The problem with the unrec feature - We can't see a thread's rating when it goes negative

[Liberal_in_LA]

Under the old system everyone could see exactly where a thread stood in terms of popularity..the thread had either zero recs or a positive number.

Under the new system, many threads have '<0'. I can't tell if the thread has negative 200 or negative 5.... big difference between the two.

Sometimes I have given a <0 rated thread a rec and it jumps to 0. Other times it stays at <0. So why should I bother recommending a thread once it has a <0 rating?

[WillyT]

1. Great Point !!!

:thumbsup:

[provis99]

2. I think its an attempt to be positive and nice.

No one on DU really wants to see their thread have -200 recommendations. Recommendations are only relevant for the Greatest page anyways, so why humiliate posters?

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. good point... I have to mull over that for a bit.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. On 2nd thought.. The problem remains... Recommending threads after they reach neg is meaningless

We can't see them go from -200 to -199

[lindisfarne]

19. But if enough hit Rec, they'll move into pos. territory. I think it's a bit biased to show the pos.

count but not the neg., but I can see the argument being made for "niceness". Of course, if people didn't want to be evaluated, there could be an option to suspend both rec & unrec. But, those people probably need most to experience a world, even virtual, where people don't always agree with them.

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. Yep. Youtube has a feature that allows poster to suspend comments

folks use it when the topic attracts pervs or controversy

[bvar22]

14. This is DU.

Who cares about "nice" anymore? :shrug:
This place hasn't been "nice" since 2003.

[grantcart]

25. exactly - no point in rubbing it in.

[FlyingSquirrel]

35. I think that's absurd. Did posters feel humiliated when they got 0 recs?

For some who like to create controversy, they might actually revel in creating a -200 thread. Principles before personalities, that's what I think. If someone is gonna get offended by the number of negative recs they get, maybe they shouldn't bother posting. Criticism is a natural effect of posting. Can't stand the heat? Stay out of the kitchen!

[chill_wind]

39. The Admins felt the count totals were causing math confusion.

See my post #38.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. I don't care much for this feature. Too easy for lurking trolls to use

to bring down a good post that is usually something like sunlight to vampires with them.

It also breeds hostility among DUers, I've seen. I just don't see any positive thing about it.

[Froward69]

16. I agree to a certain point

I would like to see the vote count, not just the recs and/or Unrecs but, recs and the total of votes could suffice. (we can all do math)
and
trolls and or freepers could make a mockery of it.
thus
Democratic Underground should have some sort of rank system. (private, pfc, corporal etc... these are just what came to mind)

so somehow trolls freepers or simply hateful people can't shoot down threads that are important. (wiretapping. cheney and his orders to mislead congress, Universal health care etc.)

unless posters/voters have donated or have some sort of ranking, no real way to tell if the post is good, bad or shot down by (outside) censors.

[masuki bance]

21. We could only allow white landowners who have donated over

5 thousand dollars to DU and have over 5 thousand posts be the only ones making such weighty decisions.

[Liberal_in_LA]

23. white MALE land owners. lol

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Or create a list of those voting rec or unrec. HP has a feature

that gives you the capability to click on the moniker and to see the comments posted by the member. That way, you can see for yourself what is what. That could be added as well.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. Good points. Trolls can get a free moniker here, but they're loathed to

contribute dollars to a website they apparently hate.

They're natural misers, after all.

Another thought could be, how about listing those that have voted unrec? That way, they can explain themselves in the thread and their monikers can be traced to weed out the trolls from real DUers? This is, after all, a public forum.

Real DUers can eloquently defend their choices while trolls are hard-pressed to write three words without using the thesaurus - and dictionary. It would be easy to send them packing.

Just a thought.

[FlyingSquirrel]

36. I like that idea - try sending it to admins.

It took forever for them to finally put in the unrecommend thing (and there's no guarantee it'll stay either). So it might take a long time for your idea to get adopted, but it's worth trying.

[UTUSN]

28. DING ding ding ding ... n/t

[BlooInBloo]

6. I wish they showed the counts, too.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. me too! if I saw my thread had a rating of -200 I might rethink my position or my threads. lol

[bertman]

8. Recommend this thread. Well put, Liberal_in_LA.

Sometimes what seems like a good idea at first blush, turns out to be a bad idea. As in this UNrecommend idea.

[Liberal_in_LA]

11. I'm glad others agree. It took me 24 hours to figure out what was bugging me about this system.

thread after thread rated >0 is meaningless.

[truedelphi]

9. It is very non-transparent.

But hey - according to Skinner - many on board were asking and begging that this happen!

And since non-transparency is now one of the major components of life in the twenty first century, why should things be different here?

[TexasObserver]

10. It would be nice to see the negative total, but some thread starters would be crushed.

Right now, they're just seeing the negative indicator. Imagine if they see +21/-245.

I favor the system you favor, but since the resistance to the current system is ego driven, can you imagine the furor of the fragile egos if they have to see their thread rejected by 90% who rate it?

[Liberal_in_LA]

13. I've had posts generate major negative response. I can't say that seeing a neg number would be worse

[TexasObserver]

17. Your best friend is the person who will tell you that you have B.O.

This new system is fairly reasonable. It allows members to give some indication of their level of approval of the threads. UNRECOMMEND doesn't mean one hates the thread, but that it is not recommended. We do this movies. We do it with books. We do it on youtube. We do it at newspaper and other media online.

The voting gives valuable feedback to thread starters.

[lindisfarne]

20. They'd publicly dismiss those 90% as RWers & trolls. I really don't understand why a neg. vote

from a stranger matters so much to some.

[BurtWorm]

12. Maybe it's irrelevant when a thread is unpopular enough to be have fewer than zero recs.

Maybe it's salt on a wound for some people who can't bear to have even a single unrecommendation.

[scarletwoman]

15. I've seen lots of "pro-unrecommend function" posts who insisted that it was only fair for people

to be able to express their dislike of a post. I wonder then, why isn't also fair to show the count, too?

Personally, I don't like it at all, and have said so from the very beginning. But if we're going to have it, then I want to see the numbers.

Thanks for your OP, which I have rec'd, of course. :)

sw

[Obamanaut]

18. Often I'll use the number of replies as an indicator of whether/not

to open the thread. Unless it's a total flame-fest that has not yet been locked, it works for me.

[hunter]

24. I'd get rid of the less than 0 count and fix it a 0

Unrecommending a thread with a 0 count would simpy be a waste of your vote.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. "Under the old system everyone could see exactly where a thread stood in terms of popularity"

No, actually you couldn't see that. All you could see was the number of recommends. As there was no mechanism to indicate an unrecommend, you could not see where a thread stood in terms of disapproval and thus a thread's popularity was not accurately reflected. Now you can see the difference between positive and negative recommends. Should the negative difference be shown? Perhaps, in fact I have no problem with that change, but you way overstate your case with that statement about the old system.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

27. The rec and unrec is mutating to I agree and I disagree

which was not the original purpose of recs which once were meant to say "this post says something so valuable /unique/ worth commenting on/ funny/ pithy/ etc , that I think it deserves the widest possible audience, so please put it on the greatest page."

I think the requisite numbers of rec's to get on the Greatest Page should have a really high number if the Greatest is supposed to reflect the best of the best- I wouldn't be adverse to a number like 15 or even 20. You'd have a lot smaller Greatest Page, but lots of times I read Greatest and think, huh? as I am sure do many.

Remember "Skip This"? That didn't work for the same reason I think unrec ultimately won't work. Unrec is being applied too indiscriminately to completely innocuous threads at this point and it is sending the same message as the old "Skip This". "Skip This" was popping up all over the place and seeminglingly projected that a number of posters thought that other posters had little if anything worthwhile to say on any particular subject, or as is happening now, it became just a FU button,to denigrate a poster that someone may dislike.

SO, I would suggest a "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" button that is completely separate from rec's for the Greatest Page but would let everyone see whether a thread was a minority view, a majority view or something in between. Even if a minority viewpoint made it to the Greatest Page, it would be evident that it could be a Greatest but still have a huge number of dissenting viewpoints.

I personally wouldn't mind if a click on any statistic (rec, unrec, thumbs up or thumbs down), revealed the names of the posters. I think it would be revealing and interesting. I am completely open about all my opinions and wouldn't mind them being displayed.

[CakeGrrl]

31. I think it should be all or nothing

Either show the net count be it positive or negative, or do away with votes in BOTH directions altogether.

People liked positive recommends because they are affirmations that others agree with them. They had no problem seeing ONLY that side of the equation while there could be many people who disagreed but did not have the means to express it. Happy happy.

It's ironic that one of the arguments against the unrec feature is that threads that hold "hard truths" - i.e., NEGATIVITY - against Obama or other subjects won't be seen on the Greatest page. But those who make that argument cannot stand the idea of having a negative vote count against their thread.

[Iggo]

32. I measure the popularity of a thread by the # of replies. (n/t)

[earth mom]

33. Because nuking is about annihilating information not about what it pretends to be.

The knuckledraggers love using their clubs to shut everyone else down.

Unwreck is straight out of the GOP and freeperville playbook.

This is what they do best.

Shut everyone the fuck up.

Too bad for them that they can't actually delete threads and posts.

But they would if they could.

[jakeXT]

34. Wasn't there a version with how many recs you had and the actual count with the unrecs ?

+32 (35) or something ?

[TexasObserver]

37. Yes, but it was quickly stopped. Probably to save hurt feelings.

Look at how a simple indication of negative votes has affected the fragile. If they know how badly their threads are despised, they'll really flip out.

[chill_wind]

38. Yes-- but it had nothing to do with hurt feelings. Here's what they said.

ON EDIT: We have decided to remove the total number of votes, and only show the net score. It was apparent that showing the total number of votes was confusing to readers. It made it appear that you could simply subtract the net score from the total votes to get the number of unrecommendations, which was NOT correct. I apologize for the confusion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6021143#top