Why are there no Negative Rec scores showing for particularly onerous posts?

[ThomWV]

There is a post currently on the first page that is so onerous that a number of responses mention that the author is pleased to Unrecommended it. I felt the same way and hit the right side button myself. So I know it has at least 1 Unrecommended and probably more yet the total score remains Zero. It should probably be -1 or -3 or something else but not 0.

[Egnever]

1. It only shows that it is less than 0

A <0 rating on a post means it is in negative teritory it doesnt show the actual negative count.

[TexasObserver]

2. What he said ^^^

that's all

[TWiley]

3. Obviously the managment wants to give small activist groups more credibility

The unrec total should have the same potential as the rec total and not be limited. It should be capable of going negative.

Otherwise, why not limit the rec total to an arbitrary number like 8?

I suspect the overall goal here is to allow single-issue operatives to enjoy greater credibility. Allowing their rants to go to -200 instead of 0 would not satisfy that agenda.

[TexasObserver]

4. Sounds about right.

Some of these threads probably have 10 times as many Unrecommends as Recommends, and that would be a harsh public rebuke of the thread starters. Since the purpose of the voting system is to allow posters to send by their net positive votes a thread to the Greatest Page, there is no compelling purpose served by revealing the depths of rejection by vote.

I'd love to see those numbers, but that's likely the rationale for not doing so.

[geckosfeet]

5. Another thought is they may still be working on the code. Personally I

agree that when a post goes into negative territory we have a right to know that. Hiding this information is not conducive to an open exchange of information.