I've seen a number of controversial but interesting posts that have negative recommend numbers

[tavalon]

I wasn't sure how I felt about the unrecommend feature but I'm beginning to lean towards not liking it. When the Greatest Page first came along, I started gravitating toward that being my main default page and it saved me a good chunk of time as DUers quickly became very good at placing the best on the Greatest Page. I've watched that skill degenerate over time, especially during primary wars and celebrity crime and death times so I can certainly see that some sort of shift has to happen. Unrecommend doesn't seem to fit that bill since it is clearly keeping good threads off of the greatest page (it is also keeping Michael Jackson off the Greatest Page as well - interpret that as good or bad as you see fit).

I'm not pleased that I'm going to have to go back to visiting a lot of forums again but then , maybe I'll actually visit The Lounge once in a while, something I haven't done in years (right around the time the Greatest Page came along, I think).

I've never had much investment in whether my posts hit the Greatest Page or not so I don't really care if my posts get unrecommends because my "posse" isn't big enough, but if I have an interesting and yet, possibly controversial OP, I would like it to not end up languishing because those on the other side of my controversial subject don't like my take on the topic. It's intellectually lazy to use the unrecommend feature rather than debate.

Not that we got a vote on this, but my vote would be against this feature. I hope it goes away and soon.

[EFerrari]

1. Yep. The new feature has a tyranny of the majority problem

in addition to having an anonymous negativity problem.

[tavalon]

5. Yeah, I completely agree

I hope this is short lived. The owners of this website are really smart dudes, so I think it will be short lived.

[EFerrari]

7. I'd no idea how it would work, too many variables

but that's what it's looking like right now.

[NashVegas]

74. I Disagree

I think we've been subjected to a tyranny of the minority for far too long.

[CTyankee]

123. Can you tell me what the point of it is? I don't understand. If someone doesn't like

what they read they can rebut with their own argument, ignore, or start their own thread making their argument pro or con the same issue (w/o name calling of course).

What is the rationale?

[EFerrari]

141. I think the guys were trying to find a finer way to get better posts

up on the GP. And in many ways, I think they did that. But the question is, is that generally better quality worth the downsides?

[AllentownJake]

2. Meh

I like it. My only complaint is that you should have to reply to recommend or unrecommend.

[EFerrari]

4. This thoughtful post was already in multiple negative numbers

before I even read it. This isn't really encouraging thoughtful discussion.

[tavalon]

6. Yeah, well I hope that other people are reading the negative numbered posts

just as I am. It's enlightening, really.

[tavalon]

9. But people will just reply with "kicked and unrecommended"

That's not discussion, it's a bastard combination of Survivor and American Idol. One of the best features the owners ever created here was the Greatest Page. And I think they will destroy it with this new "feature". Luckily, I also think the owners are really great and smart and I think they'll figure out that this isn't a refinement, it's a new way for DUers to be pissy (and goodness knows, we're already too damn good at pissy) and will remove it.

[AllentownJake]

11. They change things back and forth based on responses

Remember the new format a few months back that everyone hated...they changed it back.

If this becomes hated Skinner will adjust.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. hahaha wtf??

I recommended you =)

[shireen]

10. me too ....

perhaps Skinner should reinstate the "are you sure" recommendation step we used to have. Only people who felt compelled to rec a post took the trouble to do it because it involved an extra page load. Now, it's just too easy for anyone to unrec a post just for the hell of it -- they're probably the same people who, at the grocery store, leave bags of produce or packages of meat at canned good or cleaning products aisles, just for the fun of it. (BTW, those perishable foods get thrown out, did ya know that?)

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. I like one click recommend. Unrec should come with a challenge screen.

"Are you sure you want to be a toolish jackass?" :rofl:

[tavalon]

198. Best.idea.ever!

[old mark]

8. It was a stupid idea

still is.

Lots of great posts are not popular with the masses here at DU, and this makes it all into a popularity contest.

More high-schoolish than ever - nice work, folks.


markO8)

[EFerrari]

13. It encourages power struggles instead of issues.

But, it's easy to say that now, from this armchair. lol

[tavalon]

14. Thing is though, the DU owners are the smartest guys in the room

I've seen them mess up a feature before and they realize it and fix it or remove it rather quickly. I think they were trying to fix a problem and didn't realize they were creating a bigger problem. I predict it will be gone soon enough. I hope it will be gone sooner than soon. We're still going to be left with the problem that the Greatest Page has become a popularity contest and that will have to be dealt with, but this was definitely a step in the wrong direction and I have a good deal of faith that they will see it.

[TexasObserver]

12. Unrecommend is great. It works fine. Good results.

[EFerrari]

15. What do you think about tavalon's point about controversial posts?

[NashVegas]

71. Could You Be More Specific?

And point to one?

[LynneSin]

166. The only thing the feature does is determine who gets on the greatest page

and to be honest, if it's something that controversial then it's probably not the best place for that thread.

There are many more factors that determines why someone reads a thread other than how may people 'recommend it'.

[Ken Burch]

191. Wouldn't a thread that wasn't controversial be, by definition, terminally boring?

How could a non-controversial thread actually merit being considered "Great"?

Bland can't be grand, y'know.

[tavalon]

17. Let me ask you to do something

Say, tomorrow, how about you go look at say, 20 of the posts that have negative numbers and see if you see some posts that should be on the Greatest Page. Don't look at the titles. If you don't find anything that should have been on the Greatest Page, then you can consider yourself vindicated and me, a fool. But if you haven't done that, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I was on the fence about this feature until I did that. Now, I'm adamantly against it.

[druidity33]

35. we should have

an Un-Greatest page so you can scour those posts to your hearts content. Anyway you slice it, people will miss posts they may have been interested in. I usually just check the Greatest Page, and honestly, the past couple of days have been a pleasure. Very few "silly" posts or dupes up.

And let me just say that the folk who are disapproving of this feature seem to be a VERY LOUD few... not a large majority of the posters. I recognize your point, but honestly, if i "didn't look at the titles", i would never read them and wouldn't have rec'd them in the old system either. I tried what you suggested and couldn't find anything that should be on the Greatest page. A few interesting posts, but...


:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

37. I recommend your post!

[tavalon]

39. Alas, you are the one I asked to do the experiment

Recommend the post all you want, but the poster did the work, so, IMO, they hold more credibility. Keep an open mind and do the work, it might lead you to a different conclusion. Might not, but you can't really know, can you, unless you do the work yourself.

[tavalon]

38. Here's one

It suffers from the OP's low post count and confrontational manner. That said, it is a lively and interesting discussion..........with <0 recommends. Been that way since it was started.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6046634&mesg_id=6046634

[CJCRANE]

44. So a guy who joined yesterday and posts a Marxist saying should be on the Greatest Page?

I don't think so.

Seems to me the unrecommend feature is working just fine in that case.

[tavalon]

45. Not because of the first post

I didn't recommend the post until the discussion started taking off and the OP began discussing it in more depth. I refuse to use the unrecommend feature but neither do I use recommend all that often. I did in this case but it didn't change anything.

On edit: Low post count is rarely (if ever) a consideration in whether I think a topic is worth being seen on the Greatest Page.

[fascisthunter]

109. personally as a Democrat, I'm more opposed to fascists posting here

[trotsky]

183. Absolutely agree.

Funny, I view that link as proving the new Rec/Unrec is working GREAT!

[dipsydoodle]

55. We could all make profound statements all day

or muse over how many beans really do make five.

[Uzybone]

131. that example is laughable. You make a joke of yourself by pointing to that.

you think that shit should be getting recs?

[mamaleah]

194. So...a one-liner should make the greatest page just because 5 people click a button?

That's a great thought the guy had there? And because 5 people think so....it should be on the "Greatest Page"?

I think Unrec did something wonderful because now people have to actually have substance besides "K&R this if you think (fill in one liner here).

[EFerrari]

41. Maybe I just need to get the heck off of DU but I think you're saying

that the tyranny of the majority is all right because the majority approves. :)

[druidity33]

52. well

If that's what i wanted to say... that's what i would've said. I didn't say we should avoid the minority viewpoint, just pointed out that there don't seem to be too many that are indisposed by this "new feature", and that the people that are are rather vocal about it.

I'm kinda indifferent to it. I just don't see DU as any kind of "big deal". I like it here, but i don't post to be on the Greatest and honestly couldn't care less what people here think of me. In every part of my life (online ond off) i try to be open, honest, and understanding. I grew up in NY, so if someone's being a dick towards me i'll tell them. No sweat. If i'm bothered by a poster, i put them on ignore. I just couldn't possibly take anything here too seriously. It's nice to have an engaging conversation, or learn something new, but this is just an online forum after all.

:)

[HughMoran]

63. I have a similar attitude

I often think some here take this whole online forum thing just a bit too seriously.

[EFerrari]

87. This is an online forum?! I thought it was the Mayo Clinic!

[CTyankee]

128. Sometimes I think it's the Fight Club. n/t

[EFerrari]

137. What I liked about tavalon's post was that it was quiet

and measured and not cantankerous in any way. :)

[CTyankee]

138. Yes, that's nice. I like it...nt

[tavalon]

199. Yeah, I've had way too much drama of late

No need to add to it here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[truedelphi]

173. With the size of DU membership being UNDER 150K, the Un rec

feature means that there is a lot of censorship that will result.

Here are my additional thoughts -(And note this OP is UN rec'ed and thus willnever make it to greatest page!)

http://tinyurl.com/lc2cw2

[EFerrari]

181. Maybe we need an UnRec Greatest Page.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

206. Laugh of my week (But it is early in the week.)

Hi E.

:hi:

[pecwae]

16. I'm glad to see it.

Your OP is one of the best yet, though, in stating your opposition in a calm, reasoned manner.

[tavalon]

18. I think we do need some sort of change to the Greatest Page

I've watched it go from a very useful timesaver to a forum overrun with the news creator of the moment, be it something like the Iran Vote Fraud riots to Michael Jackson and if you were here during the Primaries, well, you know that extreme measures were needed.

I wish I had some sort of alternative idea to put out there, but right now, all I've formulated is that unrecommend is keeping some very worthy topics off of the Greatest Page.

[pecwae]

21. You're correct about the Greatest.

I don't go to it since most of what has been recced up, IMO, isn't worthy of being there. Admin must have hopes that this new feature will help regulate some of the more bizarre rants and popularity contests that show up there. I feel much more time should be given before calling it a fail.

Oh, yeah, I was here during the primaries and was Modding until February '08.

Thanks for starting a truly mature discussion. I'm reccing it although I don't agree with your opinion. Hopefully, all respondents can remain consistent with the tone of your OP.

Cheers!

[tavalon]

23. Unfortunately, I shot myself in the foot by changing my sig line in the middle of this discussion

You have a point that we should give it some time to shake out. I was pretty bothered by the number of posts that were getting unrecommends when they were noteworthy interesting discussions. But it occurs to me that this was probably happening all along by people refusing to recommend a post because they disagreed with the OP's point of view, rather than ranking it's worthiness as a discussion. So, maybe what I'm getting my dander up about is something that has been going on below my radar until this brought it into high relief.

[Greyhound]

19. You've stated the problem perfectly.

Allowing people to actively hinder the exposure of an idea is pretty un-democratic. I'm not really sure what this was intended to accomplish in the first place. If it was a response to the MJ hysteria, I would think a specific forum for that kind of thing would be better.

Anyway, your OP got a rec from me.

[tavalon]

20. The Michael Jackson fest was just the latest event

Whatever the rage and fury of the moment happens to be, can end up being all the Greatest Page is about for days on end. It worked well in the beginning but in the last few years, it's become more of a popularity contest than a useful tool. I think the owners thought this would help. See my sig line for what I think it actually is..........

I really do think they'll ditch it. They are too smart not to realize, and quickly, that this exacerbates the problem with the Greatest Page rather than fixing it.

[EFerrari]

22. Maybe the Greatest Page needs an editor.

:scared:

Because the system we had, of people actively promoting with a rec a thread that was valuable, is about as much as posters can do. Sometimes threads were promoted for the wrong reasons but that was still better than the kind of exclusion this latest trial sets up.

Maybe the better answer isn't a machine answer.

[tavalon]

26. I wouldn't want to be that sacrificial lamb

You know damn near everyone would hate that person or persons with a passion!

[EFerrari]

27. Isn't that what "editor" means?

lol

You could restructure the Greatest to have two tiers, one with the posts voted up and then "headlines". I think that's what Rob does at OpEdNews. So, the OPs that people vote up get on the page but the focus goes to the ones with doubleplusgood somethingness. :)

[tavalon]

30. LOL

I didn't realize that was what "editor" meant but yes, I can see your point.

[LynneSin]

54. We are the editors

That the reason the admins first designed the greatest page. Before that DUers could submit articles they wanted to see published on the DU home page but that took alot of extra work by the admins to read thru all of that. Why not let DUers as a whole decide what is 'greatest'. So far I like the greatest page!

[EFerrari]

94. Right. I don't see how the guys could tweak the ranking system

any better without it making it too cumbersome or without putting a person into some kind of editing slot to catch outliers.

[LynneSin]

164. I think when all the hoopla dies down about the feature it will do what it's suppose to do

and for most DUers, a <0 post can have the same appeal as one that has been overwhelmingly recommended especially if that <0 has a bit of post count to it. To me that just means there is a hot debate going on that I want to jump in and see.

[EFerrari]

168. I think this change is already doing what it's supposed to do.

Most of that is really nice but part of it is awful. The Greatest Page is mostly better but it's also sort of more bland; the bullying is over the top, and to me any way, that's the bigger downside. I barely visit the GP unless there's a thread that I hope gets seen and you don't really have to go to that page to see that. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

24. I tend to agree with you. I'm thinking back to the time of the false prosecution

of the Duke lacrosse players for rape. Since it involved a rogue prosecutor and important national issues (defendant's rights, victim's rights, etc.), it was a topic well worth discussing here. But it caused some extremely heated discussions and there were many DUers who would have unrecommended any thread on the "wrong side" of the topic.

Is the fact that a subject is very controversial enough reason to erect hurdles to its being on the Greatest Page?

[lamp_shade]

25. I found most of the negatives in GD and GD:P to be, in fact, unworthy of the Greatest Page.

But that's my opinion.

[TexasObserver]

29. Yes, it does a good job of knocking out most of the drivel, while keeping the good ones.

This is a vote of members, an indication of how they feel about a particular Original Post and thread it starts. There are many reasons for not wanting a thread to be recommended to the Greatest Page. It may be mundane. It may be duplicative. It may be inflammatory. It may be poorly written. It may be a fit or flight of ego. It may be many things other than worthy of recommendation.

The Greatest Page rebuts the argument that is put forth by those who attack the unrecommend feature. It has many great topics, but has little of the self aggrandizing or trivial threads that had become so common to it.

[tavalon]

31. Have you actually done the research?

Are you sure this isn't exacerbating the problems we were already experiencing on the Greatest Page and off of it, as well?

[lamp_shade]

32. Yes. It's the vast majority of DUers who determine what makes it to the Greatest Page.

I never used to go there, but with this new feature, I find myself going there FIRST. It's refreshing to once again find interesting, intelligent and thought-provoking posts there. Not crap.

[EFerrari]

33. The top thread right now is our celebration of the freeper's racist thread

humiliation. Maybe satisfying but not exactly interesting or thought-provoking.

[TexasObserver]

46. I unrecommend all threads with Freeper in the title.

In my view, the word FREEPER or the words Free Republic should never appear on the Greatest page. I don't see what purpose that serves, if the Greatest Page has the purpose it is stated to have. Why give those bums any coverage? I like the idea of quality threads that represent areas progressives generally agree upon.

I would have liked the other posters to agree with my assessment of the Freeper title thread, but they didn't. I don't lament it. I accept it. They voted. My point of view lost on that one.

I prefer this process and believe it results in a better system of evaluating threads than the preceding accomplished.

[tavalon]

47. I hope you're right

I think it just gives DUers another way to be pissy and goodness knows, we're already damn good at that. And this is feels passive agressive. That said, I think it's just a more obvious example of what had already gone wrong with the Greatest Page. I think we are using both recommend and unrecommend as a popularity contest rather than as a thoughtful way to help other DUers quickly find the best of our postings.

[EFerrari]

49. I agree. Why give them signage.

While this new system does make largely better choices, I also agree with tavalon that disagreeing with an idea or trying to block a writer is not a good reason to keep a post off the Greatest Page. That's just going to encourage homogeneity at best, and silly power trips at worst.

[tavalon]

50. I hope you have a night job like me,

because, otherwise, you have awful insomnia!

[tavalon]

51. Good night all,

and thank you for an overall interesting and thought provoking and lively conversation!

Edit: Oops, I meant to post this to my OP. Clearly I am tired:hi:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

67. It needs to be called out. MSNBC apparently is going to talk about it tomorrow.

I like to think that maybe DU had something to do with this. Even if it didn't I think it's more then appropriate to have the utter garbage spewed from that site highlighted for all to see...Totally greatest worthy...

[EFerrari]

73. I didn't say it shouldn't be there just that it didn't really represent

what the poster was describing. I hope this story is all over every where. :)

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

90. Fair enough...No system is perfect, but the end results seem to be pretty good.

[EFerrari]

96. Right. The problem we were talking about isn't that bad posts

would wind up on the greatest page but that some good posts wouldn't, that and meanness towards some posters.

[TexasObserver]

36. True. It had become meaningless.

I'm sure everyone here has gotten PMs from members they didn't even know, imploring you to "recommend" their thread. Junk threads got sent there all the time. Now, the weeding out process takes place and quality threads are sent to the Greatest page.

[tavalon]

40. Wow, I've never gotten one of those

I'm so unloved.

I'm kidding.

[zeemike]

28. i recommended your post but it changed noting

I guess because someone unrecommended right about that time.

The question for me is why would someone want to keep this post off the greatest page?...it is not frivolous, insulting or hate filled, but does offend some because it does not agree with them.

[tavalon]

34. I would guess that they feel it doesn't bring any original information

and that may well be true. I think it brings up points I haven't seen elsewhere or I wouldn't have written it, but, as I said, I have no big investment in whether I get to the Greatest Page or not. I do worry that truly deserving posts are being blasted out because they are too controversial for many people. I want to see the controversy. I've no interest in Democratic Underground becoming Democratic Bland. Of course, it isn't going to, unless I choose to stick with the Greatest Page which I've already decided to ditch. In the process of this discussion, I've started wondering if I was missing really good stuff before because I was relying on the Greatest Page to be a filter, knowing that it had become an unreliable filter, long before this feature came along.

[rucky]

42. If it's "controversial and interesting" you like...

the only way to find them in the old system was from post counts (150+) - but never from positive recs.

Of course there are exceptions to the high post count/low rec combo where it could just end up being someone saying something stupid and getting dogpiled (not so interesting). So I think you'll find the posts you're looking for better if they have 1) a high post count, and 2) low-to-negative rating. But if you're saying these posts would've been on the Greatest page without the new feature - you're wrong.

[tavalon]

43. I had forgotten that old system and no, I didn't like that

I really liked the Greatest Page in it's early incarnation and haven't liked it so much in the last few years. This new feature just makes what's wrong with the Greatest Page all the more obvious.

[woo me with science]

48. Perfectly stated. Recommended. nt

[LynneSin]

53. Yeah but those are the threads I read ESPECIALLY if they have a high post count

The feature isn't going away anytime soon so get use to it. What the feature does and the ONLY thing the feature does is clean up the method of what gets on the DU home page.

If something has limited appeal to a small group of DUers, they should not be using the system to push their agenda on the DU home page. I look at the home page today and you see topics that appeal to all DUers.

I don't care what the rec count is when I see a topic that interests me although it is interesting that those I find like I would enjoy reading the most are <0.

Go figure!

[zeemike]

60. I just don't remember any objectionable post on the home page

But maybe it my memory, or the fact I am not offended by much.
Could you give me some examples of something making the home page that you found objectionable?

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Where to start?

The feature isn't going away anytime soon so get use to it. What the feature does and the ONLY thing the feature does is clean up the method of what gets on the DU home page.

Because the majority has spoken? The more we slice and dice DU, the more we find ourselves a majority of an ever-smaller group.

If something has limited appeal to a small group of DUers, they should not be using the system to push their agenda on the DU home page. I look at the home page today and you see topics that appeal to all DUers.

So, if my interests appeal to a small group of DUers, I should stop pushing my agenda? I should only promote Photo threads, freepers are poopyheads and "Hillary sucks" posts? I think you're confusing "appeal" with "pander".

I don't care what the rec count is when I see a topic that interests me although it is interesting that those I find like I would enjoy reading the most are <0.

Go figure!

"Go figure" nothing. The phenomenon was completely predictable. The process of "cleaning up" what gets on the homepage guarantees that the threads most worth reading aren't there.

[LynneSin]

190. Here's the scoop

It's here to stay. I may get modified but from what I've read the majority of the DUers either like the feature or never really paid attention to the REC feature anyways.

All this bullcrap about how people feel their speech is somehow getting repressed or that making the DU home page is some sort of great thing. Pul-lease

As for picture threads - if you don't like them on DU home page then unrec them. But I can tell you haven't looked at the DU home page lately. Crazy thing is - the system works. You just don't want change.

Go figure AND Deal with It

And btw every agenda can be pushed here at DU, end of discussion. The rec system doesn't change a thing unless you happen to have really thin skin and can't deal with someone disagreeing with you. I'd hate to see you in RL when someone does that - probably sends you over the edge.

[EFerrari]

193. It's bullcrap, it's you, deal with it, end of discussion, it's you.

If this new system is so good, why do you have to be so nasty? Is this something you just feel you must do or what?

ETA: And *that* kind of stuff is *exactly* why I don't like this. It's just another encouragement to lower the bar on the tone around here. As if we needed encouragement.

[cwydro]

56. I think it's working well.

When the dust settles and people stop playing with it, I think it'll be a good feature.

I especially like that it is doing away with all those "rec this thread" type threads.

[Ohio Joe]

57. I'm not getting it

I don't see how lots of replies or controversy makes a post worthy of the greatest page, I also don't see how not being on the greatest page means a post is languishing.

[Incitatus]

75. I don't see one one person should be allowed to delete another person's recommendation.

If I think a particular post is worthy of a recommendation I should be able to recommend it and have my rec stay, if someone else doesn't like it then they don't have to rec it and they can even hide the thread and ignore the user.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Succinct and accurate. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

111. I don't think that is the point

As best I understand it, the greatest page is for what the community as a whole feels should be there. If a given person does not feel a post belongs there, should they not have a voice as well? Because I feel a post does not belong on the greatest page does not mean I want to hide it or not comment on it. One has nothing to do with the other.

[HughMoran]

58. If you're vacillating between the Greatest Page and the Lounge

I'm not sure that you objection can be taken too seriously. There is a lot of good stuff that didn't make it to the Greatest Page under the old system - you've already missed out on a lot.

[demoleft]

59. that's my perception as well. i enter the lounge, too. k&r

because the positive act of recommending means that someone read what u wrote.
what's the sense in saying "friends, do not read this - it is completely uninteresting" - which is what UNrec means at root?

i can disagree with something and recommend it as well. but unrecommending is a weapon for inner personal war.

i already posted in a thread - if the nicknames of the rec/unrecommending people appeared, we would have a fall in the UNrec asset.

and it would be good. i like positivity.

[zeemike]

61. Why have a negative feature at all?

using the old adage I would say if you can't say anything good about a post don't say anything at all...
Or if that post really does offend you post those objections to their face. And if you think it is hate speech or other breaking of the rules use the alert button.
But don't take the negative action of taking away someone's right to say they like it.

[EFerrari]

140. Do you still have a link to the thread you posted Saturday morning?

If you do, would you send it to me? It's another perfect example of why the majority should have a brake or two on it. :hi:

[zeemike]

177. Yes here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6039898

[EFerrari]

179. Thank you. n/t

[kentuck]

62. The tyranny of the majority is called democracy.

Or perhaps we should just change our name to republicanunderground?

Democracy does not produce perfect results just as the 'greatest page" does not always post the greatest posts. Democracy works with a majority because we have not found a better way to do it. We vote on it and hope the majority has the wisdom to do what is best. Would it be better to let the minority decide what is best for all of us? What would you call that?

Personally, I could live without the "greatest page". However, if we are going to have it, why not make it the best page possible? How do you do that? Let people vote on what they want on their "greatest page". Of course, like the old Russian elections and the elections that voted Saddam Hussein into office, your only choice is a "yes" vote. Is that really what we want? Is that really fitting for the "democraticunderground"?

For me, a successful post is when I can get at least 50-100 people to "view" my post and I know they have had the opportunity to read it. If they do not kick it back to the top of the page it is on, then I assume it was not a "worthy" post. I do not email people to ask them to "kick" it back to the top. I do not try to manipulate the post to get it on the "greatest page".

It is an open market for ideas. Some are good ideas and some suck. That's just the way it is.

[Usrename]

64. You are completely wrong about this.

Here is a good example. Look at the very first post in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6046260

With a few more supporters here, this whole story would be wiped off the site completely.

Should the majority really determine whether or not this type of thing is discussed here?

The unrec feature does make DU more of a freeper site than not having it. Can't you see that?

[kentuck]

70. But this post made the greatest page.

It got over 60 responses and 20 votes for the "greatest". Is that not good enough?

[EFerrari]

72. This post is back at zero. lol

[kentuck]

76. zero??

I show 18+ at the moment??

[EFerrari]

77. I'm looking at the OP. Is it at 18 on the GP?

What is Skinner trying to pull here? :)

[kentuck]

80. Yes. I show +18 on both?

I don't think Skinner is trying to pull anything?

[EFerrari]

83. tavalon's OP says zero. (And I'm kidding about Skinner, lol.)

[kentuck]

85. I was responding to the post about another link..

that was being used as an example.

[Usrename]

91. No, it isn't good enough.

The unrec feature is being used incorrectly. The referenced thread is proof of that fact!

Look at the very first post here in this other thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6046260#6046281

-1 We've all seen this crap before.

I, for one, would rather not relive the primary wars. No need to pick the scabs off the old wounds.

It's exactly the same thing as putting ones hands over their ears and shouting: "La la la la la ..."

It has nothing to do with what you claim it does. Nothing at all.

[kentuck]

98. Are you saying that poster does not have a right to that opinion?

I think there are some double standards being attempted?

[Usrename]

100. You honestly don't get my point?

I don't have any beef with anyone's expression of their opinion. I have a beef with the opinion. Yes, I do have a problem with it.


I have a problem with them having the power to limit other member's easy access to information or to keep certain things from being discussed.

[kentuck]

103. I have a problem with your definition of "limiting access"...?

or people keeping "certain things from being discussed". Sorry, I don't see that. So, I guess I don't get your point?

[EFerrari]

106. It can't be both. It can't be argued that this new system

for filtering to the Greatest Page works well AND that it doesn't work, i.e., that it doesn't limit access.

And, all you have to do to see people being told to STFU is to read any one of these very threads. I promise I won't start in on that again today, lol, but really, these threads are the best evidence that this experiment is problematic.

[Usrename]

114. I think you probably get it just fine.

In that other thread about Hillary's membership in the "Fellowship" the facts of the story are not being contested at all by the poster who braggs about unrecommending the topic.

Instead, the poster cleary states that the reason for the unrec is something different entirely. They don't want this topic discussed, even when it is the truth, soley because it is contentious and it will bring up some of the bitter arguments from the primaries.

That is a direct contradition of your whole argument. People are using this feature as way of putting their fingers in the ears of the entire membership and shouting La la la... at the top of their lungs.


Are you going to tell me that you honestly don't see that?

[kentuck]

130. What I read...

is that you don't like those folks that stick their fingers in their ears and ignore your opinion. You alone will decide what you think deserves to be on the greatest page and no one has a right to disagree with you? That is what I see.

[Usrename]

136. Wrong again. You just want to ignore the reality of my argument.

I think those folks who stick their fingers in their ears are idiots, that much is true.

The fact that Hillary is a member of the C Street Cult is NOT my opinion.

It is fact.

Do you comprehend that MY OPINION has nothing at all to do with her membership in a fascist cult that was founded by a Nazi sympathizer?


My OPINION has nothing at all to do with it. Understand?

[kentuck]

145. OK.

And you want the post on the greatest page? Right? At the top of the greatest page? Right?

Some folks, for petty or political reasons, may disagree with you. That is all that I am saying.

It is not being censored. The same number of DUers will read and comment on the post, whether or not it is on the greatest page. Maybe even more.

[Usrename]

203. Keep telling yourself that.

Some serious denial you got working.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. "Controversial and interesting" is exactly what is weeded out.

Take a closer look at the GD list. All of the topics that people are talking about are the topics with <0 recommendations. The only exception is the "Free Republic Sucks!" thread.

[NashVegas]

69. If I Could Count the Number of Times Someone Wrote "Fail" or Other POS Response To a Post of Mine

From a particular faction of cool kids, I'd be kept busy for some time.

Deal with it.

[EFerrari]

78. What does that even mean to you? "It's just a discussion board"

"get used to it", and "deal with it" don't really address the points tavalon brought up.

[NashVegas]

86. "They Doth Protest Too Much"

In this particular case, "deal with it" means that more DUers need to accept that not all of their droppings may be pure gold.

[EFerrari]

89. And that attitude which seeks to shut down discussion and crassly, too,

is prevalent here among a number of posters and the best reason that this unrec thingy is a bad idea.

[NashVegas]

92. And Yet ...

There are threads that have been posted from people who feel it's a positive step, which are more 'unrecommended' than not.

So it's apparent that many who protest its use are happy to work it, regardless.

[EFerrari]

97. Damn people.

lol

[Usrename]

101. makes you want to put your fingers in your ears and yell "La la la la..."

Doesn't it?

:)

[BlooInBloo]

79. And I saw a number of interesting posts before unrec that weren't on Greatest, too.

[madfloridian]

82. Many are using it to bully a few members mercilessly.

I have seen about 4 or 5 posters now getting viciously attacked no matter what they post.

It is being used in many cases for payback if someone ever made them angry.

It is like using a new weapon without good judgment in many cases.

[EFerrari]

84. Someone mentioned that yesterday but I was hoping they were kidding.

[varelse]

160. I brought the 'ad hominem' use of unrec up on one of madfloridian's threads

It's human nature, and I'd actually be surprised if it did not happen. Thing is, that thread had +45 recs when I last looked at it, because it was of interest and also because madfloridian still has more dedicated 'fans' than she does dedicated detractors (imo, of course).

Eventually people will learn how to deal with the new feature, and "life as we know it" will return. The only lasting change (again IMO) will be that completely egregious threads (of the 'rec this if you agree with me', 'Obama is a DLC traitor', 'DU sucks' flavor) will no longer stay on the greatest page because people such as myself, who will otherwise not use the "unrec" feature, will come out in force to remove those from the greatest page.

It can't really be called censorship, because those of you who dedicate time to writing journal entries are still visible on the home page, and because unrecommend doesn't kill or lock threads - it just drops the number of recs they have.

[EFerrari]

175. Imho, that's an underestimation of the less thoughtful, less civil

way this feature will be used. As it was, people who disagreed with an OP had to write out their disagreement. That put some brakes on @ssholery. Those are gone now and that doesn't seem like a good idea to me, anyway. I hope your more optimistic prediction turns out to be right. :)

[varelse]

180. I feel that we will learn tactics to counter that type of abuse

I still have faith in DU :)

But if I'm totally wrong, feel free to enlist me in the "anti-unrec" army a few months from now ;)

[Incitatus]

93. No doubt there are also a lot of lurking freepers who will just use it to start shit.

I'm sure they all love this new feature.

[Moochy]

119. You don't have to go to FR to find lurking assholes

An Italian Cow's Hoof yesterday said it has made a list of authors it always unrecs. (on edit: had confused which asshole had the revenge list)

[Blue_In_AK]

134. I've seen that, too, MadFloridian. n/t

[demoleft]

189. exactly, that's the point. a weapon with a silencer. here's two examples:

...of a weapon used sometimes by tiny ones in the shadows.

look madfloridian: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3965257

i posted "Al-Qaeda releases Swiss hostage" in the LBN, just news, and nothing more.
it was UNrecommended - and one of my previous too in LBN, about Dutch giving back to Iraq looted treasures.

what's the sense of these UNrecommendations?
nothing but some personal problem.

the UNrec feature= "do not read - not worth reading". very typical of conservatives and extremists.
a blog is made for sharing. and to say "not worth sharing" - well, what this has to do with the "democracy", "freedom", "1st emendament" i do not know really.

ciao madfloridian!

[NashVegas]

88. Care To Point Out a Few?

Say, 5-10, to show a distinct pattern?

[incapsulated]

107. Here is one:

It seems because a slight majority is "pro-nuclear power" anyone who disagrees is a troll and should be unrec'd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8520551&mesg_id=8520551

[KoKo]

99. K&R....I'm having some doubts about new feature, too.

Thanks for posting.

[Laelth]

102. Me too. Including yours. Until I rec'd it just now.

Nice argument, btw.

:dem:

-Laelth

[elocs]

104. Umm, if something is controversial might it not have at least 2 sides?

Don't those who disagree have at least as much right to express an opinion that correlates with "Rec" as much as those who wholeheartedly agree? Isn't this basic kind of choice a very Democratic kind of idea?

[EFerrari]

108. Simply downgrading a post is not a way to have a thoughtful discussion.

It's a choice but not a discussion.

[kentuck]

110. Simply upgrading a post does not automatically give it merit..

if there are opposing opinions, either?

[EFerrari]

117. That's true. But voting a post up doesn't limit discussion of that post

or prevent opposing views from being posted to that thread or in another thread. And if there are two posts on opposing sides of an argument, say, the one that most people agree with will get the most recs anyway. :shrug:

[Beam Me Up]

126. Of course a controversial subject has at least two sides but that isn't the point.

Recommending or unrecommending a topic has nothing to do with *expressing* an opinion. We're all free to express our opinions in our reply to the OP or subsequent posts within a thread.

The question ultimately has to do with how a society educates itself about issues and prejudices within it. Just because a majority hold an opinion, that doesn't mean that majority is right. When I grew up, the majority opinion in this country, even among Democrats, was that segregation (with all its consequences for black and white alike) between races was acceptable. Same was true about the Vietnam war. How does a minority achieve social equality in a system where information about the inequality is limited and stifled by the majority?

I do realize I'm using an example that doesn't *exactly* fit this situation here at DU -- but it might fit more than most DUers want to admit. None of us like to think that we may hold prejudices, uninformed opinions, or be subject to 'group think'. Fact is, though, we all do/are to some extent -- and we'll never 'get it' and grow intellectually or emotionally beyond these limitations if our pre-established attitudes and opinions aren't challenged by information that is outside our comfort zone.

If 5 people on DU find an OP topic worthy of further attention via the greatest page, why should 5 others who don't agree be able to cancel them out? Why should this thread, which is an interesting discussion of differing opinions about a new system here at DU get voted away from greatest page? So far away, in fact that its <0 rating reinforces opinion without thought?

[elocs]

153. You mean that is not "your" point. Simply to rec is expressing you agree with the OP,

UnRec means you do not agree. When we give people choices there is always the risk that they may not choose to exercise them the correct way, or the way we believe they should exercise them.

[EFerrari]

155. But this is a discussion board. By the same logic of this new system

we don't really need to discuss at all and could just pick true statements to appear on the Greatest Page. In other words, while the new fix keeps some junk off of the GP, the down side may be that it doesn't in itself promote civil or serious discussion.

[Beam Me Up]

105. I agree. This system reinforces established prejudice by majority rule.

I wish you'd linked to some examples.

I also use greatest to save time and I see the virtue of not having to hide all the MJ threads (or whatever the raging topic dejour might be that doesn't interest me one way or the other) to get it uncluttered.

However, I don't see WHY we need an "unrecommend" feature. If 5 DUers see a thread they feel is worthy of greatest -- why should another five be able to cancel that opinion? What does it mean that the greatest page now his a filtering system that is governed by popularity rather than a simple "vote of confidence"? The way I see it, what this system does is reinforce established majority attitudes and prejudices toward certain topics while limiting exposure of less popular subjects.

Imagine what would happen in this country if all our news and information was controlled or 'filtered' in some way by what the majority ALREADY think about a given topic or issue? I realize that is an extreme example but it makes the point. Already established opinions and attitudes (prejudices) would be reinforced while alternative views would receive less attention. We have a problem with this via top-down, hierarchically controlled corporate media now. This approve/disapprove system reinforces established prejudices which, to my mind, is just the opposite of what liberals and progressives should be about.

[fascisthunter]

112. most of the people who like it are to the right or moderates

and those against it tend to be more to the left. I've seen those who are for and against and I know who posts what, so I'm pretty damn good judge on ideologies here. The reaction I have seen against the complaints are so personal and vindictive, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

It really is the crux of the issue and no one seems to address it honestly. There is a great divide on DU and in the Democratic Party itself.

[elocs]

118. You can prove this exactly, how? You know the leanings, how?

Or is this just a feeling, one that reinforces your opinion?

This whole Rec/UnRec thing is a tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing, or at least very little. Let's face it, people here are always pissed off about something and they are thoroughly convinced that what pisses them off is the most important thing there is.

[fascisthunter]

121. no, not a feeling but a thought based on reading people's arguments on political issues

not too hard to figure where people are politically if you read enough of people's views.

[elocs]

154. But not everybody who agrees or disagrees has not posted an opinion,

and neither you nor I know with any kind of certainty exactly what everyone's leanings may be. But aren't the opinions and stances of those Democrats who are moderate or more conservative as valid as those of the far left? Are they any less Democrats because they do not agree with the far left?

[EFerrari]

122. Now that you mention it, the responses to tavalon's points have mostly been

"get used to it", "it works fine", "it doesn't matter" and "deal with it" -- statements that are eerily familiar. :)

[fascisthunter]

129. yup... and seem very emotional about it too

it all hardly seems like a non-issue to me... to many vested too many personal attacks for it to be a non-issue. For some it definitely is a non-iissue... but for many... wow

[EFerrari]

188. Post after post of ridicule and bashing and the imperative. I know. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

125. really?

And you know this how?

[fascisthunter]

132. from reading posts often enough to make a distinction

it's fairly simple... it's not just a matter of reading one post to make a determination, but instead reading many posts from members over a long period of time. I don't pretend to use a scientific method, but most individuals never do. How do you base opinions on people or are you going to claim you never do such a thing. Don't go there...

[Warren Stupidity]

144. I try not to make unsupportable broad brush attacks

is what I do. If you assert "all/most/whatever of those who support unrec are center-right" you really ought to have some evidence to back that assertion up and produce it when asked. You've gone and made just such an attack and you have no evidence other than an opinion. I know at least one such person here, a person supporting the unrec feature, a feature where the board users get to vote on what belongs on the greatest page and what doesn't, who is almost certainly to the left of you politically.

[EFerrari]

147. That it seems unwise to name people on both sides of this issue

is an indication of the problem with the solution. lol

[fascisthunter]

196. "...who is almost certainly to the left of you politically"

that's kinda what I did... made determination on what I read regarding anonymous poster's political views. You just did the same thing.

[Odin2005]

113. I think some posters have too much of a persecution complex.

I'm sorry, but I was offended by how many of the critics of Un-Recommend insinuated that people who disagreed with them are all DLC hacks.

Un-Rec is good because it keeps repetitive flamewars and flame-bait threads off the Greatest Page. We don't need half the threads on the Greatest Page being "Obama is just like Bush" and "Obama bashers are evil morons" threads.

[Beam Me Up]

135. Ok. But is the majority opinion always right?

I don't disagree that some 'junk' gets to the greatest page and it would be nice to have some way of limiting that (perhaps). But that isn't the only problem to be considered. A system like this inherently reinforces limitations on a minority opinion. That isn't healthy, especially in a forum that is supposed to be progressive.

[Warren Stupidity]

150. Is a gang of 5 always right?

Which would be right more often: the majority opinion (+5) about what belongs on the GP, or any random five people's opinion?

[EFerrari]

151. Can you even see the posts that have 5 recs on the GP

without nerve damage to your scrolling finger?

[Warren Stupidity]

157. I can see all the ones that have +5 or more recs.

I am not sure I understand your point.

[EFerrari]

161. I guess I mean it's fairly easy to get 5 recs but most of those

stay so far down the page that they just drop off because most people don't look at the whole page. At least, I think that's true.

[Warren Stupidity]

170. The page is sorted in two ways: recent and rec count

so recent posts are on the left column while the right column has posts sorted by rec count.

[EFerrari]

172. That's true. I forgot about the left hand column. n/t

[Beam Me Up]

152. You avoided answering my question, didn't you?

Yes, I'm fine with having 5 random posters kick a thread to greatest where I can look at the subject line and decide if I think it is worth looking into further. Beyond the initial five we see whether more people agree that this is a thread worthy of attention. We see whether the thread climes higher in the ranking. If not, it usually just sits there and sinks without replies and is soon gone from greatest. So, what's the problem?

[Warren Stupidity]

156. I thought I did. No the majority is not always right.

That is obvious. But when you ask that question, within the context of this discussion, you then have to defend that 'a random group of five' is right more often, or your question is irrelevant, as rightness doesn't matter.

[earth mom]

149. Boo hoo for you. The proof is in the pudding. There is NOT one negative thread about Obama

on the greatest page.

Even a third grader could figure out that unwreck is all about controlling the message and making sure the groupies get their way and keep Obama on his pedestal.

:thumbsdown:

[scheming daemons]

207. Dupe

[scheming daemons]

208. That's a flat out lie.. there are at least 5 threads on the Greatest Page that are critical of Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



The difference is... now they only get to the Greatest Page if they are

A) well-written
B) based in fact
C) Not gratuitous ad hominem attacks against Obama.


You can no longer get to the Greatest Page by simply saying "Obama sucks!". And guess what, you can't get there by saying "Obama is awesome!" either, as there are no threads like that making it.


We know your point-of-view on this... but you don't have to resort to flat-out lying about what is happening to the Greatest Page.

The truth is that plenty of threads that are negative toward Obama's policies have made the Greatest Page the past few days.

[yoyossarian]

115. I totally agree...

Apparently my ideas and images are a bit strong for many here...
more's the pity, that so many among us are so faint of heart...



I mean, as I've said so many times before, it's not my fault;
I paint what I see...

Anyway, you have my rec, until someone decides to take it away in the next 5 minutes or so...



Great tee-shirts, buttons and such at
Laugh City!


President Evil Online
has risen from the grave!

[omega minimo]

116. K/R Thoughtful post...........and here's a suggestion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6044325&mesg_id=6044325

[LWolf]

120. I agree. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

124. so what?

Those threads were all at the top of either General Discussion or General Discussion Presidential, right? No problem finding them as your title clearly indicates.

Perhaps 'greatest' has a meaning that is different to you than it is to me. I think it clearly does not mean, for example, 'high reply count', or even 'interesting', nor does it mean 'controversial'. A great post might have all of those qualities, or not, they do not define great.

[EFerrari]

139. I'm not all that into the Greatest Page but the bullying does seem

to have ratcheted up and that component to this new system is unfortunate and I predict it will get worse, just as GDP became unbearable during the primaries when people behaved badly with impunity there. If you give people the tools to batter each other, they generally do.

[WillyT]

127. Agreed !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[varelse]

133. People will have to make use of the Journal sidebar. I don't bother with the greatest page anyway

too often, what is being recommended (in some cases hundreds of times) is either another list of charges against the Treasonous Democrats, or a cheerleading post about Our Awesome Democratic Leadership. Oh - or a rant about either the cheerleaders or the accusers. It's just better to skip right to the discussion groups and look for names of people who actually spend time putting quality Op Ed or informational pieces together.

Rec/Unrec won't cause or solve all of DU's internal conflicts and flaws. Sometimes you just have to work a little harder to dig the gold out of an online forum - but DU does pretty well imo.

[rucky]

142. What are the post counts of those threads?

and how often are they at the top of the forum pages?

Your theory may be correct, but you're using the wrong data to support it.

[EFerrari]

143. tavalon mentioned having a night job up thread, btw. n/t

[earth mom]

146. I find myself unwrecking more than recommending. I hate the new feature but I believe in Karma. nt

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

148. LOL. Duzy.

:)

[bvar22]

158. Tyranny of The Majority.

That fits, and is a good description.
And NO, that is NOT "democratic".
Our founders went to great lengths to protect the voices of the minority.

Another poster called it "Tyranny of the Average".
I think that is also a good description.

I call it "Tyranny of those who like Vanilla".
The Greatest Page is now exclusively Vanilla.


I prefer Jalapeno.

5 people SHOULD be able to get a thread to the Greatest Page.
THEY are the ones offering alternatives.
The Middle of the Herd has never offered "change".

[inna]

159. "I hope it goes away and soon." - same here.

curious how many people will try to "sink" this thread. my guess is, quite a few.

:shrug:

[Iggo]

162. Do away with The Greatest page.

Quick fix, baby.

[Bluenorthwest]

163. My opinion is the same, big no.

For many of the same reasons.

[slipslidingaway]

165. rec # 5 n/t

[Rex]

167. I think we should get to see how many neg recs you get,

only fair. If something has -381 recs, I might read it just because a lot of people don't like the thread.

[Iggo]

169. No "might" about it.

If a post had a really high number of unrecs, I'd DEFINITELY read it.

[Rex]

174. Thank you, just pointing out the inverse affect.

I have no inherent attraction to a <0 thread. Unless that is Skinners plan for this site, then I can see why.

[truedelphi]

171. In agreement with you. Thanks for your OP. n/t

[Generic Other]

176. I don't like this new system

This is my first and last post on the topic.

I am uncomfortable thinking that people are using Unrec/rec as an ideological litmus test. Freepers win if this happens.

I don't like the idea of not seeing the tallies on both sides(shades of black box voting). And yes I know I never saw the negatives before. I guess if I must have this system I want to see the honest numbers.

All of the reasoned comments of those on the pro unrec system have failed to quiet my unease with this policy. And I am talking about lots of DUers who I clearly respect who seem to like the new system, who have not mocked and taunted those who have reservations. I can see their points about all the benefits of the rating system, its weeding process, its democratic feel.

But I also see the negative aspects of this system. How it can filter out voices who should be heard. Going on the greatest page means visibility for an issue. Abusing the unrec feature allows factions to suppress what they don't wish to see promoted. Examples of worthy discussions I fear I will miss? Any involving controversial issues that divide us as a community. These discussions are the ones most important to me. We can all agree with a poster saying "Sarah Palin is an Airhead." That might land on the greatest page any day she speaks to the media. But what about the LBGT issues our fellow DUers have suggested are actively being kept off the greatest page? Or the criticisms of Obama? Or of the nuclear industry? What will we think when Monsanto sends employees to suppress threads negative to their GM research? These threads will inevitably sink if people are actively using this as another tool in their debate strategy. Also, how much power have we given to disruptors? Why risk a tombstone when you can be a personal pain in the ass in perpetuity?

Anyway, thanks to those who have made thoughtful comments thus far on this issue.

[EFerrari]

186. Another thing that I wonder about is, maybe the new ranking system

will make us all pay more attention for a while. But, will we be paying more attention to the right thing i.e., the stakes in any issue?

[madmom]

178. I don't read a post because of how may recs or unrecs it has. I read it because of it's

interest to me. I very seldom visit the greatest page and IMO it just a pissing match over a popularity contest. So what if you don't get there if you feel something is worth ready post it in your journal, I'm sure your peeps will follow you through it. This is much ado about nothing.

[EFerrari]

182. The "it doesn't matter" argument has already been made here.

Imo, if it was important enough for the admins to spend time and effort trying to make the site better, it's worth the time and effort to see how it's working out.

[madmom]

184. No argument from me. I'm just saying that to many here it doesn't affect the way we

use DU.

[EFerrari]

187. I actually hope you're right.

:)

[Usrename]

205. It's funny that you don't visit the Greatest that often.

About six months ago I noticed that the top three or more (sometimes six or seven) posts at DU were also the top stories reported on by Keith Olberman in his Countdown. I would watch the show with folks who aren't DUers and they would shocked, shocked I tell you, that I could give them the story before Keith actually reported it. Just from reading the Greatest Page. It makes a lot of sense that his researchers would look at it and, of course, also the favorite posts at DKos.

[bertman]

185. I RECOMMEND this pot. Thanks, Tavalon.

[obliviously]

192. And yours is not one of them! N/T

[mamaleah]

195. How about getting rid of inane "K&R this!"?

Give the reader a reason to recommend you other than you think you should be.

And maybe get rid of Greatest Page too. It's not that difficult to scan a few forums.

[Iggo]

197. +1

[chill_wind]

200. K & R because few if any of these with the opposing POV

debating the cons on this feature have even survived <0 territory. Like maybe none.

[Kaleva]

201. "controversial but interesting" is in the eye of the beholder

Frankly, I've never been to the Greatest Page but I've often recommended OPs that I thought to be well written, informative or caused me to think even if I didn't agree with parts or all of what was written. I do like the unrec feature because it gives me a sense of being more involved here as it provides another means for me to express my opinion that an OP is say, less then well thought out.

I do not agree with what was said in the OP but it's a quality post and I shall give it a rec.

[Renew Deal]

202. What was the point of the rec feature and the greatest page?

It was to promote the best stuff. If its not "greatest page worthy" then it will usually have less than 5 recs. The unrec feature is redundant.

[fishwax]

204. In most of those cases, the negative numbers don't seem to have slowed the discussion much

It's quite possibly true that there will be some threads that might belong on the greatest page that don't make it with this system, but there were such threads under the old system too. The Greatest page will change, but I'm not sure it will be for the worse (hard to have a firm opinion about that since I rarely use it anyway).

But I don't think there lack of presence on the greatest page will diminish their visibility much. Who knows, the "rec/unrec" battles over a given controversial thread might wind up generating posts, keeping a topic bouncing near the top ...