We need a down rec button

[Aerows]

independent of a rec. Issuing a down rec would in no way impact a rec, but you can down rec something and people can see, just the same as a rec, those that disagree. I think if we are going for full force transparency, if people are free to agree, they should be just as free to disagree.

[AgingAmerican]

1. You mean like two seperate rec widgets?

One up and one down?

That would be interesting.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. IIRC

They had that function very briefly when the rec function was first introduced. I think too many people were getting their feelings hurt.

I think it beats a frivolous and anonymous alert.

[Rosco T.]

100. Not Exactly

you had ONE count, so you could only see the overall total, so something could have 1242 Thumbs Up and 1243 Thumbs down and all you saw was -1. Or you could have 1 UP and 2 Down... still -1.

Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down, both show. Very Very good idea.

[jberryhill]

2. That is based on the premise that Rec means "agree"

[winter is coming]

4. +1. I often rec for visibility. n/t

[Aerows]

7. I rec for visibility

You can also down rec for disagreement. There has been way too much trial by fire posting lately. People should have the ability to agree with an original post *or* disagree with it.

[winter is coming]

9. If I want to disgree with an OP, I compose a post.

Unless I want the thread to sink, or I think the OP is trying to start something.

[Aerows]

10. So being able to step up to the plate

and disagree with an OP is worse than disagreeing with it with no ramifications other than "winter is coming down recs this post" and nothing happens. Sort of like "winter is coming" recs this post, and nothing happens, either.

[winter is coming]

11. ?? I'm not opposed to such a feature being implemented, and would probably use it

if we had one; I just don't feel a burning need for it.

[Aerows]

13. I don't always have a burning need to use the restroom

but when I do, I speak up and ask the driver to pull over at a gas station.

[winter is coming]

16. So why do you need to pull over at a gas station now? n/t

[Aerows]

22. Because it has gotten a little too hot in the car these days

and the kudzu doesn't look friendly. I'll probably get kudzu babies where I don't want them if I'm not careful.

[winter is coming]

23. There is no such thing as a kudzu baby.

It's just a regular kudzu holding its breath really, really hard and hoping you'll think it's tiny and nonthreatening.

[Aerows]

25. You feed it with gasoline and set it on fire

I just grows back the next day thinking, oh, did I do something wrong? Oh wait there is something I can smother in my green strangling love!

[enlightenment]

162. Why not just respond to the post?

If you agree with it, you can do that.
If you disagree with it, you can do that, also.

You see? That's what I'm doing here. I don't agree with your idea, so I'm posting to say that. I don't need a button to do that.

[Aerows]

5. It typically does in politics

What it truly means, though, is that you found the post meaningful. You don't? Down rec it. It imposes no penalty, just as a rec imposes no benefit.

[NYC Liberal]

151. There's a place for unrec outside of an agree/disagree model

A rec is a vote for a thread to appear on the Greatest Page.

So there should be an option for those of us who think a thread is NOT worthy of "greatest" status.

[TDale313]

3. Yeah, I like that idea. n/t

[pintobean]

6. The whiners won on unrec

I don't think we'll see anything like it again. I miss all the conspiracy theories about it.

[Aerows]

8. Huh? n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. What Pinto is talking about is that there used to be an "Unrec" feature.

It caused so much confilict that the Admins got rid of it when the new DU came around.

There were numerous polls that showed an overwhelming majority of members liked the feature - offering a counter vote to the "Recommend this thread for the greatest page" that clicking "DUREC" currently does.

However, as Pintobean suggested, those that opposed it were VERY vocal and made such a stink that it was done away with.

There were dozens of threads about it, most that opposed it suggesting that 'unrec' meant they hated the OP personally or that it was "bullying" (A common complaint) or that it "stifled free speech" (another common complaint) when in fact, all it did was counter votes for recommending a thread for greatest page status.

It was amusing to watch, actually. There were threads that would have 200 votes, and only 5 or 6 or 7 would show up as being positive - still enough to get the thread to the Greatest Page, but that fact that 100 or so "rec" votes were countered by a similar number of unrec's, it drove some people nuts.


Ahhhh...good times.

Here's a few of the interesting flame threads on the subject from the old DU;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9535345

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9313047

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9313315

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9060734

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6023674

There were many, MANY others, but as I said, there were also many polls done and the results were consistent; a vast majority liked the feature.

[winter is coming]

20. Thanks for the link.

A post from the first link caught my eye. A DUer said, "It isn't abused. The admins have repeatedly said that's not true." That sounds very much like people complaining that the jury system is rigged or that widespread alert stalking is taking place, even though the admins have said it's not true. I guess no matter what features we have, someone will be sure that lots of others are abusing it.

on edit: OMG, that last link is epic.

[Aerows]

24. Overwhelming majority

capsized by vocal, loud, nearly batshit crazy minority. Got it.

I'm still going to ask about it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

32. Well, ask away!

I've given you a bit of history in my post. In those linked threads you will find links to other threads that go into even more detail.

I wrote a poem about it, titled "Ode to Unrec", to wit;

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.

[JNelson6563]

99. Your posts in this thread remind me

that I always liked you. Always glad to see you around Heretic!

Julie

[A HERETIC I AM]

102. Awwwww....geez...

You make me blush, Julie!

[Flying Squirrel]

57. Not true

Both the unrec fans and the loyal opposition were quite vocal (however, it seemed to me that the unrec supporters used bullying tactics from the very beginning) - but my analysis showed conclusively that at least 35% of DU was opposed to the unrec function and another 15% was uncertain. Hardly an "overwhelming majority", more like 60-40 or possibly even less. The fact that the griping never stopped shows how important the issue was and I think Skinner eventually had to make the right call.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. 60/40 in an election is a landslide.

Land. Slide.

[Flying Squirrel]

138. And as usual it is left up to me

To point out how often in life a majority of people can be 100% wrong on a subject. And when that happens, many in that majority (like you, in this case) insist that their numbers make them right and that the minority should just shut up. But the minority did not shut up, as it seldom will. Bring back unrec and the same thing will happen as before. (I personally just left DU over it for several years, not even bothering to lurk, and I'm sure I was far from being the only one. Apparently others stayed and fought, for which I'm grateful.)

The main point I was making, which you immediately tried to marginalize, is that it was not a small group of vocal malcontents who got Skinner to give in, but a very large percentage of DU which was dissatisfied.

Now, if they were to instead come up with some other system - one that could discourage fluff posts without also stifling dissent - I'd be all for it (depending on the particulars). But re-fighting the unrec war, that would be completely unproductive and I'm sure admin knows it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

150. Yes, but you weren't in some persecuted minority, not by a long shot...

and that is what many on your side of that argument wanted to insist they were. "Oh, woe is us that there are meanies voting against a thread being put on the greatest page! We're being persecuted!"

And as I said, and I watched it all unfold, in poll after poll after poll the numbers showed a CLEAR MAJORITY of members liked the feature and wanted to keep it. It was almost always 60% or better and some times as high as 80%. You claiming the "undecided" skewing any result notwithstanding. I could link you to those old polls, but the old DU does not support the poll feature anymore, so all that data is lost.

You left DU because of it? Really? Sorry, but L frickin Oh L.

The main point I was making, which you immediately tried to marginalize, is that it was not a small group of vocal malcontents who got Skinner to give in, but a very large percentage of DU which was dissatisfied.

I'm not going to speak for the man, but it was my impression that he basically gave in to a SMALL group that just wouldn't take no for an answer. No matter what was said, no matter how it was parsed or explained, the same old tired, dopey arguments against the feature kept being brought up.

And they were and continue to be dopey arguments. And as usual, it is left up to me to say that!

It's funny that you would suggest a clear majority of members were "100% wrong on a subject" when that fact is, the group against the feature were so transparent in their inability to grasp HOW AND WHY they were wrong as to be laughable. The continued insistence that the unrec feature was somehow censorship or stifling or some other such nonsense is what was truly absurd.

Here is the text of my last rebuttal of the anti unreccers. I got it right;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9037754&mesg_id=9043411

[Flying Squirrel]

152. Yes, I left.

It turned DU into something I didn't like. Mob rule. And the way you're talking right now just reinforces to me why it was not a good thing. It's clear that you and I will never agree on this so I won't bother to argue with you - but the facts remain that (1) it was a sizable minority who disliked unrec, and (2) simply being in the majority does not automatically make one right.

[A HERETIC I AM]

154. ....

It turned DU into something I didn't like. Mob rule

Yes....of course.

It's clear that you and I will never agree on this so I won't bother to argue with you

Yup. You got that right.

Have a pleasant evening!

[RC]

126. There is a contingent around here that are using the # of REC'd as ammo, proving that they are

correct and everyone else is wrong, because there are X number of REC'ds to some flame bait OP they posted.
That is reason enough for an UN-REC'd feature. The Admin thinks a post in disagreement, is what is called for. The problem with that is, it opens the dissenter up to an alert for disagreeing and not being in lock-step with some clique or other and juries are often no better than coin flips.

[anAustralianobserver]

26. IIRC many of the Unrec advocates weren't happy enough to have the Unrecs display separately.

It had to affect Greatest position and they didn't want the Recs to display if they were cancelled out by subtraction. The Greatest page (many posters' preferred gateway) became a less transparent, more generic picture of what people were recommending due to groups gleefully scrubbing certain posters and opinions.

[Aerows]

31. See, I don't think it should have any effect at all

Just a way of clicking "I disagree". Posts with appropriate recs should not be affected and go to the greatest page.

[anAustralianobserver]

35. I'd be for it then. It would be interesting to see that.

[fizzgig]

36. those flamewars were epic

i could not understand the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments it caused but the factor was awesome.

[A HERETIC I AM]

41. Yes it was!

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Honestly, I never tired of it.

I'll admit I posted in my own fair share of those threads, but there were many others who just went overboard in their dislike for the feature.

I was particularly amused by the idea that unreccing a thread was "censorship" especially when a thread on a controversial subject got unrecced, it tended to generate even more responses and views, therefore doing everything BUT censor!

[Javaman]

61. Golden days of DU. LOL

that was of an era, indeed. LOL

I miss those insane flamewars of inanity.

[Systematic Chaos]

42. Ah, so many names who were either booted the fuck out of here...

...or just -- went away.

Thanks you buncha whiny doorknobs.

[GeorgeGist]

47. Narrow minds are hard to hide.

[QC]

52. Some people who imagined themselves to be DU celebrities

learned that they were actually quite unpopular.

It's as if the girls from Heathers got dissed in the cafeteria.

That simply wouldn't do.

[Javaman]

60. Dang, I was hoping you had a link to the infamous "I will not be sileneced!" thread

posted by a now long banned DU'er.

That was simply a classic thread.

[A HERETIC I AM]

106. I just spent the last little while looking through my old bookmarks...

and I didn't save that one, but it appears it was scrubbed altogether.

Another poster on one of the threads I saved indicated that and any variation of a search turns up nothing.

Damn...looking through my old bookmarks....lots of funny stuff back then.


One of my favorite flame wars was the kerfluffle over a "Tribute thread" being unrecced that spawned 4 other threads.

Hilarious.

[Javaman]

123. I forgot about that one! LOL

my fav was the "blow up the moon" thread about NASA firing the probe into the moon.

that went on for days. LOL

[A HERETIC I AM]

130. This Moon thread was pretty funny;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=9124668

It should be noted that the DU'er "BeHereNow" has recently passed away. While she may have regretted saying some of the things she said in that epic sub-thread, it was clear she was passionate, if nothing else. I'm hoping she had a sense of humor in hindsight, and I wish her safe travels through the cosmos.

Some of those threads on that subject were just completely absurd!


Ahhhhhh....makes me smile!

[Javaman]

132. There used to be a real cast of characters on DU back then.

I miss them for the pure comedic gold they brought.

There are still a few about, but nothing like back then.

[A HERETIC I AM]

110. In fact...it was you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9037754&mesg_id=9047046

[Javaman]

124. LOL dang. my brain isn't what it used to be! LOL

that's priceless.

I win for boob of the day!

[sufrommich]

65. Those links are hilarious, "unrec silences dissent"

.I prefer an unrec feature,that being said,man I'm glad the admins changed the thread format,trying to unravel who said what to whom in those old threads gives me a headache.

[A HERETIC I AM]

135. I think what you're seeing is a result of the old DU at those links....

being in a permanent state of "Level 4". Basically the Admins have turned out all the lights except a few nightlights in the halls!

The threads back then looked very similar to this one. You could see at the top who was responding to whom and the replys always showed "Response to reply # XX" etc.

[SidDithers]

69. For 2 solid weeks back in 2010, I posted nothing but K&R or Unrec in reply to threads...

I posted three times as many K&Rs, as Unrecs, but all anyone remembers in the Unrecs.

DU is a funny place, sometimes.

Sid

[pintobean]

77. People sure did take unrecs personally.

Post that you unrecced a thread and you'd get accused of all kinds of shit. Huge egos are usually quite fragile.

[TacoD]

92. miss earth mom. (nt)

[Number23]

160. Okay, I just spent a good ten minutes reading your links. That was great stuff

I am still wiping away tears from laughing at those howling about being "suppressed." Oh, so much drama!

God it must be nice to have some of these people's problems.

[A HERETIC I AM]

161. LOL...glad you liked it! n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

82. Oh yeah, remember it well.

Total whinefest.

[Logical]

86. I agree! Nt

[krawhitham]

96. you mean the trolls won

[City Lights]

111. Yup. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. I DOWN rec this post

[Aerows]

14. See?

That's pretty awesome. I take it you approve?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Either I truly dislike the idea and am using the idea

To express my disagreement or I like the idea and am expressing that positive opinion by ironically using "down rec" or I am just screwing around.

Or as the dog in up said, "RACCOON!"

[Aerows]

27. I love that you bring up my raccoon encounter every chance you get

If you think it gives you political leverage to bash someone that could have gotten rabies and died and is *still* paying for bullshit because of it?

Yeah. That is extremely classy of you. Enjoy your derision sandwich. I sincerely hope it tastes delicious because even though you don't even know me, you take the chance to taunt me.

I've noticed you do that with other DUers, too. Bring up unfortunate incidents that they have had and ridiculed them about said incidents. Well PW, I hope nothing ill befalls you, because if it does? Learning compassion from the other side when you are not already familiar with it is likely worse than when you already knew compassion.

[Systematic Chaos]

43. Just a thought for you, Aerows:

I spend a great deal of time on this site, yet I have no idea what the hell this whole dog/raccoon thing is about. None whatsoever. Based on your highly upset reaction, I can only assume you were bitten or almost bitten by a raccoon at some point? Hell yeah that would suck!

I doubt I'm wrong in guessing that many, many of us had no idea something happened to you and still would not know had you not brought so much attention to it. I don't mean your original message about whatever incident; I mean this argument you're having right now.

I understand -- it's human nature to get upset about things and so I'm not faulting you. I'm only suggesting that you not let it get to you. Just let it roll off your back like water or discuss it with the offending person via PM. That will shut down anyone whom you may perceive as bullying you or giving you shit a lot faster than arguing publicly.

[winter is coming]

56. FWIW, I simply assumed PW was mis-remembering the animal from the movie. n/t

[Aerows]

74. I was bitten by a raccoon

18,000 hospital bill for the rabies series.

[pintobean]

79. Damn. So sorry to here that.

They look so cute and harmless.

[Aerows]

80. $18,000

[Systematic Chaos]

116. You can domesticate nearly anything. But even 5 lb. feral housecats can beat some ass.

There was a video of some lady kicking snow or something at a feral cat, and then it just jumped up and attached itself to the poor woman's face. The cat was apparently rabid, according to the news story that went with the video.

[winter is coming]

129. Damn. And I've heard those shots are quite painful, too.

Sorry that happened to you.

[Logical]

87. Why the idiotic raccoon mention? nt

[anAustralianobserver]

18. As long as it didn't affect position on the Greatest page and wasn't anonymous :D

[winter is coming]

28. I could care less about the Greatest Page, but it shouldn't be anonymous. n/t

[Aerows]

33. That was definitely my point

Transparency means that people that unrec should be as visible as those that rec.

[Logical]

88. It should impact the greatest page! nt

[City Lights]

112. Unrec should impact the "greatest" page. nt

[TeamPooka]

19. My rec only means I think other DUers should also read the material. Not that I agree with it.

[Aerows]

21. I've loved this forum since the moment I set foot in it

I found great people that I can converse with, without having to agree with every word they say.

If we have gone to a total transparency phase, then turnabout is fairplay. Those that disagree with a certain OP should also have a mechanism to say "I don't agree" as clearly as "I agree".

There isn't any penalty for agreeing, other than the community knows what you agreed to, nor should there be a penalty other than the community knows what you disagree with.

[pipi_k]

66. The wording

of this is somewhat troubling...

There isn't any penalty for agreeing, other than the community knows what you agreed to, nor should there be a penalty other than the community knows what you disagree with.

Why would/should there be a "penalty" for agreeing or disagreeing with something?

Which is a question I guess I already have an answer to, in a way, as I strongly suspect that there are people who form character judgements about people based on poll answers, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how they manage to remember who said what, and when. Are they writing this stuff down?

No offense to anyone here, but I really don't find anyone so fascinating that I'm able to remember what his/her opinion was six months ago, or more. I can hardly remember what I thought last week myself.

Anyway, it could be that the wording was a mistake, but it is troubling considering how many DUers appear to use the thoughts and opinions of others as ammunition against them.

[11 Bravo]

73. Those who disagree with an OP already have a mechanism to say so. It's called ...

"reply to this post". Easy, no?

[pintobean]

85. That works both ways - agree or disagree

but the rec feature is only one way. I say we have both up and down, or neither.

[Democracyinkind]

30. I like DU much better without it.

It fueled much of the juvenility and genital waving on DU2, much like META did.

[Aerows]

34. If you are waiting to find a forum

where there isn't an element of pissing contests and genital wavings, choose one that doesn't involve politics and current affairs.

I've liked you very much in every interaction that we've had, but that is the truth, my friend.

[Democracyinkind]

37. I agree, it is a part of any political forum...

So it becomes a question of degrees - I found that giving up unrec did help to tone down the pissing contests. It also promotes posting serious objections rather than just "Unrec!!!".

I too like you very much
And I have no problem if you or the majority on DU disagrees with my view on the desirability of having unrec. But these are my reasons for not missing it.

[MADem]

38. We used to have that capability--it did not down-vote below zero, though.

A down vote would cancel out an up vote.

You could sort of figure out that a thread with many responses that had a Zero sum REC total wasn't going the way the thread starter hoped. Sometimes people would downvote and say "UNREC."

[Aerows]

39. I propose that they stay

independent of each other. Recs stay as they are, but there is an ability to say "I read this, and disagree". It would have no impact, but the users would also be named just like the rec's.

[MADem]

40. So long as we're proposing changes (not that the admins are gonna do as we ask, but ...)

I think we ought to raise the bar for the GREATEST page. It's insanely easy for a post to get to that page, and frankly, a lot of 'em aren't all that great. Five recs for "Isn't this puppy cute?" and there it is.

Maybe fifty recs, or a hundred...even 25. Five is just too easy; a clique of disgruntled trolls could get all sorts of foolishness up on the Greatest Page.

I don't do much looking from that page, for that reason--I just don't think it represents the "Greatest" necessarily.

Of course, I think we could stand to combine a few groups, too, especially the ones that haven't been used much if at all in the past year or so. Like I said, I don't expect the admins to "hop to" just because I'm musing, here!

Usually, if a thread annoys the hell outta me, I'll just--if I don't trash it--write UNREC in the subject line and move on. It gets me out of having to sit on a jury for the thing, anyway!

[Drahthaardogs]

153. I remember. DU2 I think. Before the Jury system we had rec and unrec.

I also remember the DU Panic Rooms on election night. Good times.

[MADem]

164. Yep! Those were the days....! nt

[kentauros]

44. "Up the Down-Rec Staircase"

[House of Roberts]

45. When I hover my cursor over the DU Rec button,

I get a little message that says "Recommend this thread to other DU members". I take that to mean, 'others should read this, it's important'. A lack of recs, to me, along with a significant number of views, indicates a story is either stale, or not of wide interest.

If others use the Rec button for 'I agree with the content', maybe there should be a separate 'agree/disagree' button.

[leeroysphitz]

46. You need a down rec button. n/t

[reformist2]

48. Yep. YouTube does it (showing thumbs up *and* thumbs down), why can't we?

[sibelian]

50. Cos Youtube sucks

And we DON'T.

Christ, you're comparing us to YOUTUBE commentators?

[sibelian]

49. "rec" and "unrec" wars were long-lasting. I sided in the end with "no unrec"

There's some disingenuity going on in the comments further up, Aerows, actually there were plenty of examples of people using unrec as an excuse not to argue their position. You would get post after post simply saying "unrec", or "PROUD unrec" and suchlike. I was always on the point of posting, testily: "AND? so what? WHY unrec? Say something in plain English, stop pushing silly buttons and announcing it proudly! What's the point? Is DU like a kind of slot machine that you put recs and unrecs into, nothing meaningful results from this." It really annoyed me.

I wouldn't have called it bullying, that's silly, but it did encourage a lot of posts that could far too easily be interpreted as bad-mannered attitude striking. I don't think I would say that the feature was being abused in the classic sense, but it did not make the site a pleasant or useful place in which to discuss things. The admins got rid of it, I suspect, as the value added (which, TBH, was really minimal from the perspective of the site as an "institution&quot was massively outweighed by the snot. They got rid of it just to maintain some sense of civility.

The whole concept of rec is a bit weird. Why SHOULD there be a rating system for what should go on the front page? I've always thoguht the admins shoudl just pick it. It's their site after all. Or you could have a nomination system like on deviantart.

And there's another thing going that doesn't make any sense to me - how in God's name is possible to actually separate the concept of "this should go on the front page" from "I agree with this" or "I like this"? I see no meaningful way of supposing that it's possible. If we start from the premise that we want other people to read the article, rec is an attempt to draw attention to something. Why would anyone attempt to draw attention to something they disagree with or dislike?

I'm happy that unrec is gone. I added masses of volume to threads without much concomitant content.

[NuclearDem]

51. Bah, I just hit the Rec button and then click it again.

Making a NYOINK sound. Very satisfying.

[riverwalker]

54. too "Facebookey"

to unrec, just ignore it, it will sink into the abyss. Thumbs up, thumbs down, is too juvenile and simple, sick of all that "Like" business. Hate Facebook dominance on the internet.

[Moliere]

55. Reddit does that

Down rec decrements the total number

[SidDithers]

58. Yes. We do...nt

Sid

[bigwillq]

62. They need to bring back unrec button (nt)

[Iggo]

63. I miss Unrec.

A lot.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. we should stick with actual word meanings.

meanings. 'Recommend' does not mean 'agree'. That 'rec' button could say 'agree' but it does not.
Think about it. There are stories we think others should know about which we do not actually 'agree' with. Despot says horrible things about a minority group stories, for example. When you 'rec' them are your saying you agree with the despot? Or are you saying 'others need to know about this injustice with which I do not agree'?
What does the 'rec' mean on a thread about an ill or newly deceased DU member? 'I agree they are ill' or 'I think we should all know this'? It surely is not a positive review of 'our friend died'.
Agree should mean agree, recommend should mean recommend.

[FSogol]

68. I hit "rec" whenever I am about to go to my rec room. Everyone else uses it differently?

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Some think it means 'I'm Bluenorthwest and I approve this message'.

nt

[stevenleser]

75. I prefer your interpretation, but I suspect most DUers do not use it that way. nt

[frazzled]

89. I think you're conflating things

To "recommend" a post in LBN, which is simply a straight news story, you're saying "this is important to read." Despot says horrible things about minority group. Yes, people should know that.

But, in the vast majority of cases, when the same piece of a news story is posted in GD, it comes with either an endorsement of the information provided or material quoted or a message to express disdain for it, whether this is done explicitly or not. Sometimes, it's not clear what the intention of a poster is when a story is put forth in GD, and then we ask, "why are you posting this?"

Let's take the example of Putin saying that neo-Nazis are now running the government in the Ukraine. You'd be correct to say that the straight news story about this, posted in LBN, is worthy of being read in its entirety, so that people are informed about what Putin has said. You're not saying you agree with what Putin says, just that it's important to know he said it.

However, in GD, we see posts about how the government in Ukraine is being run by neo-Nazis (maybe citing Putin, maybe not) ... and now this takes on an ideological bent. You either agree that this statement is correct or not. Those of us who, by this time, have come to understand the propagandistic nature of Putin's allegation, and have learned the complex details of the situation, would never press "rec" for this post if we felt the statement to be untrue. To rec at this point is an endorsement of the statement "neo-Nazis are running the government in Ukraine." Nobody pushes the rec button for something they wholly disagree with.

To rec a post that puts forth an opinion is tantamount to endorsing it. You may not think you are doing that, but you indeed are.

I do not use the rec button (well, maybe two or three times a year). It just doesn't interest me because I never go to the "greatest threads" page. When a post interests me, positively or negatively, I reply.

Maybe instead of suggesting we bring back the unrec button, it might be better to just get rid of the rec button. It's unncessary: the number of responses to a post is a sufficient indication of whether people think it is "important" or not to discuss.

[PowerToThePeople]

67. it would be nice to unrec before trash canning a thread.

All of these self hide techniques just create echo chamber personalized DUs. I would preffer an open and honest DU, the good and the bad.

[woo me with science]

70. We could certainly use one now, although

soon it won't matter much anyway...

...given the constant, absurd influx of corporate talking point-dispensing "personas."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4598446

[Sheldon Cooper]

71. I would love to be able to vote down obvious flamebait and trolling.

I think that would send just as much a message as the so-called jury system does. Maybe even more.

[Drew Richards]

76. Now you see Sheldon Cooper is right...in his authentic western gibberish (blazing saddles) :)

Instead of just having a jury system to nulify posts if we could unrec posts we dont recommend then some of the flame bait may sink faster and get less coverage bringing us back to more recommended posts on the first page of GD...and of course...the rec/unrec flame wars shall begin again...

LETS DO IT!!!

[HappyMe]

78. No.

Although yesterday there were a bunch of goofy threads that I would have unrecced into oblivion. Instead, I used the 'trash can' thing, which I think is way better than unrec.

[Crunchy Frog]

81. Rec.

I agree. Would also like to see the ability to up and down rec individual posts.

[Vashta Nerada]

84. I like the premise, but in practice it doesn't work.

Disqus recently got rid of their downvote feature because people abused it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Ah the drama of unrec

it was used as a tool of war. Why it was removed. Or something to the effect.

In theory it works, but like juries and alert swarms, take my word on this.

[pintobean]

93. Yes, war was declared

on anyone who dared to unrec one of your posts.

[1000words]

94. I was lurking when that all played out

From the outside looking in, it was indeed an ugly display of petty clique partisanship.

[CJCRANE]

91. I used to unrec OPs I thought were divisive or disruptive.

IMO it's not *what* people say, it's *how* they say it that matters.

If you (people in general) can put forth your opinion without denigrating other DUers then that's fine by me.

[krawhitham]

95. +999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

[hrmjustin]

97. I think the reason they won't put it in is because people might just unrec things from posters they

hate.

[PowerToThePeople]

98. Well

Do people currently rec things from posters they admire or like even if said post is off topic, or lounge material, or just plain trolling for reaction? Why one but not the other?

[HappyMe]

101. That is a good point.

[hrmjustin]

103. I don't think the admins want that to happen.

I think they want to stress the positive.

You can always just respond to the op and say they are wrong.

[PowerToThePeople]

105. trash can is the tool of choice for me at this point.

but i can understand people's concerns about misrepresentation on pages that non-regulars may visit.

[hrmjustin]

113. I understand the desire for the unrec but I also see why the admins say no.

[go west young man]

104. A thumb up or down on individual comments

would lend more credence to peoples views and help to bring to light which way people at the site are leaning as a whole. Most sites do have this. It would be nice for DU to add the feature.

[A HERETIC I AM]

107. "I like kitties"

"WHO WOULD THUMBS DOWN THIS?!?!"


The inevitable result.

[HappyMe]

108. Yeah, that wouldn't lead

to any drama!

[go west young man]

133. It seems to work really well

at the Guardian UK. It's probably their best feature.

[HappyMe]

134. The Guardian UK isn't DU.

Things here are contentious at times as it is without another reason for chair flinging tantrums.

[winter is coming]

131. That could be nice. Sometimes, really good stuff is buried inside threads. n/t

[HuckleB]

109. The rec button is pointless enough.

Yeah for popularity contests!!!!

[warrprayer]

114. because

adding the unrecc button allows non posting wingnut trolls the ability to hide threads they don't want seen?

[Aerows]

115. They shouldn't have

any affect other than they have to be a member, and if they unrec a thread, everyone will see who did it - yet it won't affect the post at all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

119. Yeahhhh...no. That's not what the old feature did at all.

"Unrec" as it was installed previously did NOT hide threads.

All it did was offer a "Nay" vote to the tabulation as to whether or not a thread should be placed on the "Greatest Threads" page.

As it is now, there are two choices;

Yay (As in "DU-REC&quot or abstain.

When Unrec was alive (( )) it offered a 3rd option. That's it.

[pintobean]

120. That's always been one of the silly arguments against it.

We had unrec. Skinner repeatedly said that wasn't happening. What's keeping these supposed hordes of trolls from reccing the silliest shit possible to the greatest page?

[Jasana]

117. After reading this thread...

I don't think I'd like having an unrec button. Sounds like it caused too much animosity while it was here. I just trash threads I don't like.

[notadmblnd]

118. Why do people feel a need to control things here?

Why can't people come here to read and comment on what they're interested in and pass over the rest?

I been visiting this site for over a decade and I have never, ever taken it upon myself to suggest to the operators of this website nor the community what they should do in regards to the operation of this site. Honestly, I think it's arrogant to do so. Especially in a post to the entire community.

If I'm not mistaken, there's still an "ask the admins" section and imo, that would have been the appropriate place to ask this question.

[pintobean]

122. You just did what you never ever do.

[notadmblnd]

125. I made no declaration in an OP

I stated my opinion in a thread, but I did not start a thread declaring my opinion. I think there's a difference.

[warrprayer]

140. excellent question

[snooper2]

121. Since when can we reply to Ask The Admin threads?

WTF IS GOING ON HERE!

Wait, what forum am I in?


Am I drunk, ...no.. LOL

[grahamhgreen]

127. For what? What would you down rec???

[Cleita]

128. Not a bad idea as long as there is a list of the down rec button pushers

like with the rec buttons. The way it was before didn't work so trolls could unrec any thread they didn't want making the greatest page. This would make it 100% transparent.

[Waiting For Everyman]

136. Bring back unrec, and this is why...

If we agree with a post there are two ways to express that: by "rec-ing" it, and by posting a comment, which kicks it back up to the top,

BUT

If we disagree, there is really no way to express that without also kicking it back up to the top, which forces us to promote a thread that we think should sink. That really isn't fair to dissenters, AND it also lends itself to flame baiting because for instance 100 people negatively commenting makes a very successful flame bait thread. Whereas 100 unrecs and zero posts causing the thread to sink down the page, is how it should be if those 100 peoples' views were really given the same effective weight as the positive ones.

[Drew Richards]

137. Agreed...its only fair.

[anAustralianobserver]

139. Good point.

I think that most Unrec advocates would be happy with that way of allowing certain posts to sink while registering disfavour.

But sinking wasn't enough for some. They didn't respect that the Greatest page is many members' preferred gateway to the site, and that we want to see a post with, say, 25 Recs even if had 50 Unrecs (whether it was pro- or anti-anything)

They argued that is was more democratic for such posts not to show, but it was actually less democratic - analogous to blocking candidates from being nominated in a primary election before a larger audience could hear them.

Others hectored people for being too sensitive to see their Unrecs, when it was the polarised hiding of partially-developed Greatest page topics which was the main issue.

[Ms. Toad]

147. It might have been different if the Greatest Page

wasn't littered with garbage threads (around 50% most days) which were some variation of "Rec this thread if you think XYZ is the greatest/worst/moronic/etc."

I never look at the Greatest Page - but crap like "Rec this thread" shouldn't be our face to the world for nonmembes who use that entry point.

[RC]

155. You need to take that explanation to ATA.

I can see where it would or at least could have the capability of sinking Flame Bait threads. As it is now there is a double pile on, hidden posts, lots of RECd' from the Flame Baiters and DU is disrupted for days at a time as the dirty laundry is hung out in the front yard for all to see.

[Flying Squirrel]

163. How about

an option to reply to the thread without kicking it back to the top? Instead of an automatic kick, you can choose an option at the bottom of your post "Post my reply (No kick)" or "Post my reply and kick"? After all, the person you're replying to will already be notified that you've responded to them - why does the rest of DU need to know this as well?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

141. We need Recs & Unrecs on individual posts.

And then Recs & Unrecs on individual Recs & Unrecs.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

142. Unrec.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

143. Unrec on your Unrec.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

144. Up your Unrec on my Unrec.

[SoCalDem]

145. Been there..done that.. IT SUCKED

Just use the hide thread or do not reply at all

[Xithras]

146. I'd rather see a Karma feature.

Maybe it's the old slashdotter in me, but I've always been a fan of the Karma system. The more recs your posts get, the more Karma you collect. Readers can then sort or filter by karma to limit what they see. The beauty of this system is that nobody is censored. If you want to see everyone, you can. If you want to filter out low karma posters (unpopular people, newbies, etc), it's your choice to do so.

[steve2470]

148. It won't happen, Aerows

Rec and unrec caused way too many fights on here.

[MattBaggins]

149. We do not need another way to show

how much we hate one another in this dysfunctional family.

[RC]

159. Shhhh!

Nobody's supposed to know that. It is bad for moral of the inmates.

[CK_John]

156. Since you are taking something from the OP, the OP should be able to override

your unrec for the duration of the thread.

Or, Maybe both rec and unrec require a jury decision.

Or, Dump the whole greatest page and just post the 10 most current threads in any forum that has at least 1 new post in the last say 10 mins.

[Rowdyboy]

157. Many, many, many of us agree but the admins have completely ignored us. The lack makes a sham out of

"transparency" but its their site and that's their right.

I wish you all the luck in the world but prepare to be ignored. Logic and the desires of the DU community apparently don't matter in this situation.

[frwrfpos]

158. DU rec

and down rec