The hysteria over the unrecommend feature

[FSogol]

Just got back from vacation and noticed the unrecommend button. I like the feature (but haven't used it yet). I've also seen a few threads where posters bemoan that the threads are getting freeped and a express a genuine dislike of the feature. I wonder why everyone takes the unrecommend feature so personally?

Possible reasons for unrecommending a thread:

1. You don't like the post (hey, we're Democrats, we don't all think alike)
2. You don't think the post or subject deserved to be recommended
3. You object to something in the post, too much cussing, a perceived slur, etc
4. You feel that some other subject or issue should take precedence over the thread in question
5. You feel the thread is juvenile or doesn't represent the best DU can be

I could go on, but I hope the point is made. Instead of accusing everyone who disagrees with you with freeperness (and I know those bottom-dweller are around here), why not consider the reasons someone disagrees with you? And don't take everything so personally.

Flame away!

[TexasObserver]

1. Recommended for its sound, clear reasoning.

[Bucky]

2. I don't like your user name, so I'm going to unrecc this thread just to knock you down a peg.

Just kidding. Good points.

[HughMoran]

3. "consider the reasons someone disagrees with you"

No longer can you only consider those who would agree with you.

[TexasObserver]

13. "No longer can you only consider those who would agree with you."

nicely said

[rateyes]

4. Why would a person who is open minded unrecommend a well

reasoned argument based simply on, "I disagree with your opinion?"

[FSogol]

6. Personally, I wouldn't, I just wouldn't recommend it.

But I'm not everyone.

[rateyes]

9. I don't doubt you wouldn't. But, there are many who do.

[Ms. Toad]

41. And you know this how?

The unrec doesn't come with a "I unrecommended because________________" line. You indicated your question was open minded, but your assumption in asking it (based on your follow-up comments) is that unrecommends are being used to express disagreement with the subject - even if the post is well written. Based on which threads now no longer appear on the front page of DU it seems clear to me that the feature is being used to remove threads that are anything but thoughtful and well written.

[rateyes]

43. Not to brag, but I do have a little bit of common sense.

That's how I know it.

[Ms. Toad]

44. Your common sense is telling you something very different

than mine. And what mine is telling me matches what I see happening.

[TexasObserver]

14. (1) because it's redundant, (2) because the subject is objectionable, (3) because there's no source

Each person applies their own standard for Rec and Unrec, and that is how it should be. Lose the notion that your vision of how each person should weigh each rec/unrec decision is controlling.

[rateyes]

16. Those would be other reasons than

"I disagree with your well reasoned argument." I was asking about why an open minded person would unrec on THAT basis.

[TexasObserver]

19. I'll give you examples.

I don't care how well reasoned or documented the articles, I will Unrecommend the following kinds of threads:

* Palin
* the Obama family, their kids, their clothes, their dog, their looking at someone
* Free Republic, Jim Robinson, freepers, etc.
* Angry, bitter topic lines
* Inflammatory or profane topic lines
* 9-11
* Guns
* Why is everyone picking on us? threads about religion
* personal rants
* those with poor or no sourcing
* redundant on any topic already well represented on the board
* calling out to other DUers for any reason
* about someone's cat, dog, kid, etc.
* Michael Jackson or other pop culture creatures

I have a simple approach: Recommend should be given to no more than 10% of the threads, and Unrecommend should be given to most threads. And that can be justified on quality alone.

[rateyes]

32. So, then, you are saying that you unrecommend 90%

of the threads? And, if you don't like the kind of threads you mentioned, why not simply hide them rather than unrecommend them because you don't like the subject?

[TexasObserver]

34. I don't vote on every thread, but of those I vote on, yes, I unrecommend 90%.

Why would I simply hide them? The goal is to make sure the weak or bad threads stay off the Greatest Page and get a rating that is appropriate for their weak or bad content.

You have a point of view that I find repugnant. You think one should either recommend a thread, or let it pass without unrecommending it. That's not logical. That's not a wise use of the rec/unrec feature. That produces the kind of weak ass drivel that used to get five recommends every time it was launched.

Why are ratings given? To produce a result. The result I want is a Greatest page devoid of the crap which some here fawn over. The result you want is for no one to get their feelings hurt.

[rateyes]

42. You are jumping to conclusions about what I want.

You talk about "weak" or "bad" threads. Whether a thread is weak or bad, however, is a subjective rather than an objective assessment.

Nowhere did I say that a person should either recommend a thread or let it pass. You put words in my mouth. What I said was that before unrecing a thread one should consider his/her motives for doing so. If they are unrecing simply because they disagree with a well reasoned argument, that's a point of view that I find repugnant.

You seem (and I said SEEM) to have the point of view that everyone unrecing threads all have pure motives. I find that POV absurd. And, who are you to say how I choose to use the rec/unrec feature unwise? Two wise people can come to different conclusions.

You again refer to "weak ass drivel." Again, that's subjective, not objective. One person's trash is another person's treasure. (Ever watched "The Antique Roadshow?")

What I don't get is why it bothers you or anyone else that what you consider to be "weak ass drivel" winds up on the greatest page. Who gives a shit? If you don't want to read a thread, don't. If you don't want to see it, then hide it. Why do you insist on a thread you would hide be hidden from others?

Now, you ask an interesting question. Why are ratings given? And, you are correct in your answer--to produce a result? But, perhaps we should also ask--why do we want to produce that result. Why even bother with giving ratings?

Why don't we let a thread sink or rise on its own merits. If people want to talk about it, let them, or at least let them "recommend" the thread simply by kicking it back to the top of the page. The cream will rise to the top.

[Renew Deal]

24. Because this is a political site

And that's what politics is about. Expanding your side and diminishing the other.

[pipi_k]

29. But that's assuming

the arguments ARE well-reasoned.

Not all of them are.

And one person might think they are but another person doesn't. As someone else pointed out, this is DU...not everyone is going to think the same...

:shrug:

[Gman]

40. I am very closed minded with those who whine and complain and

bitch and moan. I have no tolerance whatsoever for the kind of criticism Obama has been getting around here.

The fact that you would suggest unrecommending something is not open minded shows that you, yourself, are not open minded.

[Mari333]

5. rec, because 'hysteria' is such a funny word nt

[dropkickpa]

10. I now have Def Leppard stuck in my head

Thanks a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lneyBoDq0c

[Jennicut]

7. "Don't take it so personally"...good point

Some people take it all too seriously, like making the GP is the be all and end all of their life and anyone who stands in their way of that is attacking their destiny to make it to that page. They take it soooo personally and do not even think about the fact why someone might disagree with them. One poster in particular said anyone who disagreed with them and unrec'd them was purely a conservadem or DLC'r. Such a lack of nuance.

[zeemike]

12. Consider this analogy;

You recommend a book to a third party to read because you think it is worthy of consideration....and someone else comes along and cancels your recommendation by recommending it...does that make any sense at all?
Would you take it personally?
And if you complained to the person that did the UN and they told you that this is a democracy and your recommendation is only good if the majority approves of it...would you take that personally?

And this analogy leads to the next question....should the majority determine what books are in the library?
Would you take it personally if the majority determined that The Grapes of Wrath was a communist leaning book and should not be read?

[TexasObserver]

15. Yes. You recommend the book, and someone else has a different opinion.

They think the book sucks. You think your opinion to recommend matters and should not be challenged by a countervailing opinion.

[Jennicut]

21. But its not censored on the website itself, just from the GP

We have no idea what real censorship is here.
And yes, I do believe the majority has a right to pick what ends up on the GP...its supposed to be the best of the best.

[zeemike]

31. And best is subjective.

And then the majority has the right to say what books are in the library as well...it does not stop people from writing or publishing books so it is not stifling free speech. Just controlling easy access to it

[zeemike]

8. Well the reasons have been well stated in several posts

That you probably missed.
But they are all blown off by the proponents in some negative way....there reasons are not good enough.
But basically they boil down to this:
Un is a negative action and negative actions cannot result in a positive outcome.
There is no need to take away someones recomendation...that should only be the option of the one that gave it.
There was never a problem of TGP being so over run with trivial posts that you could not find something to read.
It sets up a us against them mentality that encourages clicks to form.
It was a solution to a problem that did not exist.

And there have been several suggestions to alleviate the concerns of both sides which of course were unrecommended by the the ones that like this divisive system....so you may not see the obvious solutions to the contraversy....which begs the question in my mind....do some people like the controversy and the power to control the content of what is on TGP?

[slackmaster]

11. I use Unrec for just two reasons

1. To quash threads about Sarah Palin, and

2. To counter what I perceive as irrational exuberance.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. Wait wait I think I might actually care about recs and un-recs and "the greatest page"

No. Never mind. False alarm. I still don't care.

[TexasObserver]

20. LOL

made me laugh

[K8-EEE]

18. The unrec has taken a lot of boring self promoters & ranters off the greatest page

I think it's improved the Greatest page.

[TexasObserver]

23. You said, I didn't!

I agree, too.

As grandma used to say "The guilty chickens cackle the loudest."

[Lorax]

25. Agreed! n/t

[Renew Deal]

26. OMG, you're so right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6057869&mesg_id=6057869

:eyes:

[conscious evolution]

22. The two minute hate

seems to be its biggest function.

[Hepburn]

27. You forgot this reason for using the unR feature:

My pals and I are gonna gang unR this poster whenever he/she posts because we don't like this person or his/her POVs.

The above, IMO, is the main reason for use of the feature.

[Renew Deal]

28. You forgot a few reasons

You disagree with the other point of view
You personally dislike the person that posted it
The person that posted it isn't one of the "cool kids"
And of course, supressing minority news, views, issues, opinions, etc.

And don't pretend that it's not happening.

[scheming daemons]

30. "and don't pretend that it's not happening"

...and yet... a look at the Greatest Page shows that it is, indeed, not happening.


- Several threads criticizing the President are there
- Several threads voicing what would be considered "minority opinion" are there
- Several LGBT threads are there.

But what isn't there anymore is even more important to note:

"Recommend this thread if...." threads are no longer there.


And that's a FANTASTIC development.

[Renew Deal]

33. Wrong

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6055316

And I love this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6057869&mesg_id=6057869

[scheming daemons]

35. Doesn't matter anymore

Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6061846&mesg_id=6064052

[Renew Deal]

36. Look at Cboys response to your thread

And go ahead, tell me how wrong you were...

[scheming daemons]

38. Um.... my point was about the Greatest Page...

...and a cursory look at the Greatest Page at any time during the past 4 days shows me to be right.

[Renew Deal]

39. You're right except for when you're wrong.

But I don't hold it against you. It happens to all of us. :pals:

[L. Coyote]

37. We all know people don't like change. Actually people don't change,

the old ones die. :rofl: