Un-Rec This Thread

[WilliamPitt]

A thread with the names and pictures of the four Seattle cops who were killed got un-rec'd.

So did a thread about a little girl who died of the flu.

So did a thread about gay marriage.

I can name two dozen other examples of threads about all sorts of straightforward, non-controversial topics getting un-recommended.

There is no cosnsitency to it.

Personal statement: anyone on this board who runs around un-recommending threads for no particular reason is pretty much a sad and silly shithead who really, really needs to find another hobby. Just my humble O.

Beyond that, I ask: how do you feel about the un-rec feature as it stands today?

[MNDemNY]

1. UnReced.

And I will UnRec any thread about puppies or birds.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. As long as you don't unrec the kitteh threads

I have a feeling that would get you crucified around here. :hide:

[phasma ex machina]

133. +1 DU needs a "kick down" smilie. nt

[derby378]

2. It's so easy...

If you're against abortion, don't have one.

If you're against guns, don't buy one.

If you're not a fan of a particular thread, there's so many other threads on DU for you to browse through.

I think this unrecommend feature has been weighed and found wanting.

[CJCRANE]

3. Can't the mods figure out who the un-rec imp is?

I thought they could restrict the function for a particular user if someone was abusing it.

[NYC_SKP]

90. IMHO, Yes, they can determine who un-recced. No, not sure if they can disable a function.

Administrators can determine how members vote in polls, so I assume they can do the same with recs and unrecs.

They can pull a member's posting priveleges, PM priveleges, and other functionality if they choose to, so I'll assume they can also take away rec and unrec priveleges, too.

And in the case of the post with the victim's pictures, they should.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7112715&mesg_id=7112729

:patriot:

[TexasObserver]

116. No, the mods can't, but the admins can, and they have.

The admins made a statement months ago to that effect.

They can stop a poster from using the function, and they have.

[MattBaggins]

5. Remove the unrec

Leave the rec button. Vote things up not down.

Let the good stuff rise as they say. As you have shown we have too many morans out there who have no idea what the unrec should be used for.

[CJCRANE]

7. What if 5 DUers think it's good and 50 DUers think it's bad?

Get rid of both rec and unrec or keep both.

[MattBaggins]

24. Because with a let it rise system

such a thread would only get 5 recs and a really good thread would get 50; clearly differentiating the two.

More people are using the unrec just because they don't like a topic itself; such as gun issues, or they had a pissing match with the OP and are holding a grudge.

Next time we have a primary they will suspend it anyway.

[CJCRANE]

27. In that case if they raised the Greatest Page threshold to 10 or 20 recs

that might be a way to be representative and keep the GP under control.

[The Doctor.]

78. Not a bad plan. Put me down for that one. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

127. Funny - my perception is that is exactly how the rec

function was being used before people who were the disfavored group of the day had the option to vote against threads slamming them.

Fortunately, that has stopped because those threads now get a total near zero.

[Demoiselle]

77. I second this idea. ... leave the "rec" where it is, dump the "unrec"" option.

Threads that people don't like will drop of their own weight.

[Ms. Toad]

128. Dropping has nothing to do with rec/unrec.

It has to do with whether anyone bothers to post in them. No discussion, they drop like a rock. Discussion, they stay near the top of whatever forum the poster stuck them in.

[Demoiselle]

131. Exactly. If nobody's interested they will neither respond nor will they "rec."

[Ms. Toad]

139. Recs and responses are not the same thing.

And with two options there are four possible combinations of outcomes:

(Actually two more if you just ignore the rec/unrec decision - in addition the rec/unrec decision only applies to the OP, whereas later posts may generate quite a lot of discussion either related or unrelated to the OP). But, for simplicity, I'll just go with the four obvious combos.)

The OP is worthy of being front page material - and it generates discussion (rec and post)
The OP is worthy of being front page material - but there is little to say about it (rec but don't post)
The OP shouldn't be on the front page of DU - and there is something interesting to discuss/information to provide/condolences to offer/etc. (unrec and post)
The OP shouldn't be on the front page of DU - and there is little to say about it (unrec and don't post)

You are assuming that recs and discussion go together ("they will neither respond nor will they rec") - they often don't go together.

There can be lots of activity in a thread - which will keep it from dropping - even if it gets virtually no recs. Typically these threads are the ones with lots of bickering - not necessarily productive - going on (One of the pit bull threads, for example, with +9 recs and nearly 400 posts).

Often there are relatively fewer posts in the threads with a high rec count - +217, at the moment - for example - for the police officer's slain thread - with only 97 posts. At the time I typed this, even though it had 217 recs it had dropped off page one of the forum in which it was posted.

All rec/unrec means is that the thread is worth/not worth headlining on the front page (or greatest threads) of DU. Whether I have anything to say about the OP - or any post within the thread - is a very different decision - and has nothing to do with the first decision. The latter (discussion) is what keeps threads from dropping. The former (recs/unrecs) has NOTHING to do with whether a thread drops or not.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. I say Fix it. Or dump it.

I agree with you, my dear Will. They are silly, sad shitheads who really need to find another hobby.

K&R

[StarfarerBill]

35. Ditto.

My only unrecs are for those few OPs or posted articles with which I disagree; if they're regarding issues about which I don't care, I neither rec or unrec them.

[Zywiec]

8. Maybe people un-rec the six or seventh thread on the exact same topic?

Nobody ever does a courtesy search before posting here and it's not unusual to see the same topic or poll over and over again.

Just my $0.02

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

119. Agreed. I unrecommend all but the best threads on such topics.

When ten people start a thread on the same topic, I'm going to unrecommend 7-8 of them.

Just because someone has a desperate need to start threads doesn't mean their thread should be recommended.

[Ian David]

9. I did a thread on this topic a few weeks ago and was soundly thrashed. Good luck.

My thesis is that people are using Unrec on things that are "sad" or "negative" rather than on the newsworthiness or quality of the post.

Also, there are bigots who will unrec anything with a rainbow flag next to it as their passive-aggressive outlet, because they know that if they open their mouths and voice an opinion, they'll get booted from DU about half as fast as they would if it were about an issue of race.

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. I would have thought someone like you has better things to write about...

instead of this silly, completely overdone subject.

[WilliamPitt]

17. I'm surprised myself

Got my writing done and was spending some time here. Kept seeing nonsense un-rec's and it finally bugged me enough to post something about it. I care about this place, and this whole thing is really ridiculous.

You didn't have to click or comment, by the way. Thanks for kicking my thread.

[A HERETIC I AM]

46. You're right. I didn't have to click or comment. Or unrec. Or vote, for that matter.

But I did.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "nonsense un-rec" just as there is no such thing as a nonsense rec. It's simply a vote on what appears on the greatest threads page, for fucks sake. If someone does not think a thread about a child dying from swine flu deserves to be on the greatest page, so what? They're entitled to that opinion, aren't they?

This subject has been hashed over so much it is getting monotonous.

I care about this place, and this whole thing is really ridiculous.

Damned right it's getting ridiculous, yet here YOU are, a published writer held in some esteem on this website, complaining about a board feature whose sole intent and purpose is to give more balance to what appears on the greatest threads page. Why does idea of allowing a "no" vote on whether a thread is worthy of "greatest" status bother so many on DU? I think it is because they look at the idea of someone saying essentially "no, I don't think this rises to the threshold of "great" in my opinion" is taken as "I hate you and anything you write is tripe".

It is an absurd attitude.

Time to copy and paste this once again;

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.

[WilliamPitt]

51. "This subject has been hashed over so much it is getting monotonous."

I missed all the discussion, clearly.

P.S. For someone who thinks the topic is silly, it seems strange to compose a whole poem about it.

:shrug:

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. It was silly! That was the entire point.

As far as it being "strange to compose a whole poem about it" I should tell you that on occasion I get inspired and the words just flow out. That poem took me less than 10 minutes to compose, edit, and post.

What's silly is starting the umpteenth thread about it and putting a poll on as well.

[dysfunctional press]

145. whores are always concerned about the streets they walk.

no surprise.

[Jamastiene]

11. Actually, a "Like" or "Dislike" would be nice to have.

If you like that certain news, you can K & L it. If you disagree with certain news, you can K & D it.

I wonder why threads about slain police officers, gay marriage, and a little girl who died of the flu would be unrecced. That's just mean.

[Toucano]

52. That would be confusing to me.

I don't like the content of a story about a girl dying of the flu, so I click "dislike"? I mean I don't "like" the fact that a child died.

But I think the story contains content that others should read so I click "Like"?

I can dislike the topic but still think the discussion is worthy or important.

[Jamastiene]

94. Good point.

I see where you are coming from. I don't like that certain situations are getting worse while our government does nothing or little to fix it. That doesn't mean I don't think others should know about it.

I do wonder what system would work best though.

[Toucano]

110. What if we abandon rec/unrec or like/dislike and go with Important/frivolous?

In the end, I think the opinion we want to solicit is "How valuable do you think this thread is?"

Our opinion of the content is best expressed in the thread, but maybe that could be said of the post's importance as well.

[RoadRage]

109. That's sooo FACEBOOK! :)

But, I agree.

[kentuck]

12. I think five per day would be a good correction.

It doesn't need to disappear but it should be regulated. Just like everything else without limits, it is abused. However, I don't know if the Admins could monitor a set limit?

[sui generis]

13. eh - music without silence between the notes is just noise.

I personally pretty much despise the sad silly shitheads, but there ARE more meaningful causes to endorse, and my august O ain't humble at all.

I do unrec things that look like mindless memes regardless of the topic, but I always qualify my unrec and own up to it.

[seeinfweggos]

14. I suppose this controversy will make more sense to me with time?

[Lost-in-FL]

15. :yawning:

:boring:

[WilliamPitt]

19. Thanks for the kick

[Nite Owl]

16. Dump it

It's being used as some sort of personal power play and often directed to certain posters no matter what the present post is about--if past posts were not to their liking they just get unrec'd. If you don't agree with someone post and say so instead of this anonymous unrec-ing.

[bigwillq]

18. Under the current system, there shouldn't be any penalties

for people who constantly "unrec" unless there are penalties for people who constantly "rec"
You can't have a system that gives you a choice to rec or unrec but then punish someone who choses to use it one way or another. The system needs to be changed it that's the case.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. I think people should have their unreq stats listed as public info, just like # of posts is.

[WilliamPitt]

22. Or if you un-rec, you *have* to say why.

Can't imagine how that would work, but a little accountability would probably solve the problem.

[A HERETIC I AM]

82. If you *have* to say why you would unrec, you should have to say why you rec....

complete with a detailed explanation, footnotes and a bibliography.

The ability to simply "K&R" should be outlawed.

:sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

120. I unrecommended this thread because it's been done 100 times.

You never asked that people explain WHY when there was only Recommend, did you?

Back then, you were able to enjoy the illusion that your original posts here had more support than they actually do, weren't you? Back then, it was just "off to the Greatest page with thee," and doting fans, wasn't it? Then Unrecommend came along and all the vanity posters found out their small group of followers were far outnumbered by others who were wishing they had Marshall McLuhan's sock full of horse manure to launch.

[Ms. Toad]

129. Like there was accountability when there was only rec -

and I don't see anyone calling for accountability for unrecs suggesting there also needs to be "accountability" for recs.

[Renew Deal]

21. I don't think unrec has fulfilled it's purpose.

The "rec this thread" posts still exist. The stuff that was popular before is popular now. The only thing it's done is prevent controversial opinions from moving to the greatest page. Also, the >0 thing is misleading. An incredibly unpopular thread has equal footing with a new thread that was unrecced by someone abusing the feature. Unrec should go away because it doesn't work. It just creates bad feeling and suppresses controversial opinions.

[CJCRANE]

25. But then 5 people can over-rule the majority. That's worse than a filibuster nt.

[Renew Deal]

30. No, 5 people are 5 people.

It goes back to simple math. Something with lots of recs goes to the top of the list. And if 5 people think something is interesting, worthwhile, or fits their views, they have a say too. People can tell the difference.

[HamdenRice]

36. Five people could and did game the system to make their views look represenative of DU nt

[Renew Deal]

47. How has unrec changed that?

It hasn't. The topics are still here and people still think those topics are representative of DU just for being here. What it's done is it's kept minority or controversial opinions off of the greatest page while putting terrible threads on equal footing with controversial threads. It's inequitable and pointless. The old system floated the best stuff to the top. This one is just a popularity contest.

[A HERETIC I AM]

55. "The old system floated the best stuff to the top. This one is just a popularity contest."

Bullshit.

The old system allowed for just 5 people to determine what was to appear on the greatest threads page for the entire DU community.

Now it takes a simple 50% plus 5.

[Renew Deal]

61. You just proved my point.

And you underestimate the entire DU community. under the old system most people recognized that the more recs something had, the more worthy it is.

Now the system is that the more recs means it's more popular.

[CJCRANE]

65. In a community of 1000's, just 5 people shouldn't have that power IMO nt

[Renew Deal]

69. That's a different point.

Raise it to 10, or 20. I don't care.

[CJCRANE]

70. That would be my suggestion too. 5 is too low. nt

[CJCRANE]

56. It's a partisan message board. There's nothing wrong with voting stuff down.

That's the reality of politics. DU doesn't claim to be a haven of unlimited nonpartisan free speech. There are probably other message boards for that.

[Renew Deal]

64. That's the other major problem with the feature.

It's a way for the "majority" to supress the views of the minority. The old system presented all views while giving controversial views a chance. Now it's all rah rah rah and anything controversial but interesting is lost in the mix.

[CJCRANE]

67. Nothing is suppressed. The posts are still there in the forums and in the "Top Tens".

It depends what you think the function of DU is...is it a community or just a forum for controversial views..?

Clearly if it's also a community that community wants some say on how it's represented.

[Renew Deal]

72. Interesting point

"is it a community or just a forum for controversial views"

It's both, like any community. Think about applying the "unrec" feature to your local politics. Those with unpopular opinions wouldn't even be allowed to campaign. Great candidates would be lost in the mix because they just get 51% support.

It's also about what we want our community to be. Do we want a self-affirming tree house or do we want a place to debate and learn. I think we're better off with the old system. The argument about the number of recs is seperate from the argument about the features. We can increase the number of recs needed to get to the greatest page. That should solve the concerns about "5 people."

[HamdenRice]

58. Why should 5 disgruntled people get to make their opinions look representative ?

Now it's majority rule. If five people get together on some other forum (name not to be mentioned) and plot to make DU look like it hates Democrats and is some sort of Stalinist-Maoist forum, they could and did do that. There were all sorts of off site places where people got together to game the Greatest Page.

Now any topic has to have more support than negative disagreement. The front page of DU is more representative of DU membership views.

[Renew Deal]

Because they are representative.

Your scenario isn't possible on DU. The thread would be locked and the posters possibly banned. Also, most people here can count past 5 and can tell that something with more recs is more popular than something with less recs. What we've done is whitewash all the controversial but widely supported opinions while putting the truly terrible on equal footing with the unpopular. It's a mistake.

You said it yourself. "Now any topic has to have more support than negative disagreement." AKA, a popularity contest.

[HamdenRice]

73. Utter nonsense

If a position was widely supported, then it will get 5 recs more than urecs.

Some people are just pissed off that anti-Democratic Party Stalinist crap can't be rec'd onto the greatest page every day, coordinated from a certain other forum.

[trotsky]

136. Mark this day down in your calendar.

The front page of DU is more representative of DU membership views.

For once we're in complete agreement.

[TexasObserver]

121. According to the admins, Unrecommend HAS changed for the better the Greatest Page.

The old system was a disaster. It allowed any five posters, who didn't have to say anything, to put a thread on the Greatest page. This system is much, much better. It locates the crap and labels it as such.

[Ms. Toad]

130. There are "rec this thread" posts

and some of them show up on the front page.

The difference is that the ones that make it there now are not direct or subtle slams against the disfavored group of the day because members of that group have the opportunity to vote against the slam being featured on the front page of DU. The ones that make it now generally embody popular concepts - I don't rec those, because I don't think voting to support some concept or other particularly belongs on the front page, but at least I don't find them offensive.

[eleny]

23. Time to flush it down

[snot]

26. K&R'd. Among other things, I honestly think trolls use it to try to sink worthy posts.

[Ms. Toad]

148. And how does unreccing a thread sink it?

Neither rec nor unrec have ANY influence on whether a thread floats or sinks. The only thing that does that is posting in the thread - kicking it up (or not posting - letting it sink)

[Quantess]

160. Yeah, like this thread, for example. It's probably down to -50

and yet it's been on the top of the front page of GD for several hours.

[crazyjoe]

28. the whole un-rec thing is childish, I'm surprised your getting involved

[WilliamPitt]

31. Slow day

And I care about this place. This thing is a mess, and it's causing unnecessary tension and strife. I also think, as stated above, that it's become a tool for trolls to fuck with the board. Not good.

[CJCRANE]

34. Yeah but 5 trolls can rec up an OP to the Greatest Page that everybody else hates.

That's why unrec was introduced.

[Renew Deal]

39. You're assuming that people that disagree with you are trolls

I'd say that's a problem.

[CJCRANE]

43. K&R IF YOU LOVE SUSAN BOYLE!!!!!

So if 5 DUers love Susan Boyle then the rest of us should have to put up with a one line OP on the Greatest.

You must have a bad memory if you can't remember what the GP used to be like sometimes.

[Renew Deal]

53. That hasn't stopped.

K&R threads are still popular and they still make the greatest page. Also, the mods would pull something off the greatest page if it was abusive of the feature. Nothing has changed there. What it's accomplished is it's moved off interesting but controversial opinions of the greatest page. I don't think it gives a whole view of DU.

[CJCRANE]

59. It's more diverse now. We have the GP and the four "Top Ten" pages nt.

[onehandle]

29. I like the unrec. It's keeps the silliest crapola off the front page.

DU can tell if trolls are unrec'ing things.

Doesn't appear to be their policy to toast them.

Not sure if it should be, but people should feel free to lobby them on this issue.

[Renew Deal]

37. Was the silliest crapola on the front page before?

I'd say no, unless you consider other people's opinions silly crapola. This is not an attack at you personally. What do you mean by silly crapola? :)

[onehandle]

88. I forget the exact wording but it was something like this...

'Rec this thread if you if you won't vote for Hillary'

That made it to the top five threads on the front page of 'Democratic' Underground until I alerted and it was locked.

That was the last straw for me.

Hillary wasn't my first choice, but I would have gladly voted for her.

There have also been veiled threats, hate speech and broad attacks on Democrats that have made it there.

Hasn't happened since the unrec was instituted.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

33. I like un-rec, even though I rarely use it. However...

I'm ALMOST at the point of being willing to get rid of it to STOP THE FUCKING WHINERS who think they won't get that date for the prom if someone out there unrecs their precious thread.

But it doesn't really matter what my opinion is, or yours, or anyone else's. It's up to Skinner, Elad, and EarlG because it's their board and we agree to follow their rules. End of story.

[sharp_stick]

38. Keep it

who cares what gets unrec'd; it's a dumb little counter and that's it. The obsession some people around here have with it is kind of pathetic IMO.

I'm always amazed at the number of people that panic the second they see the number of recs on one of their topics go down. It's almost like they take that stupid little number as a measurement of their worth as a human being. Anybody that fragile should probably be in therapy not posting on an anonymous message board.

[jus_the_facts]

40. I say dump it all....

....and bring back the sex threads...jus joshin'. :evilgrin:

[Greyhound]

41. Fix it. Since it has been determined that it will be, it needs to be tweaked.

And here's your
:kick: & U
:hi:

[Major Hogwash]

42. I wish I had another unrec to unrec this thread.

Bet you guys didn't see that coming, huh?

LoL

[WilliamPitt]

45. I like your sig link

:P

[H2O Man]

44. I wish that

those in charge would consider monitoring those who seem intent on disrupting DU by abusing the "unrec" option.

I recommended the OP, by the way, as I think you presented an important issue in a positive way.

[WilliamPitt]

48. Thank you, sir

How goes the fight?

[H2O Man]

54. Slow and steady .....

but after watching our four kids put in full days of hard work inside and outside this weekend, I found myself kind of liking the pace!

[WilliamPitt]

57. It's all about perspective, old friend.

:toast:

:hug:

[H2O Man]

63. Exactly.

Our drive way is long .... it's part of an old turnpike. And it requires upkeep. Last week, I had four very large truckloads of stone delivered. Some cobbles, some crushed stone. All of it heavy.

Watching them work on it, I got the short-term perspective when they were closer to the house, and that old long-term perspective, as the got further away.

The result was that I did not charge them for allowing them the opportunity to "work out" here. Lots of gyms would charge a lot for that much exercise!

[WilliamPitt]

66. LOL

Sly old fox, you are. :)

[H2O Man]

118. Of course,

I do end up making it worth their while. But they would do it for free. They want to be sure that I can get out of here easily, if I'm here alone, and have need to.

Darren is fully aware, however, of the benefits of shoveling a wheelbarrel full of sand/stone, then running with it. I have some nice old photos of the Hurricane doing that, back when he boxed in the 1960s. And his descriptions of what purpose it serves: the act of shoveling is not unlike throwing a hard combination to the opponent's mid-section. Running with it is practice for the leg and upper-body strength required to push the opponent backwards at the end of the combination. By doing it, over and over and over again, you develop the strength to wear any opponent down.

Lots of young folks don't care to do that type of exercise. They like modern gyms. But the stones, helping farmers with hay, and splitting wood are outstanding exercises for young athletes. Especially boxers!

[greyl]

49. The thread topic itself isn't the only thing people are voting on.

That's been a big misunderstanding for a few people since this began.

[bobbolink]

50. You're brave.

You're likely to get a warning for speaking out against a feature.

Never mind that it has become an instrument of discrimination.

[michreject]

62. Keep it as is nt

[Bobbie Jo]

68. FWIW.... accounts with 0 posts shouldn't be allowed to rec or unrec

Poking around one day, I noticed numerous user accounts with 0 posts that are technically "active." I just wonder if or how these accounts have been used to impact rec/unrec outcomes.?? :think:

Just seems curious. :shrug:

Edited to add: Especially those with usernames that are strikingly similar to those who actively post. I couple in particular stand out if you take the time to follow the pattern.

[Kaleva]

105. I know an elderly woman who has been a member here for a long time but she says she has never, ever

posted. I can't recall her handle.

[Bobbie Jo]

115. I'm sure there are several who do that, but....

Without calling someone out here, there are also several accounts that look like this:


Jane Doe - 0 posts / reg. Feb 2004
Jane Doe1 - 1000+ posts / profile disabled
Jane Doe 1 - 0 posts /profile disabled

same person? :shrug: Certainly would explain a lot. :think:

[redwitch]

71. I see no point in the rec/unrec feature.

I find it is counterproductive. If you like a thread, post in it to say so. Ditto if you don't like it.
I don't like how negative the whole thing has become.

[LoZoccolo]

74. They should change the recommend/unrecommend deadline from 24 hours to 24 business hours. n/t

[MilesColtrane]

75. Seems to me that you have to go out of your way to keep track of how many unrecs a thread gets.

Why don't you just stop yourself from keeping track of such things if it annoys you?

[SidDithers]

76. It ain't broke, and doesn't need to be fixed...

It's democracy in action.

Rec
Abstain
Unrec

is better than

Rec
Abstain


Sid

[Politics_Guy25]

83. Now I'm hated here

I posted a thread on November 1 where the thrust was that the primary against Joe Lieberrman in 2006 was ill-considered, i.e., if you're going to take on a lion-make sure that you kill it first or else it will come back at you much harder in for example something like health care. Now, I'm hated here and every thread I post no matter how innoculous is unrec'd. Makes me feel like absolute dirt. I would love just to leave this place and never come back but it's the only active large democratic/progressive message board around and there's no where else to go. The unrec feature shows me where I stand on DU that's for sure. I guess it's good in that sense but bad in a civility sense.

[onehandle]

103. Agreed. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

113. Well said.

Democracy in action on the Democratic Underground. What a concept.

[TrogL]

79. Un-rec'd - does not belong on Greatest Page

[mamaleah]

80. How about getting rid of both and the Greatest Page?

If an OP is so "great" it will always be at the top of the forum it is in anyway due to nonstop commenting. That way if people really want a thread seen they will need to do more than just click an option and discussion, the point of a discussion forum, may actually happen.

And why only 5 recs for Greatest Page anyway? Only 5 people are needed to determine what is the Greatest around here?

[Quantess]

161. That isn't true at all. Flame-bait and controversial threads are consistenly at the top.

Some of the most insightful, most informative, or most brilliant OPs sink like a stone because there is nothing to argue about.

The Greatest Page helps you keep track of the threads that managed to get 5 recs before falling off the front page.

[dionysus]

81. can you add a "who cares about the damn recs" option?

[Kaleva]

84. I think one could finds examples of threads being rec'ed for no obvious reason.

[Bobbie Jo]

86. Indeed.

Here's my theory....see post # 68

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7116067&mesg_id=7116456

[WilliamPitt]

87. Which further makes the case, I think,

that the feature has become a tool for arbitrary disruption. Rec for no reason or un-rec for no reason, it amounts to the same thing.

MHO.

[Bobbie Jo]

89. Then, perhaps both should be eliminated? nt

[Kaleva]

96. I would keep both or get rid of both.

[Nye Bevan]

85. Why not *name* the reccers and unreccers?

So the "XX Votes" under the post would become a clickable link that would lead to a list of the DU usernames of the reccers and unreccers. Nobody can post a reply without making their username known, so why should they be able to rec or unrec (or vote in a poll, for that matter) without their username being public? This would inhibit petty behavior like automatically unreccing all of the posts started by a particular user.

[hfojvt]

91. knr

but you are still below zero.

What I find puzzling are the people who are tracking threads closely enough to know that a thread got unrecced.

I think it is kinda funny how things have escalated. I remember I was proud when I had a thread on the greatest page - with a whole seven recs. That used to be a lot of recs. Now, it is typical for threads to pull fifty or sixty recs, dozens of them every day. Even I had a thread with seventy plus (although it was not written by me, just a link to a Barbara Ehrenreich piece on poverty). It's like people are trigger-happy with recs now to compensate what they imagine as a confederacy of unreccers.

I think that confederacy is largely imaginary, although there are some who are unreccing just so they can watch and laugh at people who whine about it.

And really Will, just because a topic is non-controversial does not mean that the article/essay on it qualifies as 'great'.

[NYC_SKP]

92. I can't believe this very well intended thread is being unrecced. WTF. K and R.

I responded to gately's OP with the pictures of the Seattle victims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7112715&mesg_id=7112729

And it is almost equally disturbing that this thread has more unrecs than recs.

It actually makes the case for some action by DU administrators.

I know their job is already challenging, but if they have time...

:patriot:

[rucky]

93. I'm sure it's just personal. n/t

[tk2kewl]

95. i said "keep it as is", but on second thought...

...why not require an explanation post to be allowed to unrecommend?

[Kaleva]

97. As long as one requires an explanation post before being allowed to rec.

[CTyankee]

100. That was my point but I was told that it's a waste of time to explain sometimes.

This whole thing is so silly I laugh just thinking about it. Seems to me you can just "man up" or "woman up" and splain your objection. That way, you have shared your infinite wisdom with the folks instead of using just a drive by Unrec.

But,that's just me. I don't see what the big fuss about being on/not being on the Greatest Page is. :shrug:

[Morning Dew]

98. I'm as sick of threads about unrec as I was

of the "K and R if you...." threads.

[Electric Monk]

155. K&R

:)

[TexasObserver]

99. So what? So some thread you think is worthy isn't deemed worthy by others.

You're one guy and you have a vote. Use it, and accept that not everyone thinks every thread you like belongs on the greatest page.

Just because the topic is one that merits attention doesn't mean the thread mentioning it is.

There are numerous threads with positive Recommends that I think are pathetic. All it takes is someone posting "God Damn Mother Fucking Republicans!" and a sentence or two about some vote, and they think that's recommend worthy. It's not. It's just another throw away comment that means nothing. But I don't start threads whining about the recommending by posters who have virtually no standards for doing so.

I expect a thread to be exemplary to be recommended, not just mention something that might have some utility for discussion. Why can't you accept that your opinion of a thread is just one man's opinion, and it's not always shared by others?

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. The Great One weighs in on Unrec

I predict that the rec/unrec feature will soon change.

[azmouse]

102. oh not this unrec shit again....

[harun]

104. Naive to think there won't be some unjustified unrec's. I think the

unrec feature is working.

The gay marriage poll should have been unrec'd by everyone. Asking the question the way they did they are basically asking:

1. You support position X
2. You want to be banned from DU

Poll's like that don't deserve to be rec'd IMHO.

[BlueIris]

106. I was initially totally opposed to it, but now I see its value.

However, I think it's being abused by some crazy people and would support limits.

[NoPasaran]

107. Unrec is the new black

[bridgit]

108. Oh there's a pattern a consistency *being* formed and it isn't just one misfiring synapse...

It's several and growing, twisted ill-shaped bundles impeding the flow of events. I do know some here are, by the ways in which they address these issues; somehow pleased and in a very odd ways when cops get shot dead

Others don't give a tinker's damn for little girls that die from the flu *or* gay marriage - and the as-represented-here as lib/pro agenda, concern & activism is being turned into a dis-ingenuousness that is fed by these kinds of un-rec follies you bring up and yes, indeed, it is forming a pattern
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk/Sn7-ecA24LI/AAAAAAAAIgM/75SVANxp67w/s400/abnormal+brain.jpg

And it is that pattern that fits and feeds into the RW screed that the Lib/Pro movement is unable to sustain it's own assertions so why should anyone else have to - and *that* may be why this is happening at all http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6744724&mesg_id=6751826

[Hubert Flottz]

111. It's those damned freepers!

They get stoned if they post but they can unrec all day long.

[arcadian]

112. I rec this thread.

Which is weird, because usually the reccers or unreccers do the opposite of the post asking for unrecs or recs yet this one everybody has complied with your wishes.

[uppityperson]

114. I ignore it and don't go to "Greatest" page.

[RetroLounge]

117. I think some (not all) of these unrecs are accidents

I know I've unrec'd threads when I meant to rec them.

Maybe move the unrec farther from the rec?
Color code it?
Put a nag message up "Do you really want to unrec this thread?"

or something

RL

[Quantess]

122. Some threads have too many recs in proportion to other threads

I have unrec'd a thread or two just because I thought it had an over-inflated recommendation count.

Meanwhile, threads with real substance sink like a stone.

[HuckleB]

123. Yes, dump the stupid thing already.

[Better Believe It]

124. Here's why removing posts from the front page or greatest page is censorship

Here's why removing posts from the front page or greatest page is censorship

I thought this was obvious and didn't require an actual explanation.

When someones "votes" to remove a post from the front page or the "greatest" page what else can you call it, target marketing?

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing the post from that location should be very clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. Or some posters just don't like a particular poster so they remove it from a prominent location on DU! That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a "peoples censorhip"!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And that's why some political cliques and more conservative people love it! In the case of DU administrators, it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like.

Democratic Underground clearly states: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage (frontpage) on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

[aikoaiko]

125. I say keep em both or get rid of them both.

The unrec feature contributes as much as the rec feature.

No thread or topic is sacred. Sometimes worthy topics get unrec'ed by me because of the OP's comments or context.

[Blue-Jay]

126. More bitching about the un-rec feature.

[question everything]

132. A sneaky way to by pass DU rules

and one has to ask Skinner et al: why have those "rules" if you open a side way to bypass them?

Why, when first enacted, it did not have the limitation of 24 hours, so bitter DUers went to old threads to U them?

Why do you encourage cowardly lazy actions by DUers?

We know why! You cannot forgive yourself for having many Hillary threads at the "greatest" page during the primaries without actually coming out and say so.

But you know what, the next such primaries will be in 2016 and I doubt that DU will still be around, at that form and that many of us will still be here, either.

To add to your list;

A post praising Obama for saluting the fallen soldiers at Dover several weeks ago.

[BlooInBloo]

134. There's a reason it's called the law of *large* numbers, of course.

[LostInAnomie]

135. It's pretty pathetic that some people can't stand to have their thread unrecced.

If you are so pathetic that you need constant validation from anonymous internet posters, you probably shouldn't be taking part in an internet forum.

[Better Believe It]

153. I don't unrecommend and try to censor anyones posts because that's undemocratic

[LostInAnomie]

154. Unrec doesn't censor anyone.

No matter which way you slice it, the simple fact that someone unrecs your post doesn't keep anyone from discussing it at length. No one has a right to be on the greatest page.

[Better Believe It]

156. Yes it does. Here's how the censorship works via unrecommend

Here's why removing posts from the front page or greatest page is censorship.

I thought this was obvious and didn't require an actual explanation.

When someones "votes" to remove a post from the front page or the "greatest" page what else can you call it, target marketing?

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove any post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing the post from that location should be very clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. Or some posters just don't like a particular poster so they remove it from a prominent location on DU! That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a "peoples censorhip"!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And that's why some political cliques and more conservative people love it! In the case of DU administrators, it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like.

Democratic Underground clearly states: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage (frontpage) on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

[LostInAnomie]

159. That's ridiculous. You can try to spin it any way you like, but...

... no one has a right to be on the greatest page. All unrec does is put a thread up for an honest vote. If someone agrees with the content they rec it. If they disagree they unrec it. It's democracy in action where everyone gets to decide what actually belongs on the greatest page instead of a motivated 5 DUers.

Saying unrec is censorship because it doesn't let a thread on the greatest page is like saying I was oppressing McCain by voting for Obama.

The unrec does noting to squash or limit discussion. It doesn't keep people from looking at a thread. It doesn't keep anyone from responding to a thread. And, it sure as hell doesn't keep the whole forum from discussing the merits of the OP.

[madokie]

137. Is it really that important

I mean is it really?

[mdmc]

138. I think that the rec/unrec function means different things to duers

sometimes it means "i like / dislike this"
sometimes it means "other duers should/shouldn't see this"
and some anti-unrec duers might just use the rec/unrec feature just to disrupt the feature and draw calls for reform..

[WillyT]

140. There's Enough Negativity On This Site, Dump The 'UnRec' Already !!!

If someone wants to piss on somebody else's parade, they can post it, and therefore identify themselves.

This anonymous disapproval shit is unbecoming, and does not reflect well on the site itself.

:shrug:

[Ms. Toad]

150. It was far less becoming when there were 2-300 (anonymous) recs

for posts like "rec this thread if you agree that the crybaby (disfavored group) should STFU" - which (sometimes, but not always less bluntly) appeared quite frequently on the greatest page before the disfavored group had the option of expressing their opinion that such (anonymously recommended) threads should not be on the front page of DU by unreccing it.

[WillyT]

152. Easy Solution...

Lock any thread that starts with 'rec this thread if'.

Begging for recs is ALSO unbecoming.

People can just state their case, and and let the reaction to them come organically, naturally...

:shrug:

[Ms. Toad]

163. I agree, as a general philosophy

for posting but as a practical matter I don't find all of the "rec this" threads offensive (merely stupid and boring - "rec this if you want a public option - for example - I wouldn't rec it, or unrec it, and I probably wouldn't even open the thread). In addition not all of the offensive slams on the disfavored groups of the day started with (or included) "rec this" but they still generate enough recs to be on the front page for hours - whereas now they tend to hover around zero since the disfavored group (or those who don't like slam threads) tend to unrec them. (Alerting sometimes works - but also sometimes takes several hours, and if the threads are merely locked - not deleted - they can hang around even longer on the front page until something else overtakes their vote tally.)

So just locking threads that start with "rec this" doesn't really solve the issue of using unopposable recs to get slam threads on the front page of DU. To do that, you either need both "yes" and "no" votes - or neither.

[11 Bravo]

141. It is the single dumbest feature available on any website. We make freerepublic ...

lucianne, malkin, and all the rest look like fucking geniuses in comparison.
Where else can a gang of anonymous trolls, working in concert, shit on whichever trains of thought they choose to "unrec"?
Asinine.

[trotsky]

142. Prior to un-rec...

where else could a tiny group of just 5 anonymous trolls (or just one person using 5 accounts!) pick the most embarrassing and un-representative threads and rec them up to appear on the Greatest page?

There are more "real" DUers here than trolls. Always have been. If you don't think we can overcome un-reccing trolls, you're sadly mistaken. Go take a look at the Greatest right now and tell me that the best threads aren't on display there right now.

[Liberal_in_LA]

143. recced

[dysfunctional press]

144. get rid of BOTH 'rec' and 'un-rec'...

but then the numerous self-loving attention whores who live and die by their 'recs' would just...die.

and THAT would be a VERY good thing.

some A LOT of people really need to get OVER themselves- just a little, even. :eyes:

[Iggo]

146. Keep as is.

[RedCloud]

147. Are there sleeper freeper cells?

[Iggo]

149. Oh gosh I hope so.

(Beautiful pic, BTW.)

[cry baby]

151. I say bag it...as well as the recommend feature. It creates friction unnecessarily.

And I hate to see people begging for recommendations or pissed if there are un-recommendations. They just add more disagreement and we don't need that on this forum - we've got plenty of disagreements as it is.

The un-recommend feature is a favorite of trolls, I imagine, and I don't think they should have any tools here to further their cause.

[ruggerson]

157. My main objection to it is that it is childish and demeans the level of discussion here

having said that, it doesn't bother me much.

[donheld]

158. It almost seems to be a flaw in the programming. It seems that

every thread automatically gets unrecommended right out of the gate.

[Iggo]

162. Yeah, but those early unrecs don't really matter in the long run...

...other than to introduce some immediate whining to a potentially great thread.

It kinda sucks to open a thread and the first response is someone going "Unrec already? Cowards!"

[LaydeeBug]

164. I think some see any discussion about such thing as a bash to President Obama.

it's just my humble guess. i am honestly not on here enough to be privy though.