Do GLBT threads make it to the Greatest Page anymore?

[MNBrewer]

Since the imposition of the Unrecommend Feature, it seems like fewer GLBT posts make it to the Greatest page, and if they do, they don't stay long.

I'd be interested if anyone else has noticed this, and if the moderators have any data on the question.

Personally, I think we're getting unrecommended out of the discussion.

[MNBrewer]

1. Hmmm....

Interesting. hehe

[ZombieHorde]

2. K&R

[rucky]

3. Sort the threads by start time instead of last response

And look at the number of <0 recs since July 10th.

There would be your answer.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I don't know. I'm reccing this one.

I really don't "get it" with the unrec idea, even though I read Skinner's rationalization and comparison to Digg.

There seems to be too much opportunity to misuse the feature and/or for it to be a way to express fandom or hatred for particular posters (or topics) instead of use based upon any rational qualitative content-based criteria.

Not that the original rec feature is not any of these things.

Who knows.

Recommended.

:P

[MNBrewer]

6. Seems to me that the unrecommend "feature" is a great way to silence

a small, despised minority.

[hulklogan]

5. The "uppity" threads don't, but the "happy to be at the back of the bus" threads do.

:patriot:

[MNBrewer]

9. Interesting to watch the count go down on this

Not sure what it means.

[hulklogan]

10. Yet the counts are soaring on the "White gays are all racists" threads.

:patriot:

[Bill McBlueState]

27. people like to unrecommend threads that complain about "unrecommend"

It's hard to say precisely why, but this one isn't unique.

[kestrel91316]

7. Not the ones that are obvious potstirring flamebait.....

[MNBrewer]

8. as in?

[kestrel91316]

11. I'm sure you know the kind of post. AND NO I AM NOT SO OBSESSESED

AS TO HAVE LINKS, so I don't need snark about THAT. Snarky flamebaiting doesn't deserve to be on the Greatest page, when its intent is to stir up divisiveness and get DUers arguing with each other.

[TheWraith]

19. A-freakin-men. Nailed it in one. nt

[Raster]

12. Not really. "Centrist" DU is just a tad on the homophobic side.

The unrecommend feature makes everything nice and pretty...and heterosexual. But we're not supposed to say that.

[chill_wind]

13. I don't know, but it's a question that deserves a truthful answer

and so I'll KnR.

[EarlG]

14. I was curious to know the answer to this

So I just went and counted. At the time of counting there were 54 threads started in the GLBT forum (not including this thread) since the unrecommend feature went live.

* Of those 54 threads, 21 (approximately 39%) had enough recs to get onto the Greatest Page.

* In total, people have unrecommended 74 times, which is approximately 1.37 unrecs per thread.

* Meanwhile, people have recommended 369 times, which is approximately 6.83 recs per thread.


For comparison, the 50 threads in this forum prior to the unrecommend feature going live looked like this:

* Of those 50 threads, 21 (approximately 42%) had enough recs to get onto the Greatest Page.

* In total, people recommended 288 times, which is approximately 5.76 times per thread


So a "before and after" comparison indicates that there has been barely any change in the number of net recommendations and the number of threads making it onto the Greatest Page since we added the unrecommend feature, but there has been a surge in total votes.


One more point of interest: 17 of those 74 unrecommendations (23%) were made by a single person, who after review has been banned. (This was not their first offense.)

[Neecy]

16. Thank you for this

Good stuff to know.

[chill_wind]

17. Thank you for responding to this. Very helpful.

eom

[noamnety]

18. I appreciate you taking the time to analyze that. (nt)

[TheWraith]

20. Thank you, EarlG, for taking the wind out of conspiracy theories. nt

[Raster]

21. Not a good comparison. You're comparing the 54 threads since un-recommend to

the 50 threads sitting in the forum prior to un-recommend. The 50 threads is not an accurate sampling, at least not for a definitive answer to the posed question.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. This information is very helpful

The numbers are needed. I would also like to know that there will be ongoing monitoring to watch for folks who unrec on the basis of personal bigotry. Not just in GLBT issues either. This place is filled with raging bigotry, toward many different groups of people by different groups of people.
I wonder what the point of the feature is if it has no net result, as is being argued. I guess it has rid us of one vote happy bigot.
If you just did the count, how did the 74 vote person get noticed?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

26. Thanks for looking into it, EarlG. n/t

[lindisfarne]

15. Try doing some relevant research. How many new GLBT threads per day? How many make

it to greatest page? How does that % compare with LBN? GD: P? GD?
I did the research in a previous thread where the OP failed to do any research and was wrong. I'll leave it to this OP to do the research.
Also, not everything GLBT related gets posted in GLBT - threads posted in GD also make it to GP.

=======Edit: EarlG beat me by 2 minutes. He has some answers.

[Smarmie Doofus]

22. For the life of me, I don't get the "unrecommend" thing at all.

I was away from the board for a week or so; then this "unrecommend" thing was in place.

If someone doesn't like a thread, can't they simply choose not to *participate* in it. For the same reason I never understood "putting people on ignore". ( Can't one simply ignore a post or poster without employing a specialized site feature to do so?).

And with "unrecommend" you have the added potential for mischief and ideological gamesmanship... as the OP points out.

Perhaps it ( unrecommend) was explained thoroughly by the admins at the time. The unofficial rationales I've seen since it's inception have been unconvincing and/or confusing.

So ... what the heck is the *purpose* of "unrecommend" ?

[defendandprotect]

24. Lots of stuff is missing . . . I think there's a freezer they keep them in for 24 hours . . .

I'm finding all kind of important threads that I haven't seen in TWO days --

and we obviously also need the "24 hour limit" on recs to be extended . . .