I think Unrec has improved DU's Greatest Page, but can't figure out why. Can you?

[HamdenRice]

It seems to me that the main effect is that certain kinds anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party threads no longer get to the GP.

I don't think that constructive criticism has been affected. Nor have concerns expressed by various minorities and constituencies been removed from the GP.

What has been excluded from the GP in my opinion is the kind of post that confidently predicts what bad things Obama will do, or that says he has done something terrible based on questionable, usually inaccurate sources, or that engages in reckless hyperbole, such as saying he's the same as Bush.

The question though is how were those posts getting to the GP and often to the top of the GP in the first place? Does it mean that there were 25-50 dedicated Obama haters rec'ing each others threads robotically?

What was gaming the system in the first place?

Also, one unfortunate effect is that certain posters who have made lots of friends and also lots of enemies are getting routinely slammed with unrecs. I won't mention names, but this morning I saw two posts that said basically the same thing. One was by a "controversial" poster. One was rec'd and the other by the controversial poster was unrec'd.

[havocmom]

1. "K&R if you -----" threads get kicked to the curb now?

That's a help to move attention to real discussion.

[HamdenRice]

2. Yes, that's the other main kind of post that has been excluded nt

[meegbear]

3. Hear! Hear!

Worthless, self-promoting wastes of bandwidth.

[Renew Deal]

19. Nope. One of those got 71 recs on Saturday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6035865

[Hepburn]

4. I think it has harmed the DU and stifles minority voices. n/t

[goclark]

13. I love a Minority or majority voice than is not my view

What I hate about DU is the mean spirited threads that continue to bash someone for having a different view.

I come here for intellectual discussions and for view points that may differ from my own.

I come here for knowledge not put downs.

[Hepburn]

15. I agree....

...and I think we can all figure out the assholes who are on here only with the purpose to silence others.

I do not like the unR feature solely because of the nastiness that can be displayed towards other DUers.

So someone does not like something Obama did? Let 'em say so... and stop the BS unRs on the thread. That is really disheartening to me to see DUers act to stop someone from giving an opinion.

Makes me very sad to see this...

[donco]

17. I only wish they had a thanks button here

If they did I would thank you for this useful post.:thumbsup:

[stray cat]

25. Minority voices can post like anyone else - they just don't get front page billing

[LooseWilly]

29. Yeah, keep the minority voices on the back pages...

where they belong!!

:sarcasm: ?

[Hepburn]

32. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[Egnever]

61. Do you honestly believe that a minority opinion

Should be shoved to the greatest page on a site where the majority of posters disagree with it? How is that representative of the majority mindset of the DU community?

Sounds to me more like you feel whatever you personally deem to be important should be on the greatest page and damn whatever anyone else think.

The greatest page should be representative of what The majority of DU thinks should be there. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous.

Were the unrecced posts being deleted that would be another matter entirely but thats not whats happening is it?

[BlooInBloo]

5. "I don't think that constructive criticism has been affected." - I see Kucinich posts there...

gay rights posts, Obama criticism posts there... All sorts of things. Some I agree with, some not.

The page looks fine to me.

As for the "unrec the 'controversial' poster" issue: I imagine that's likely to happen to me at some point, if it hasn't already. I can live with that. Everybody having the ability to vote 'yes', 'no', or not vote at all is a far greater good. Speaking only for myself, of course.

[HamdenRice]

7. But the question is: what was happening before?

Why were there so many mindless Obama-bashing posts at the top of the GP if it is a very unpopular position that is now being voted down?

A number of people have written posts saying, basically, "DU is back" in some way and that the relentlessly, mindlessly negative stuff is no longer appearing on the GP and making the DU experience unpleasant.

Why was that stuff on the GP in the first place? Was the system being gamed?

[BlooInBloo]

11. Imagine a ballot initiative "Should we cut corporate taxes by 30%?"...

Now imagine that everybody is only allowed to vote 'yes', or else not vote.

Do you consider that "gamed"?



EDIT: Yes, I chose a particularly agreeable specific example for the hypothetical initiative. It doesn't matter, though.

[Hepburn]

16. DU is a freaking message board....

...not meant to be pleasant or unpleasant.

If you do not like anti-Obama threads, skip them, hide them, put the poster on ignore.

But your idea of what is pleasant should not apply to having others shouted down.

Do I like the anti-O threads? No...but would I unR one? No. I wish to hear why someone is negative on a certain issue. I do not have to have everyone in lock step with me or of what I approve.

If someone is disruptive by his/her constant negativity, then "alert" the mods. That IMO is the remedy ~~ not knocking their threads off the page.

JMHO

[Egnever]

62. As the poster you responded to stated

Theres still plenty of disagreement with obama making it to the greatest. It's the over the top ones or ones devoid of any substance whatsoever other than puerile whining that are no longer getting pushed there.

Nothing wrong with criticism just bring some solid reasoning along when you do it. If you do, your criticism still has a good chance of making it to the greatest.

[Cha]

81. Thank

you, Eg~

[johnaries]

6. Ummmm, democracy works?

[kentuck]

8. I think some might look at it as a popularity contest?

Personally, I don't care if I get a rec or not. I look at the views. :-)

[lamp_shade]

9. Because the VAST MAJORITY of DUers are determining which posts make it to the GP.

[Jennicut]

12. Exactly. It takes more effort for a thread to make to the page now.

Its more democratic imo. People discuss things more now.

Also, its funny that before the whole rec/unrec thing I never looked at the GP or rec'd very often but I do now.

[lamp_shade]

21. Same here. I can safely go there FIRST now. Ain't it great?

[Renew Deal]

20. How is that different than before?

:shrug:

[stray cat]

22. Before it only took 5 DUers out of everyone to get it to the greatest page

It only had to represent 5 peoples view points out of all the DUers.

[Renew Deal]

24. It still only takes 5 DUers

All it does is drive everything down in general. The stuff that was popular before will be popular now. And anything controversial but interesting is lost.

[stray cat]

26. But 5 other DUers can unrecommend if they really disagree

[Renew Deal]

28. Yes, and we're all worse off.

The stuff stuck at 5 recs was always borderline. It might be great, it might not be. But it was usually interesting and informative. What we not have is what people are calling a "tyranny of the majority." If it's not popular, it's lost. That works for non-political sites like Digg. But that doesn't work properly on political sites. Controversial, minority, or even un-popular opinions are lost. And that's before we get into the social/personal popularity issues. This place will become an echo chamber.

[Egnever]

63. lost?

Cause they didnt make the greatest page?

Are you serious?

[stray cat]

10. Its more representative of people as one group can't run up recommends

without being balanced by those who disagree with a post.

[SoCalDem]

14. I'd rather stop the rec AND un-rec thing completely

Back in the beginning, the threads with REPLIES over 20 or so got the "flaming folder" icon, and those were the ones which got "top-billing"..
Random drive-bys with a +1 or k & r, with no comment, always bother me a bit. If it's so great, why not at least add a little to the thread, to keep it alive

[stray cat]

23. and consequently get rid of the greatest and home page

of course then what you get is flamebait half the time.

[SoCalDem]

27. The "flaming" threads were listed on the Home Page back then,

and could be listed on Greatest Page now.:)_

[zeemike]

18. DU is evolving from Underground to Aboveground

As the centrist flex there mussels.
Perhaps that is what Skinner had in mind. If so, so be it. but I find TGP boring and very predictable now.
It seems to becoming a liberal news feed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

Mmmmmm

Mussels...

[Better Believe It]

30. It's helping to keep posts to the left of the DLC off the DU's front page!

Any posts that "moderate" Democrats find objectionable can now be removed from, bumped down or be prevented from even appearing on the "greatest page" with a simple click of the mouse! This will reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. Nothing wrong with a little censorship even if it's not nearly as much as they would like to see on DU.

So the new and improved system is working for them just as they intended! It's democracy with a "whiteout" function!

Of course, the DLC and their "centrist" supporters never cared that much for free speech and debate within the Democratic Party and progressive circles.

That's because they really don't have much confidence in their own views that are bought and paid for by Wall Street and corporate America. "Moderate centrists" fear the ideas of those Democrats/progressives who really stand for something in any public forum, including DU.

[Aramchek]

31. your "It's the DLC" argument is BS

DU has a much higher percentage of liberal Dems than conservative ones.
Couldn't it just be that the posts at <0 aren't that great regardless of whether you're liberal or conservative?

[Better Believe It]

37. "liberal" on what issues ..... single payer, EFCA, withdrawl from Iraq/Afghanistan .....

"Couldn't it just be that the posts at <0 aren't that great regardless of whether you're liberal or conservative?"

No. You're missing the bottom point.

It primarily benefits those who wish to remove posts from the "greatest" that "moderates" think are too "radical" or "liberal".

I and I'm sure many other liberals/progressives simply refuse to use the un-recommend feature because it is undemocratic by its very nature.

People who "recommend" a post for the "greatest" are not removing or censoring anything. It fact, people who recommend posts are promoting and encouraging ideas on DU, they are not trying to suppress views. DU'ers are free to express their criticisms of those posts or even put them on ignore!

However, those who "unrecommend" are in fact trying to remove, lower in rank or prevent posts they disagree with or posts written by DU'ers they don't like, from appearing on the "the greatest" posts feature. And those undemocratic censorship actions reduce the number of views (hits) by DU'ers.

Do you understand the difference now?

[SpartanDem]

55. How do you know that is who benefits?

Given that DU on a whole is left to party as a whole.


As for unrec it is the very definition of democracy , the previous system allow post that even the majority of people disagreed with to make greatest page. Your statement that in those opposition should just post in their criticisms in the thread or ignore it does not give those people equal recourse in expressing their views about the merits of a thread..

[omega minimo]

85. This is insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you SERIOUS?!!!!!!

"As for unrec it is the very definition of democracy"

NO. It's not. There's no tally of "votes." Everything slides down the chute.............

"...the previous system allow post that even the majority of people disagreed with to make greatest page."

How can you possibly KNOW that? Who is "the majority of people"? HowTheFuck would you know they "disgreed"?

If you aren't serious, that's bad enough. If you ARE serious, that is TOTALLY FUCKIN SCARY!

"Your statement that in those opposition should just post in their criticisms in the thread or ignore it does not give those people equal recourse in expressing their views about the merits of a thread."

The people who can't handle a positive endorsement of something and need to knock others down instead of contributing themselves are the PROBLEM, not the solution. They want "equal recourse" to be negative chickenshits rather than affirmative participants.

:puke:

[Jennicut]

33. Just because a poster does not agree with you or your post does not mean they

are DLC.

[Better Believe It]

34. If you think the term "moderate centrist" Democrats is more accurate you are probably right.

[Jennicut]

36. A person can be a liberal Dem and STILL not agree with every single post

a person makes. Or do we have to label others and put them in a box?

[HamdenRice]

35. Here's why that observation isn't convincing

If the change is because conservative Democrats are voting more leftwing Democrats off the GP, then why wouldn't the reverse also be true -- leftwing Democrats voting conservative Democrats off the GP?

There have to be other factors. Basically it is majority opinion is now more closely represented by the GP. That opinion is not more conservative or more leftwing; but it is more empirical and fact grounded.

[Karmadillo]

38. What if there are more conservative Dems here than left of center Dems? And

what if left of center Dems don't particular think the unrec function is something they want to use. Free speech, marketplace of ideas, more comfortable with (more used to) people disagreeing with them, etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Anyone who is comfortable with people disagreeing with them

should support the unrec feature, surely. Pretty much by definition.

[Karmadillo]

60. Pretty much not by definition.

Opposition to the unrec function stems not from the anonymous disagreement it expresses but from the impact of the anonymous disagreement on the nature of the board. As more left threads are kept off the greatest page, it becomes harder for them to stay alive. The effect is the opposite for more centrist threads. If one likes the "underground" part of DU, this isn't so good. If one likes the "Democratic" part of DU, this isn't so bad. To me, a healthy "underground" component makes for more lively debates. The likely impact of the unrec function will be to strengthen the "Me, too" aspect of the board. Again, from lots of responses, it's clear a lot of people like the "Me, too" aspect, so to them, this wouldn't be a bad thing.

I think back, though, to the early years of DU when you often had really bright people going at each other on a range of issues with left views well-represented. It made for good, even rewarding, reading and a lot of fun. I think it was the long ago tombstoned absynthe who wrote that that's not what the board owners wanted. They wanted a centrist board. I don't know if that's true, but I do think from an ownership perspective, a board dominated by a centrist, pro-Obama crowd is probably more profitable than one dominated by a more left, pro-Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party crowd. The unrec function, though, maybe lets the centrist crowd dominate a little too much.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. That page has always been named after a superlative - 'Greatest'

It makes sense for that to mean something - that the threads there have significant support on DU, rather than "some support from some group, even if a lot of DUers may disagree, perhaps even strongly". The forums, listed by most recent update, and with icons to draw your attention to those that have a lot of replies, are still there to show you what is drawing the most comment.

The early days had no Greatest Page at all, so I'm not sure that's a useful comparison - unless you want the page and recommendation system got rid of entirely.

I had to read your last couple of sentences a few times before I realised what you're claiming. You think that being in the 'pro-Democratic Wing' (and those are your capitals) is different from being in the pro-Obama crowd. I disagree profoundly. I guess you're hoping to claim the Paul Wellstone phrase for a certain type of poster here. But you can't tell what Wellstone would have been saying now, while we do know what the general position of the Democratic Party is. I think the 'unrec' system may well give a greater voice to some people - the pro-Democratic people. The board is, explicitly, for pro-Democratic people, and you shouldn't be surprised to find the majority of the board is pro-Democrat.

[omega minimo]

86. Hogwash

[TexasObserver]

39. Yes, the change has improved the Greatest Page vastly, by weeding out trash.

And the people who create that trash don't like it, so they're wailing about losing their Pacifier.

[HamdenRice]

40. The Trotskyite trash producers, who shall remain nameless, can't vote each other on

and it even seems they've drastically reduced the amount of their posting in general since the reform. Hopefully, they are now discouraged.

[Better Believe It]

41. Alert! Radical commie conspirators are at work here! Let's go on a hunt for left-wing agitators!

We need to "cleanse" Democratic Underground of these naysayers and radical do gooders! Better Red than Dead. Isn't that right Mr. HamdenRice?

So for how long have you been engaged in the hunt to find, expose and silence those un-American left-wing terrorist agitators who have been trying to mess up things for Democratic "moderates" and Democratic "Bush enablers" who spent 8 years voting for George W. Bush's policies and appointments?

Anyone who doesn't agree with Mr. HamdenRice is a radical comminist, a Bolsheviki or even worse an itty bitty Trotskyity.

Heads will roll!

:)

[earth mom]

42. Can't wait to see all you unwreckers start whining about how your poor little OPs are misunderstood

:nopity:

Well too fucking bad now.

You asked for Karma and you got it.

Lifes a bitch ain't it? :evilgrin:



Oh and p.s. UNREC.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Thankfully the majority of DUers don't appear to be that small...

Either way though, I'm comfortable living with the results of a system where people have the ability to vote either yes or no, or abstain.

[TexasObserver]

44. They're projecting.

Since they think getting on the Greatest page is the greatest thing, they assume everyone is so inclined. I don't give a damn who starts a thread, if it's shitty, it's shitty, and if it's good, it's good.

Only those addicted to the ego feed of the previous system are injured by the new system. That's why the handful of critics of unrecommend have to post so much in every thread on the topic. They actually believe they can nag us into recommending their craptastic threads.

[earth mom]

46. ROFLMAO! Mighty disingenuous of you to cop that attitude.

You all trash every single thread that is against the new unwreak feature at lightning speed!

Yet here you are trying to call me small minded for giving it right back to you?! :wtf:

You people have a helluva lot of fucking nerve! :puke:

[BlooInBloo]

47. I support everybody's ability to rec/unrec as they see fit, no matter how much it makes you puke.

[earth mom]

49. You support controlling ME. That's what you support.

:puke:

[BlooInBloo]

51. ...

[omega minimo]

54. If the power to push a button keeps people entertained

maybe less time for some to make trouble.........

[omega minimo]

52. No you don't. The whole process has been made repugnant by the attitudes it exposed

How many aren't playing the game that's been reduced to petty popularity contest?

[Egnever]

65. I'll give you points for persistence

fortunately most of the posters here see right through you.

[omega minimo]

66. That is a meaningless statement. More of the mob mentality? "Everyone thinks....."

Grow up. If you have something substantive to say, do so. Otherwise, forget it.

[omega minimo]

50. A small minority is saying they think they know what "the majority" is & what "the majority" thinks

"Abstain" was not-Reccing.

"No" was commenting in the thread and contributing to discussion.

"UnRec" is an illusion of power over others, a passive/aggressive pushbutton that rewards pettiness and factionalized attitudes.



Speaking of passive/aggressive, why did the OP pretend not to have it figured out and then write a perfect set of talking points?

Take note, BIB, you'll be using 'em next. :hi:

[Egnever]

67. I would say the results of the polls so far on this have been fairly clear

Not to mention the inability of any thread in support of removing the unrec feature to reach positive territory, pretty much shoots your minority theory out of the water. Keep howling its entertaining if nothing else.

[omega minimo]

71. What polls? What majority? And of COURSE the anti UnReck threads were UnRecked!!

:freak:

[Starry Messenger]

45. Everyone loves a mystery:

[omega minimo]

48. And now a word from our sponsor

[PretzelWarrior]

53. I'm loving how much this is killing you.

[Egnever]

68. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. My theory is that it has reminded some DUers of the existence of the recommendation system

and so more posts are now getting recommended by DUers that consider them worthwhile - more than making up for any un-recommendations.

I did an analysis of GDP posts on the Greatest Page from after the system change, and compared them with a week before that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6048444&mesg_id=6050669

More GDP posts are getting on to the Greatest page than before. I suspect many people had drifted away from using it. Whether this increase in use will last, I don't know.

[TexasObserver]

64. Yes! The change has excited the posters and produced more and better threads.

The quality and quantity are both UP as a result.

In just a few days of the new feature being implemented, we are seeing thread starters respond to the feedback by working harder to present worthy threads. Posters want to see good threads that say something, that have some sources, that provide information and insight. Threads that give that are soaring.

Threads that complain about the new system are being roundly and soundly rejected.

It's a great change, and it is getting the intended result.

[apocalypsehow]

58. What's driving the whips of panic through the Anti-UnRec'rs is their self-awareness that they have

themselves often posted reams and reams of dreary drivel, and that it was always relatively easy to line up five sycophants to vote that same drivel on to the Greatest Page. Or use sockpuppets.

Not so easy now, with UnRec. That's what the ongoing weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth is really all about.

[omega minimo]

70. And you have just shown how most UnReckers appear petty, jealous, shallow, not contributing much but

negativity, belligerence and division.

THAT's what a lot of the reaction to, is the ugliness of the enthusiastic response.

[apocalypsehow]

72. And right on cue, the *ad hominems*.

Quod erat demonstrandum

[omega minimo]

75. The point is that it made that attitude/behavior evident, it brought it out. Us vs. Them was the

immediate reaction for many of the enthusiasts.

So that comment is not an "ad hominem." It is an expression of distress at witnessing that, at seeing people represent that. Is that this elusive "majority" we keep hearing about.

Have they been so bent out of shape for so long that their rancor just erupted? Where have the discussions been happening on whatever problem existed that they were soooooooooooo relieved about the new tool?

[apocalypsehow]

77. I'm sorry that you're so miserable over a minor feature upgrade on an anonymous discussion board.

I truly am. But I don't think calling other people's names is going to alleviate your distress.

All the best!
Sincerely, -apocalypsehow

[omega minimo]

79. They do the best they can. This toy brings out the worst.

[Number23]

59. Unrec appears to have driven some people insane.

[Egnever]

69. LOL best post of the thread

couldnt agree more.

[TexasObserver]

73. funny!

[omega minimo]

74. Us. vs. Them is not sanity.

The OP pretending coyly not to be able to "figure out why" and then going ahead to explain it in a set of talking points, including unfounded assumptions about the effects and insulting innuendoes about "Them" is not sanity.

The reasons for the change have been too vague and much of the positive reactions to the new feature has been shockingly (shouldn't be but it is) belligerent, smug and petty. That's why some here are still questioning this: the evident misuse that people intended as soon as it was announced.

Folks can mock and play "we're the majority and we know who we are" as much as they like. It is NOT a good reflection on them or on DU.

[BlooInBloo]

76. Silencing the ability to vote 'no' in addition to 'yes' or abstaining doesn't REMOVE disagreement...

It just limits the ability of one side to EXPRESS it.

[omega minimo]

80. The "ability to express it" was - and still is - in posting in the threads.

Now it's a contest, a "vote" with no tallies.

So be it.


"Silencing the ability to vote 'no' " IS petty and disagreeable. What a POV. I never knew so many were so fried about it. However many that was, because discussions on this weren't any more evident than the supposed problem was.

Perhaps a very vocal MINORITY has managed this UnRec coup.

[Rex]

78. I never really paid any attention to the GP, but now I do.

Thank you to everyone who have talked about this topic, I have to admit I never really looked there - just links to LBN and GD.

[TexasObserver]

82. It used to be pretty good. Then it got gamed and fell off. Now it's back and strong.

[omega minimo]

83. Aw shucks. Did you bat your eyelashes while you talking-pointed that?

;)

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. A casual look down the rec count column suggests this is not the case.

Few of the <0 threads belong to any of the categories you describe.

It's all Lord of the Flies.

[omega minimo]

88. I forget

who was the chief propagandist in Lord of the Flies? :shrug: