Should DU offer two choices - "Recommend" and "Crap"?

[ConsAreLiars]

It seems to be more frequent recently, or maybe I am just getting more irritable, but it seems a lot of threads are started that just repeat the usual corporate-media/right-wing talking points on whatever the hot issue of the day is on CNN or MSNBC.

The usual result is that such threads get a lot of replies and generate a lot of friction, and get very few if any recommendations. In short, they may be gratifying in some way for those who participate, but they are not generally seen by may as particularly useful. Indeed, to some of us at least, they are just noise that drowns out more thoughtful posts.

I assume that those who post such tripe (my characterization) are not simply trolls or disruptors, but honestly expressing whatever is on their minds at the moment. Such an up/down vote would at least offer a chance for some feedback that addressed to the value of the thread to the DU Forum. Such a (potentially) negative vote might counter the illusory "reinforcement" that some posters seem to think is shown by a high number of contentious replies.

The downside of being to vote up or down on an original post is that it might just get used as a way to express approval or disapproval of the point of view, rather than the quality of the commentary. Thus the "anti" whoever (Kerry, Clinton, Chavez, Chomsky, Kucinich) or whatever issue (free speech, GMO foods, tasering, ANSWER, PETA, Bill of Rights) would just have one more way to trash those they regard as enemies.

I'd like to think that DUers can and would distinguish between "this is just meaningless blather" and "I disagree" and use the "down" vote appropriately in the first case but not the second, but this is pretty much the question. Would such an option be used wisely or just be another way for diehard ideologues (or trolls or disruptors) to do more damage?

(edit because the two choices in the header got dropped somehow when posting)

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Your "yes" choice suffers from unclear wording nt

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Thanks. Fixed it and another F-up.

Not sure why stuff got dropped, but it's back.

[Blashyrkh]

3. It would take about 8 seconds for it to be abused.

At any rate, your definition and my definition of "meaningless blather" is certainly different. Who decides what is and isn't meaningless blather?

[frogcycle]

5. the question is moot

I get the car

[ConsAreLiars]

18. Well, the vote would just indicate opinions.

Each person would decide for themselves, as usual. Would this option be helpful or not? I'm not sure - thus the question.

[frogcycle]

4. how about breaking GD into two forums

"serious threads for thinking people in reasoned discourse"

and

"frivolous and/or redundant shit that has been in like ninety OP's already in the past eleven minutes"



Then all three posts in the first one would be right there on the front page for like a year!

And the second one would be full of threads about how the rest of the threads all belong in the first one.

[kansasblue]

10. tell it like it is frogcycle...

"frivolous and/or redundant shit that has been in like ninety OP's already in the past eleven minutes"

[DaveJ]

24. There already are 2 GD forums...

"GD" and "GD:Politics". Nomenclature is a little confusing.

I think there should be 3-5 GD categories. Off the top of my head 1) "GD:Poltics" 2) "GD:Society" 3) "GD:Life" 4) "GD:War and Peace" 5) "GD:Freedom and/or Government"

I dunno, something like that.

[frogcycle]

28. I take it you took my post seriously?

should I have sprinkled it with smilies? I always feel like that's like putting a laugh track on a tv show...

[riverdale]

6. Other: Zero choices

Recommending is stupid bullshit in my opinion. The best recommendation there is is if there are lots of responses to the original post.

[Hissyspit]

13. Um, silly, frivilous, emotional threads get LOADS of responses.

Sometimes from just two people screaming at each other.

Very good, serious, important threads often get completely overlooked.

[ConsAreLiars]

27. That is what I see happening also.

I was wondering if a lot of "this is crap" votes might discourage and reduce that kind of trash, or at least be a slight slap on the wrist with a wet noodle for those who participate.

[Mind_your_head]

26. I know what you're saying, but what if the OP and responses are

BETTER than what you thought in your own mind. Hence, you may have learned something, looked at the situation with a "different twist", and might be all the better for it.....but have nothing to 'add' (b/c, in fact, someone's post has broadened the horizons of your own thought).....they taught you something, you learned, and can't add anything of merit "at that point" to the discussion. I think this happens often at DU....

Peace,
M_Y_H

[frogcycle]

45. my head is going to explode

[Mind_your_head]

49. Sorry you reacted that way.....

can I help you clean up the mess?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. You don't have to reply to a thread you don't think has any merit

If fewer people did it, then those threads would drop like stones. Plus, I have a feeling that people would use the "crap" feature just to express disagreement with a viewpoint, rather than as a genuine comment on the importance of the subject. Witness some of the threads that get recommended.

Plus, would a "crap" vote cancel out any "recommends" a particular post gets? Is that how it would work?

[kansasblue]

8. There certainly is much more traffic lately and....

We are in need of more control. So now there is this constant stream of threads. If you don't make the 'greatest' quickly then you are lost and washed out. And there is also some worthless posts that could be moved aside.

If enough DU members before me feel a thread is worthless and could mark it so I'd be in favor of that.

[Blashyrkh]

15. Isn't that the point of journals?

[kansasblue]

30. well the issue is there is now so much to read....

the average reader can't get through all the content that the site has to offer.

So some one has to weed out threads. That could be the viewer...but then you have to read everything and make those decisions.

I'd welcome more help. The Greatest page help a lot. We push up things we like.

So I'm not opposed to pushing poorly written on off topic threads out of the way with a down vote.

[CoffeeCat]

9. I think people are posting about meaningless stuff....

...because we are all in such pain and so frustrated with our sorry world--and every once
in a while we need a distraction.

I come here to vent, to commiserate, to add to the discussion if I can; and to learn. I'm
having trouble sleeping tonight, because I'm worried about so many things. So I came here
because I know that other DUers understand the political woes that we all feel.

Tonight, on DU I read about the horrible Moveon vote in Congress and I saw a horrendous video of a man
being tortured (and eventually killed) by police. I read about the falling dollar and
how economic disaster is looming. I read about nuclear testing that has killed many
US citizens by giving them cancer.

Every once in a damn while---you just need to decompress and banter (or laugh!) about
OJ or a rogue anaconda found in Madison, Wisconsin or women being kicked off an airline
for wearing a short skirt.

Sometimes we need fluff...because facing reality requires having a soft place to land
every once in a while, so you don't go completely insane in a BushCo world.

[rusty quoin]

11. I honestly don't believe that I should have the power to recommend, but I do.

I find that too many of "The Greatest" appear there. I really want "The Greatest" to actually be the best of the best. I have been watching DU for years now, and only recently started to post. But when I didn't post, I went to "The Greatest." I just would like higher standards.

[L. Coyote]

12. How about a sort by rec number ?? That is overdue

[ConsAreLiars]

38. That would be a help. I'd favor a ratio of replies/recs

A lot of time some excellent posts just sort of stand on their own merits and just don't cause a lot of the hat that keeps posts on page 1. They get 4 recs and 3 replies and then vanish completely, unless one is always on DU or logs on and tries to read all 20 pages of threads. Very few of us meet either criteria, and so good stuff gets buried by trash.

[tom_paine]

14. I think a "crap" voting option would dissolve into some kind of flamewars

I think it would increase tensions, and they are alrady plenty high. We need that like we need a hole in the head.

I like the idea of the "recommend" and we already have a "crap" voting option.

It's called the "Hide Thread".

Think a thread is crap? Hide it and be done with it.

[Blashyrkh]

17. But then people can't proclaim to the world what a crap thread they just posted in.

Doing something privately and quietly is out of fashion these days.

[tom_paine]

36. sad but true

[Liberal In Texas]

16. I've always thought "negative recommend".

That is to say I could hit the negative rec. to counter the 35 or so idiot recs. and take it down to 34.

[Laurier]

37. That might be an improvement.

So often, it seems that certain people mindlessly hit the rec button without even reading the post they're recommending, probably based on reading the first couple of lines, or worse, reading nothing but the name of the person who posted the thread.

That results in the appearance of a sort of hive mentality that pays no attention to substance (or the lack of substance), which does no favors to this forum or its credibility overall.

While I understand, at a certain level, the "rah rah" mentality, I cringe when I see it because it makes the Democratic party as a whole look like nothing but a bunch of cheerleaders when, in fact, the party is much more and much better than that.

If the "negative recommend" could be implemented in a way that respond only to the mindless recs, that would be great, and it's a much better idea than the "vote it down" idea, since the latter would quickly devolve into nothing but flamewars, but how to implement it in practise? I have no idea.

[Quixote1818]

44. You have a point there

In the past few days a few threads made it onto the greatest page that contained opinions most on DU disagreed with. They had like 5,000 hits and only 7 or 8 recommendations. For that many hits 7 or 8 recommendations is pathetic yet it still makes it onto the greatest page.

[BlooInBloo]

19. I wish it did, ironically enough, so that I could vote down this thread.

[ConsAreLiars]

41. That would be fair use.

Indeed, this is just pointless maundering about what if and offers nothing of substance. Voting down would be appropriate, once it was possible.

[Guaranteed]

20. In the words of Egon: "I think that would be extraordinarily dangerous."

I do have to say that it is a tempting idea, though. It would just end up bad.

[bigtree]

21. yep. we need more incentives to annoy each other.

good for the soul.

[question everything]

22. Unfortunately, DUers cannot and would not

distinguish between "this is just meaningless blather" and "I disagree."

For example, the WSJ has a rabid editorial department, however its news department is the best in the country, certainly as good as the NYT or the WP.

Yet, too, often, when I post a story from the WSJ, there will always be a DUer who, without reading the story and commenting on the content, would shoot off by saying: oh, this is the WSJ's opinion.

Well, it is not, and yesterday I had a perfect example for that.

Too often DUers are like the right wingers whom we often see as viewing the world in black and white with no shades of gray, no nuance.

This is how too often it is on DU: Clinton can do no right while Kucinich and Sheehan can do no wrong. Israel can do no right while Chavez and Ahmedinijad can do no wrong.

Anyone who sides with Bush is bad ass while anyone who curses him is good, even if it is a dictator like Chavez.

It is bad enough that the anonymity of the Internet encourages people, including DUers, to just shoot off their mouths without offering an intelligent comment. And "voting" something down would be the simple way out.

If someone disagree with a post, either ignore it or offer your own opinion. And once you've expressed your opinion, just move on. You don't have to have the last word, thought, unfortunately, there are too many here who think that they do.

[ConsAreLiars]

31. Yeah, that is the problem.

I tend to think that only a few would fail to make that distinction, but I may a bit utopian. It it turned my general high regard for people who post here is misguided, well, then that is worth discovering.

[Tunkamerica]

33. bad ass is bad?

i always thought bad ass was bad ass.

[Mind_your_head]

43. I believe that a lot of DU'ers KNOW/SENSE things are 'out of balance'

so they are pulling VERY hard in the "other direction"....to help pull things back into a reasonable position.

Nobody here thinks/believes that Clinton, Kucinich, Sheehan, Israel, Chavez, Ahmeinijad, et al, is PERFECT....we're just pulling for our side/interests. In that we have commonality....perhaps that should be acknowledged openly and then let the discussion evolve from there.

My 2 sense,
M_Y_H

[Cleita]

23. I think the administrators once attempted something to

address this in the past and it didn't work very well so they dropped it.

[frogcycle]

25. maybe instead of a "down" vote it could just be

sort of like the mod alert, except instead of being an alert about a troll or series disrupter, it would be a message like "oh for cripes sakes, clean up this shit, would you?"

Then what they would do is move the thread to a new forum called "General Jerkoff" leaving "General Discussion" clear for more emerging threads. It would be kind of like whack-a-mole!

[ConsAreLiars]

29. Now that would be ideal, if a bit utopian and impractical.

But the goal is the same. I'd sttle for a simple "this is a useless bit of noise" warning as indicated by a bunch of "OMG, what a pointless waste of time" negative votes.

[pingzing58]

32. This thread has not received any R/K. I like the DU just the way it is Freedom of Speach & Choice.

[frogcycle]

34. every freaking response, yours included, is a K

[pingzing58]

39. Whatever dude. I can choose to participate or not - don't want you to take that away from me.

[bridgit]

35. DU should stop rec'ing flat-line/common knowledge threads to the hilt...

:thumbsup:

[frogcycle]

42. How about we give the mods the "Diebold option"

They can set the stupid threads to just throw away every other rec! :rofl:
For the really dumb redundant ones they could "pool" the recs; the five OPs that got no response will siphon off the recs from the one that everyone is piling on, leaving them all languishing.
nahhh - that's too complicated. Just claim voter fraud and throw out all the recs every so often. Except on the threads I like.

[bridgit]

46. YES! 'pool the recs', give one flat-line thread like, oh: 15,000 recs...

:thumbsup:

[Quixote1818]

40. Hey, where is the 'crap' option for this thread?

:evilgrin:

[ConsAreLiars]

48. If we only had the "crap"option it would certainly be worthy of that vote.

46 replies and one rec, it's almost as good as an "I agree with (RW talker #11) that taser guy is a schmuck" thread.

[tcfrogs]

47. I like the option

Haven't had enough time to spend here in the past year or so. However, when I click on some threads that get a gazillion recs for the Greatest Page, they underwhelm me. I like the up/down method.

[Macchendra]

50. I reasoned this out and you might as well call them "Divide" and "Conquer"

With positive feedback only, we are forced to consider more viewpoints. Communication, consideration, and cooperation are the way.

[Quantess]

51. Mods can say no, this thread should not be on the Greatest Page,..or:

Even better, mods could enable some threads to get Negative Recs!

I have occasionally wished I could give a thread a negative recommendation, to negate one of the 3 or 4 or even 5 recs some of the dumbest threads accrue.

[cali]

52. I certainly wouldn't trust you

with a "crap" button.

[B Calm]

53. You will have people saying crap to every thread!

[Buns_of_Fire]

54. Or we could just crap-out individual posts!

<=== the new, recommended "crap" button

Then, when a certain individual post accumulates a certain amount of poo, it would be silently removed with an appropriate placeholder message -- like the moderators do now, but totally automatic. Once a year or so, the member with the greatest amount of poo credited to their username could receive the coveted "Golden Yak" award for excellence in totally useless electron usage.

(I figure it's the only way I'd be winning any awards in the foreseeable future...)

Now, each member would have to be limited in the amount of crap they could dispense, of course. Let's say each username gets 25 craps a year they could give to deserving posts. And you could only crap on an individual post once, just like you can only recommend a thread once. Otherwise, I'm sure there are some members who would crap on the same poster multiple times.

On second thought, perhaps it shouldn't be fixed if it's not broken. :shrug:

[Fading Captain]

55. I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday

NM

[notadmblnd]

56. No, we already have an option for voting down a thread

Just don't reply to them and they will sink pretty fast.

[lateo]

57. We should be able to do this with comments too.

Make it just like www.reddit.com