you serious??

I love you!

[Ian David]

89. Sure. If some douchebag is going around Un-reccing you, I'll be happy to cancel it out.

Unless, of course, I find your posts stupid or something.

You don't post LOLCats all day long, do you?

[Nikki Stone1]

90. Jesus NO!

And there is a whole group of douchbags. :(

[Stinky The Clown]

83. Every fucking time the topic is unrec, I see the same fucking idiots making their .....

.... observations.

No, you're wrong. I DO see the irony in this reply.

[TorchTheWitch]

85. No, that's not really what it's for

Both Rec and Unrec is for whether or not you feel that an OP is interesting or important or thought provoking enough to be on the Greatest Page. Makes no difference if you think it's bullshit or agree with it or don't agree with it. "Man Kills Kittens" should probably get an Unrec not because killing kittens is bad but because it's not generally thought of to be either interesting enough or important enough or thought provoking enough to be on the Greatest Page.

When either Rec'ing or Unrec'ing one should NOT be considering "do I agree with this OP or disagree with it", one should be thinking "is this OP interesting enough or important enough or thought provoking enough to be on the Greatest Page or is it so stupid or unimportant or uninteresting enough to be kept off the Greatest Page".

The only purpose for Rec'ing or Unrec'ing is to get an OP on or keep an OP off the Greatest Page. If people are Rec'ing or Unrec'ing without the purpose of the Greatest Page in mind then they're Rec'ing or Unrec'ing for the wrong reasons. Of course, there appears to be a huge disparity it what people think the purpose of the Greatest Page is. Some think that it's supposed to be a reflection of the best of what threads DU has to offer... the most interesting, important, thought provoking threads, and I believe that this was the intension of the admins when they implemented the Greatest Page. But it seems apparent that others believe the Greatest Page is supposed to be a personal filter of what they themselves want to read that reflects only what they themselves agree with.

An OP about a Rasmussin Poll shouldn't be Rec'ed or Unrec'ed according to whether you like or dislike the results or the poll or what you think about Rasmussin... it should be Rec'ed or Unrec'ed according whether or not you believe that the OP is interesting enough or important enough or thought provoking enough to be on the Greatest Page regardless of what you think about the results of the poll or what you think about Rasmussin. An OP about a man killing kittens shouldn't be Rec'ed or Unrec'ed according to whether or not you like or dislike him killing kittens but whether or not you think the thread is interesting enough or important enough or thought provoking enough to be on the Greatest Page.

[Ian David]

87. Agreed on all points. n/t

[KT2000]

91. Leave the cats alone

cats are wonderful and should not be used for medical research.