What should be done with the rec-unrec system?

[Renew Deal]

Where is DU's mood today?

[no limit]

1. I hope you didn't forget your flamesuit today

[Renew Deal]

2. I never take it off

:nuke:

[Boojatta]

102. Did you see...

this locked thread?

[sharp_stick]

3. I think you need a

who gives a shit option.

[Renew Deal]

4. You got it

;)

[sharp_stick]

6. Damn I already marked other ;-) n/t

[sharp_stick]

5. We could also go to a system

where unrecs got counted and all sorts of delicate sensibilities and feelings were hurt. This system could be used to start up a pathetic loser page to run parallel to the greatest page. ;-)

[uppityperson]

11. I like that idea.

[CTyankee]

114. Wow, you really go for stereotyping don't you? I go for saying that

we should have a system whereby you explain your reason for unreccing a post. Just hitting a computer key doesn't really do it for me in political debate, if ya know what I mean!

Just my stupid idea that people should back up their difference of opinion with...uh, well, a difference of opinion...such as a post describing same...huh, debate: what a concept!

[Common Sense Party]

158. And you must also explain your reason for reccing the post.

That way, the entire thread will be "this is why I recced or unrecced this" and no one will discuss the actual OP at all! Brilliant!

[CTyankee]

173. I didn't recomend the post. I rarely recommend and, because it is rare that I do,

I always explain why I am recommending. Most of the time I just ignore what I don't like and comment on something that interests me...

[Common Sense Party]

175. There's no law that requires me to post a comment either way.

I can rec, I can unrec, and move on. If I have nothing to say, I won't. But I may have thought the OP something interesting that others should read so I vote for it. Or, if I think it's nonsense, I'll unrec. I don't have to comment and explain my vote either way.

[CTyankee]

177. I really don't care that much one way or the other. My point was about the value

of debate on issues but I realize that not everyone likes debate that much or has the time for it.

[azmouse]

7. Get rid of both.

Let threads stand on their own.

[no limit]

9. Whoa. take it easy now

[woo me with science]

171. Agree.

I enjoy the quaint idea that people might actually read a thread and form their own opinions.

[KamaAina]

8. Unrec.

:P

[Donnachaidh]

10. okay -- splain please, why the sudden polls on the rec system?

This is the second one I've read today. What brought this on? Or is this just general dislike of a system that gets played by factions on DU?

[Renew Deal]

12. The other thread inspired the poll

To get a more official view.

[Ignis]

14. It's not working out as some who pushed for the change had hoped.

We're 3 months from this year's elections, and I'm sure some people are just furious at seeing Chuckles toons and criticisms of Obama's "fierce advocacy" for LGBT rights all over DU's greatest page.

ETA: I'm not implying any criticism of either Rec/Unrec poll in this observation.

[Catherina]

23. +1 No pity. I'm tired of these attempts to manipulate DU for partisan drama n/t

[Crystal Clarity]

89. I take no issue with the LGBT stuff

but the Chuckles thing just makes me sad- not angry, mad or 'furious'. If I were to take a side, it'd be with the minority... the pragmatists, even though I share many of the same frustrations as the other.

I just wish we could somehow find a way to not be so polarized. I'm willing to guess that most folks here feel the same way, however it seems that there are a few stubbornly militant folks on both sides that seem to enjoy taking combative positions.... -just an observation from the perspective of a lowly newbie.

As far as the rec stuff, I say keep it as is; for whatever that's worth.

[Posteritatis]

26. It's more a months-old constant whining by now.

My guess is that some snowflakes got melted by the fact that their posts weren't well-received.

[Ignis]

45. Oh, but they are still precious and unique snowflakes!

We just store them here now:

[Posteritatis]

47. Hee. (nt)

[grantcart]

90. lol

[havocmom]

93. Message control v the fact that posts critical of Obama keep getting on Greatest page

would be my guess. IOW, if they can't convince us, can't keep us from using our own minds, they want to control the ballot boxes. ;)

[NJmaverick]

13. Make it a donor only feature

[Ignis]

18. Sod the proles, eh?

Many DUers cannot afford to donate, especially in the current economic climate.

Your solution favors the rich over the poor, which is an anti-democratic value. :thumbsdown:

[NJmaverick]

24. This site costs money to run

and I am not sure you can call anyone who can spend $10 a year to donate here "rich". That seems to be more hyperbole than a fair assessment.

[Ignis]

36. $10 might not be significant for you, but it is for some DUers.

Perhaps you haven't actually encountered the working poor, but $10 can mean the difference between a week's worth of meals and a week's worth of hunger.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. If that's really the case, where would they get the money for internet access?

:shrug:

[Ignis]

41. You've never been to a Public Library?

:eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Is that what people who don't have $10 year, for membership, do?

DU is not government run, so perhaps you could chip in $10 for all those less fortunate?

[Fumesucker]

58. Nah, some of us steal Wifi from our neighbors who are too stupid to secure their systems..

I don't do that personally, I have permission to use the Wifi I connect with but I know several people who do steal Wifi.

[Ignis]

86. Free food tastes better, too.

:toast:

[Ignis]

65. Better yet, how about we don't introduce a DU poll tax?

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the phrase "DU isn't government run"; care to explain?

[Renew Deal]

69. I'm guessing that he's saying people are not obligated to be members.

Though at $1 a year, it's not much of an expense.

[Ignis]

81. I'm guessing he's calling me out because I dared to question his bullshit.

:shrug: It happens. We'll all get over it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

109. It simply means that DU, like it or not, wouldn't be violating anyone's

constitutional rights, by charging for whatever it wants, since it is not government funded. This is not NPR. I'm not sure what the big deal is. Contributions help support the site, and people might be less inclined to pull some of their shenanigans if they have to pay for the privelege.

Besides, if you're a member of a sub-group, you have to pay for the privelege. I don't see the difference. :shrug:

[Ignis]

117. Well, that's an interesting strawman, but unrelated to anything I've said.

So...why are you arguing that DU isn't a governmental agency or organization, exactly? :shrug: Did someone attempt to claim that it is? If so, it sure wasn't me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. Public libraries are government funded. DU is not. You and I have no

rights here, except those extended by the owner of the site. We could be banned today, for whatever reason, and have no legal recourse whatsoever.

Just making the point that donating and non-donating members alike, don't have the legal remedies here that we would have if the site were run by the state. Therefore, your constitutional rights don't apply here. And, if Skinner says you have to pay to rec/unrec, you'll have to pony up, or you won't be able to use that function. Since we have to pay to post in sub groups, could that be considered some form of "poll tax" as well?

[Ignis]

126. Oh FFS, I mentioned public libraries as a place the working poor can use the Internet.

I drew no parallels between public libraries and DU. :eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. Whatever. There has to be a point where well meaning, responsible people

prioritize. I don't think $10/yr is asking too much, and it's a win-win for the site. Call it a "poll tax" or whatever, but in real life, one must pay to play. And playing is an understatement for what's happened with the current rec system.

:edited for spelling error

[Ignis]

134. Why donors? Why base it on wealth? Why not on # of posts?

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. Uh, I don't know. Cause it takes money to run the site?

You're essentially asking Skinner to use his perceived "wealth" to support ideas that he may or may not even agree with, but then free is always better, right? If only things in life were really "free". Let's ask Skinner if it's "free".

I know where you're going with this, which is why I suggested that those who feel charitable can buy stars and pass them out like candy for all I care. I just think the rec system should be a donor only function, and I stand by that. It would have the benefit of supporting the site, and sock puppets might actually become a thing of the past.

[Ignis]

139. If $10 is an insignificant sum, how will it stop sock puppetry?

:shrug:

Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of rooting out sock puppets and banning all of their accounts. I just don't see how $10 more would magically cure that problem.

[Tarheel_Dem]

141. Well, some claim that $10 would place a "hardship" on many DU'ers.

I don't discount their concerns, however I do think that if a non-donating member has several non-donating sockpuppets, they may find their services as a disrupting force at DU, may no longer be needed? It's hypothetical, of course. But I say let's try it, and see what shakes out.

[Ignis]

169. Either $10 is a hardship/hurdle or it's not. Which is it?

I'm not a fan of sloppy, shotgun-style arguments made to cover all bases. Let's be precise, shall we?

[Tarheel_Dem]

183. Perhaps you should read through the entire thread, then get back to me.

For me, personally, $10 is not a hardship, and if that time ever comes, given a choice between donating to rec a post at DU & food, I think I'll choose food. If you read through this thread, you'll find posts (including yours) mouthing off about those poor folks, who will obviously die if they can't afford to rec or unrec a DU post. One should never have to choose between rec'ing & eating.
:rofl:

Just for clarity, I am not of the opinion that $10 is a hardship. And unless you're paying $10/ea for a dozen or more sockpuppets, I say donation should be mandatory to enjoy the rec/unrec feature.

Did you get an answer from Skinner yet? Did you find out if he can operate the site for free? Inquiring minds wanna know. "Sloppy & shot-gun style"? You lost this one, get over it. :eyes:

[Ignis]

185. LOL @ "You lost this one, get over it."

Thanks for clarifying that you're much more concerned about imaginary "points" on an anonymous message board than you are about poverty.

:puke:

You're welcome to think you've "won" this debate, but in a contest between backing the rich or backing the poor, I'm happy to come down on the "losing" side every single fucking time. I can't think of a single Leftist or Democrat I know personally who'd disagree.

:dilemma:

I donate to DU regularly, but I donate much more and more often to Oxfam. What can a $10 donation get you? Well, it can feed a family of four for about 3 months, for one thing. Unfortunately, there's no quid-pro-quo when one donates to Oxfam--no points, no star, no ability to Rec/Unrec, no criticism-free hidey-hole forum to which one can retreat from the horrible Progressives who refuse to clap hard enough, etc.--so I don't suppose that sort of thing would interest someone like you.

And now, you get to have the Last Word. :hi: Bye!

[Posteritatis]

53. Marie Antoinette? Is that you? (nt)

[JonLP24]

56. My internet is free

I just go to connect, 'test ath0', and then 'auto dchp' and voila. I'm connected. :)

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. That's great, and I noticed you have a star. Rec/Unrec Away!

:rofl:

[wickerwoman]

124. I get mine through the university.

It's paid for by the tuition that I had to take out loans for. And given that I've been living on lentils for seven months, I can't really justify borrowing money (even only $10- which will be $22 by the time I finish paying it off (10 years at 8% interest)) on top of what I'm already borrowing so that I can fulfill your criteria for who should have a voice on rec/unrecs.

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. Sounds like you have much bigger problems than the ability to rec/unrec..

on an internet site. Prioritize. It's what adults do. Have a great day.

[wickerwoman]

129. Not really.

I have my priorities straight (school and food, yes; donating to DU, maybe one day). I also have a little free time to assert my opinion through rec/unrec even though I'm poorer and busier than you.

Why don't you admit that you said something stupid, untrue and insensitive (that anyone who can afford internet access should be able to afford to donate to the site)?

Admitting you were wrong when faced with incontrovertible evidence... it's what adults do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. Touche. And you're right, I've never had to use a library pc for personal use.

Frankly, if that's what government funded computers are being used for, I might have to rethink my whole belief system. Besides, you were the one prattling on about your personal finances. TMI comes to mind. I just think that adults should take responsibility when they claim to have meager funds. And I wouldn't think that DU would be high on my list of priorities, if I were faced with some of what you claim.

And if "your voice" is limited to DU, then I maintain that you have much bigger problems.

[Ignis]

168. You begrudge a University student reading DU on school computers?

Why, exactly, would that make you "rethink {your} whole belief system?" :shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

184. She can read whatever the hell she wants. If you read her post,

you'll see that she gave out a whole lot of uninvited "questionable" personal info about her financial situation. And if it's all true, she's got much bigger worries than being able to rec or unrec a DU post. If she chooses to use government property to goof around on the net, that's between her & the government entity she's screwing over.

:shrug:

[Ignis]

186. She never said she attends a public/govt-run Uni.

But I'm sure you'll think what you want to think, and facts be damned. :hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

187. Well, if she attends a private university, then she should probably STFU

about just scraping by, doncha think? And buh-bye to you too. :rofl:

[Renew Deal]

60. Posting on DU is free.

And there is no requirement that someone spend money to read or post here. DU already charges for extra features. Why not this one too? (Though I don't think this is what should happen.)

[Catherina]

25. New Dem values n/t

[Ignis]

39. Can you believe you're reading this shit on DU?!

:banghead:

What's next, a poll tax?

[NJmaverick]

51. Next thing you know there will be boards only donors can post on

[Born_A_Truman]

73. Yeah, and you can't even REC the posts there!!

:shrug:

[Ignis]

74. Why not post your polls there, away from the smelly hoi polloi?

But do please continue posting these tin-eared, classist posts. They're incredibly revealing.

[NJmaverick]

75. I can't help but notice that star next to your name

[Ignis]

77. Yes, and? I've been a DU donor for years now. What's your point?

Other than the usual snark and personal attacks, that is.

[wickerwoman]

118. What does that have to do with anything?

Many people have stars donated to them because they can't afford it. During pledge drives better off DUers donate stars to unstarred posters that they like (or who ask for stars in threads in the lounge).

Why make the star system a way to allow wealthier people with certain opinions to stack the voting populace with people who agree with them?

What does that accomplish besides even greater inaccuracy in poll results and recs/unrecs?

[Ignis]

170. ^^^ Stiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill waiting for an answer here, NJmaverick.

:hi:

[Ignis]

194. Kicking for a reply to my question.

How's the view from under the sand today?

[Ignis]

199. "Scratch the surface of a bully and you'll find a coward."

My grandfather told me that once. He was a wise man.

[Catherina]

67. I've read things on DU in the last few months

that are causing me to reevaluate my party affiliation. I don't know what this new thing is but it's not the party I was affiliated to since I cast my first vote.

Support for homophobic policies are icing on the prowar cake. A poll tax wouldn't surprise me.

[Renew Deal]

71. lol

That's beyond ridiculous. Who's advocating a poll tax? This is like the telephone game.

[Catherina]

84. Less than one minute before you hit "post"

did you not advocate a $1 yearly poll tax?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8872563&mesg_id=8873014

Seriously, how's that for "beyond ridiculous"?

Pick up the phone RD, it's for you :hi:

[AngryOldDem]

195. No, not at all. n/t

[Ignis]

196. Your sig line sums it up well.

:wtf:

[AngryOldDem]

197. LOL.

I've had it for a few years now because 1) I like Dorothy Parker and 2) I've always liked the quote. Little did I know it would take on another meaning here.

[Ignis]

198. I like her, as well.

But it's Strange Days around here, to be sure. I was recently accused of being a Freeper because of the quote from the autobiography I use for my sigline.

:wtf:

[grantcart]

28. Unfortunately the current system favors those that have set up multiple IDs

also an anti democratic value.

[Ignis]

34. Those are two unrelated issues.

Nothing's stopping someone who has gone to the trouble of sock-puppetry from donating for each account.

I do agree, however, that a little more stringent enforcement in that area would be a good thing for DU overall.

[NJmaverick]

35. They are very related and one will eliminate the other

while at the same time the site gets more money to run. It's a win/win

[Ignis]

38. OK, I'll bite: HOW are they related?

It would be nice if you actually read my post to Grantcart above before responding, in order to address the specific points I've made.

[NJmaverick]

42. The requirement of donations makes it more difficult for sock puppets and zombies to vote

sure it's possible, but much more difficult, to game the system if you add this feature, but it will still help immensely. Plus those gaming the system will at least be putting money into the site, which is another big bonus.

[Ignis]

48. You're all over the place here. If $10/yr isn't a lot of money...

...as you've claimed above, how will your proposed change impair the ability of sock-puppeteers to give their creations donor stars?

You can't have it both ways. :shrug:

[Renew Deal]

55. That's a bit of a stretch.

You only have to donate $5 to be a member for a year and someone can donate on your behalf. That's cheap! Besides, other features are handled that way.

[Ignis]

80. "Cheap" is a relative term.

Do you know how much bulk food $5 can buy? :shrug: I do, because I haven't always been as wealthy as I am currently.

[Scurrilous]

31. Great idea.

:thumbsup:

[Donnachaidh]

46. yeah -- real Big Tent values

:puke:

[Renew Deal]

66. Did you know that only members have access to the search feature?

And no ads? It's not a stretch to add this feature.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Agreed. Donor Only.

:thumbsup:

[Donnachaidh]

49. yeah, sod those poor unemployed folks who read here

*They don't count, right*? :sarcasm:

:wow:

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. You have a star, so perhaps you could buy one for those less fortunate?

If you want them to enjoy all the features, including the rec/unrec feature, then you buy them a star? Non donors don't have access to all of DU's fancy features, why is the rec/unrec system so important to you? Pretty simple really.

[Fumesucker]

63. Maybe someone donated them a star..

Mine was donated and I didn't ask for it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Then that solves the problem. Everyone who can, donates stars to their faves.

Problem solved. ;)

[Fumesucker]

83. Not necessarily..

Only for those who are good with words and have a bit of a following.

To be sure I was surprised when someone donated me a star, it never occurred to me that someone might read my pathetic drivel and actually enjoy it, however faintly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

121. Well keep being as delightful as you are, and you could have a free ride

forever. If people enjoy you, for whatever reason, they'll help you keep your star status. My last star was donated as well, and my old one hadn't even expired yet. But, like you, I didn't ask for it.

What I find laughable is all the people making wild charges of elitism. But I have to wonder if these hypothetical people who would have to choose between food, and small donations to rec threads at DU, wouldn't be better served just to go for the food? I mean, I've never heard of anyone dying from lack of rec'ing or unrec'ing a post at DU. Food is a necessity. The choice seems pretty clear to me, go for the food? :shrug:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[donco6]

87. Oh yeah - only you could come up with that one! LOL! n/t

[Glenda]

92. Donor only sounds good to me n/t

[SunsetDreams]

150. adding a me too here.

[Cha]

95. Actually since there will always be a

Rec feature anyway..that's not a bad idea. That might put the kibosh on the drive by trolls who use the feature to Disrupt a Democratic site.

[Number23]

153. That is such a good point, Cha. I don't understand why it hasn't always been donor only

I would imagine the revenues here would go up considerably in addition to the fact that it would limit the power that trolls have on what shows up on the home page.

And these people who are all busted up and despondent that non-donors won't be able to rec a story on a web site need lives and perspective so badly it is almost PAINFUL to watch. Cries of "what about the hoi polloi??!one!?" when discussing who gets to rec a story on DU make me want to weep at the utter stupidity.

[JuniperLea]

99. That would keep the sockpuppets out...

And any Freeper trolls:)

[YOY]

106. Oh Mav! Cyndi Lauper wrote a song just for this occassion!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbZDjnWtK1A

And that's why I love you!!! Don't be afraid to let it show!

[NJmaverick]

155. What does that mean exactly? Your comments are unclear

[YOY]

156. It means "your true colors are beautiful like a rainbow!" just like she sings!

You're the bestest!!!

You've got to learn to take a compliment Mav!

[NJmaverick]

157. You really felt those comments added something to the coversation

or to the issue of the abuse of the rec/unrec system?:shrug:

[YOY]

161. Well of course I do! Can't go wrong with a compliment!

n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

143. Agreed

The current system is being gamed to the nth degree.

[NoPasaran]

15. Pizza delivery for anyone who whines about unrec

Thirty minutes or less, please!

[Posteritatis]

30. This might be the only suggestion about this silliness I have ever liked. (nt)

[KansasVoter]

180. How about Pizza for Unrec cowards who don't explain their vote!

[ProSense]

16. The unrec system is being abused and

there is nothing you can do about hitting one or the other button accidentally.

People should have the ability to rec and an opportunity to reverse their decision once. There should be no unrec, which people are using to register their feelings about other posters instead of their opinions about the merits of the piece posted.

Public rec/unrec would likely be too intimidating for some.

[backscatter712]

21. Define abuse?

Granted, a coordinated campaign of unrecs by lurking freepers would count as abuse.

OTOH, on Reddit, users can vote up or vote down a thread for any reason at all, including no reason at all.

Some people may consider it to be perfectly within the rules to unrec a thread just because "it sucks."

[Posteritatis]

29. Abuse = "someone voted down my OP!"

Alternately, "someone voted down an OP I disagreed with because they're Republican spies!"

[ProSense]

32. I did n/t

[NYC Liberal]

91. Except coordinated campaigns of unrecs DO happen every day.

It's done right out in the open if you know where to look.

I don't take the Internet so seriously but the system is being abused and a lot of that abuse could be curbed pretty easily.

[cherokeeprogressive]

145. So why don't you tell us where to look instead of being so vague about your claim?

I don't know where to look. I'd like to help you back up your claim.

[Ignis]

172. +1. I think this is a fair question, as it requires no personal call-outs.

Just a few links to threads that were the victims of an Unrec Swarm would do fine.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

68. I frankly don't care if my post get to the greatest page.

Having said that, whether or not they end up there is a separate issue from people abusing the unrec.

You may like it, but it's still abuse.

[Catherina]

70. Your embedded mystery link threads not going over too well? n/t

[ProSense]

85. Is it really that complicated to determine the origins of a link?

How do you manage on the Internets?

[Catherina]

94. I only stick to trustworthy sources, that's how. n/t

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

107. "the Blue Linked One actually registered emotion" Hmmm?

Been lurking long?

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

110. I'll live. n/t

[YOY]

165. That's wonderful!

n.t.

[Ter]

17. Show negatives

If 50 people unrec something, it will still be listed as 0. I want it to say -50.

[Posteritatis]

33. The howls of martyred rage were worse when it had more specific numbers. (nt)

[backscatter712]

19. Kick it up a notch...

Make it so recs and unrecs affect where a thread is placed in the thread list. In other words, you no longer have to K&R, the Rec implies a Kick, whereas an unrec causes a thread to be pushed down the list. Of course, aging would also eventually cause a thread to fall off the top of the thread list.

The result would look something like Reddit.

[SoCalDem]

20. 86 both n/t

[Cha]

43. I agree. nt

[JonLP24]

22. I'd say get rid of unrec

I notice people mostly use it on threads they disagree with, not with threads that are simply bad but those get 'unrec' all day long. It is not a big deal at all with me if they leave things the way they are. Just answering your question.

[Uben]

27. I have already solved the problem

I figured it out long ago. In order to make the rec/unrec work, we need to deny service (ban) anyone who starts more than one thread bitching about it. That should have the problem solved in about 3 months!

[drmeow]

72. Can that be applied to

"I can't believe someone unrec'd this" sub-threads, too?

[Iggo]

164. Oh please yes.

[drmeow]

193. Nice to know I'm not the only one! n/t

[bigwillq]

52. Leave as is

And then take up a donation so we can send DUers to therapy because they can't handle a rec or unrec system on a freaking message board.

[Obamanaut]

57. Start your own forum and do it the way you like. nt

[JonLP24]

79. See I don't understand this

People complaining that there isn't an 'unrec' feature lead to this board getting an 'unrec' feature. Now it seems people don't like complaining about the 'unrec' even though complaining lead to us getting the feature in the first place.

[Obamanaut]

88. The 'unrec' is a non-issue. If an OP has great merit or is really interesting

(both as judged by the readers), it will not only get a buttload of responses, but the 'rec's will outnumber the 'unrec's and the OP will move to the GP.

Bringing up the rec/unrec feature as an OP every few days, and it does seem that frequent, serves no purpose. It is there.

[Posteritatis]

122. It's more the idiotic conspiracy theories everyone who complains about unrec invokes

If someone whines about unrecs in the first hour or so after a post is made, it's usually to claim some organized group of DLCers or evil DUers who they can hint at but don't dare name or Republican spies or Rove or what-have-you have it in for them, because the possibility that there might actually be issues with some posts is beyond them.

At least it's a step up from when people claimed they were a form of censorship, but most of the complaining is just snowflakes incapable of handling the most illusory forms of criticism and who need some shadowy enemy group to feel martyred by.

[JonLP24]

125. I wasn't talking about that

I understand that very well.

I was just talking about a general desire to get of the feature like there was a general desire to implement it. Me personally I don't think there is organized groups here or not very many.

[elehhhhna]

61. load of fukwits who rec/unrec random crap as soon as it's posted.

sucks bigtime.

[NYC Liberal]

76. Three things I would change/add:

1. Public rec/unrec lists. I know a lot of people may not like this, but in my mind if you are going to vote to promote a thread to or remove it from the Greatest Page, you should stand by the vote. If you are unwilling to, why vote?

2. Limited number of recs/unrecs per day. Each user would get, say, 5 recs or unrecs to use each day. This would force people to think about which threads they want to vote on. As it stands, people can just go down the list of threads and blindly rec or unrec a bunch of threads.

3. Rec/unrec count. Show the recs, unrecs, and net vote. I believe this was shown for a very short time after the unrec was introduced. Bring it back. I know you can calculate this for threads on the Top Tens page, but this would make the whole system a lot more transparent.

[Behind the Aegis]

144. I like #1 and #3.

Send this to, I think earl is the tech guru, them. Maybe then we would get rid of this stupid whining about the rec system...or do away with it entirely.

[drmeow]

78. How often has unrec

prevented a thread which would have made the greatest list from making it?

Are there any other benefits to the rec's other than moving a thread to the greatest list?

[Catherina]

82. ill-thought out attempt for message control n/t

[MarthaM]

96. I couldn't care less

I never even look at that column and seldom see the 'greatest' page. When I come to DU I just visit LBN, then read GD and GD:Presidency. What anyone else thinks of a thread means nothing to me.

When I open a thread I wouldn't even know that anybody rec'd or unrec'd it except that somebody seems to bring that up in a reply.

[SoxFan]

97. Donor Only, Public

Looks like some people are afraid their sock puppets might lose a bit of influence.

[Ignis]

112. Which "some people" would that be?

[SoxFan]

160. Res Ipsa Loquitor

[Ignis]

166. No, it doesn't. And Latin doesn't excuse a call-out.

But some animals are more equal than others, so I don't expect that you'll suffer for it.

[Hekate]

98. After thoughtful consideration, I'm going with Donor-Only, because so many features already can't be

... accessed by non-donors.

As it stands now, to be able to post in the Groups you have to be a donor, and you aren't allowed to Rec even so. Seems to me that the very small donation necessary is not unduly burdensome. Don't bother to tell me about the impecunious DUers who can't possibly etc etc etc. I've already read all those posts in this thread.

Non-donors can read and post everywhere but the Groups -- and every time Grovelbot starts roaming around with his claw out, several people post threads asking for the Starless to let their need be known. I've seen terrific response to those threads and have given away quite a few stars myself.

Finally -- and again this is after a lot of thought -- I've come to believe that the system as it stands is being badly abused. I don't need to go into the details, because several others have already done so. The abuse has to stop.

Hekate

[Canuckistanian]

100. You left out "Robb is a Dingbat"

So, your results will be skewed.

[SeattleGirl]

101. LOL!

Good one!

[Boojatta]

131. At the moment, Robb is a moderator and therefore not a dingbat.

[Blue_In_AK]

103. I didn't vote in your poll,

but I think the whole system is subject to abuse and has been on numerous occasions.

[Stinky The Clown]

104. Don't change a thing

I like unreccing people I don't like. It lets my inner three-year-old have sway for a while.

I like reccing and seeing more and more the kinds of posts I favor find their way to the top of the greatest page.

Seriously? Its a food fight.

[superduperfarleft]

111. Leave it as is, and whining about it should be an instant ban. n/t

[wickerwoman]

120. Amen,

so sick of every other thread being jacked by this ridiculous non-issue.

There are a few trolls voting down everything. There are a lot of great DUers voting up the things that should be voted up. It balances out across all threads. The really important stuff still makes the greatest page.

Not everyone is going to agree with your stuff for a variety of reasons including trolling. It's not the end of the world. By constantly shifting the discussion to rec/unrec instead of the substance of the post *you're giving them what they want*: attention and a distraction from the content of the OP.

[AsahinaKimi]

113. RECS IN THE LOUNGE!!!

hehe, couldn't resist! :rofl:

[sendero]

115. I'm wondering how long it will be..

... before this BLATANT NON-ISSUE just dies already.

[fishwax]

116. I think it's fine as is

Though "Don't care" is a fairly close second choice :)

[City Lights]

119. Don't care.

I've had a bad case of apathy for quite awhile now.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Other - Random Rec/Unrec

You wouldn't even know how you voted.

[Ignis]

136. FINALLY a sensible solution.

;)

[beam me up scottie]

137. It'd be pretty entertaining, too.

:popcorn:

[UTUSN]

132. How could the option "DUMP THE DAMNED THING" be left out?1 Just asking. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

135. Other - people should stop crying about it - nt

[izzybeans]

140. The only thing I would do is probably technically impossible

Recs - Unrecs tabulated, with posters in a thread listed as rec or unrecers.

Then a dogpile of recers and unreccers listed to the side like a blog roll.

full transparency.

[Catshrink]

142. Tombstone anyone who bitches about it.

Enough already.

[cherokeeprogressive]

146. I think I love you. n/t

[Vickers]

149. Ding! Ding!

:thumbsup:

[Turborama]

147. How about a thumbs up and down as well as the rec/unrec?

Similar to what they have on Think Progress?

The thumbs up and down only allow DUers to show their approval/disapproval of the content and the rec/unrec would relate to the Greatest page and whether it's recommended reading/viewing or not, whether you approve or disapprove of the actual content.

[Vickers]

148. I wouldn't mind a little "tick" next to my name indicating if I Rec'ed or Unrec'ed

a thread.

When the Unrec feature first came out, any time someone would complain about it I would Unrec it (still do, for that matter).

Most of the criticism would be along the lines of, "There are HORDES of ANONYMOUS TROLLS who are UNRECing my beautiful threads!!!!!!!!!!"

So I would Unrec, tell them I Unrec'ed, and they would STILL claim these anonymous infiltrators are ruining their oh-so-important thread, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT I (and many like me) TOLD THEM THAT I WAS DOING IT. I wasn't anonymous, the other folks weren't anonymous, but the claims were still, um, claimed.

I eventually got tired of explaining when I Unrec'ed, but I continue to do so.

And just for old times' sake...right after I post this, I will Unrec this one, too.

G'day!

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

151. One's a positive reaction/REC ... the other is a negative reaction to stop a thread from

gaining attention --

[defendandprotect]

152. K&R --

[JDPriestly]

154. I want rec only.

The unrecs tend to get too much attention and discussion in threads. People get very upset because someone unrecs a thread. The discussion about the unrecs, pro and con, who and why, distract from the discussion of the original topic of the thread

[myrna minx]

159. OMG - I can't believe people are still obsessing/complaining about the unrec feature.

Good gravy - this is so silly.

[TheKentuckian]

162. Public recs and unrecs. I consider it to be another failed effort at message control to want to make

this a pay feature and cannot help but notice it is the same "pragmatic" folks that are always trying to manipulate the system apparently to rig up a particular set of results.

I think the ultimate solution is for people in the community to vote or not vote on threads at their leisure and own up loud and proud for what you believe, be honest about what you think, stop unrecing in a robot like fashion peoples post that you don't like or whatever unless you have thick enough skin to deal with being put on blast, and generally cut out the snake in the grass mickey mouse bullshit.


Throw some daylight on this "issue" and I think 99.9999 percent of the picture of the problem (such as it is, if any) will come into focus. It will be apparent if free rider sock puppets are at issue, it will bring a measure of accountability to unrec squads, and we'll potentially get to know each other a whole lot better if we pay attention.

[Ignis]

174. Who knew that "pragmatism" really means "fuck the poor?"

Well, other than those of us on the Left, of course. ;)

I agree with making Recs/Unrecs public, though. :thumbsup: Shine the light and watch the cockroaches scurry away!

[YOY]

181. Sticking up for the poor? Too "extreme" for the "liberals" here!!!

Just not "pragmatic"!!!

[Ignis]

188. I'm trying to reconcile the contempt for the poor evidenced in the thread above with...

...the fact that the Official Word is that "we're all Progressives here." :shrug:

I've been involved in left-wing politics since I was a kid, and I have never met a Progressive in real life who displayed such vile hatred for the working poor.

20 years of the "Third Way" has really done a number on the Left's collective psyche, I guess. Oh, there are other options, but I'm not allowed to say them.

[YOY]

192. I prefer to stick to the obvious when dealing with people who actually have brains such as yourself.

That they are not left-wing. Never were left-wing and if progressive means 'centrist' and not left wing then they've been lying as to who they are and what they stand for. To not expect repurcussions for that is really sad.

I can say ad nauseum that I'm Jewish and even get pissed when others point out that they think that I am not and that I am insulting Jewish folks by saying such. I could even get an authority figure to enforce it...but you know what?

It will never make me Jewish.

[TheKentuckian]

182. It seems that is one of the primary things it means, sadly. Remember job=pony

[Ignis]

189. True, I forgot how unimportant unemployment is on DU these days.

If anything, discussing unemployment numbers and how to effect real change in that situation will just get you dogpiled by those who take those discussions as a slight against their personal Lord and Savior.

So it goes.

[TheKentuckian]

191. The only important things for some are guesstimating what independents think, not upsetting

Republicans, not offending bigots of all stripes, and Obama's position in the daily poll.

[Iggo]

163. Leave it.

[Rosco T.]

167. When you see election results, do you just see 'who wins'???

or do you see the individual totals?

You should see the total number of votes BOTH WAYS, recs/unrecs

[earth mom]

176. Hate UNREC but I'd love to be able to rec/unrec individual posts.

:evilgrin:

[Rosco T.]

178. There are boards like that, the term is ....

"moderated into oblivion". After a certain number the offending post is automatically hidden unless you look for it.

[KansasVoter]

179. Public is needed. Makes people responsible for their cowardly unrecs!

[ThomWV]

190. If you're going to show 1 you should show both, and if not shown why offer it?