The unrecommend function drastically favors those who blog for groups

[rudy23]

As opposed to the lone wolves.

This greatly encourages bloggers who work for lobbyists, corporations, and other special interest groups to team up against individual voters, and any observations that go against these groups.

Unrecommend favors paid staffers over those of us who are doing this out of our own concerns for our country. MAJOR thumbs down to the unrecommend function.

[BlooInBloo]

1. hahahahaaa!!!!

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. It also rewards intensity of negative opinons. nt

[anonymous171]

3. .

:spray:

[jobycom]

4. So does the Recommend function. nt

[scheming daemons]

6. +1

[reflection]

8. Agreed. Why is this so hard

for people to wrap their head around?
:shrug:

[jobycom]

11. Not hard. Just inconvenient. nt

[redqueen]

97. Good question. (nt)

[Beetwasher]

15. It Should Now Be Balanced And Be More Reflective Of True Opinion, In Fact, It's Quite DEMOCRATIC

I wonder why some people here hate Democracy?

The unsurprising thing is the one's complaining loudest are the one's who are well known for posting inflammatory steaming piles of unmitigated crap, IMNSHO.

[BlooInBloo]

19. They don't want democracy. They want their views immune from criticism.

[Hannah Bell]

25. you're talking about the "unreccomend" feature lovers, right?

because currently, minority views take lots of criticism.

but they can still get to the front page if they get five votes.

with the new feature, no one need engage in criticism. "unrecommend" will do the job.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

61. blooinbloo = +1 with the ad hom. do they send you to special trainings?

[Raster]

86. nah, some are just born that way

[girl gone mad]

80. What does that even mean?

You're always so angry.

[Hannah Bell]

21. only if you believe democracy = majority rule & exclusion of minority views.

"inflammatory piles of crap" = offends the ptb.

[Beetwasher]

39. LOL! So What Was It Before With ONLY Recommend????

How is that excluding minority views? Are they banned from the site? No longer viewable???

Democracy means you get to vote, that means MORE than one choice. Why should some loud, obnoxious, obsessive minority be allowed to call all their troll friends to come to DU to vote up idiotic threads to the top of the greatest page, with no dissent from others who think the thread sucks and doesn't belong there?

Now we VOTE for threads that belong on the greatest.

Now you will no longer be able to game the system. Too bad for you! Wahhhhh!!!!

It's revealing to see the people who are most upset about this. Predictably, the one's whining are the one's that post the most obnoxious, inflammatory crap on this board.

Sucks for them! :rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

62. & as per usual, the shills are the ones cheering.

[Beetwasher]

65. Shill? For What, Exactly??? Let Me Guess....

DLC??? Pathetic! WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :rofl:

Can't game the system anymore, sucks for trolls, huh?

[Hannah Bell]

70. they must send you to special ad hom schools. no one buys it but your buds.

[Beetwasher]

72. Wahhh!!!!

Cry me a river, you poor oppressed minority you!

[Hannah Bell]

20. the new feature ensures minority views won't make the front page.

[jobycom]

27. The Front Page is an embarrassment anyway. Too many "Rec this" threads, and

other goofy stuff, like the battles between factions on every issue. One post will say "Rec this if Obama is your man!" and the one right below it will say "Rec this if Obama should man up!" and on and on. Maybe this will reduce the mindlessness.'

Long ago, we used to actual have discussions within threads. Now if someone disagrees with an OP, they start a new thread, so all we have are battling bumper sticker wars. It's why I rarely leave the Lounge anymore anyway. Maybe this will wipe out some of that silliness, at least on the front page.

[Hannah Bell]

64. an embarrassment to who?

[jobycom]

67. Thinkers. nt

[redqueen]

98. + a googolplex

[Raster]

85. You rarely leave the Lounge and your complaining about the silliness on the Greatest?

:rofl:

[jobycom]

91. The Lounge is intentionally silly.

The Greatest doesn't seem to realize it is.

[Raster]

92. In your humble opinion, that is.

[jobycom]

102. More than mine, apparently. Hence, this change, and this discussion. nt

[rudy23]

33. The power to knock something off the greatest page has more impact than the ability to rate certain

posts ahead of other posts.

[jobycom]

36. Why? How?

[rudy23]

42. Because taking something off the page makes it invisible to those who only have time to scan

the greatest page.

Moving it down only makes it less visible. No, it doesn't affect those who have time to browse all the sections by most recently updated. But many people only have time to check the greatest page during breaks at work.

[jobycom]

49. I mean, how does that affect the Greatest Page more than the current system.

It's so full of fluff and ego pieces now no one bothers reading it, anyway. No one I know, anyway. Maybe letting people knock some of the "Rec this" nonsense off the page will make what's there stand out more.

And if all they do is scan the Greatest Page, how do they know they really are reading the greatest stuff on DU? The best posts I see usually aren't there, anyway.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. It doesn't make it invisible - it just takes it off the greatest page.

You'll still see the thread like you do the thousands of non-greatest threads. Seriously, you're not thinking this through.

[Hannah Bell]

63. right. the rule was changed because it has no effect.

[spoony]

73. Great point n/t

[surrealAmerican]

101. ... and society in general for that matter.

Organizations benefit from being organized.

[Ikonoklast]

5. It also keeps the same usual Obama haters

being the only ones kicking a thread to the greatest page.

The same bunch that never have one positive thing to say about the president.

[FLAprogressive]

14. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. Which part?

That there are a bunch of assholes that probably shouldn't be here because they don't have anything good to say about Obama and never did? Or what said assholes are saying?

Because if it's the latter, that's about as "truthful" as what you get at FR.

[snooper2]

90. Those folks are still bitter...

probably will never get over it....some even become commentators at Faux news :rofl:

[Common Sense Party]

22. If a person isn't smart enough to look past the Greatest Page

to find threads of interest, then they might utilize their time more profitably elsewhere.

[county worker]

41. True! If you like the herd instinct read everything on the greatest page!

[rudy23]

43. Or doesn't have enough time. We don't all have time to browse the whole site. nt

[earth mom]

44. Well those haters can unrec your rah rah threads too now can't they?

:eyes:

[Ikonoklast]

69. Yes, they can, and I won't be whining about it.

We all get one rec/unrec vote, don't like it, PM Skinner and tell him so.

Too bad he kncked the wheels off the wagon for the minority hate squad.

[spoony]

75. You mean a greatest page not dominated by

puppy pictures? I don't know if I want to live in that kind of world!

[Mojambo]

7. I'd like to see the whole recommend/unrecommend structure tossed. n/t

[Better Believe It]

9. And that's why outside staffers will love the "new and improved" function

IMNSHO In my not so humble opinion.

But the possible good side is the new procedure might discourage or even stop organized/disorganized stalkers from tracking progressive posters they disagree with and engaging in endless personal attacks rather than civil discussion and debate.

I don't know for sure.

Maybe in a few days we can make a better judgement and either dump it as a nobel try or keep it for a while longer.

[Hannah Bell]

10. agree. if you like to see organised talking points on pg 1, you'll love

"unrecommend".

[FLAprogressive]

16. +1

[rudy23]

12. I should say it gives groups an advantage in "censoring" stories.

You're exactly right, it changes nothing as far as positive recommendations go.

[FLAprogressive]

13. Pretty much.

[Just Saying]

17. I normally read from the "general discussion" forum.

I go to the "greatest" occasionally, but it's not my main spot and I don't read according to recs, but what I find interesting. I only rec those posts I really like a lot and think/hope others should read. It is true that negative reactions seem to be more intense and some will abuse the feature, but hopefully we can act like adults and respect each others right to speak even when we disagree. Or am I giving all of us too much credit? LOL

[Common Sense Party]

24. You may be giving too much credit.

It's not often you find people on DU acting like adults and respecting each other's rights.

[madfloridian]

18. I am a lone wolf. I have had 4 or 5 unrecommends today.

On a post that should not offend anyone.

[rudy23]

23. Exactly. As a lone wolf, if we speak out against, say, the pharma industry

then all those paid bloggers who work for big pharma can work together to knock it off the greatest page.

[county worker]

45. Your are sure patting your ego here!

The Pharm industry sits at DU looking for posters who are against them? I think they have better things to do with their money.

[rudy23]

48. Than PR? You have no idea how much they spend on PR.

I've been offered this job--not for big pharma.

Trust me, big companies hire people to post to discussion boards/comments sections on their behalf. It's product placement---the new advertising.

[county worker]

52. We all generally have our minds made up before we come here.

This isn't like AOL or something. A pro pharm industry post would sink like a stone here or get all negative response IMHO.

[Qutzupalotl]

57. But would they hire more than five to do that?

(on edit: They'd only need five accounts, not necessarily five people. Duh.)

I've suspected this kind of thing has been going on. I suppose it wouldn't be hard for the well-heeled to staff up this project now that the rules have changed.

:shrug:

[earth mom]

46. Bingo! nt

[DireStrike]

111. I think most disturbing is how surely any post even DISCUSSING unrec is unrecc'd

Even the positive ones.

Nobody even wants to think about it, I guess.

[liberal N proud]

26. And the recommend doesn't provide the same?

[Hannah Bell]

31. no, because minority views could get to pg. 1 w/ 5 votes, even if most posters disliked them.

the new rules makes it fairly certain no minority perspectives will ever make pg. 1.

[rudy23]

32. Before groups could only rate stories ahead of each other. Now they can knock them off the greatest

page. I think that's a lot more power. Being able to knock something off the greatest page entirely wields more power than the ability to rate something closer to the top.

[aquart]

29. We'll find out.

[Spazito]

30. It seems democratic to me, balances the recommends with the unrecommends...

it's not as if the 'unrecommended' threads fall off the face of the earth, they just don't make it to the Greatest, there isn't any censorship involved, imo, only the opportunity to express one's opinion of the OP in a vote for or against.

[earth mom]

47. No it's not because there are paid operatives who will game the system. nt

[Spazito]

56. I don't believe there is an overwhelming number of such "operatives" if there are, indeed,...

any at all but, say you are right, would there not be "paid operatives" from BOTH sides of whatever 'issue' is being gamed? I think, realistically, what will happen is the opinion of the majority of DUers will be more realistically reflected on the GREATEST page which is the ONLY page where the 'recommend/unrecommend' option is effective. Threads stay up on the main page of any forum if there are enough responses to keep them there, that has NOT changed.

[rudy23]

71. "We the People" don't have as many people working for us as corporations & lobbies

Again, think about how big a company's PR department is. Now think about the growing percentage of the PR market that's gone online. And how product placement and viral marketing are used so much more than commercials now.

[Spazito]

81. Please provide evidence there are such posters here as I am sure the admins...

would find such evidence of value. It seems to me "we the people" stands for more than one set piece of opinion yet your posts seem to express the opinion that those who disagree with your OP or your posts do not do so because they (gasp) simply disagree but, rather, they are "paid operatives.

Sometimes one's opinion is simply not expressive of how most feel and that can now be reflected in an "unrecommended" vote, it is as simple as that, no conspiracy involved.

[madfloridian]

96. Not the way it is being used.

[Spazito]

100. I looked at the Greatest page and I don't see the problem...

The threads that have made it to the Greatest seem to be very valid topics. Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads

Seeing as the recommend/unrecommend affects only the Greatest page, it does NOT affect where threads are in the forums at all, the only threads I see where the unrecommend is being used are, primarily, threads complaining about the unrecommend feature. Do you believe those threads should be on the Greatest?

[madfloridian]

103. I am not speaking in terms of the greatest page.

I seldom go there at all. I am speaking of posts today getting unrecommended just for the fun of it.

I don't care about greatest, I care about being fair and having good discussions.

You must be misunderstanding me completely.

[Spazito]

105. Good and fair discussions can and do happen regardless of the number of recs...

I have seen wonderful threads with great discussion and debate with very few recs and I have seen threads that are total crap with 100+ recs, the number of recs does NOT, imo, always indicate the 'value' of a thread. Recommendations ONLY affect the Greatest page, otherwise it is both the header and the content of each OP that determines one view of the 'value' of the OP.

The threads I am seeing with <0 are those that surely do NOT belong on the GREATEST, do they, yet, prior to the 'unrecommend' option, as little as 5 recs could put some pretty trashy stuff on Greatest.

Maybe it is just me but I don't judge the value of an OP by the number of recs it has or, conversely, the number of 'unrecs' it might have and I am genuinely surprised by the reaction to the new option as it suppresses nothing, diminishes nothing, imo. What it does do is allow a greater number of members to participate in determining what goes on the Greatest.

[madfloridian]

106. I don't care about the greatest page.

I care about being fair. This new toy is being used as payback for some.

[Spazito]

107. It is fair, imo...

Why is it NOT fair? Each of us has an option either to recommend or to unrecommend, either option does NOT affect the thread in any real sense. It does NOT stop discussion, it does NOT delete the thread, it doesn't bump the thread down in the forum.

How is offering both options, to recommend or to unrecommend, unfair to anyone?

Are there going to be a small number who will unrecommend due to WHO posted the OP, sure, no doubt there will be. Are there going to be an equally small number who will recommend due to WHO posted the OP, just as surely as the former.

For the most part, good threads are being recommended, imo, frivolous one's are not.

[madfloridian]

108. I had 3 good posts unrecommended today, quite a few times.

They were factual, videos, and video clips.

As I say, I seldom get greatest, I seldom go there.

People are using it get back at others who criticize Obama.

[Spazito]

109. Do you believe DUers would stop clicking on your threads because...

of the rec count? Do you think your threads received less attention because of the rec count? Do you believe your threads were 'unreced' only because they were your OPs?

Without links to your threads, I have no way of knowing why you might have received 'unrecs'.

Edited to add: I went to Political Videos and saw your OP had +9 recs so I am somewhat confused.

[madfloridian]

112. The posts are still in rec column

because people say what was happening and built just enough of the rec count back up.

They are not controversial threads. The one about Maddow mentioning C Street had no attacks on anyone, yet I believe it got at least 6 unrecs.

The video had more than that, it was unrecced and built back up.

The Colbert Report on on Dean was not controversial, it had at least two.

It is the principal of the whole issue....it is like the troll rating at DK which has actually had people banned there if a gang went after that person.

Yes, I believe today they were unrecced because of personal stuff today.

[Spazito]

113. You may be right re the personal stuff but it also shows...

imo, by and large DUers are using the option responsibly. There will always be a small minority that will use it as a personal 'tool', I think even that small number will dwindle over time as children do tire of new toys quite quickly, lol.

[scheming daemons]

34. It makes the "Greatest Page" reflect the majority of opinion at DU.... as it should

NOBODY is being censored.


Because your thread is NOT on the greatest page does not mean your thread goes away. If it is generating a lot of discussion, it will remain on page one of whatever section it is in.

[rudy23]

35. We all know stories on the greatest page generate far more discussion.

And yes, the power to unrecommend something off the greatest page has more of an effect on DU than the power for groups to rate something closer to the top.

One action simply moves the post up or down on a page. The unrecommend action knocks a post off the page entirely.

[scheming daemons]

37. Maybe some posts deserve to be knocked off the Greatest Page?

Here's a scenario:

A person posts a thread denying the Holocaust ever happened.

Five people agree with it.


Thousands disagree.


Should that thread be on the greatest page?

[rudy23]

38. I'd rather it be moved *down* the greatest page than *off*

If something ridiculous makes the greatest page on the strength of group voting, let DU'ers decide for themselves how it might've gotten there.

I don't like the power this gives to paid groups to knock things off the greatest page entirely.

[scheming daemons]

50. Do you think that "paid group" posters represent a majority of DUers?

because I don't.

[rudy23]

76. No, I think they're a significant bloc, though. Doesn't have to be a majority to be effective,

especially when it comes to shooting down stories off the greatest page.

[Beetwasher]

79. Oh, You Mean Instead Of What Happens Now? A Significant Block Of Obsessed Obama Haters

Unilaterrally banding together to push a piece of shit flame bait thread to the top of the greatest page? That's more fair to you?

Democracy sucks when it doesn't support YOU and YOUR agenda, I guess, huh?

[earth mom]

51. That thread would be shit canned in the first place. nt

[Beetwasher]

74. This Piece Of Crap Thread Is Nowhere Near The Greatest Page

And seems to be generating a great deal of discussion!

Whoops! :rofl:

[rudy23]

77. Those who only have time to check the greatest page will never see it.

What's so funny about that?

[Beetwasher]

78. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My oh my. Fishing are we? Who are all these people who only have time to check the greatest page??? :rofl:

And if they want to see the threads that the majority really does think are the greatest, well, now they WILL actually see that because there will be a REAL vote about it. Democracy means more than one choice. Now we get to vote, up or down on what threads we as a community deserve the label "greatest".

Sucks for you, I guess. Why do hate Democracy?

[earth mom]

40. Yep, it sucks and your are spot on that the disinfo agents love it.

:puke:

[blogslut]

54. I'm a lone wolf

And I'm okay with the new feature.

To each their own I guess.

[scheming daemons]

55. If all the lone wolves unite.... are they no longer lone wolves?

Philosophical question

[LWolf]

59. This lone wolf

will unite for a common purpose, but doesn't ever form permanent attachments to groups.

So, while I may join with you to work on an issue, agree with an opinion, or campaign for a measure or a candidate, I'm still a Lone Wolf.

I'm almost 50, and having repeatedly tried and failed the group identity thing over the course of my life, have settled comfortably into being what I am.

:hi:

[blogslut]

60. If you were empty

How many chickens would it take to fill you up?

Another philosophical question. :)

[timeforpeace]

66. It's interesting that the new function was deemed necessary.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

68. The greatest risk is to threads that were started in one of the smaller forums

like Labor or Environment or some such that makes it to the Greatest page but is then knocked off by unreccomends if it is deemed unpopular, unflattering or whatever the criterion may be. A thread in GD or GDP can still lead an uncelebrated life in a major forum where it might continue just on the merits of being interesting.

[Deja Q]

82. K&R

(And, yes, I'm aware of the irony...) :P

[Canuckistanian]

83. Aaaand... you're OFF the Greatest page

This is fun.

[rockymountaindem]

84. People are taking this way to seriously

I thought this was an internet discussion forum where people come to spend their time and maybe get a little mental exercise or entertainment. I didn't think what we do here would have dire consequences for the future of this grand republic and that having such an "undemocratic" feature was going to wreck up our crucial mission to talk about stuff.

Keep repeating, "it's just a website. It's just a website."

[snooper2]

87. This is FUCKING HILARIOUS

:rofl:

I never knew the greatest page had that much influence :rofl: :rofl:



Some people really do need to get off the puter once in a while :rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

94. Same here

I don't ever go to the greatest page. I head straight to GD and GD-Presidential. Am I the only one that does this? Besides, I K&R a thread mostly because I really like the thread and not necessarily to have it on the "greatest page".

[snooper2]

95. I have never clicked on a thread on the "greatest" page

LBN then GD then the lounge...

sometimes for fun the Sept. 11th forum :rofl:

[redqueen]

99. Truly, it is.

[rucky]

88. You called them out - but you're still 9 in the positive.

[PretzelWarrior]

89. did you just call me a lone wolf, ass hole??? j/k. but I think you're full of it.

if anything, the organized groups FOR a certain issue and AGAINST a certain issue will cancel each other out and the voice in the form of total recommendations from us 'lone wolves' will be heard.

[Odin2005]

93. And the reconomend function doesn't?

[bvar22]

104. Unrecommenders UNITE!

WOW. I have a great new toy.
There are about 5 prolific "Centrist" posters on my list.
Instead of reading DU for content, I'm going to spend my game time looking for their threads to UNRECOMMEND.

I hope...I hope...I hope I can be the one to blast their thread OFF the Front Page!
POW! What a RUSH!

Boy, this is FUN!

We should form a GANG!

[DireStrike]

110. I don't think this is a good argument.

There are cases to be made against unrec. Strong ones.

Paid posters cannot outnumber regulars. They ESPECIALLY can't outnumber casual poll-voters, which are far more numerous than OP generators.

Paid posters are at their most effective when they're maintaining presence. Responding to every post and putting forth the best arguments they can muster will increase their standing in the eyes of the lurkers. It will also help convince some of them. In short, they have to steal the show, and hope the actual posters will just get tired of arguing.

Unrec is not a tool of presence. It's the opposite. And as I said, I don't think there is any way paid posters can be more numerous than regulars.


Now, Bloggers on the other hand... some bloggers have a following. A post on a blog or forum can easily leverage the weight of the blogger's followers to rec or unrec a thread, if they care enough. Even then, there will not be a 100% rate of that bloggers' followers following his or her orders.