maybe no quite obligatory, but here is a small issue with the unrec...

[G_j]

that just seems to irk me.

before you could post a story, let's say....on polar bears struggling to survive, and people who thought it important could add their recs.
Now, an article like this, could easily gets a few unrecs. I've seen it. But why?

If anything, I'd like to know who would unrec a factual article about a relevant issue, so I could put them on permanent ignore.
I'm sure that knowing who unrecs certain threads would be a sure way to spot some freepers, but I am, of course, not advocating that.
I suppose the rec feature was subject to abuse, but nobody was able to vote down factual threads on important issues.
I know it's probably only one or two at the most, but it does bug me.


on edit: jeez.. I'm being attacked already..
:argh:

[apocalypsehow]

1. unrec'd.

I keed! I keed!

[defendandprotect]

2. Rather, I think we should get a PETITION going to overturn the "un-recs" . . .

Let's let Skinner know how idiotic this notion is . . .

[PretzelWarrior]

6. I'm laughing. A petition is analog to "recommends" only. How about this?

Get a petition. If enough signatures, it then goes up for a vote just like ballot measures. To say you should win on the issue just because a few of you sign a petition is ludicrous.

[defendandprotect]

49. On the other hand, to suggest a few who operate in the DARK . . .

and not openly should win on the issue is ludicrous!

[Tan Gent]

14. Hard to imagine a more effective way to earn "un-recs" than making a post bitching about them.

I mean, like, duh...

[EFerrari]

16. But the new system has no chilling effect on discussion.

lol

[defendandprotect]

50. Right . . . actually, we can copy a PETITION openly and posters can e-mail it to Skinner . . .

IF THEY WISH ...

But it should be done OPENLY and not the way this was handled with a few

going to Skinner in the dark of night!

[PretzelWarrior]

3. I unrec factual but completely irrelevant article links.

so sue me. Call me a freeper. Whatever you gotta do, big man.

[EFerrari]

18. Not relevant to what? A little drunk with power, are we?

lol

[PretzelWarrior]

21. no. I might find it not relevant. 500 others might think it is.

then we have a democratic solution to what you describe as my 'power hungry ways'.

lols. back atcha

[EFerrari]

25. But, you still haven't answered my question.

Relevant to what? The three topics you care about that day? What you think might be good for the community? Whatever the voices tell you?

[PretzelWarrior]

29. relevent enough in my own humble opinion to be deemed GREATEST

it's really quite simple.

[EFerrari]

30. So, is your answer that you don't know how you determine relevancy?

[PretzelWarrior]

37. my answer is that it is a complex set of calculations, permutations

and background data parsed from thousands if not millions of neural connections and to attempt to explain to you the vagaries of my own personal relevancy indicators would take far more time and space than this subject is worth.

[EFerrari]

44. I thought so. nt

[elocs]

4. So because an OP is factual, based on that is deserves a Rec?

Someone might disagree with the premise of the facts or how they are used. Was what we had here before perfection or was it just the status quo? People do not deal well with change and DU is no different. If you post the names of those who UnRec then you need to post the names of those who do Rec. Fair is fair.

[G_j]

10. I'm not asking to know the names

just fantasizing..

But, I first noticed what I am referring to when a few people unreced an article about how the archaeological ruins of Babylon had been damaged by building a US military base there. You tell me why somebody would unrec such an article.

:shrug:

[elocs]

24. Well, it's really pointless to try and find logic and reason for why some people do things. n/t

[EFerrari]

13. It's not so much that it "deserves" a rec but, how many times have you learned

something that you never would have thought of on your own because someone posted it here and it got enough recs to get wide viewing?

That's happened to me countless times. I was the beneficiary of other people's posts about topics that don't get coverage and a few other people decided it was worthy enough of me seeing it to give it a test drive.

We just lost that. :shrug:

[PretzelWarrior]

40. just go troll some of the other boards once in a while to pull up those nuggets

I think you'll find once people settle down, this feature will work fine and some of your 10 or 15 rec'd posts from various boards will show up here again.

But, we can all pile onto the ones that are clearly inflammatory and not meeting the needs of the vast majority of posters here. That is the beauty of this feature.

[EFerrari]

45. Right. So DU goes from being a leader to being a follower

Got it.

[defendandprotect]

51. If the facts are wrong IMO why wouldn't you stop and post to alert others at DU . .

giving your counter information, of course????

I'm thrilled to Recommend a post -- why not just let the recommends appear as a
post, with the user name --

and the so called "UN-Recommends" do the same?

Actually, I think the very name suggested for this new tool is quite telling.
It was not enough to provide a "Not Recommend" it had to be an "UN-Recommend"
and we still hear that this isn't about suppressing information!!!

We'd love to deal with CHANGE . . . Obama thought CHANGE was a good idea --
we're still waiting for CHANGE -

Change for the sake of giving a few here the power of suppression is a poor idea on Skinner's part.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Financial interests (like big oil) pay folks to read and post. So, if you attack terminators seeds

Monsanto can get people on its payroll to unrecommend the article. If DU's trying to keep the sponsors who pay for those side ads happy, they will probably succeed--unless they drive everyone else away.

[PretzelWarrior]

7. are you serious? do you understand how adservers work?

I think you spent way too much time taking "Conspiracy 101" and not enough on Logic and Evidence type of classes.

[defendandprotect]

55. ...because this is "Conspiracy-free America" . . .and people like Monsanto

are honest and aboveboard . . . ?????

[apocalypsehow]

9. You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. n/t.

[defendandprotect]

53. And, imagine the fate of articles on Global Warming -- !!!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[G_j]

11. you need to learn to read

I could give a flying fuck if this thread gets a hundred unrecs.

your post is a perfect example of people who love to attack and insult others, but don't seem capable of reading further than a few words.

so unreccomend me..
Im so :scared:

[EFerrari]

12. I'm so glad I don't teach remedial College English anymore.

:scared:

The issue you pointed out is legit. I hope Skinner and EarlG are thinking about it. :hi:

[G_j]

15. I brought it up, because I noticed it happening

someone else pointed out that an article on the Japanese stock market got unreced,

I guess I just don't get it.

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

17. Dissent is messy and often upsetting but it's still better than the alternative.

DU is about to learn that. :shrug:

[G_j]

19. we've been here at DU for a while

I don't ever remember getting attacked for a post like this.
so much for discussion..

[EFerrari]

22. The ugly volume is up full blast. I'm sorry and I hope the admins

are looking into it.

You of all people certainly don't deserve this crap.

[TexasObserver]

33. Hahahahahahaha!! You so funny.

I know you're not trying to be, but you are. All that anger and indignation over not getting your way. Have you considered holding your breath until the site owner changes his mind?

[EFerrari]

35. Keep it up. You're attacking one of the most civil posters to DU.

Please let everyone get a good look at you.

[TexasObserver]

39. Stop stalking me. You're being obsessive about my posts.

Lady, it's not healthy for you to obsess about me, and to follow me around and post nasty comments directed at me. If you won't stop, at least seek help. It's obvious to anyone looking at these threads that you're obsessed with me and keep wanting to start one of your typical flamefests with me.

Not biting. Annoy someone else.

[EFerrari]

42. And, I stand by what I said. Have a good one.

[inna]

66. done. (i personally got a good look.) +1 to you and the OP, -1 to TO (what a bully).

:)

:pals:

[EFerrari]

67. Thank you, neighbor.

:hi:

[G_j]

43. go back and try reading the post

you can write, so you must be able to read.
:banghead:

there was a time, when people actually had discussions here.

[ecstatic]

20. I've seen OPs that give a factual story followed by a controversial opinion

I think it's the added opinion that might get a news/factual article unrecc'd.

[EFerrari]

23. Articles in LBN are being unrecc'ed before anyone comments at all.

[demoleft]

26. true. definitely. n/t

[defendandprotect]

57. Well, I've noticed when I've tried to "Recommend" that it doesn't register . . .

PRESUMABLY, because there have been so many running thru "UN-recommending."

And, of course, the title of the new toy makes thing quite clear as to what's

really going on. It could have been a "Not Recommended" but what they wanted

was the power to "UN"-do recommendations.

Skinner should overturn this foul idea --

[G_j]

28. I think what I am talking about, is just a very minute number

of posters, essentially unrecommending legitimate articles simply to be disruptive.

those one or two persons who vote for Bush as 'best president ever' on a DU poll.

[defendandprotect]

56. Why then shouldn't the reader simply post a counter-opinion . . .???

Again, it seems because either they can't . . . or because what they prefer

is suppression and censorship.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

27. I unreced it twice. n/t

[EFerrari]

31. Bookmarking. This thread is a perfect example of someone raising a question

and being mindlessly slammed for being thoughtful and civil.

Good grief.

[G_j]

34. honestly

I don't remember DU ever being THIS dumb (and there has been a lot of dumb here!)
But, I used to come here because of all the bright and thoughtful people.

[EFerrari]

41. The Ugly will blow over.

I'm sorry, G_j. :(

[G_j]

47. well you're here

the world is still good.

:-) :hug:

seriously, it's sort of sad, but nothing is static.

[EFerrari]

48. The change has some real benefits

but the downside is pretty overwhelming.

Well, let's see we do. :hug:

[defendandprotect]

58. But, understand, you are now seeing more of it because they have a tool

to assert their dumbness with -- !!!

[Lorax]

32. This is what I suspect is happening.

I suspect that much of what is being considered undeserved unrec's will die down when people stop posting these types of threads.
My guess is that there are a few reasons there are so many threads being unrecommended.

1) There have been way too many threads complaining that the unrecommend feature is unfair, squashes dissent, or promotes a tyranny of the majority. To me, and I suspect to many others, these posts sound whiny and self-serving. They are annoying. In response, those who are annoyed by these threads are unrecommending them.

2) People who disagree with the unrec feature are annoyed that so many others are telling them to "get over it". In response, I suspect that many of them are unrecommending any thread just to prove a point.

3) There may even be people who click on the unrecommend link just to see it work.

I honestly think that you all need to stop picking this scab. Leave it alone. Let people get used to it being there. When people stop posting these threads, the unrecommend wars will die down, and we'll have a chance to see how the new feature actually works.

These unrecommend threads are more annoying than riding in a car with kids screaming, "stop touching me," while the other kid waives his hand in the other's face.

I'll unrec you. No, I'll unrec you. Stop unrec'ing me. Mooooooommmmmmmmm!

This is hurting my head.

[EFerrari]

38. Or my favorite, "Mom! He's LOOKIN AT ME!"

LOL

I think you're right about the scab part. That will heal.

What won't do as well is WHEN people stop posting those threads because usually those topics don't get coverage anywhere and now, they won't get coverage here either. And that's a shame. I've learned a lot from those posts that I would never have posted myself because I didn't know about the topic.

[defendandprotect]

59. Going to Skinner in the dark of night for this new tool wasn't "whiney and self-serving" . . .???

How many threads have we had which were simple rants by center-right people here

complaining that we were interfering with their "perfect picture" notions of Obama

by criticizing Obama and Dems?

What a distorted way to think about things . . .

Your head should hurt ---!

[Lorax]

64. ???

I don't understand your point.

[defendandprotect]

70. Do you recall your comment that posts by those disagreeing with the new "UN-Rec" tool ....

are "whiny and self-serving"...???

these posts sound whiny and self-serving. They are annoying. In response, those who are annoyed by these threads are unrecommending them.

I am pointing out to you that those who went to Skinner in the dark of night to gain not a
"Not Recommended" tool, but an "UN-Recommend" tool are those who should be considered
whiney and self-serving --

This should have been a matter of open debate before such a decision was made.

[Lorax]

71. Of course I recall my own comments.

It was your comments I didn't understand. I don't know anything about this "dark of the night" stuff. Thank you for explaining that to me in a complete sentence.

I also want to thank you for giving me a reason to explore the Hide and Ignore features of this site.

[defendandprotect]

73. "You can't wake up a man who is pretending to be asleep" . . .

Thanks for making that clear -- !!!

[BlooInBloo]

36. Yah - I sometimes thought about that too, before unrec....

With people rec'ing threads against affirmative action and such.

Didn't see many people complaining about that then, though. I only see people worried about it now, with UNrec.

[G_j]

46. absolutely true, an offensive, or RW-like post could get recommended

I guess there just tend to be less of those kind of posts on this board, and they may even get locked..

[KoKo]

52. Indeed...it's quite odd. The post about Boston Zoo possibly Euthanazing their animals

got the same treatment.

This wouldn't have been true on DU in the past. I don't know what to make of this...but I alerted the Mods that there was something that's going wrong in the "Unrecommend Function." If you care you might want to alert them, also.

[defendandprotect]

60. That was an important article to see . . . reflective of what will be happening in other cities . .

do to tax cuts for the rich which are bankrupting states --

Forget the Mods -- get e-mails to Skinner -- !!!

This will now make DU information less reliable . . . and DU less important!

[KoKo]

54. How could this go to Archives so fast...with so many current posts?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

61. This is in archives????

[TexasObserver]

62. I would unrecommend a factual article about a relevant issue ...

I have done so, and will continue to do so.

Most threads are not worthy of recommending. Most threads should be unrecommended. Even threads that are relevant and have factual articles.

Each person is entitled to use their own standard for what should be recommended to the Greatest Page and what should not be recommended to the Greatest page. If you have a very broad standard, that's yours. Mine is one that is based upon a variety of factors, including: are there other, better threads on this same topic on the board right now?

At some point, you have to accept that this vote, like all votes, comes down to a variety of factors that each voter chooses to have matter.

[KoKo]

65. Most folks here aren't trying to get on "GP"...they are just hoping someone will read

what they say and if they agree or disagree will post a comment to be discussed.

A post like this shouldn't be getting "unrecommends" where folks think there's something wrong and don't bother to read.

Do 'ya think?

[TexasObserver]

72. No one here has any right to think they are owed a Recommend.

You want to recommend every thread? I don't care.

You want to never use unrecommend? I don't care.

You want me to apply your standards for my voting? That's when I care.

I think very few threads should get a Recommend, and most should get Unrecommend. Seriously, half the threads are completely useless.

[inna]

68. "Most threads should be unrecommended." :cough: it figures. nt

[Egnever]

63. The same people that were reccing the freeperish crap before

you didnt really think the vilest posts were making it to the greatest page before cause DU in general thought they were awesome did you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. I have unrec'd AND commented at the same time on plenty of threads.

So tell me how this stifles discussion?

[EFerrari]

82. So, you think no one should read what you posted?

:)

[Coventina]

74. Gj, I have your same concern, because I mostly post in LBN.

I had the story of some Chinese miners rescued after 25 days that was "un-rec'ed." (It has since been voted up, thankfully).

:eyes:

I was used to DU disappointing me on a fairly regular basis, but this new "un-rec" feature is really showing me that there are far more "morans" on this board than I ever suspected.

[G_j]

83. to unrec that article

was a simple attempt at disruption. IMHO

[Snazzy]

75. "So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that:"

--Barbara Bush, 2003

I have come to conclusion unrec blows. At least insofar as what I use DU for, news that I think is important to liberals/progressives/whatever you call me.

It is completely retarded to to bury news. I don't care if you don't like it, it's news. This is kind of why I never got into Air America I suppose (don't get me wrong I think it's a good thing). But unlike the dittoheads, liberals don't need to be told what to think--at least my friends. That's our job, and they got opinions. won't friggin shut up really... Anyway, rude poster circle jerk + new found ability to hide stuff (not completely mind you, but you can certainly hide stuff a little bit more) means it's harder to tell whats really going on without sorting through more filters/crap/spin. Don't need that.

Thought I'd get my thoughts out on one of these threads before it becomes passe, and this thread good as any.

I'd suggest not having unrec for news, or at least keeping separate counts ala Kos.

Cheers.

[defendandprotect]

76. kick

[Greyhound]

77. Divisive, destructive, and in the long run, bad for DU.

There are cliques here, we all know it and have seen it for years, by themselves who cares.:shrug:. But now they have a "power" and like the children they are, they will use it. Apparently Skinner forgot that he is running an Elementary school playground at recess.

Don't ever teach your cat to flush the toilet.

[wantoutnow]

78. Why not just ignore

an article you dont find relevant or dont like. Why unrec it. Just rec the ones you like. I dont even rec some articles I like. Sometimes I just read and comment. Why not get rid of the entire rec/unrec feature and let the posts stand only by the total number of replies?

[NYC Liberal]

79. Because,

that would be far too logical. I disagree with "just don't unrec it" so long as we have a "rec" button - because then there's no balance.

But if we got rid of the whole thing altogether I personally wouldn't miss it much.

[wantoutnow]

81. Logic

and honest reasoning I have found hard to come by on here so far. Lots of diversion, fallacy. Its like people know exactly what you are saying and purposefully misstate or divert the argument, missing the entire point of the OP. Happened to me several time so far..Oh well. I have plenty of logic to back me up.:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

80. The stories important to you and others may drop faster because The Tribe Has Spoken

:shrug: :hug: Weird, huh?