Skinner...How about a compromise on R&U

[zeemike]

So we can calm the seas and stop having to bail out the boat.

Change the Unrecommended button to Vote and have a for or against, and restore the recommend to the way it was...You could add a most popular page where posts were ranked according to the popular vote.

Then perhaps we can make peace with each other again.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Why not just give the matter time to settle.

:shrug:

[graywarrior]

2. Seriously, time takes time.

Why all the drama over something that is not that important.

[zeemike]

5. Can you tell me what your objections to this compromise is?

Would it not satisfy everyone? And why not?

[Warren Stupidity]

25. I like the fact that five people cannot by themselves put

a post up on the greatest page. Now it has to be +5 people, and that, in my opinion, is a vast improvement. Go look at the Greatest Page, it is now filled with content, posts about politics and current events, instead of idiocy.

[MADem]

29. +1....me, too. nt

[zeemike]

32. And we have an idiocy police force.

And somehow that reminds me of something I don't like....thought police.
Sorry but I believe that noting good comes from negative actions.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. We've always had an idiocy rudeness and flamebait police force here.

But this is not a 'police force' it is a consensus voting system for the greatest page that changes the rules from 5 recs to +5 recs. That is all it does.

[zeemike]

41. Yes and they had to post a rebuttal to do the policing.

Now all they have to do is click it away.
And this will set up tensions between the "smart" ones and the "idiots"
And all because we are offended when we see something that we don't want to talk or think about, or just don't find interesting. And I guess it pisses people off when it is on a page called the Greatest, perhaps we can compromise there and call it Most Recommended.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. No, they are called mods and they lock. delete, and tombstone.

A consensus voting system is not a police force, it is the opposite concept: self policing. All it takes, a point which seems to continue to elude you, to get on the greatest page, and we are only talking about one of the many pages here, is +5 votes. The only difference between now and then is 5 vs +5. Your post is not deleted or locked if it doesn't have +5 votes, your post continues to exist on whatever forum page you posted it to, continues to be visible on the latest page until it drops off, it just won't show up on the greatest page if you can't convince five more of us to vote for it than vote against it.

[Uncle Joe]

52. How many people recommended this thread, and why weren't their votes counted? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Their votes were counted. What are you talking about?

[Uncle Joe]

71. Then how many were there? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

74. R-U < 0 votes

Of course the board owners could be lying and just inventing the difference. I think it is pretty clear that they are not doing this and that the displayed difference is the accurate tally of the R/U votes, modified by the rule that if U is greater than R that value is displayed as "<0".

[Flying Dream Blues]

89. Me. three. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

106. +2

[graywarrior]

78. I figure Skinner, Elad & others had some in depth discussions about people's rights being trampled

before they made the decision to go with it. Having been around here long enough, I sort of came to trust their judgments. If it doesn't work out, they'll get rid of it. Right now, I don't see a problem. It's DU, it's not a matter of life of death...or is it? Hey, I'd rather work on ripping Comcast to shreds over their lies and shoddy customer service. Now THAT's worth getting my panties all in a bunch.

[BurtWorm]

86. My objections: The majority seems to have no problem with trying the new system

This "compromise" is actually a means of letting the (very loud and whiny) minority determine the outcome of the trial before it's even been tried.

[Maru Kitteh]

101. Bingo!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

107. I'll give you one. I don't want DU's front porch littered with trash threads.

You're compromise restores the litterbugs.

[cwydro]

31. Agreed.

But this is the funniest tempest in a teapot I think I've seen on DU!

It's worth keeping it just for all the indignant posts.:rofl: :popcorn:

[zeemike]

3. Because in the time it takes to settle

A lot of damage will be done.

[Confusious]

4. Yea, 'caue the whiny babie aren't going to be happy without it

So they hawk their books, or sate their EGOS by getting on the greatest page.

How about we make another whole website where those people can go and not be criticized! It would be great! They can live in their own little reality divorced from the real world even more then they are now!

LETS DO IT!

[zeemike]

6. And so it starts...

I am not surprised.

[havocmom]

15. ahem, a quick look up page is the start of this one

Seems like the suggestion for a no criticism allowed forum is a fair call. You just made their point for them.

[zeemike]

19. "No criticism allowed" I said that?

I don't understand

[havocmom]

23. You didn't say it. You posted against others' option to exercise criticism vie unrec option

Your actions speak volumes while you words may be minced.

Whassamatter? Need a muffin this morning or sumtin?

[zeemike]

34. So it is us against them.

nice

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. You started this thread suggesting a 'compromise' is needed

and saying "perhaps we can make peace with each other again". The "us against them" theme seems to have been in this thread right from the start.

[MADem]

110. +1. Succinctly put, too. nt

[Buzz Clik]

9. I suggest a parallel page to The Greatest -- The Most Despised.

Threads with the most negative tally are posted for further ridicule.

[patricia92243]

10. Now I like that idea - lol. n/t

[zeemike]

11. That would be interesting

We could get our two minute hate in every day.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Oh, no. Just a different avenue to express that hate. The Greatest page is the best hate outlet.

Nearly always, one thread on the greatest page is dedicated to hate, and that's why the Unrecommend is important -- to knock that shit off the front page.

[zeemike]

44. The greatest page is dedicated to hate?

I did not know that
I guess I miss more than you do.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Did someone say that the Greatest page is dedicate to hate?

:shrug:

[dipsydoodle]

39. The Most Despised

sounds like a punk rock band. :rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

51. It will also be the title of Cheney's memoirs.

[greguganus]

70. Great idea! I just checked www.whineybabieswithegos.com and it's available! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

7. k&u

[HughMoran]

8. I honestly think that the change has improved the quality of posts on the gratest page

I really think people are spending a little more time to create subject lines that aren't designed specifically to foment the "us versus them" mentality that's been dragging DU down for far too long now. This is a positive change IMO. My 2 cents.

[zeemike]

13. Kind of like social engineering huh?

And it does make sure our world is not polluted with ideas that we don't like.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Not at all. DU is still polluted with insanity. Now, that insanity has less chance being a Greatest.

[zeemike]

20. So it is all about the concept of recommendations.

And the concept of listing them by recommendations.

[MADem]

38. That's what it was before, only people who thought a post was vain bullshit couldn't

register their disapproval to counter a clique of people who wanted to shape the conversation here and provide a false impression of what the community regarded as 'greatest.' As a consequence, a lot of nonsense was being represented to the world as that which "DU" thought was "greatest" when it clearly was not regarded as that by the bulk of the community.

The only people complaining about this vociferously are those who used to throw a lot of stuff up on the Greatest page, and who aren't seeing their "stuff" up there so much anymore. These people need to find a new hobby, or improve the quality of their dissertations.

The Greatest Page now has some decent content, too. It's worth reading. That's a good thing.

[zeemike]

55. Well I am complaining and I seldom have a post on the page

So it is NOT the only people complaing....there are some of us that object to it for other reasons...which have been expressed and ridiculed.

[MADem]

92. Why do you hate democracy?

:rofl:

[havocmom]

18. That was a (minor) fear I shared at first. But, the process seems to be a help

Drivel will be swept away. By consensus.

[zeemike]

24. "Drivel will be swept away. By consensus"

I could not disagree more. and in fact if consensus is used as the sole criteria you will get noting but drivel.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. +5. You do understand that the criteria for selection is '+5', right?

That is the only real difference between new and old in terms of what makes it to the GP and what doesn't. Absolute value of 5 vs relative value 5. This is a very low bar to get over. I suggest you try getting over it.

[zeemike]

61. Then call it voting not recommending.

And chang it to the POPULAR page.
Or raise the bar if you think it is to low...say 10 or 20

[Warren Stupidity]

30. What? The Greatest Page rev 1 was the natural order of things

and now it has been 'socially engineered'? That is silly. The Greatest Page as it was was just a much an act of 'social engineering' as it is now. It is and was a mechanism for selecting specific posts, based on board reader's actions, for display on a specific page of this board. You like the old system better than the new, I and others like the new system better than the old, but neither system is more or less of an (apparently evil in your mind) act of social engineering.

[HughMoran]

53. Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! You're taking this WAY to seriously

I have no idea why you think that setting up a system that may help cut back on some of the bitter "us versus them" mentality is in any way a bad thing - so far the results are quite promising. Do you think that having a minority of posters shoving their bitter pill dwon all of our throats was good for the community? I think not.

[zeemike]

63. Well there have always been those posts.

But why was it never a problem before and it is now?

[HughMoran]

67. We won the election

This has changed everything - the end result being demonstrated by the two Democrats in the animated gif below:

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Yes it has. That was the intention, I believe, and it has worked.

[slackmaster]

12. Few things are funnier than a customer telling someone how to run his business

:rofl:

[zeemike]

14. Well for your information I am not just a customer

And DU is not just a business.
But I guess that would strike you as funny too.

[havocmom]

21. DU is privately owned. We users often support the owners venture with $$

ALL of us users are patrons or clients, if you will. Basically, if we post here, if we read here, we are 'customers' here.

Hmmm, privately held, sells advertising space, accepts monetary payment (albeit voluntary), if it didn't cover costs, it would be down. Sounds like a business to me.

Want some coffee? Wake up on the wrong side of the cot? Or just basically in a pissy mood because the owners of the business made a change in the product which you did not get to personally approve?

[zeemike]

26. You did not get it.

The operative word is JUST.
That means I am a human and so is Skinner and we are not bound sole by a business relationship...we are fellow humans first and customers, and owner second...at least I hope.

[havocmom]

37. Hey, we are all human. You just seem an annoyed because you don't get to be boss human here

:rofl:

[zeemike]

46. I am glad I am giving you a good laugh today. n/t

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, your reply strikes me as just as funny as your OP

You don't seem to get it.

And DU is not just a business.

Right. It's also a dessert topping, and a floor polish.

It's a business, and depends on many other businesses for its services to be delivered to you.

Your ISP is a business. Your computer was manufactured by many businesses. The company that provides electricity for you to run it is a business.

The concept of "compromise" has meaning only when there are conflicting interests in need of resolution. DU may be a benign dictatorship, but it is still a dictatorship. The owner is the only person who has any REAL interests here.

[zeemike]

48. Holy fuck...we have merged with the Borg n/t

[slackmaster]

58. More like the Matrix

I suggest you turn off your computer and go outside now.

[EFerrari]

66. Unless you're a business owner who wants to stay in business. n/t

[slackmaster]

76. To stay in business, you keep as many customers as possible happy and paying you money

However you as the business owner see fit.

[MADem]

28. Why the agita? The seas have been "calming" as the days go by.

I really think the issue here is that one person and five friends can't put shit up on what's called the "Greatest" page without that shit actually being viewed as "Great" by the bulk of those reading it. And that's pissing people off, for some odd reason. I say it's time to get a life, and get over it.

Now, if a post makes it to the Greatest Page, it's actually regarded as pretty great. The Greatest Page is starting to be worth reading now, and not just a load of BS vanity/pet-issue-poutrage posts unrepresentative of this community.

[havocmom]

40. We have our WINNUR!

Yep, sounds like some of the cliques are ticked ;)

I notice a similar pattern of behavior among many two-year-olds who just noticed they are not the center of the universe and are belligerent that they do not control everything.

[zeemike]

50. And if one person has five friends he can shut someone down

It works both ways.
and sets up a us and them situations.

[MADem]

54. No, that suggests that it only takes five votes to "unrecommend."

Five people can't do shit to take a post off the page, unless ONLY five people liked it in the first place. And if that's the case, then it's an even split, and the post wasn't terribly "great" in the first place--thus, it doesn't belong on the "Greatest" page.

The difference here is that before, five people could plaster absolute crapola up on the "Greatest" page when it wasn't great at all. There was no room to object to the placement, except to reply to the post and give something that was stupid, offensive, or simply jerky a kick in the process.

Now, at least five more people liking the quality of the discussion, as opposed to disliking it, who are weighing in, have to regard the subject as worthwhile in order to keep a topic on that page.

The people who are complaining most unrelentingly appear to be those who don't like the quality of their arguments challenged.

The old system worked ONE way--idiots would put crap up on the "Greatest" page that wasn't Great at all, and we'd be forced to endure it. That's "us v. them." Now we don't have to suffer crap being called 'greatest,' and that's good. The new system, in actual fact, works both ways--everyone gets to weigh in.

The Greatest Page is now substantive, and not full of Vanity Crapola. Hear, hear!

[zeemike]

56. So it is actually voting then for a post

So then why not change the word to VOTE and have a yea or nay, and leave the recommends alone...after all if I recommend a plumber to you someone cannot come up and unrecommend him can he?

[MADem]

80. It is a recommendation, or the opposite of that. It isn't just a vote,

it's an indicator as to whether or not the topic is worthwhile or not and is representative of "DU greatness," as it were. It's a community standard, instead of six people in a clique with an attitude.

Your plumber example isn't too good, though, because such an interaction is normally a private enterprise. If you recommend a plumber in a public internet forum, however (as this is), another forum participant could easily "unrecommend" the plumber by saying "That clown broke my toilet and stole my grampa's watch."

If getting on the Greatest Page means that much to you, put up discussion topics that invite participation by the entire community, rather than hector and scold people who aren't sufficiently enthusiastic about your pet topic. Enough with the "divide and conquer" BS.

[Uncle Joe]

60. It would be far more logical and democratic to just increase the number of recommendations required

to make the Greatest Page, without taking the peoples' vote away; which I find ironic and somewhat tragic considering D.U. came of age because the Republicans didn't like counting the votes.

How many people support this thread?

[havocmom]

72. Isn't denying an UN-rec option taking votes away?

If I don't think an OP has any redeeming value, I didn't have a vote before. Now I do.

By your argument, a vote FOR Obama last fall denied the vote of someone who voted for McCain. Um, no it didn't.

edited for typo

[Uncle Joe]

79. You always had a vote before, by simply starting an opposing thread or recommending an opposing

thread that's freedom of speech.

Be proative, if your issue, subject, argument or candidate has merit then your thread will garner those recommendations and the people will have the full range of debate.

Democracy is messy but that's what freedom of speech is all about, by giving a micro majority veto power to eliminate even the counted recommendations of the minority, you stifle debate and curtail the power of the people.

Whether you believe it or not, your voice was weakened as well even if you're always with the majority of 50.00001% or whatever it works out to be; which would be doubtful.

Througout history a minority of people have led the way of reform, whether it was Christianity, the Enlightenment, the Abolitionists, the Suffragists or the Civil Rights Movement, their causes were controversial at the time stretching the comfort zone of the majority.

[havocmom]

81. LOL Funny, but missed point by a wide mile

If some can vote FOR something, but no on can vote against something, THEY are denied a vote. If I vote for something and you vote against it, you did not deny my vote.

I notice you ignored the comparison when applied to real votes. Interesting.

[Uncle Joe]

82. You missed my point; an opposing thread and it's recommendations are a vote against another thread.

If I say A is the greatest and get 50 recommendations, you start a thread saying no A is not or B is the greatest and if you get 75 recommendations; more power to you, but at least 50 recommendations counted for something, their voices were heard.

Regarding Obama and McCain's election it's a matter of public record, just because President Obama won doesn't mean the votes for McCain were eliminated going to 0, tens of millions of people voted for McCain. I have a dictionary with all the Presidential Elections and the number of votes they garnered; losers and winners.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. But an 'opposing thread' opposes all other DU threads, on the Greatest page

If you think that to counteract a thread that has a bad premise, dodgy facts, or is unworthy in various other ways, one should start another thread and get that recommended more, thus pushing the first one further down the list, then you also affect other, unrelated threads. You end up creating an argument about one subject with 2 threads, when there may be many other subjects you think are more worthwhile discussing. You could go and recommend another 10 or 20 threads on different subjects, to try to get them all more visible than the one you consider useless; but it's a lot of effort.

If you think that a thread is worth more views by people, you still have a powerful tool - the 'kick'. There's no equivalent that negates that (I think people who are posting "kicked and unrecommended" are scoring own goals). Anyone in the past who had a negative feeling about a thread had no choice but to kick it, even if all they were doing was registering disagreement with the first post. Now, there's a way to help other DUers by giving a way of saying "don't bother with this thread", without giving it extra visibility.

[Uncle Joe]

90. Since I joined, D.U. has grown by approximately 50,000 registered users; as a natural consequence

it would seem to me, the same result of raising the quality of the Greatest Pages could be obtained by requiring more recommendations to make that page without disenfranchising the recommendations of the minority. I would also imagine that during the primaries, many D.U.ers' feelings of disenfranchisement will be especially acute watching their recommendations vanish with no visible accountability.

As I've posted before, throughout history the minority has often led the way to reform starting out with controversial ideas that pushed the envelope or comfort zone of the status quo, and I see the un-recommend as a probable curtailment to that progression.

I agree with your point regarding the adverse affect of traffic jams, and maybe when that occurs they should be dropped from the Greatest Pages but to me the current solution seems to be a meat cleaver approach, when a scalpel might serve better.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. Recommendations do not 'vanish'

They are weighed against those with a different opinion. The total count is preserved.

It is a surprise to several of us, I think, how much weight some people put of the position of a thread on the Greatest page; I'd have thought most Duers are very independent-minded, and wouldn't take their reading purely from a list of what other people have liked, nor measure their own esteem purely by a number (always small, in comparison to the total active DU membership) of anonymous congratulations.

But I would think that all of us think there are some points of view on DU that are badly expressed, that have got their facts wrong, that are repetitive, or than even are things we actively disagree with. The question is whether active support among one group, which is always going to be a minority (I'm not sure I've ever seen any thread get recommended for than 500 times, but it's plain that over 1000 different users post on DU every day - the fund drives get over 1000 donations each quarter), is enough on its own for something to be called the 'Greatest' of DU, when it's possible that far more people actively oppose it.

With the new system, getting a small 'winning margin of voters' is enough to get a thread on the Greatest page, and the bigger the margin, the higher is goes in the right hand column. And with the ability to unrecommend, you get to see the difference between something not even being read, and something that has flaws in it that a member objects to. But the threads will still be where their authors put them - on the forums, and everyone will be able to discuss them. That so few people recommended threads before shows that it's never been the most important part of DU, in my opinion.

I think this modification is actually the 'scalpel', not the cleaver; the purpose wasn't to shorten the Greatest page, but to improve the reflection of it as the 'best of DU' - which means flaws in threads should be taken into account, not just whether some people are enthusiastic about the OP. It should cause a minor resorting of the list, as threads that have unpopular ideas contained in them have to overcome them, while those whose quality is apparent to more people will rise, relatively.

It only lasts 24 hours anyway - 'reform' requires arguments that are more than just an ephemeral popularity test.

[Uncle Joe]

103. The quality of the Greatest Page would increase as a natural result of requiring

more recommendations, fewer people would recommend low quality threads, although that system wouldn't be perfect, at least it won't visibly disenfranchise the counted votes of those believers. When people find threads that are badly expressed, incorrect facts. that are repetitive or things we actively disagree with, those threads could be removed from the Greatest Page. In my opinion hiding or taking away votes you don't agree with flows against the very idea of being independent minded, why can't pro and con votes be reflected on a thread? The same quality result could even be achieved by requiring a specific margin between pro and con votes without treating the peoples; (minority) votes or recommendations as worth 0 or less than 0.

I normally don't start with the Greatest Page, instead going straight to the Discussion Forum, I weigh subjects or titles of interest and only if nothing catches my eye do I check out the number of recommendations on threads as a guide. Regardless, the Greatest Page isn't the central point of my objection, nor is it esteem issues, it's the very idea of taking away or hiding the peoples' votes; or recommendations if you prefer.

I find this especially ironic and somewhat tragic considering D.U.'s conception having come about about because there was an active campaign by the Republican Party to disenfranchise the people from their votes, they wanted to hide them as well.

I agree reform does require arguments that are more than just an ephemeral popularity test, but visible recommendations both pro and con can serve as a gauge to the direction and intensity of the peoples' intent, hiding the minority's votes only cloaks or distorts that will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. "requiring a specific margin between pro and con votes" is exactly what the new system does

That margin is 5. No-one's vote is treated "as worth 0 or less than 0"; the total of unrecommendations are subtracted from the total of the recommendations, and the result is the 'Recs' score. If it's 5 or higher, the thread appears on the Greatest page for its first 24 hours.

No votes are 'taken away'; admin did, for the first hour or two, display both the difference between 'recs' and 'unrecs', and the total number of votes - but they decided too many people were misunderstanding the 2nd figure (and seemed to feel it cluttered up the display) so they removed the second one. It was possible to work out the total number of positive votes from the 2 figures (if they were x and y, then the positive votes would have been (x+y)/2, the negative votes (y-x)/2 ). I can see that showing 2 figures, so both positive and negative figures can be known, could be preferable to some. I don't care too much one way or the other.

I don't really feel people's votes are being 'hidden'; but they are being weighed against opposing votes. There's certainly not more hiding of 'minority' votes than anyone else's votes. I think admin are showing any net negative result as just '<0' just to spare people's blushes, and stop people piling on a thread just to humiliate it. Unfortunately, that could happen - DU can get cruel for the sake of laughter at times.

[Uncle Joe]

112. Yes the votes are being hidden, maybe not intentionally but that's the result.

Here's my math quiz

Thread A gets 5 pro or rec votes and 10 anti or unrec votes the forum reflects <0.

Thread B gets 100 pro or rec votes and 105 anti or unrec votes the forum reflects <0.

Here's my question. Is there a percentage difference between the votes in those two threads? You're an intelligent person and I believe you know the answer is most assuredly yes and yet both threads are marketed/reflected or treated the same on the forum.

For those people that aren't good with math Thread A loses out by 100% thread B loses out by aproximately 5%.

Those percentages mean a great deal in reflecting the peoples' attitudes toward the issues, subjects and or candidates and I believe this system is more dysfunctional than the previous or the ideal one of reflecting both pro and con votes.

While the change of reflecting both votes might cause some confusion for a while, I have faith the people of D.U. will eventually catch on to it and that does them far more justice than losing or having their votes mis-weighed.

[MADem]

108. No it wouldn't. That way, the people who think it is crap still wouldn't have a vote.

All that would do is require more sock puppets, or a larger clique to get your vanity post up on the GP.

Why is it "taking someone's vote away" when someone doesn't like a load of crap and votes against it?

We didn't like the GOP this election cycle? Are you really suggesting that our votes "took away" the votes of Republicans? Or did the majority rule? You know, like, in a democracy?

Why do you worry about how many people support this, or any thread, anyway? Are you that easily led? Does the approval of others mean so much to you that you won't participate in a thread that doesn't make it to the GP?

[Uncle Joe]

113. I refer you to post 112. n/t

[MADem]

115. Well, you can refer me to it, but without a link to it, I'm not going to struggle to find it

in a thread this long.

You might just make your point, or cut/paste from the other post if you're too lazy to restate your view.

[Uncle Joe]

116. It's three posts up from your last one. n/t

[MADem]

117. I travel a lot. Sometimes my connection is poor. This is one of those times. nt

[Uncle Joe]

119. This a copy of my post on 112 in response to one Muriel Volestranlger made.

The heading is bolded. I'm leaving for the evening, have a good night.

"Yes the votes are being hidden, maybe not intentionally but that's the result.

Here's my math quiz

Thread A gets 5 pro or rec votes and 10 anti or unrec votes the forum reflects <0.

Thread B gets 100 pro or rec votes and 105 anti or unrec votes the forum reflects <0.

Here's my question. Is there a percentage difference between the votes in those two threads? You're an intelligent person and I believe you know the answer is most assuredly yes and yet both threads are marketed/reflected or treated the same on the forum.

For those people that aren't good with math Thread A loses out by 100% thread B loses out by aproximately 5%.

Those percentages mean a great deal in reflecting the peoples' attitudes toward the issues, subjects and or candidates and I believe this system is more dysfunctional than the previous or the ideal one of reflecting both pro and con votes.

While the change of reflecting both votes might cause some confusion for a while, I have faith the people of D.U. will eventually catch on to it and that does them far more justice than losing or having their votes mis-weighed."

[MADem]

120. The point about both your examples? Both LOSE.

They don't earn the "Greatest" designation. That doesn't mean they don't get discussed. That doesn't mean that people don't post to them. All it means is that they aren't representative of what the entire community (not six people with too much time on their hands, or one person with five sockpuppets) decides is worthy of the term "Greatest."

[Uncle Joe]

121. This has nothing to do with the Greatest Page and everything to do with the forums.

For example, I rarely start with the Greatest Pages, going straight to the discussion forums, the first thing I look for when opening and reading a thread is a subject or title of interest, if nothing catches my eye, I look for the number of recommendations as a guide.

This system of un-recommending and taking the people's votes away or representing the same threads regardless of how close the percentage of votes are is misrepresenting the will or intent of the people, warping and distorting reality.

The most logical solution is to present all the votes pro and con, you could still require a five or more pro vote margin to make the Greatest Page without weakening or distorting the people on D.U.'s voices.

[MADem]

122. But you are NOT "taking someone's vote away." If Skinner wanted to be rude,

he'd let people know by how much their flaky ideas suck by posting the total number of unrecommends, but that would be UNKIND, and that's why he doesn't do it.

A "less than zero" or "less than five" rating means that the bulk of people here believe the thing doesn't belong ON THE GREATEST PAGE. It doesn't mean it doesn't belong in GDP or GD or any other forum--it's simply an assertion that the topic, or the discussion that follows, is not terribly "GREAT." See, there is no "weakening" or "distorting" going on with the current system--but there was before, when you and five of your buddies (that is a generic you, not you, specifically) could put up a post on the best way to wash beets or wipe your behinds, and land that on the Greatest Page.

It's not "taking away your vote"--it's allowing people who think that a topic is horseshit and undeserving of a "Greatest" tag the opportunity to say so, where before, they were denied that opportunity.

You are the only person I know who decides what to read based on a teeny tiny number in the bottom left corner of a post--you must have eagle eyes. Do you scroll down through the long posts to eyeball that number before you even look at, oh...the subject line? Can't you think for yourself? Does peer approval mean that much to you, honestly?

See, when I decide to read a post, I have a glance at the subject line--that's usually a good place to start. A hundred people interested in basket weaving or flag football aren't going to "persuade" me to invest time in those threads, because those topics aren't of overriding interest to me.

The most logical solution to this "problem" you are inventing is to leave this GP improvement in place. It's a winner. There's real substance on the Greatest Page now--not vanity posts, not "off the wall" screeds, not cliquish lunacy, not flat-out stupid bullshit. Real stories--real "stuff." It's a great place to start, now, whereas before, it was the place where nutty crap gathered.

[Uncle Joe]

123. You most certainly are taking the peoples' votes away every time you cast an anti-rec vote.

If you start a thread and it has 5 recs and I come along to vote anti-rec, you now have 4 recs, you don't have five recs and one anti rec, at least not visibly.

Regarding the issue of "unkindness;" in my opinion, letting the people wallow in ignorance instead of educating them through visible democratic means is far more unkind. The current setup of only displaying <0 is highly ambiguous and I believe negatively self-sustaining. I would much rather see the total vote on any thread; I post both up and down, pro can con not some b.s. <0, that's what democracy is all about.

Apparently you have a poor computer or eyesight, so below I bolded part of one sentence from my previous post for your reading ease and pleasure, also one other point the recommendations in the forum aren't that tiny or in the bottom left corner, they're to the side of the topic beside the total views window. I wish you well and good luck in navigating D.U.'s convenient features in your future endeavors.

"For example, I rarely start with the Greatest Pages, going straight to the discussion forums, the first thing I look for when opening and reading a thread is a subject or title of interest, if nothing catches my eye, I look for the number of recommendations as a guide."

Again this has nothing to do with the Greatest Pages, the same grading system could be kept in place with the only exception being to display all the votes pro and con, rec and anti-rec.

From a historical point of view, the minority has on many occasions been on the right side of history, leading to reform, I believe this new system throws the baby out with the bath water.

[MADem]

127. Oh come off it. If you vote to rec a thread I unrec'd, then you took MY vote away.

Waaah! Waaah! Why is your 'rec' more important than my 'unrec?' Answer--it isn't.

I mean, really--you need to grow up, get a life, and get OVER this. It's called DEMOCRACY, and it's appropriate in a forum called Democratic Underground.

And as for the whole "Less than zero" thing--by simply saying "This doesn't pass muster," that's more than enough. It gets the point across. To say "Your thread didn't pass muster by a hundred and seventy seven votes" is unkind. That kind of stuff can lead to bullying, and it isn't needed.

I've been looking for an Unrec feature here for YEARS. Go check the archives. I've brought up the subject again and again, when I stumbled over the so-called "Greatest Page" and found it littered with pure, unadulterated SHIT. Plenty of people agreed with me, too, but for the longest time--the entire duration of this site being on the net--we've had to suffer without the option. Now, it's your turn to deal with it--people will have a voice, and if your post isn't any good, you'll know it. No longer can you plus five friends or sockpuppets (generically speaking) litter the GP with pure junk and vanity posts.

Now, there are roses growing there.

Get over it. It's not the "Minority Viewpoint" Page, it's the Greatest Page. If your stuff sucks, it doesn't get there. If my stuff sucks, it doesn't get there. It's a good change. I can adjust to not being voted up by a wee clique of internet pals and still feel like a decent human being with a worthwhile life--why can't you?

[Uncle Joe]

128. I never said it was, they should both be displayed, what part of that do you not understand? n/t

[MADem]

135. What part of "making someone feel like absolute shit by telling them precisely how MUCH everyone

despised their stupid, idiotic, vain and dumbass post" is hard for you to comprehend? Why can't you "get" that this sort of accounting is simply cruel?

Only a small-minded person feels the need to rub it in. It's enough to say "Your post wasn't good enough to make it to the GP."

Why do you NEED to be a mean bully, and tell them precisely how MUCH everyone disliked their shit?

What does that say about you?

Didn't anyone ever teach you "Praise in public, punish in private?"

Good grief.

[Uncle Joe]

141. A mean bully?

Your very first post #108 in response to mine on this thread lumps the people here at D.U. as sock puppets and their motivation as being based on vanity.

You called their votes a load of crap on that post.

You accused me of being easily led because I thought the votes should be visible.

You claimed we didn’t like the Republicans this election cycle and I agree with that, but you distorted the meaning of democracy because our votes didn’t take away their votes, we simply beat them and nobody accused us of being cruel about it, the Republican’s votes however are a matter of public record and anyone can look them up.

You claimed to respect democracy in one sentence and then trashed the peoples’ right to know how many people voted for this thread.

Your second post #115 accused me of being too lazy even though the post I referred you to was directly above your first post.

Your third post #120 trashes the minority vote on any issue, subject or candidate by lumping skunk and squeaker threads together as if they were the same quality, unworthy of the Greatest Page. While you label any five plus cohort voting pro as being sock puppets, you disregard that possibility of happening for the majority in close vote as in 100 pro 105 anti.

I explained my primary concern wasn’t with the Greatest Page; but misrepresentation and distortion of the peoples' intent on the Forums.

Your Fourth post #122 accused Skinner of being rude if he were to respect democracy and allow the votes to be visibly transparent as they would or should be during any election. Again you would allow the people to wallow in ignorance as to their ideas, were they indeed flaky, did they really suck or was it an extremely close vote on a controversial issue? You prefer them not to know.

You misrepresented what I said on my previous post. For the record on the forums, I use the subjects or titles of interest as my primary guide, if nothing catches my eye; I check out the number of recommendations. But even if I open a thread with many recommendations, it doesn’t mean I will recommend it or even read it all, yet you accused me of not able to think for myself.

Your fifth post #127, you used some high school taunt of Waah Waaah, you told me I need to grow up and get a life, even though you know nothing about me.

Again you treated any minority vote; no matter how close as being best represented by less than zero, I find that to be cruel. I believe you also underestimate the people of D.U. they will rarely give a thread 177 anti rec votes, they will just let it drop unless there are 172 pro votes or the OP. is a troll.

You claim to respect DEMOCRACY and yet you trash the fundamental underpinning of democracy, that being visible, verifiable votes by the people.

In your last post #135 you literally turned anti-rec votes; a natural function of the democracy you claim to crave in to venom with such adjectives as “stupid, idiotic, vain and dumbass.”

And again you questioned my motives due to my respect for open above board democracy whereas you would rather cloak it in intrigue and ambiguity.

And after all that B.S. you accuse me of being a mean bully or unkind, frankly, I don’t believe you give a rat's ass about kindness, much less democracy.

[MADem]

142. Grow up and get over yourself. And stop crying about this. It's democracy.

Everyone gets a vote. If your stuff is lame, you don't get to be on the "Greatest" page--live with that.

And I didn't "lump everyone" at DU -- you just chose to see it that way. If the shoe doesn't fit YOU (and does it? Is that why you're taking such personal offense?) then don't fucking wear it.

It is my opinion that "piling on" is cruel. Apparently, you like the idea of beating up on people, and you relish the prospect of letting people know just how actively their foolsihness is derided. Is that it? That's why you want to know that your silly post gets a hundred or two hundred UNRECS? Or is it that you want an opportunity to play the victim?

I also didn't accuse Skinner of being rude. In fact, your overuse of the word "accuse" is internet-tiresome. See, you make shit up, you can't read, and you selectively interpret. So why should I pay attention to your nonsense? And yes, I perceive your bolded rantings as childish nonsense.

That long, drawn out post with all of those misstatements in it does say something about you, as does your constant, childish carping over this issue. You're not going to get your way. Get OVER it.

I am questioning not your motives, but your grip on reality and your comprehension skills. Surely an adult with a life wouldn't be so bent out of shape over this. How old ARE you?

[nomaco-10]

36. I've been for it, but...

after thinking about it for a brief moment, I thought, what about the posters that can't stand each other around here (for whatever reason) and will just go around unreccing other people's posts based on personalities and not the content.

Oh well, nothing is perfect.

[slackmaster]

42. Anyone who spends a significant amount of the day trying to undermine posts on a forum needs...

To get a LIFE.

I think a lot of the people on this forum are just Internet forum addicts. Real life is outdoors, in your back yard, or at a park, or a beach, or the mountains.

[HughMoran]

57. In a way, it forces people to think about their behavior

It was fun at first to slap down a post here or there (remember, it takes a lot more than just 1 negative vote though - so this was a new form of "consensus" here) just to see it work, but after a while you think "if the content is good, it is best for me to just ignore or hide the thread if it's a subject that I don't care to discuss" This is actually a third vote known as "neutral" and it's the best option in many cases. From the thread creator perspective, this system gives feedback and makes people think twice about adding that catchy hook line that would excite their base, and, as a bonus, poke a finger in the eye of those who are in another camp of thinking. Based on early results, this is a good thing.

[zeemike]

59. You mean these idiot posters have a base?

That they excite with catch phrases?
Sounds both paranoid and political infighting.

[HughMoran]

62. I'm not going to characterize any person/group as an idiot

I don't wish to get into too much detail, but there are "other" smaller sites where people congregate to discuss politics. Think about how you would best promote a message that may not be popular with the majority. It can still be done, but perhaps with less of the vitriol as people can express their disapproval without creating a flame-war. It's a win-win IMO.

[zeemike]

64. And are there other larger sites where people congregate

to fight with these smaller groups?
Yes let the majority kick some ass.

[HughMoran]

65. I can see you're angry

I am pleased with the change - I can already sense a more consensus building tone in the discussions of late.

Less of this is a good thing.



Slowed down for those who live slower:

[zeemike]

73. no anger here I have no dog in this fight.

But i do see two warring sides and one is in the majority and claims the high ground and tells the minority to get over it.
Now where have we heard that before....not from the Democrats of course

[rucky]

43. People are already getting used to it.

and seeing the benefits.

I did like that suggestion of displaying raw up/down votes as a ratio, instead of net recs/<0

[obliviously]

45. Great

some comic relief!

[itsrobert]

69. unR

unR

[redqueen]

75. Changing the label will help how, exactly?

Geez Louise, the drama. *roffle*

[bridgit]

77. "perhaps we can make peace with each other again" ahhh, dat sooo suu-eeet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5BKX3QCjk0

[Joe the Revelator]

83. Everything doesn't have to be a compromise. The R/U deal is fine as is

There are a select few whining about because they are attention starved, and nothing more

[SidDithers]

84. No compromise needed...

I like it just the way it is.

Sid

[BlooInBloo]

85. Americans and their willingness to give away their own voting abilities.

[apocalypsehow]

93. No, absolutely not. Every time we get an innovative feature added here the tiny minority of squealer

always get it taken away because their first-grade mentalities take the notion of a "popularity contest" with threads or posts seriously, and spam thread after thread with their pissy laments about it.

I hope the powers that be at DU do not compromise one inch.

[TexasObserver]

94. Unrecommend works fine. The problem is emotional, not functional.

Simply put, we have a few dozen angry posters throwing a fit about having Unrecommend votes, and a vast majority who think it is fine. The gist of your post is that if we want peace, Skinner had better compromise with you.

I'd suggest this solution: Don't like the feature? Then don't use it. Stop looking at the column that has the information.

[EFerrari]

95. It's too soon to say if the problem is not functional

But nice invalidation there, Tex.

[TexasObserver]

96. No, it isn't.

Stop nagging posters who disagree with you. That's a bad habit.

You want to disagree, then do so, but stop with the personal attacks. You've been doing that all day.

[EFerrari]

97. You tell the OP this is all in his head and I'm nagging?

Heal thyself.

[bobbolink]

98. YOU'RE telling others to stop with the personal attacks, while you call others LIARS???

Is your mirror broken?

[BlooInBloo]

99. If it makes you happier, I don't mind doing the latter while foregoing the former.

[EFerrari]

100. You know, though, the poster has a good point.

What I'm doing is pointless. Time to do something useful.

[Iggo]

102. Or just get rid of The Greatest page.

I swear to GAWD that'll fix this whole mess.

:patriot:

[mamaleah]

118. I think that might help too. But then it's like getting rid of the lunch tables in the "cool kids"

section of the cafeteria.

Their mums and dads might call the PTA!

[backwoodsbob]

105. why?

rec's where just a way for a cliche to feel important while rec'ing each others threads

Now maybe we can get some sanity to the greatest page.

Hell I'd pay a little extra next pay cycle to see the greatest page go away forever

[Rex]

109. Give us the total numbers on recs and unrecs IMO.

[fishwax]

111. I'd say just leave it as it is

and give it some time to see how it shakes out ...

[Laelth]

114. Gracious, zeemike. I feel bad for you.

People who are allegedly liberal bashed you, left and right, in post after post in this thread. They refused to actually listen to your concerns. Instead they mocked you, belittled you, and laughed at you. How can supposed adults be so rude?

I'll tell you. When they know they hold the majority opinion, their worst instincts come out, and they feel free to attack you at will. It's just like high school again. Personally, I hated high school the first time.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TexasObserver]

125. OMG! The Passion of the Christ Almighty!

DUers love the Unrecommend feature. They're tired already of having to defend this simple democratic vote. They're weary of posters who try to wrap ego driven intention in swaddling clothes, lie it in a manger, and expect everyone to treat it like it's the Baby Jesus.

[EFerrari]

129. When did DU elect you to speak for us?

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

130. It was a secret election. You weren't told because your vote doesn't count.

The Unrecommend Party won all the secret elections.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

131. As an election reform activist, I think that's a pretty accurate assessment.

And how ironic that DU was founded as a protest to a stolen election.

lol

[TexasObserver]

133. Why don't you write Skinner and tell him exactly what you've told me?

Why don't you write Skinner and say to him all the dumb things you've said to me about this topic? Be sure to put that stuff in there about how instituting Unrecommend is similar to Bush stealing the presidency in 2000. He'll love that comparison.

[EFerrari]

137. You just can't stop yourself, can you?

lol

It's going to be a cold day when I tell Skinner something he hasn't heard already.

lol

[TexasObserver]

138. I can't stop you from nagging me on every one of these threads.

Get a life, lady. Your obsession with me is not healthy.

[EFerrari]

139. LOL

Poor victim. When you're insulting DUers who disagree with you, you're right. When you're challenged on it, you're a victim of nagging. lol

[Quantess]

124. Too late to Unrecommend.

Darn it! ;)

[LostInAnomie]

126. It's working great as far as I've seen.

No need to mess with it.

[JuniperLea]

132. I've been gone a while...

My first knee-jerk reaction is, oh no... now there will be "Troll Hunters" like on dKos... and cliques of users PMing each other to go "throw donuts" at some poster or another... ganging up on each other to get threads hidden, and sometimes to get people tossed out. Ugh... I think the ignore function is far superior to this. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm betting you anything you want to bet that the Troll Hunters and the underground cliques are already formed. Mark my words, but know I hate being right in times such as these.

[defendandprotect]

134. No "Recommend" should be erased because of a "un-Recommend" . . .

In fact, the "un-Recommend" should be changed to "Not Recommended" --

and let both totals be seen . . .

[JuniperLea]

136. That sounds like a far better idea to me

Power corrupts, ya know?

[Bucky]

140. Or what about a color coded system of numerical valuations if each post that... oh wait...

never mind.