My unsolicited commentary on the UnRec function

[Cirque du So-What]

I've seen about half-a-million threads on Rec/UnRec lately, and quite a few people are upset about its use/misuse. I have a proposal that I believe would put an end to much of the sturm und drang: record the names of those who UnRec threads and make them accessible by clicking a link. I predict that UnRec activity would drop off by 90% overnight for fear of being labeled as a troll, freeper or some other form of disruptor.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I don't really care, but that would be fine. I suspect those who are really pushing for it...

Are the small number of anti-unrec folks, who think to scare people away from unrec by having their screen name displayed.

I think it would be funny to see if that hypothesis is true, or not.


EDIT: Why not display rec'ers, too?

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Yeah, Rec'ers could be displayed too

It just seems that UnRec'ing is more antisocial than Rec'ing a thread. You sure didn't see this amount of controversy when only the capability of Rec'ing existed.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Yah - I think people who vote 'no' are antisocial, too. Voting 'yes' or not voting...

is all there should be.

[KittyWampus]

2. I think the plus and minus feature should be removed. You should see numbers but have no idea

if they are pro or con.

That's about how meaningful this whole exercise in popularity contains.

[JVS]

19. LOL! That would be great.

[rcrush]

3. Cant we just have some kind of public shame forum?

Filled with nothing but unrec posts and pictures of everyone who unrecs so we can shame them

[onehandle]

10. And along with their addresses and phone numbers.

Would that make the vocal minority of DUers against the unrec happy?

[CJCRANE]

4. Doesn't bother me. You've got it backwards.

The unrec was a response to people who anonymously recc'd divisive posts. Now all's fair.

[The River]

7. And Now It's Being Abused

by anyone with a different "agenda".
People who might get tombstoned if they spoke
up now have a tool to keep good links off the best of page.

I just saw it happen to a post w/a link to the Bill Moyers PBS
health care interview. Who the hell unrecs a thread like that?

I hope the mods can see if there are serial abusers of
the unrec feature.

edit=typo

[Cirque du So-What]

11. Yes, I hope the mods can keep track of this

Voting against informative threads of that sort is a dead giveaway that the person is an undercover freeper. IMO, trying to suppress important info is just as disruptive as any other type of troll dropping.

I'm not one to dance on graves, but...



...I do make exceptions for trolls!

[Bumblebee]

18. Grow up and get a life.

Added: I did unrecommend it because posts like that are making DU unvisitable.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Irony = the group complaining about unrec being Orwellian wants big brother to monitor its usage.

[onehandle]

My guess is that the majority of unrecing going on is "against" threads like this one.

Darn serial abusers!

[crickets]

22. I've been seeing the same thing.

It's happening in posts about everything from Afghanistan to health care. I don't think this is one of those "it will drop off after the newness factor is gone" situations.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Yes, that's how it was intended

but now it's a plaything for trolls and the immature who thrive on sowing discontent. How else to explain the number of UnRecs that appear in threads that aren't divisive or hateful? From all appearances, it's an online version of crank-calling or somesuch juvenile prank.

[MineralMan]

6. One of the few types of threads I'd consider unrecommending

are those where a new thread has been started on a topic with dozens of thread, with an original post that could easily have fit into any of those other threads as a reply. Whether it's Michael Jackson, Sarah Palin, or this topic, it's all the same.

[slackmaster]

12. I un-Rec'd this thread and I'm proud of it

So there, Cirque du So-What.

[earth mom]

13. Your thread is at negative Zero. What does that tell you?

The trolls, cheerleaders, propagandists, disinfo agents and assholes won't allow it. :puke:

[Kaleko]

28. That is so unfair!

You forgot the Nazis, crypto-Stalinists and the dickwads! To name just a few. :cry:

[reflection]

14. Bad idea.

Due to the inevitable flamewars and shamefests. I unrec'd this thread.

[HughMoran]

15. Perhaps we could tatoo a scarlet letter on those who would anonymously

find a topic to be offensive, divissive or just plain post-whore stupidity.

[TexasObserver]

16. Unrecommend. Happy now?

You still don't get it.

The option is to give balance to an area where none has existed. Any five buffoons here could send a thread to the Greatest Page, and since we have considerably more than five here, any five posters could anonymously send a thread to the Greatest Page. THAT never seemed to bother you or the other posters who now wail mightily.

[crickets]

23. If that's the case,

why not just change the threshold for appearing on the Greatest Page? Five does seem like a low number given the large posting population.

[TexasObserver]

27. Because a democratic approach is better.

The contortions on this board to justify not allowing a simple UP or DOWN vote on threads is laughable. It's a common practice all over the internet now. Many online sites that allow comments also allow others to rate those comments UP or DOWN.

But here, there are too many fragile egos, and we have this ridiculous opposition to the simple act of givng a thumbs up or thumbs down.

The voting should tell you that most here LIKE having Unrecommend and value it. When you read movie reviews, do you only read reviewers who rave about a film? When you want to buy a car, do you only listen to those who think the car is great? This fear of having negative evaluations by readers is kind of silly.

[crickets]

44. Not everyone feels that posts need an "up or down vote,"

and just because it's a common feature at many sites doesn't mean that everyone here automatically likes it or feels that it suits DU.

I skipped most of the polls as snarky silliness. The one straight "yes/no" poll I've seen was almost exactly evenly split. The pro unrec assumption of a majority and the anti unrec settling for a minority position may be misplaced, and more about volume and tone than numbers.

You seem to be fishing really hard, perhaps unconsciously, for an emotional reaction by using words like:

buffoons
contortions
laughable
fragile
ego
ridiculous
silly

Not much emotional reaction here other than mild amusement that you are so concerned about others' emotionalism while spewing such a great deal of your own.

My concerns and dislike for the unrec feature have nothing to do with ego as I rarely post OPs.

Quoting a post I made on the subject before having read your comments:
People who recommend often post a comment as well, if only to say "K&R" -- the unrec button seems to be a way to torpedo topics without saying why, and as someone else said, "without having to own it." Also, it can push topics off the front and greatest pages that otherwise might have reached more people over time. The "oh, it just hurts your widdle feelings" and "too bad for your ego that you didn't make the greatest page" arguments skip right past that reality. For me, it's not so much a slight to the people who make posts as it is to people who want to read good posts without skipping back and wandering through pages and pages of prior posts on the off chance of having missed an important one.

If you and I disagree on this, so be it. I'm certainly not going to insult you over it. Oddly, I didn't get a direct answer to my original question "Why not just change the threshold for appearing on the Greatest Page?" other than "I like the unrec feature!" I guess the indirect answer is you don't really care about the threshold other than as a chance to call five people who meet it "buffoons." Okay.

[question everything]

17. Or, if one is choosing "U" make them post a comment of why they are

doing so.

It is really cowardly for someone to just shooting a thread down just for the perverse pleasure that they get, perhaps the only pleasure in their life.

We should really pity them, but they do disrupt the forums.

I used to recommend very judiciously, but now am searching the "less than 0" and recommend them and, at least in few cases, brought they back to zero.

(Tried here, but not enough...)

[SidDithers]

21. Unrecc'ing...

and posting so you know it's me.

Sid

[BuyingThyme]

24. I've noticed that the most ardent supporters of Un-Recommend are

the most dishonest, nasty, anti-democratic, anti-Democratic people here.

[BlooInBloo]

25. No you haven't. Because you can't notice what isn't so.

[BuyingThyme]

26. With the few posts I've made on this subject, I've been witness

to people lying to me, people calling me a troll, and even a long-time DU pervert talking about how my mother sucks his dick.

I think the proof is clear.

[MineralMan]

35. Really? Links, please. I haven't seen any such behavior.

[BuyingThyme]

39. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6026869

[MineralMan]

42. Ah, I see. I won't comment further, since I don't want to track

things from thread to thread.

[MineralMan]

33. Are you noticing that? How about posting some links, then?

Or are you just joining the whine?

[BuyingThyme]

37. Here's a good one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6026869

[elocs]

29. If there are Recs, then members should have the opportunity to UnRec.

If you post the names of one, you post the names of both. Balance, fairness, and choice--sounds pretty Democratic to me. Good luck in trying to find an efficient way to purge disruptors because they will always be here. You cannot always tell by post count because we all started with post #1.

[BlooInBloo]

30. They're just trying to intimidate people away from voting 'no' on threads. Their next attempt...

will be an unrec tax.

[azmouse]

31. Smells like censorship.

What are you afraid of with the 'unrec' option?

[elocs]

32. Right. Nobody's thread gets deleted because of UnRecs.

Threads rise toward the top of the forum when they get replies, same as always.

[jgraz]

36. Except you *are* deleting other people's recommendations

Their opinion is most definitely silenced by this anonymous unrec.

[elocs]

38. Nope. The thread is still there in the forum it was posted and will rise with replies.

Nobody's opinion is being silenced. That is a real stretch. Recs are anonymous too.

[jgraz]

40. That is a very simplistic view of censorship

Ever look at the Top 25 Censored Stories from Project Censored? None of the were "silenced" either. They just weren't permitted to gain the same level of prominence as more "mainstream" viewpoints.

[elocs]

43. I think you definition of censorship is simply bizarre

and if members get to Rec a thread, then they should be able to UnRec it. Nobody is stopping any thread and there is no way to claim that. Even if a thread has no Recs at all it can be brought up by replies and a thread with lots of Recs can drop when it receives no replies.

[jgraz]

34. That would certainly make personal vendettas more difficult to hide

As it stands now, you don't even know how many unrecs a post has received. It's a very hidden way for disruptors to attack.

[crickets]

45. "It's a very hidden way for disruptors to attack." +1 -nt

[MineralMan]

41. If you have a good proposal, email it to Skinner. He's the

one who's going to decide the fate of this feature.