It's not possible to recommend a reply... but it's possible to repost it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6052278&mesg_id=6053084

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?

This'll be my last post on the topic.. go ahead and rec this thread for joy, or unrec it for spite, or whatever you rec/unrec-happy people are doing these days.

[McCamy Taylor]

1. Great quote! DU has some fine minds.

[defendandprotect]

2. This is puerile nonsense ... we're here to see information, not to suppress it --

What the "recommends" say is that among all the information you shouldn't overlook

this one!

What "un-recommend" says is that you'd prefer no attention be given to the thread.

Suppression . . .

[OhioChick]

4. Bingo. n/t

[LooseWilly]

12. Suppression??

Recommend says that one, as an individual, judges a thread as being worthy of attention. An unrecommend says that one, as an individual, judges a thread as not being worthy of attention.

If one posts a thread that a majority feels isn't worthy of attention, it just means that it won't be re-posted on the Greatest Page. That's not suppression. If there are 5 more that think a thread is worth attention than think not, then it is Greatest.

There's nothing sinister or "suppression"-esque about it. It's not like the FCC is passing judgement...

[TexasObserver]

15. Quoted For Truth.

We have logic on our side, and they have hurt feelings on theirs.

[defendandprotect]

34. What hurt feelings took the "UN" issue to Skinner in the dark of night . . .??

Logically, Recommendations cannot be subtracted from by "Not Recommends" ....

but they specifically sought a way to do so --

We could have had both "Recommend" and "Not Recommended" appearing with both tallies --

One has nothing to do with the either --

[defendandprotect]

24. No . . . a "Not Recommended" would suggest that -- however, as we've

all noted the term is very specific . . .

It's "UN- repeat UN - RECOMMEND" which makes very clear the intense desire of a few
here to suppress the information.

Meanwhile, a "Recommend" says the opposite -- it says this information should be noted.

And no one should be able to SUBTRACT from those recommendations.

And, again . . . . of course it is SUPPRESSION.

Otherwise, the vote would be "Not Recommended" and both totals would be seen side by side.

Most of all, what the center-right here wants is to suppress information that criticizes
Obama and Democrats. Why not just deal with the criticism? I imagine because they can't.

[LooseWilly]

27. Are you serious? You're going to try to parse the semantic difference between un- and not recommend?

Wow.... :tinfoilhat:

Ok, I've poured myself a drink, and now I will try to engage the tinfoilhattedness of your assertion.

Un- is a prefix, which signifies a negation... as in unpopular, unfortunately, etc. So, if a recommendation is comparable to a statement of popularity, relevance, or what have you, then an unrecommendation is a statement that is the opposite of a recommendation... a statement of unpopularity, un-relevance, or what have you.

"Not {blank}" is generally considered to be synonymous with "Un{blank}". Not popular means the same thing as unpopular. Not fortunate means the same thing as unfortunate. Likewise, it could be argued that "Not recommended" means the same thing as "Unrecommended" (if "Unrecommended" were technically a word).

The connotations that you are assigning are, as far as I can tell, completely arbitrary. In fact, I would argue that the connotations are the opposite of what you are suggesting.

A quick perusal of the Motion Picture Ratings descriptions for movies includes this sentence to describe R rated movies:"Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian". I point to the use of the phrase "not allowed", and suggest that that implies that the connotation of the term "not recommended" which you mention would actually be more in line with a notion of "suppression"... as in "Children under 17 are not allowed to attend". This the use of the "not {blank}" phrase construction is used as a prohibition of, or even "suppression" of that which is "not allowed"... and to the extent that connotations are a matter of the residual meaning of one use of a word or phrase that carries over into another realm/context... the "suppression" you speak of would more aptly be applied to the "not recommended" phrase that you are trying to peddle.

On the other hand, "unrecommend" is simply an amusing turn of phrase... a word that doesn't in fact exist... used as an opposite of "recommend", to be used by a DUer to vote for the "un-relevance" of a particular thread.

And, as it is merely a means of counting the votes of relevance vs. the votes of irrelevance of a thread for purposes of Greatest Page status... it is not only a democratic measure, but hardly a factor of suppression... as the thread must obviously be available for comment in order for one to unrecommend it (as I did with this thread).

And as for seeing the number of votes either way side by side... I think the mods have been kind in not allowing that, as all those horrified by reaching < 0 would be even more embarrassed when it became obvious that their lame threads had reached -666, for instance.

As for the idea "Most of all, what the center-right here wants is to suppress information that criticizes
Obama and Democrats. Why not just deal with the criticism? I imagine because they can't."... well, we can unrec the center-right as readily as they can unrec me or you. Why is this such a big issue for you?... do you really believe that only criticisms that reach the Greatest Page will be noticed?

Was that sufficiently pedantic to satisfy?...

[defendandprotect]

33. You're dealing in semantics . . . not subtraction which is what the "UN" is about here . . .

Evidently you aren't aware that the "UN" SUBTRACTS votes from the "Recommends."

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

16. Call it what it is... CENSORSHIP!

[lindisfarne]

19. So that's why this thread has disappeared form GD. Censorship. n/t

[defendandprotect]

25. Yes...!!!

[Confusious]

29. YEA!

I couldn't find this thread, read it or post a reply....Oh, wait...





withdrawn.

[lindisfarne]

3. Are you advocating that we all start threads to repost our favorite replies?Are the repeats not

enough when people don't bother to look to see if there's already a thread on a topic?

[defendandprotect]

6. I would recommend that people do so when they think the reply is worthy . . .

and many dupe threads are posted because it isn't always clear that there is '

already an article on the subject -- oftimes the title is misleading -- other

times, it's for other reasons.

Why not concentrate less on the details surrounding the info here and move your

attention to the ISSUES THEMSELVES rather than trying to control what other posters

do? In fact, if it's a lousey idea why are you even bothering with it?

[lindisfarne]

8. Did I not ask a question about the OP's intent? Dupes often come about from sheer laziness to check

back a few pages, too.

I strongly disagree that it's a good idea to start new threads to highlight "good" replies.

[defendandprotect]

18. You asked a question which YOU answered . . .negatively --

I've posted many a dupe and it has nothing to do with not checking.

And your feelings were made clear in your first post.

Why not concentrate less on the details surrounding the info here and move your

attention to the ISSUES THEMSELVES rather than trying to control what other posters

do? In fact, if it's a lousey idea why are you even bothering with it?

[lindisfarne]

21. I expressed my opinion. Are you trying to censor me? n/t

[defendandprotect]

23. Is asking you for a reply "censoring" you . . . ???

[bobbolink]

36. You're one of those people who come to DU to pick fights.

Put me on ignore....that's what I'm doing with you, right now.

Then, go away.

[EFerrari]

13. No This is call giving attention to an actual idea.

lol

:applause:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. Only popular opinions can gain prominence - must stay in lockstep

[defendandprotect]

22. Only "lockstep" I've noticed here is the effort to suppress criticism of Obama/Dems . . .

that's a quite popular sentiment among the noisy few here.

[CJCRANE]

7. It's nice to be important

but it's more important to be nice.

[BlooInBloo]

9. I bet a star for a DUer that this is not the OP's last post on the topic.

[OhioChick]

10. And likely not your last response on the topic. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. I never claimed it was.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. I'm bored -

does any of this mean anything, really?

It's a MESSAGE BOARD, people!!!

End of rant..........

[defendandprotect]

17. Interesting comment, but I don't think it covers what's happening here . . .

or what a sound solution should be --

Information is essential -- all kinds of it --

Some of us will ignore some threads and spend a lot of time on others.

It's individual choice, but we do notice that pre-"un-recommend" there have
always been posters who tried to get there first to dissuade others that there's
nothing of value to be seen. Fortunately, many here understand that game-playing.

However, IMO, the "Greatest Page" isn't about "popularity" -- rather, it's about
the value of the information. Those who "recommend" feel that the information
should be widely noted.

On the other hand . . . "Un-recommend" by its very name suggests an attempt to
suppress the information. To subtract from its deemed value.

Why not "Not Recommended" -- and two totals?
That would leave those who see the thread to decide for themselves if they think the
article has worthwhile information or not.

The reality behind all of this is that a few here want control over what others do.
They want the power to suppress. Does that remind you of anyone?

[JuniperLea]

20. Bingo!

I used to work for a filmmaker, and it was like pulling hen's teeth to get him to understand that great box office and great cinema were usually a million miles apart!

Popularity isn't a bad thing, per se, but it never, ever truly means "great."

[Confusious]

28. So what is great?

Everything that's NOT popular? I'm seen lots of effluent that wasn't popular. I've seen effluent that was.

So how, O' great effluent judger, how do we decide? Just open the flood gates and let all the posts of "cats who look like Hitler" go to the greatest page along with "an old man died yesterday....?"

[defendandprotect]

31. How about letting those who think the post is valuable decide . . . rather than

those who prefer not to see the information in the post gain more widespread attention?

That way, those who see it can read it or ignore it -

[Regret My New Name]

35. Hey, defendandprotect...

I don't think you and I've have ever communicated on here, but I actually enjoy reading the stuff you post. To be honest, I don't agree with a lot of what you say, BUT I do enjoy reading it because it gives a different perspective than I have. Umm, now I personally would never unrec something just because I disagree with what is being said. Particularly if it's well written and thought out.

I may be naive, but I tend think that most people have similar feelings. It seems as if the ultimate effect of the unrec feature will be to weed out the less thought out ridiculous threads that come up on any message board. For example, here on DU you might find one that says something like "Obama hates gays " Well yeah, that's useful, but because people are silly, they will recommend that and it will eventually get enough recs to get on the greatest page. I may be wrong, but I don't think the greatest page is meant for that - hence the implementation of the unrec feature. Now if someone wrote/posted a well thought out argument about why they disagree with Obama's actions in regards to the civil rights of gays, then I couldn't see anyone unrec just because they disagree with it.

Again, maybe I'm naive, but I generally think MOST people are fully capable of acting like adults. I suppose they always could make it so it listed the users who unrec and rec a thread. That would help serve to discourage any possible misuse. Perhaps ditch the unrec and simply raise the number of recs required to make it to the greatest page, but then you'd have to adjust to take into account usage...

Anyway, I digress... In my oh so humble opinion, I think it will keep the greatest page cleaner. I mean, hey, if you write/post something awesomely awesome, people will recommend it...I think.

[Obamanaut]

26. I propose a limit of one (single, digit, 1) OP on a topic by an individual.

One poster gets to initiate only one thread on Michael Jackson, or Susan Boyle, or unrec or anything else. Only one.

Except kitties and puppies. And they must have pics.

[defendandprotect]

32. So if you post a thread on TORTURE and more info comes out . . .

too bad?

:eyes:

[Confusious]

30. and....

There have been many cases of crap that was not popular and many things that were crap that were not great....need I list them?

[LWolf]

37. Excellent point, and it trumps the rest in the argument, imo. nt