100+ replies, < 0 recs:

[FlyingSquirrel]

The Unrecommend Feature SILENCES Free Speech and Dissent.

I left in a huff yesterday...

RIP: Critical Thought on DU

Now that right-wing DU'ers can "unrecommend" threads off the greatest page

A Way for Skinner to check for unrec trolls

Post here to pledge NOT to "unrec" any threads

Why did anyone WANT an "unrecommend" feature, anyway?

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

I welcome our new un-rec overlords.

OK...who couldn't care less about the "Unrecommend" controversy?

The new un recommend feature: It's an organized pissing contest!

The new unrecommend feature enables political cliques to control/dominate discussions on DU

Food for thought...

----------

Edit: OK, for those who didn't get it:

The point is, these threads (for the most part) represent DISSENT!

And they are being... SUPPRESSED!

Now, this may not be such a big deal when we're just talking about dissent over whether or not there should be an Unrecommend feature or not - but where does it end?

[The Straight Story]

1. Like being at a bar when a hot topic comes up, people like to have their say

Seems pretty normal to me, especially when the bartender adds new features :)

[11 Bravo]

2. When you give children a new toy, they sometimes play with it until it breaks.

This too, shall pass.

[mdmc]

3. My friend, it only really ruins the hot GREATEST discussion

the rest stays the same.

The cheerleader threads get to the greatest. The threads that should be on PI.com are DLC'ed off the greatest.

It ain't so bad really. It just makes the greatest page..a little less great.. Perhaps more unified:shrug:

Peace and low stress..

[baldguy]

4. From now on I'll unrec every thread complaining about the unrec feature.

Just on general principles.

[pipi_k]

25. Call it mischief...call it contrariness...call it being an evil bitch...

But I'll probably end up doing the same thing.

Just like I've always refused to rec (or even read) threads that ASK for people to rec them if ____________, I'll probably unrec threads that bitch and complain about unrec.

Oh, and one other thing I wanted to say....I've seen other posters in other threads complain about the unrec feature being misused by people who will unrec threads posted by certain people based on WHO they are and not WHAT they've written. People they've had disagreements with in the past, etc.

I see that stuff and I just shake my head. There are what...over 100,000 registered users here. If only half of them post regularly that's still a LOT of people. I can't even remember who I fought with last in my own damned family, never mind which ones I've disagreed with out of 50,000.

These scoundrels running around unreccing threads of people they've fought with...do they keep running lists or something? To help them remember which people they're pissed off at, I mean....

If they do, then they have my sympathies for not having a few constructive hobbies outside of a message board.


:+

[ohheckyeah]

40. Me, too.

Enough already.

[cwydro]

53. Me too.

I don't know why people think it is censorship. All it does is make the Greatest Page harder to get to for some threads.

The dissent threads are mostly staying at the top of GD, so what is the big deal?

Couldn't be ego, could it?

edit for typo

[xultar]

81. I've been doing it since day 1. Ain't no one being silenced. Why all the DRAMA?

[distantearlywarning]

96. +1

[TexasObserver]

5. That's a Hall of Shame of bad threads.

Posters don't like threads that continually complain about the unrecommend feature and consistently judge those threads unworthy.

[zeemike]

11. Another name for that is Tyranny of the majority.

One of the reasons the constitution had the provision for a free press and the right to free speech.

[TexasObserver]

17. No, that would the Delusion of the Defeated.

It's a vote on each thread. It's democratic.

It's not a tyranny. Your crappy threads are still where you posted them, they just have votes beside them now.

[zeemike]

19. So I take it you support Prop 8

That was democratic.

[TexasObserver]

23. That WAS a tyranny of the majority. This isn't. Your threads are still UP.

You are not stopped from posting.

[zeemike]

32. And gays are not stopped from loving one another. n/t

[TexasObserver]

37. Your argument lacks merit and is not analogous to Unrecommend.

Unrecommended does not silence anyone, does not remove any threads, and does not stop you from starting threads ad nauseam.

[zeemike]

45. Well I think it is

If you want to vote on something like a thread then call it what it is a popularity vote not a recommendation. And the page it goes on should be called Most popular.
There have been many cases of greatness that was not popular and many things that were popular that were not great....need I list them?

[TexasObserver]

49. Your beef is with the site owner, but you want to blame other posters.

[defendandprotect]

98. Wait, did you miss the part where Skinner mentioned that a number of posters wanted this?

[bertman]

108. I'm following your argument and liking it, zeemike.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. Here's more food for thought:

Do you post to get noticed? To get recommended?

Or do you post to give something interesting to DU? To ask for contributions to what you've been thinking? To point out something interesting and relevant that you just read?

Or are you aiming for a high number of recommendations?

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. See my edit, thanks.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. OK, so those were actual subject lines?

This whole OP is kind of confusing, but if I'm reading it correctly - and there's absolutely no guarantee that I am - your contention is that posts about this new "unrecommend" feature are not being recommended, and there is something wrong with that.

Is that it?

And that means dissent is being suppressed? What kind of dissent?

I'm just not understanding any of this, but I'm trying.

Thanks ..........................

[FlyingSquirrel]

47. Those were actual subject lines,

and my contention is not that posts about this new "unrecommend" feature are not being recommended - my contention is that they ARE being recommended, and that those recommendations are being overturned by the majority, and that this amounts to a stifling of opinion - a relegation of those who have legitimate concerns to being "whiners, discontents, troublemakers" - you name it. Since the majority appears to like the new feature, the minority opinion is kept off the Greatest Page and it appears to DU as a whole that the "unrecommend" feature is just hunky dory, working just fine thank you, except for a few malcontents who should be dismissed.

And if that can be done for this issue, it can be done for ANY issue. Somebody has a real and valid concern about something Obama has done (or not done)? Oh well, that issue will not appear on the greatest page because it will be shouted down by those who are either lockstep Obama supporters or just feel that we need to present a united front to the world. So for all intents and purposes the issue is only debated or seen by those who visit the particular forum where it was brought up. Same thing for GLBT issues, or anything where the majority of DU'ers think the issue should be kept off the front page.

It's the stifling of dissent, pure and simple. It's clearly happening to those who dissent from the (apparently) majority opinion that the unrecommend feature is a good thing. If it can happen to those dissenters, it can (and probably will) happen to those who dissent from ANY majority opinion.

I don't think the old system was perfect by any means and share some of the concern about the public face of DU - but I'd rather have an imperfect public face than a stifling of dissent.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

48. OK, I've thought it over, and,

frankly, I don't see what the purpose of the "unrecommend" feature is. If you disagree with a post, by all means, post that disagreement, state your reasons, and maybe get a dialogue going.

The old system was fine.

I thank you for the explanation. I don't understand why the old system was changed..................

[Liberation Angel]

114. Marginalized - WHY would anyone want to have some of us marginalized?

If we are solid progressives?

[zeemike]

16. Why does that matter to you?

So what if someone post to get attention?
As far as I am concerned if they have a good post about something that is funny, topical, or otherwise interesting i will recommend it if I like it.
I could care less if it comes from an attention whore...if all they want is to be loved so what...I am willing to give it to them and I will not put them down for needing it...for god sakes we are all human after all.

I see no need to punish or put down fellow progressives because they do not measure up to our expectations.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. "... punish or put down ... "?

So, you got all that from my questions?

(And the correct phrase is "I could not care less." Otherwise, the meaning of what you said becomes really funny.)

Now, since you read my post as some kind of put-down, I suggest you look at the edit made to the OP in response to my post, and then consider exactly what deficiency within you prompts you to project in such a completely erroneous and rather embarrassing way. It certainly blinds you to simple inquiry, and that's unfortunate................................

[zeemike]

34. I responded that way because that was the stated reason for the UN

To keep attention whores from getting on the greatest page.
And I guess i could care less about this but I don't

[Tangerine LaBamba]

39. Very edifying -

and completely meaningless..................

[zeemike]

31. Dupe deleat.responded to self

[Regret My New Name]

127. I think you're taking it too personal...

Or maybe you're not, and you're just being hypothetical about how others MIGHT feel? Would you be offended or hurt if I unrecommended your post because I didn't find it all that awesome?

[Forkboy]

8. The amount of replies have little to nothing to do with quality of the OP.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

10. Kick and Rec if you like to Kick and Rec!

K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R
K&R

[MADem]

22. Precisely. Some OPs are pure flamebait, designed to tick people off.

And then you get troublemakers who used to rec that kind of stuff to see it on the GP as falsely representative of the community.

[Forkboy]

30. It's my punk mentality.

If you want the good stuff go looking for it, don't wait for it to come to you.

[Peacetrain]

9. Flying my threads are bouncing around like a yoyo..

I just figure I have developed a fan club of sorts. They were unrecing my threads attacking FR. Don't take it personally. :hi:

[trotsky]

12. Thank you for that list of threads.

Excellent proof that the new unrec feature is working BEAUTIFULLY.

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. See my edit

Do you support suppression of dissent?

[trotsky]

52. I dunno, have you stopped beating your wife?

Get a grip already. NOT ONE of those threads you list is about a genuine political issue. Take a good honest look at the Greatest Page right now and tell me just how many reflect a centrist or right-wing POV. Seriously. Here are the 5- and 4-star rated threads at this moment:

General Discussion
Regarding Dick Cheney
+169 votes : By H2O Man

General Discussion
A view is becoming more prevalent among Democrats that women's rights are expendable...
+136 votes : By madfloridian

General Discussion
Un-Rec This If You Dare
+127 votes : By lame54

Latest Breaking News
13 Doctors Demand Inquest Into Dr. David Kelly's Death ("I think highly likely he was assassinated")
+121 votes : By Hissyspit

General Discussion
Surprising number of Family members and "friends" played key roles as founding members of the DLC :
+103 votes : By mod mom
StarStarStarStar

General Discussion
Jimmy Carter: The words of God do not justify cruelty to women
+73 votes : By FourScore

General Discussion
Chris Parry (Vancouver Sun) responded to Freeper "bombshell" - see here:
+60 votes : By lamp_shade

General Discussion
Dennis Kucinich: The Banks’ Massive Theft
+55 votes : By marmar

Latest Breaking News
Grand Ayatollah Montazeri’s Fatwa (IRAN)
+53 votes : By formercia

General Discussion
Hillary's Association With "The Family"
+51 votes : By RandySF

General Discussion
A $1.00 food stamp
+50 votes : By Indigo Blue

[TexasObserver]

54. But ... but ... but ... I thought it was supposed to be Suppressing those thoughtful threads!!

Thanks again for posting the truth of the actual Greatest Page, and how it has been immeasurably improved by the simple addition of Unrecommend.

[trotsky]

56. You know what's funny...

I actually go look at it just about every day now. Before the new system, I wrote it off as useless (which it was).

Like Mickey D's, I'm lovin' it.

[TexasObserver]

59. Same for me.

I am much more interested in looking in on the Greatest Page than I've ever been, because now it means something.

[Beetwasher]

75. Separates The Wheat From The Chaff, It's WAAAAY Better Now

It's not even close. GP is now actually useful!

[Tiggeroshii]

15. recd

:thumbsup:

[MADem]

18. Nonsense. Are you saying that NO ONE was allowed to reply to those threads?

That's "supressing dissent." If the threads are hidden away, archived, or locked, and no one can participate in them, that's "supressing dissent."

Calling shit ice cream is not "allowing dissent" either. It's lying about the quality of a product.

The fact that people were allowed to vote on if they felt the threads were worthwhile, or if they felt they were the whining of a bunch of people pissed that they can't use Skinner's bandwidth to highlight their bullshit flakiness and foist it upon an unsuspecting world as something that the rest of us regard as the "Greatest" is NOT "supressing dissent."

It's simply separating the wheat from the chaff. It's letting the people who think "That's bullshit, and it's NOT great" have their say.

Locking a thread is suppressing dissent. Taking a thread DOWN is suppressing dissent.

Not letting six flaky people (or one person with five sockpuppets) put horseshit up and call it "Greatest" against the opinion of the bulk of the participants here is NOT suppressing dissent.

:eyes:

[pipi_k]

28. This is the most sensible reply on the subject I've seen in days

thank you

:)

[Liberal In Texas]

65. What MADem said.

:thumbsup:

[Maeve]

67. Hear, hear!

The amount of drek posted on this issue the past few days would fertilize half of Texas. Sounds like a bit from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" --"Did you see him repressing me?" :eyes:

[MicaelS]

91. Bravo!! Very well said! n/t

[HughMoran]

115. Hear! Hear!

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

[mamaleah]

20. The amount of recs really represents quality to you?

A thread filled with "K&R!" represents substance?

Instead of getting all butt hurt, maybe realize that those dissent threads are actually getting read. They have replies....REAL replies, as opposed to "ZOMG K&R!".

[BlooInBloo]

26. It's clearly nothing less than THREADOCIDE!!!

:rofl:

[Mari333]

27. this makes my head hurt. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

29. I think it is a complete and total over reaction about this rec/unrec thing

Your observation is off, I would have issue with this if when the unrec went to zero, the OP was removed. All this rec/unrec thing does is determine if something will go to TGP. who gives a shit if it goes to TGP?!

This is not a popularity contest and no one is silencing anyone.

[LostInAnomie]

33. Do you honestly think that ANY of those threads...

... actually qualify as the GREATEST DU has to offer?

[Lorax]

35. Get over it.

1. I couldn't care less whether or not a thread makes it to the Greatest page. I rarely read that page anyway and I certainly don't use that page as a resource in deciding what threads I am going to read on this site.

2. Tyranny of the majority? Are you kidding me? It seems to me that not allowing me a chance to unrecommend would be tyranny of the majority. If K&R is like a vote, then why should only the people who like a particular thread get an opportunity to vote? I happen to like the unrecommend feature because I it gives me the opportunity to vote either way.

Anyone can continue to post whatever they like on this board. The unrecommend feature does not prevent you from doing so. Now, the unrecommend feature may make it harder for someone to get whatever feel-good-jollies they get from seeing their post on the Greatest page. But that's not my problem. This site is not here to give you your daily ego boost. Frankly, it makes me feel used to think that there are people here who might be posting so he/she can get that ego boost. Seriously, I feel sorry for anyone who relies on anonymous recommendations from imaginary friends on the freakin' internet. If you need an ego boost, turn off the computer, get off the couch, and get out in the world and DO something to make a difference in someone's life.

It seems like a large percentage of posting members of this message board do just that. It also seems like those are not the people starting these endless threads about the unrecommend feature.

3. The feature is new. People are going to be clicking that Unrecommend link. Then the hoopla will die down. People will forget about it until they read something they really feel should be unrecommended. Until then, the more people cry about how unfair the new feature is, the more negative zero threads you will see.

4. I imagine people are unrecommending threads complaining about the new feature because they are sick of the whining. I am. And for the record, I will be unrecommending all such threads from this point on.

[zeemike]

44. If you don't use that page then why does it bother you

That someone gets on it to flatter their egos?
IF I recommend something you cannot unrecommended it....only I can do that. A recommendation is what I give to the poster not you. And why would you think that you had the right to take that away from me by the un.

And your last line is actually the problem with this;
"I will be un recommending all such threads from this point on."
It sets up a war...the angry will try to get back at their enemy's with this tool.
And clicks will form to combat one another...and all for what? To keep attention whores from getting any recognition....it is stupid at best.

[Orangepeel]

36. "dissent" about nothing. threads about DU are trivial, not "great".

they just crowd out threads about actual issues on the greatest page.

Who decides that it is trivial? Each member of DU gets a say. One is not being suppressed solely because a majority of people think that a topic is not accurately described as "great". If one disagrees or just want to argue (like, apparently, I do right now), one is free to kick the thread with a reply.

[laconicsax]

38. K&U

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

41. They're being "supressed", yet somehow, I'm able to read them

I think you need to look up "supressed" in the dictionary again.


"not being on the Greatest Page" DOES NOT EQUAL "supressed"

[uppityperson]

42. 100+ replies doesn't seem like suppression. Next thing you know there will be rules and moderators 2

I mean, where WILL it end?

[TexasObserver]

51. Yes, NOT allowing a thread on the Greatest Page is now Suppression!!

The Horror.

The Horror.


The response to this change has been instructive. The site ownership and administration announced this change in a thread by Skinner, and stated that it is something that has been requested by posters a long time. Instead of attacking the owner and management, many posters have attacked all those who use the feature as it was intended.

We give book reviews, hotel reviews, restaurant reviews and the like online. We vote on what our sports teams are doing, who will win the all star game, and whether we think Britney should retire. We vote on everything online, and even have "DU this Poll" as part of our lexicon. Now we can vote on threads here, and the simple truth is this: some don't like the voting results.

[NoPasaran]

66. Expanding on that thought

Wasn't (or isn't) not recommending every single thread just ANOTHER manifestation of the dread censorship? How could any "true progressive" not feel that every thread ever posted be unworthy of Greatness?

[TexasObserver]

68. Yes, everyone is The Best.

It would wrong not to recommend every thread.

The addition of Unrecommended is the best thing to happen to the GD board in the two and half years I've read it. Controversial threads remain active, but most of the heralded threads aren't that controversial, because there is widespread agreement among DUers on most important issues.

[Iggo]

43. I read every one of those threads.

Some of them more than once. Replied in most of them.

Suppressed? I don't think so.

[donheld]

46. Absurd

[Mind_your_head]

50. Amen. But Skinner's not gonna change his mind this time. NoSireeBob.

Where do we 'go' from here?

:think:

[cwydro]

58. I don't think he should.

Just from reading for the past three days, it seems to me the majority of DUers like this new feature and that it's working as intended.

There seem to be only a vocal few who hate it.

I feel quite sure the admins and mods are monitoring the situation; they know if it's working or not.

[JTFrog]

55. Lol! Maybe Skinner should do it like reddit and extend it to rec/unrec on the replies too!

That would be at least two weeks of comedy gold around here.



*pop* *pop* *pop* :nuke:

:rofl:
:rofl:

[whistler162]

57. And yet your thread is still on the first page after 10 hours!

[TexasObserver]

60. Hey! Don't you know it's being suppressed here in this "free speech" zone?!

It's not being read on this board, in spite of the views and replies. It's being suppressed. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Obamanaut]

61. In the old pre-unrec days, I saw numerous threads with little or no

importance, only a couple of responses, and a reply that said "Off to the greatest page with thee" or something similar. These OPs and their respondents were usually the same group of posters.

Note that some threads now, with numerous responses like this one, don't go to the greatest page, but do remain active. This weeds out the drivel for members who start their reading on the greatest page.

A good service, IMO.

[TexasObserver]

62. Thank you! I saw those kind of threads many times, too.

Someone would post some absurd profane-filled rant with no substance, and 20 minutes and three posts later it was "off to the Greatest Page with thee!"

You know, T-ball is great for 5 year olds, but we're all adults here. Do we really need to have a forum run on the theory that everyone needs to win a trophy just for playing?

[WI_DEM]

63. Your thread is proof that dissent is not being supressed. You've gotten

like many of those threads many responses some in favor and others against. That is what the rec/unrec does too. Apparently more people disagree with you on this issue than agree with you.

[FlyingSquirrel]

88. People are missing the point on purpose.

Yes, this thread is getting lots of replies and staying kicked. But only within this particular forum, which is the most-visited forum. There are 96+ forums here on DU.

[Liberation Angel]

113. I'm with the flying squirrel: Unrec marginalizes DUers and can be corporate gamed

it is and it will be

DU becomes white bread IMHO if this happens

and it WILL be gamed by corporate interests

[SidDithers]

64. 12 threads with over 100 comments on each one...

but they're being SUPPRESSED! :rofl:

Sid

[dionysus]

69. uh, clarence, if they have that many replies they're obviously not suppressed.

:rofl:

[endarkenment]

70. reply count does not equate to 'great'

but you knew that, right?

By the way, any OP with 100+ responses is in no way being suppressed or censored. Locked threads are being suppressed and/or censored. But you knew that too, right?

[harun]

78. +1

[Javaman]

71. The inanity of the "unrec" threads has reached a level of ridiculousness. nt

[Bonobo]

72. I'm not a fan of the Yankees. I have been suppressing them for years.

And they are okay!

[theHandpuppet]

73. Fer Chrissakes, are you that starved for attention?

How many of these threads are you going to post? I feel as if I'm amongst a group of high schoolers competing to prove they're the most popular kids in school. If you write a good OP and in return get terrific, thoughtful responses, isn't that reward enough in itself? Do you really need a merit badge and your name on the "Greatest" page to feel appreciated or smart?

I've seen incredibly worthy threads get a mere handful of recommendations, yet inane drivel rocket to the "Greatest" page. So what? Isn't it the quality of the discussion that counts? Frankly, I don't visit the "Greatest" page because I know whether or not a thread gets recommendations may have little to do with its quality. And as long as folks contribute to a thread it will stay alive, no matter how many recommendations it might or might not receive. I'd rather have 10 thoughtful responses than an hundred recommendations.

[WilliamPitt]

74. Gad zooks

:eyes:

[DevonRex]

76. If they were suppressed then how come I was able to read all of them?

And if they were suppressed, then how come they got so many replies? The posts are there. They didn't get "disappeared."

Food for thought... And I suggest you think about it.

[Uncle Joe]

77. I agree, it takes threads that are totally skunked and combines them with threads where the votes

are extremely close, presenting or marketing them with the same equivalency on the forums, which only distorts reality and the intensity of the peoples' intent on D.U. regarding any given subject, issue or candidate.

After looking for subjects or titles of interest, I use the number of recommendations as a guide to whether I will open and read a thread or not and this <0 serves no useful purpose in that regard.

I believe the result of this unrec feature hides and or misrepresents the peoples' votes.

The ideal situation would be to display both pro and con votes. You could still require a five vote+ pro margin to make the Greatest Page.

Thanks for the thread, FlyingSquirrel.

Kicked and who knows if I recommended your thread, I can't even tell.

[FlyingSquirrel]

89. lol

Well I'm fighting a losing battle but I agree that displaying the pro/con votes and still requiring a 5-vote margin to make the GP would make me a little happier... still I'd prefer a "Hottest Page" because as I said somewhere else, there are 96+ forums and whoever has time to visit them all has a lot more time than I do. It just stands to reason that the most controversial subjects, most of the time are going to remain in their original forum with no other way to access them than to visit each forum.

[Laelth]

79. You got a rec from me. Didn't matter, did it? n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[johnaries]

80. With 100+ kicks, how is it being suppressed?

Because most people dislike it or disagree with it?

Your argument has no basis.

Oh, kick and Unrec.

[xultar]

82. Zing. Logic.

[johnaries]

85. Why, thank you! It seems under-used sometimes.

:hi:

[ecstatic]

83. Um... did those particular OPs deserve recommendations?

I saw a few of them and I was not impressed.

[goclark]

84. Are the Hearings for Supreme Coart Justice on today?

I thought so but I can't find it anywhere.

R or K or Un R ?

[dorkulon]

86. Huh. This silenced thread is still being read. How does that work?

Look I can even reply to it!

This suppression doesn't seem to be working right!

[TexasObserver]

87. But it's not on the Greatest Page because it's being suppressed.

Like the GOP got suppressed in the last election.

Voting is so unfair!

[Liberation Angel]

117. Marginalized IS Suppressed

keeping it out of view as much as possible and letting people shut down the visibility of discussions by pushing a button.

First they came for the rec button....

[azmouse]

90. ...

[PeaceNikki]

92. People who take themselves too seriously should not be taken seriously by anyone else.

[PretzelWarrior]

93. I'm trying hard to get you to 100 replies

so your post thread can actually mirror your post title.

[Obamanaut]

94. Let me help with one. nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

95. Funny.. still everyone misses the point - there are 96+ forums on DU

Just because this thread, which is in the most popular forum, is getting plenty of air-time, doesn't mean that controversial threads and/or threads in less popular forums will continue to get the same views they might otherwise have gotten.

[PretzelWarrior]

104. B.S. If someone is unrec'ing a thread from Kansas Democrats

then it is probably because they read it. Your entire premise makes no sense.

Most of greatest page posts were from LBN, GD, and GD:Pres before the change and policy and continue to be after.

[FlyingSquirrel]

110. You may have a point.

What's it gonna be like during the next open primary when people can vote down threads supporting rival candidates? Oh well, it was bad enough before that I suppose it can't get much worse. Fine, the mob wins and the GP will put a brave new face onto democracy. Or whatever passes for it.

[defendandprotect]

97. Where's the PETITION TO SKINNER to change this --

No "un-recommend" should be able to REDUCE RECOMMENDATIONS --- !!!

How much clearer could that be?

It's an attack by the petty right wing here -- and Skinner is evidently listening

to them for some reason -- why?

$$$???

[TexasObserver]

102. "It's an attack by the petty right wing here -- and Skinner is evidently listening"

That's your quote.

That's idiotic, and there's simply no way to soft pedal it.

[defendandprotect]

138. "It's an attack by the petty right wing here -- and Skinner is evidently listening"

Thanks for giving it more attention -- !!!
:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. The number of replies does not correlate with a thread being good.

If you want to read the threads with the most replies, like on the header above the replies column and it will organize all the threads by most replies. Click on "last reply" to go back to the default.

Welcome to the internet.

[defendandprotect]

100. I've tried TWICE and the recommend doesn't respond . . . what's going on?

[wantoutnow]

101. I say

let the number of responses to a thread dictate whether it goes to the greatest page, instead of the number of recs/unrecs.

[PretzelWarrior]

106. no. that would be "hot topics". not necessarily the GREATEST

so please know what you're talking about.

[Rex]

103. To have a fair and balanced(tm) forum, you need the pros and cons.

I've been wondering for years now why they didn't have both rec and unrec.

I guess rec was just a way to pump up topics most people wanted to see and now we have more control over that choice OR someone might just have another opinion and not like a topic OR a crazy cult of assclowns will unrec things just for the sake of entropy. Oh and of course the freeper trolls, which I don't imagine will make a big difference on a good progressive topic we all need to see.

[bertman]

105. I recommended this thread, but the needle is still pegged on empty.

This is called majority rule. Bad for democracy.

[Jakes Progress]

107. Mostly it's just mean.

Posts still get on. Busy ones still get responded to. It just allows some to be small and mean without any effort. It also makes the Greatest Page irrelevant.

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

109. My rec not enough to lose '< 0'...

[McCamy Taylor]

111. I am convinced it is a way to allow corporate sponsors (of DU) to rate down posts that

interfere with their ability to do business. We should do threads about health care reform, watch the insurance lobby paid posters rate them down.

[Liberation Angel]

112. Nuke corporations can do the same

hire teams of idiots to promote nuclear power here and unrec antinuke threads

[Telly Savalas]

118. Actually all the fucking whining about the unrecommend function

has done more to crowd out discussion of health care reform than an army of paid lobbyist trolls could ever hope to achieve with this new function.

[RoyGBiv]

116. What happened to "last post on the topic"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6060183&mesg_id=6060183

I mean, really.

[TexasObserver]

119. Fool me once ... shame on ... you. Fool me ... ya can't get fooled again!

[FlyingSquirrel]

123. That was my last post, this post is a day old. Check the date and time.

And I reserve the right to continue to reply to old posts.

[RoyGBiv]

124. Uh huh ...

If only people put this kind of effort into things that actually matter.

Have fun with your crusade.

It's dumb, but have fun with it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

126. Hey ya know what? I'm only doing this for the benefit of DU.

If they wanna destroy an important value that they supposedly believe in for the benefit of looking better to outsiders, that's their problem and I'll be happy to move along when they make that final decision (if they do).

[RoyGBiv]

128. Spare me ...

No you're not.

[FlyingSquirrel]

129. How the fuck should you know what my motives are?

I guess everyone else who is opposed to this new system also has completely selfish motives. And everyone who supports the new system is, what?

[RoyGBiv]

131. Did I say selfish?

No, I did not.

I said "dumb."

[FlyingSquirrel]

132. Funny how the people who like the new system, for the most part

can only support their arguments by trashing those who disagree with them. And saying they're wasting their time. (Yet you continue to waste your own time hanging around this thread?)

[RoyGBiv]

133. As I said, "dumb"

I "supported" my argument two/three days ago when this actually was a somewhat intelligent discussion.

It quickly turned into a stupid discussion with people uttering such absurdities as this feature "suppressed" opinions, something you've repeated ... without evidence.

This is not personal. I don't think you're dumb. I think you're quite smart, actually, and have followed your posts for a long time.

But this crusade is dumb. It's provincial. It's naive. It's lacking any sort of coherence. Dumb.

[FlyingSquirrel]

137. I don't respond well to that kind of judgmental rhetoric. (Do you?)

Do I attack you by saying that your attempts to shut people like me up are "dumb"?

Many of us have suggested ways to improve the system, maybe they'll take some of those up. There is a significant minority (I estimate 36% based on counting responses in the original Skinner thread) which is vehemently opposed to this system without some changes being made, and another 14% who were adopting a "wait and see" attitude.

I could easily say that those who like the system and are rah-rahing it are on a crusade themselves which is "dumb". I haven't chosen to do so, I've only chosen to explain my own position to the best of my ability and suggest alternative solutions to the problem which has plagued GP for so long.

[RoyGBiv]

139. Well, no ...

But I didn't expect you to. The absolute far end of my expectations is that you'd stop and consider whether any of this is worth the effort. My median expectation is that you'd hold fast to your opinion regardless of anything.

On the rare occasion I have well over half a forum telling me I'm being patently absurd, I do stop and consider my own behavior, 'cause you know what, I'm wrong sometimes. I sometimes get so caught up in a myopic point of view that I fail to see the fact that have taken on a cause that has no positive end. I have seen a pile of shit and called it gold and have determined that I will save the gold for the good of us all.

But when I do that, I'm being dumb.

Look ... if this is that important to you, fine. Let it be important. It's not to me, and that's fine, and you can continue to think this is the death of free speech as we know it if you want.

But what I am sick and tired of is this asinine argument that people are being suppressed/repressed/censored. That's flatly wrong. It's an idiotic claim. It's dumb.

[FlyingSquirrel]

140. Well I like your username and avatar.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest - and btw, I once had an entire roomful (maybe 20 people) in a class telling me my opinion on the correct answer to a blueprint quiz was wrong (the instructor had given us the answers to a few of them in advance, but I checked them anyway and came up with a different answer). They finally opened up his answer booklet and found that I was right. Now what if I'd been working on an actual airplane and that one extra rivet made the difference between the plane crashing or not?

Not saying I'm definitely right this time or that the stakes are that high - just saying that sticking to your guns in the face of overwhelming opposition is not always "dumb".

[ZombieHorde]

120. I don't see how they were suppressed.

I don't understand this argument.

If they were suppressed, how do you know about them?

[Liberation Angel]

121. They were marginalized

suppressed does NOT mean they disappeared by that they sank from prominence.

[earth mom]

122. This entire issue is about control of dissent AND control of the message.

People don't want any truth that is negative about Obama to be easily seen on DU.

The system here on DU has been gamed just like elections have been stolen and the media hides and skews the truth on a daily basis.

Congratulations DU, you have just become the very thing you were created for with the intention to expose.

But who gives a fuck, right, because it's just the same old shit different day in the very corrupt and greedy old U.S. of A.

:puke:


p.s. to the OP: Sorry it's too late to rec your thread but thank you for trying.

[FlyingSquirrel]

125. I counted the actual responses to Skinner's original thread - only 49% approved

without any reservation. Out of the 168 that I could tell what they were saying, 83 liked it, 61 disliked it and 24 were "wait and see" types. So this idea that the vast majority likes this new system is BS. And is reinforced by the fact that only positive threads on the subject make it to the GP, where a snowball effect takes place after the minority realizes there's no point hitting "unrecommend".

Also the majority of the positive responses were "hell yeah" type without much analysis, while those opposed had plenty of thoughtful reasons for their position (as well as a lot of helpful suggestions for improving the system - it's not like we're all just completely anti-change).

[earth mom]

130. I'd like to see the proof myself. Every thread should have a tally of the yays and nays.

But the unwreckers would no doubt complain about that not being fair to them either.

:eyes:

[Laelth]

134. Let me kick this thread.

Please do me the honor of reading this OP as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6061846

I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

136. Stop Making Sense!!!!!!!!!

[omega minimo]

135. It ends here

< 0

[NYC Liberal]

141. 100+ replies would show they ARE NOT being "suppressed" no??

The threads aren't being silenced.
They aren't being locked.
They aren't being deleted
They aren't hidden.
You can still reply to them.
You can still recommend them.
You can still kick them.

And, oh yeah:

We're talking about a *website*!

A damn website! And the way some people are talking here you'd think Skinner was personally coming over to their house, duct taping their mouth shut and taking their computer away.

BEFORE:
*Recommend YES
*5 recs = Shown on Greatest Page

NOW:
*Recommend YES or NO
*5 more recs than unrecs = Shown on Greatest Page

Wow, what a difference! :sarcasm:

[FlyingSquirrel]

142. Let me explain ONE more time.

The "Greatest Page" refers to "Those subjects most worth reading", supposedly. Before this change, that was hardly the case. After this change, it is even LESS the case. People have used "recs" to show their support of the author's viewpoint, both before the change and now.

The difference between now and before, is that now, only the viewpoint of the slim majority WHO HAVE AN OPINION on a subject is deemed "worthwhile reading" on the Greatest Page.

So, the MANY who use the Greatest Page as a basis for reading posts - who don't have the time or inclination to venture into the individual forums, (even General Discussion), see nothing which represents the slim minority's view (of those who have an opinion) on a controversial subject.

It's like the MSM screening out what their viewers will see based on the current popularity of the viewpoint - regardless of its actual merit. See where that has led us.

And now DU is going down this same path.

The solution, I repeat, is to have a separate function for popularity and "worthwhile reading". This will allow someone register their disagreement with the viewpoint of an OP, while not necessarily also preventing it from being seen by those many who use the Greatest Page as a basis for screening out the vast amount of information to be read on DU.

It should be possible to independently give an OP ((BOTH)) a "thumbs up / thumbs down", and "recommend reading". It should not be possible to remove someone else's recommendation to read an OP. This system would allow, for example, a minority viewpoint with 50 recs to be on the greatest page followed by, for example, an 85% "thumbs down" to let the outside world (or other DU'ers) know it represents a minority view on this site.

In practice, I expect that many controversial viewpoints of such an extreme (15%) or frivolous posts would most likely not reach 50 Recs, because more likely someone would give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, without bothering to then also click "recommended reading". People CAN be trusted to use a function responsibly, IF that function is made AVAILABLE to them in a way that they can use it to express their opinion more accurately.

The only way to get people to stop using the recommend function to register their approval or disapproval of a particular viewpoint is to give them a separate function. Period.

This post will receive < 0 votes and be kept off the greatest page, most likely, because people will use the "unrecommend" function to express their disagreement with either what I just said, with me personally, or with the idea of continuing to discuss a topic that, contrary to the falsehood that is being spread around, is NOT just an issue that ten "whiners" won't let go of, but is in fact an issue for at least 35% of DU currently and may be higher as those who were initially undecided (or initially liked the idea) make up their minds.

BUT those people may NOT change their minds if all they read is the Greatest Page and they are not otherwise exposed to any reason for changing their minds. Just like with the MSM, if it's not put in front of you, you don't have the opportunity to think about it and weigh in on it and possibly contribute to the discussion or change your mind. This puts DU in the hands of fewer people, just like the MSM puts the country in the hands of fewer people. The end result is predictable - some will leave for less restrictive places with more variety - as we have left the MSM for DU. The rest will become as irrelevant as the MSM eventually.

So if that's what you want, um, more "power" to ya.

[Liberation Angel]

143. kick (If they can be unwreckers then we can be kickers) nt

I get this

As much as th admins here are TRYING to get it right they are turning DU to dry tasteless oatmeal with no zing or tang.

Consensus is cool but dissent is what makes democracy thrive.