The pros and cons of unrec (as I see it):

[rateyes]

Pro: The unrec function will tend to keep controversial threads off the greatest page.

Con: The unrec function will tend to keep controversial threads off the greatest page.

Do you have double vision? No. This is both a "pro" and a "con" because some don't want controverial threads on the greatest page, especially if they disagree with the content. Others, however, want to be able to easily access opinions that may diverge from their own.

I don't think that many can make a convincing argument that the unrec function will not have an effect of quashing threads that are thoughtful, yet very critical of Democrats. For example, I have posted many a thread expressing my disagreement with John Conyers handling of the Judiciary Committee. Many of those threads made it to the greatest page. My bet is that had the unrec function been available, that topic would not have been discussed.

I have spent this day making fun of the unrec function, at first thinking that it would make little difference. Having given it more thought, however, at this point in time (and, I reserve the right to change my mind) I think it not a very good idea.

But, that's just one opinion among thousands, and we all know the value of opinions.

Oh, and BTW, I fully expect to see a <0 in the "rec" column of this thread. If I'm correct, the desire of some to quell thoughtful discussion on this particular thread will have succeeded.

Just my two cents. Have at it. :popcorn:

[Annces]

1. I don't like it

but I can't really see all sides of it. I do know with animal rights type postings, many people on DU will unrecommend just to be nasty. And people who are neutral won't bother with it. And people who support it are a minority on DU. So it will get pummeled even more than usual.

[rateyes]

2. I agree.

And, that's a shame.

[LynneSin]

3. I'm not going to unrec something because I disagree with someone

But I will if the poster is a nutjob not actually presenting the facts. Or using poor sources for their information like when the GOP accused Pelosi of being a part of the torture hearing (THe GOP a source - pul-lease. We had people ready to impeach her on that). I will definately unrec just about anyone who does those :K&R this post". A DUer is in trouble or passes away - sure, bring it to our attention with a "K&R" post but most of them are just bullshit 'I wanna be on the DU home page' attempts.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Same.

[rateyes]

6. I agree with your assessment of the K&R threads.

I've made fun of them. However, I've decided not to click on them.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

26. Or sources the fox news blog site...

[BlooInBloo]

4. I think it's good that everybody gets the same say in what gets to Greatest...

Although I really don't have a dog in the race, since I don't go to the Greatest page, myself.

[MADem]

8. I'll go to the Greatest Page more, now....since it will reflect, more accurately, the view of the

entire community, as opposed to six people with an agenda.

[rateyes]

12. Would you not agree that everybody has an agenda?

What is the big deal if a thread that one doesn't like makes it to the greatest page? :shrug:

[MADem]

17. When the thread is something that is hurtful or espouses a view that

most people here don't agree with, it shouldn't be on the greatest page. There are people here who know how to dance right up to that "line" but not cross it. They have friends who love to shitstir as well, and that's the kind of stuff that sometimes ends up being slapped up on the GP when it isn't great or representative--this new tool is a way to counter that kind of foolishness.

I've seen some idiotic shit on the Greatest Page. Unrec gives people an opportunity to voice their opinions, too and shape what the forum presents to the world. What could be more democratic than allowing everyone to participate in the process of what ends up on the GP?

What I don't get is why some people are so frightened of that? Why is it so scary that everyone can have a voice as to what appears on that page? Why are people afraid that their opinion plus the cheers of five buddies can be countered?

It means that the argument had better be a good one, the discussion animated. I'll happily recommend a thread that puts forward a view I disagree with, if the discussion following the OP has a bit of depth.

[rateyes]

20. Hurtful threads usually disappear, don't they?

[MADem]

28. Not always. There's always the "wide eyed innnocent asking the question" technique, that walks

up to, but not over, the line.

Example: 'My GOP co-workers says (fill in rightwing talking point discussion in incredible detail, perhaps with a link to World Net Daily)--How should I respond?'

Or "Shouldn't (fill in discriminated-against minority or social/ethnic/religious group) be told to (defer their effort for social justice/bow to oppressive forces/sit down, shut up and wait for a more 'optimal' time to press their case) in order to (keep their powder dry/not ruin the electoral chances of a candidate/some other excuse)?"

We've seen them, we all have. That kind of shit will be flushed, and should be. I think it's a good feature, I think it will end up being a good thing.

[MADem]

7. If by "controversial" you mean "The opinion of six people" well, that might be true.

If an idea is GREAT, it will end up on the greatest page. If it's a cliquish load of shit that six people (or one person with five sockpuppets) has their knickers in a twist about, then it will be hooted down.

The only people who are afraid of "unrec" are those who fear that their ideas won't stand the test of genuine community scrutiny, and who won't be able to muster a quorum to push their vanity posts onto the Greatest Page.

The good stuff will still rise to the top. It always does. The "Obama is the root of all evil" threads? Maybe not so much.

[rateyes]

9. I hear that. And, I wouldn't say that I am

unrecophobic :D I'm not afraid of the function, and really don't give a rat's ass whether or not anything I post is considered "great enough" for the front page of an internet blog.

I just don't want to see thoughtful posts sink to the bottom because half the board likes it and the other half doesn't.

But, again, I understand your point.

[MADem]

18. As I said just above, I'll rec an OP that has a view in opposition to mine, if

the discussion that follows it is thoughtful and has some depth to it.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Maybe a "Hot List" could solve the potential problem you identify?

With rules to entry something along the lines of:

1) At least 30 total rec/unrec's
2) Not on Greatest.

You get the gist - whatever the details about the precise number may be.

[Laelth]

15. My OPs are almost always controversial.

They generate awesome discussions as a result, but they would have never made it to the greatest page under this system. They would have been un-rec'd into oblivion.

Consider these:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/22 (72 votes)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/28 (96 votes)

They would have never made it. Perhaps that would have been fine with a lot of people. :)

:dem:

-Laelth

[MADem]

22. I think the "vote" might have been closer on those, but they might well have made it to the GP.

Both are oppositional set-ups with deliberately inciting headlines designed to evoke an emotional response....the first one is Barack v. Hillary; the second MJ Lovers v. MJ Haters.

You'll find out soon enough, now, won't you? If you get a lot of feedback on a topic, you'll get a lot of back-n-forth in any event. Do you "need" the GP to validate the discussion? Even if more than half of the participants don't think the quality of the argument isn't great or representative?

The fact of the matter is that most threads die down after a day (and you can only vote for GP for a day, anyway), and those that keep getting bumped up to the top over the course of many days are often accessed from the forums, not the GP.

The GP isn't "valid" if more than half the people weighing in don't think the topic is terribly "great." Perhaps the threads with the most responses can go to a newly created "Hot Topics" forum....if having the little flaming icon next to a thread with a lot of responses isn't "enough."

[Laelth]

25. I like the idea of a "hottest page" where the hottest threads are displayed.

I would prefer that to the greatest page under the current system, I think.

Thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MADem]

29. Well, maybe both will be in our future, who knows? Skinner and the team are usually

pretty responsive. I've been a proponent for an "unrec" button for YEARS. I just don't think that something should be called "greatest" if a lot of people think it's bullshit--and I've seen that happen.

It's likely something they'll consider if enough people like the idea and feel a real need for it.

[MisterP]

10. maybe they could just have 2 running totals, instead of a cumulative total n/t

[Mojambo]

11. I don't know why we can't do it the way we always have

Someone sees a thread on the greatest page that pisses them off because they think it's unfair or whatever, they create a worthwhile post of their own debunking the post that is pissing them off and (if it's good enough) it gets recommended to the greatest page as well.

The whole idea that we're going to allow people to be lazy and just unrecommend posts that piss them off is going to weaken this place, IMO.

If it were up to me I'd dump the whole rec/unrec framework.

[rateyes]

13. I agree.

[woo me with science]

30. Strongly agree. nt

[Laelth]

14. I agree and have argued similarly elsewhere. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[rateyes]

16. I am willing to bet that if not for the unrecs

this thread would be on the greatest page, get more exposure, and therefore generate more discussion. I've seen the numbers bounce around. Right now, the thread has "broken even" with recs and unrecs.

Now, I point that out not because I give a damn about whether this thread gets to the greatest page or not. I use the point to illustrate what the unrec feature does, IMO.

IMO, this will weaken the site. And, again, I might be wrong. I often am. We'll wait and see.

[Laelth]

24. I agree. We will see.

And, just for the record, I don't blame the administration for trying it to see what it does.

Like you, though, I remain skeptical that this is a good idea.

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[MoonRiver]

21. Ok, never fear.

I called your rec and now you're good to go at zero. No need to thank me, I'm sure the check is in the mail.

[rateyes]

27. No need to wait for the mail. Here's your check:

:evilgrin:

[anigbrowl]

23. I wonder why the page advert is for alaskan all-gay holiday cruise

I usually only see that one in threads about closeted Republicans. Weird.

Anyway, I think controversial threads will survive despite unrecommend, but there'll be a higher standard in terms of content, quality and so on - less emotional point-scoring or single-source news stories or tinfoil hat reasoning.

Of course, those who post/consume a lot of low-quality junk will have trouble appreciating this and loudly complain that they're being muzzled, and that this very observation is a form of censorship. For me, the dividing line between the smart and teh stupid has more to do with form than content.