With unrec, effort that could go into smart discussion will instead go into electronic tug-of-war.

[JackRiddler]

People will be all busy and competitive about getting threads voted up or down, instead of just reading and writing. (Maybe even thinking and engaging each other intelligently?)

Another electronic feature that eats up attention, it makes this place a little bit less of a forum and a little bit more of a video game.

People will confuse "winning" the popularity game with being right.

Now, with the additional tweak to the system of no longer displaying the total number of votes, there is no indication of how many people supported a thread. To take an extreme example, 300 for and 300 against will just be a zero. (I also had a problem long ago with the advent of "1000+ posts," instead of the exact number.)

There's already a great deal of simplistic hit and run along the lines of "STUPID POST n/t." This feature is likely to bring out more of the worst in people socially, which shows itself not just here but on the Internet generally, and in the culture at large.

And this is not even getting into the theoretical possibilities for abusing the system, which others have been mentioning.

[MADem]

1. The "fear of change" threads are something. Why not see how it works

for a week or two before trying to pound a stake through its heart?

[JackRiddler]

3. Not a substantive response.

You can see already how it's working, because it's eminently predictable. Go check out Digg for an idea of where it will end up.

[DireStrike]

6. That's one of the kinder responses i've seen to threads like this

Most of the others are raw, vicious snipes.

[MADem]

16. Well, I think my response was substantive, and I like the unrec option.

It beats six disruptors, or one disruptor with five sockpuppets, putting nonsense that makes the membership here look ignorant on the Greatest Page.

If the idea is truly "great," it will achieve greatness. People will vote it up overwhelmingly.

If it's one flake and five buddies, or one flake and five sockpuppets, it won't.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I am refraining from its use for the most part, unless I see a thread I think

genuinely merits it.

[JackRiddler]

4. Very reasonable, and it probably reflects an innate reasonableness on your part.

Many others will LIVE to unrec. Many already do, in fact, and this feature will encourage that mode of thought.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Maybe after the newness wears off most people will be "meh" about it or

at least more judicious, leaving only a few people running rampant & unreccing left and right.

[MineralMan]

50. I'm with you on that. If I disagree with something, I'll post and

say so.

[DireStrike]

5. Another intelligent anti-unrec post that has been heartily unreccommended

Rather than coming in to tell you what's wrong with your position, they'll just unrec it.

Some of the bolder ones will come in with sharp, "we are the majority so shut up" comments. How considerate of them.

[JackRiddler]

7. Thanks. And who's in the majority is not yet clear...

A poll is running close so far for just 200 votes...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6023451

Perhaps people will agree that majorities are malleable and actually shaped by debate.

[DireStrike]

9. Oh wow the yea/nay poll picked up recs

It was unrec'd when I saw it. That was flabbergasting.

Good point though.

[greyl]

29. "not yet clear"? It's eminently predictible!

Regarding the poll, you say it's too soon to speculate.
Regarding the new feature, let the theorizing fly.

[incapsulated]

17. I've been going around rec'ing threads that are unfairly marked down

Including this one.

It doesn't matter if I don't agree or even care about the topic, the most *banal* topics are getting rec'ed down and it's nothing but stupid, petty, vindictive garbage and people acting like children.

Way to go, Skinner.

[CakeGrrl]

10. The competition has already begun.

Personally I think rating systems in either direction are a slippery slope.

It's probably best to do away with BOTH Recommend and Unrecommend and come up with some sort of anonymous 'nomination' system to send posts to the Greatest page.

[alarimer]

23. Have they ever tried using stars or something?

Like netflix movie ratings. Say, 1 through 5. No negative numbers possible in that scenario (of course it could be 0, which isn't a big deal). It seems like there would be less room for mischief that way. Of course they might have tried it and I have just forgotten.

[eleny]

11. Seems like an "unpopularity" feature to me

It's not bringing out the best in members from what I can see today. So I agree with you.

[Triana]

25. That's essentially what these kinds of things seem to turn into unfortunately..

...based on my own experience.

[KoKo]

12. Interesting ....things that maybe we didn't think of, before.

and maybe it will take a couple of weeks to sort it all out..

So far..there's been some weird stuff. Takes up too much time.

[Phentex]

13. I think it will disappear soon...

these things usually don't work out well.

[KoKo]

14. Another Kick for your post...since I gave it a Recommend...which didn't show up

I guess I will have to stay here and keep posting "K&R..K&R..K&R" over and over to counteract the Unrecommends.

What a waste of time... Not your post...but the new system which does look like it's ripe for "gaming."

[zeemike]

18. Where there is a game to be played there will be players.

I think now it will be difficult to get controversial topics on the greatest page.
And any topics that gore someones ox in a click of posters will never make it no mater how well written and expressed.
And they might just sink like a rock because if you disagree no need to post...just unrecommend.

[JackRiddler]

20. That's a good point - you no longer need to post in order to disagree with a thread.

It eliminates that threshold, which requires you to actually formulate something (or else it looks like a hit and run and people can judge accordingly).

[LWolf]

15. You're right. nt

[Luminous Animal]

19. Kick! And this is what it will come down to.

A long list of kicks which will override discussion. Because why come up with a cogent argument when one can simply click a button?

[JackRiddler]

21. At least kicks can't be unkicked.

[alarimer]

22. Personally, I never read the Greatest page.

I always read the threads directly from the forum, so I am not sure if this really matters to me or not. I guess we will have to see how it shakes out.

[inna]

34. personally, i read ONLY the GP 99% of the time i'm on the DU. nt

[Triana]

24. I have to agree based on previous experience with such a system...

...it ended up being HIGHLY abused - and the 'neggy karma' function had to be disabled to keep the peace in the place. It definitely brought out the worst.

May be different here, but that has been my experience elsewhere.

[Life Long Dem]

26. Restrain yourself from the competitiveness then.

I'm cheering on you!! I know you can do it!!! :bounce:

[BurtWorm]

27. There will be smart discussions and electronic tugs of war.

Those tugs of war have long existed here: they're called flame wars. Some of those flame wars, by virtue of the fact that the original post's premise is considered recommend-worthy by a large group of DUers, wind up on the front page and stay there for a day under the guise of being a "greatest" post. Remember the primaries, when Obama- or Hillary-bashing posts would be competing for top of the greatest list, advertising DU's obsessions for days on the front page? Many of those threads, if not most, were much hotter than they were illuminating. Many of the most illuminating posts--the "greatest," you might say, according to a standard other than popularity--die very fast deaths here. Might it not be healthy to give people the power to reject mere popularity of a position as a criterion for "greatest," especially when they know a post is being used to grandstand or demagogue to one faction?

[chill_wind]

28. Yup. Just look at the stats on this one. Lots of energy going into dissing this thread

and points made therein.

[Karmadillo]

30. Up 6 recs, now down 4 to 2 recs. God, this is exciting! Really! Remind me. What's this thread about?

nt

[optimal-tomato]

31. Too true...

Asking people to restrain themselves is akin to telling businesses to self-regulate. Most responsible people and businesses won't actually do anything that will harm themselves or others, but there are always a few who will try to bring down the whole system.

I see it as "You're right to ignore something stops when you're causing others to ignore it." Unreccing a thread to oblivion regardless of merit will shape the way others see it. K&R.

[prolesunited]

32. There's intelligent discussion here?

When?

[inna]

33. unrec'ing, at least in its current form, is a HORRIBLE, horrible idea. nt

[noise]

35. Recommended rule of thumb

1) I only read threads with a minimum of 15 Rec's. Period. 14 or less Rec's=awful thread. I feel stupid stating this because it should be self evident.

2) It is outrageous to think (with the new system) that I might waste my time reading a thread with 15 Rec's that turns out to be just a (shitty) 14 Rec thread.

[Kaleko]

36. The certainty with which you predict the inability of people here

to deal with the new feature intelligently speaks volumes... about you.

Self-aggrandizement by means of belittling others, nothing new.

[JackRiddler]

38. "People here" are of many kinds and differ a great deal...

From observation of how many threads already go and given a large, fairly diverse group, there is no doubt that many will "deal with" the new feature in the ways I'm describing, it's not about anyone's intelligence but how the the feature is likely to be used, it's not an accusation directed at "people here" or any specific person. But you can prove me wrong by voting down if you like.

[Kaleko]

47. "...it's not about anyone's intelligence

but how the the feature is likely to be used, it's not an accusation directed at "people here"..."

What clever spin to put on your own OP. Surely, no one will be able see through the spin and notice how you have have managed to insult people's intelligence once again. Lol.

[JackRiddler]

51. I'm happy to note in public that a lot of people are unintelligent, and some of them are here.

Disguising that is not a priority for me, and if I want to insult yours, I'll do so directly. Thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I think not.

Discussions will continue as always, in approximately the same form and volume. The content of the greatest page will change somewhat, but not a lot. You only get to vote once on any OP, same as before, so for any given OP the amount of time spent voting is not going to change much.

I say we give it a chance and let it play out for a while before deciding it is TEH EVIL FAIL.

The abuse factor existed and was manipulated in the past for the recommend feature, at least now campaigns to put specific OPs on the GP can be voted off the island.

[Forkboy]

39. People were already focused on stupid games here long before now.

[JackRiddler]

40. So why encourage it?

[Forkboy]

46. I don't think it does.

:shrug:

[Bushknew]

41. DU is already so clickish as it is. This compounds it.

[Javaman]

42. How do you figure that?

I'm honestly curious. I've been on here for 5 years, I don't feel part of a clique. But then again, I might be in one and not know it.

[Bushknew]

44. If you gush over Will Pitt's opinions as if they were exquisite poetry, then ...

your in Will Pitt's clique.

[Javaman]

45. huh, interesting.

so I take it you don't care for his writings?

I neither "gush" nor condemn, he writes thoughtfully and insightfully, whether or not I agree with him.

Does that make me part of the "gushing" clique?

[SidDithers]

43. The smart discussion will still be there...

it just might not be on the Greatest.

Sid

[Forkboy]

49. and the people interested in said discussion will still find it and participate.

The people who are going to use this feature to be a jerk weren't interested in most intelligent threads anyways.

[yodoobo]

48. I had no idea people invest so much of themselves into a rec

I think this is the single most meaningless drama I've seen on this site.