DU should show the total number or recommends and unrecommends for posts.

[Better Believe It]

If DU has this feature available for administrators/moderators, this information can easily be shared share with all DU'ers. What in the world would be wrong with that?

I'm not going to use the unrecommend feature and I hope most DU'ers won't and here's why.

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing that post from that location should be clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a peoples censorhip!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And some want it that way! In the case of DU administrators it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck again.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like.

Democratic Underground clearly stated: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

IMNSHO In my not so humble opinion.

[MADem]

1. I disagree. Some people are terribly fragile and actually think having a post on the

Greatest Page of an internet forum means something.

I just this moment got a very long and very offensive PM from someone who is clearly mentally ill who is infuriated with my feeling that the UNREC feature is a good thing and who used a huge amount of sexually-graphic and violent profanity to tell me so. The PM describes in "I live in my mom's basement but I am going to be a threatening, creepy buffoon" detail how this insane person would like to kill me and mutilate me, by stomping on my windpipe, etc. etc. Every single sexual organ imaginable gets a place of honor in this sick PM, too. Quite remarkable. And this is a DU member!

Do you really think it's a swift idea to let such a person know precisely how many people think they're full of shit? I don't.

Yes, I've alerted on the nutcase. I am quite sure the person sending me the PM used a sockpuppet to unleash that threat of violence, too, and I even have a good idea who it is.

[Spazito]

4. MADem, another poster received a sick PM this morning that sounds...

very much like the one you received! Here is the link to the OP about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6064469

If the PM you received is essentially the same then the troll/s are out in force today.

[MADem]

13. Same guy!!!!! What a charmer!!! nt

[PretzelWarrior]

8. what do you mean? they created a fake username just to harrass you?

[MADem]

14. Yep--I can't even find the little fucker in the list of members!

I may be misreading the user name, though, because a small L looks like the number one and I, if you look quickly.

I alerted on the verbal hatefest. I'm pleased to know I'm not alone, though--Taverner got "the treatment" too. It's quite violent and (pathetically) crude, as well, the PM. Clearly the rantings of a deeply disturbed and--worse luck--rather stupid person. It's poorly written, and flows badly--an English teacher would give it an F because it's so bad it doesn't even do a good job of threatening.

It's gotta be hell going through life with that kind of a mind! Dumb and angry is a real loser combo!

[Better Believe It]

10. Your response sidesteps the main issue, the "Greatest Page" does have a practical meaning.

The "Greatest Page" and "Homepage" obviously do mean something or we wouldn't have it on Democratic Underground!

More people will have access to and read posts that appear on the "HomePage" and/or the "Greatest Page".

That's why ALL posters like to see their posts recommended. Such recommendations mean more visitors here will see and actually view (hits) those posts.

I don't recall anyone ever objecting to their post appearing on "The Greatest" much less the "Frontpage" on Democratic Underground.
And that's from all shades of liberal/progressive political opinion.

Not a single objection from anyone! The thousands of DU'ers who have had their posts appear on "The Greatest" obviously believe
"The Greatest" page has meaning and is important.

[MADem]

12. The new system prevents shit from being touted as ice cream.

Before, six people could label a pile of crap as "Greatest" without challenge. That's not happening anymore.

It's a good thing.

[Better Believe It]

15. And you will monitor and decide that?

So you will decide what posts are ice cream and which ones need to be censored because you think they are shit!

Why should I trust you to only censor the "bad" posts? Perhaps it's your vast knowledge on all subject matters .... such as shit and ice cream!

You and others can also decide to remove a post because you just don't happen to like a particular poster!

Well, that's real democratic, isn't it?

I don't want that censorship power.

If I don't like a post I can write a response to it.

[MADem]

16. Why should I trust you to decide? One member, one vote. Live with it.

If you DO like a post, you can write a response too.

Get over yourself. If more people than not think a post is crap, it's not going on the Greatest Page. You can yell at me all you want, but that's the way it is. Deal with it.

The days of the "Tyranny of Six People With a Bad Idea Making The Rest of Us Look Like Jerks" are OVER.

[Better Believe It]

17. You don't have to trust me. I'm not deciding. I won't unrecommend any posts.

I won't participate in any undemocratic censorship feature.

If you want to police posters and their posts, I'm not stopping you.

[MADem]

18. That's right, I don't. All is well. And this new feature is wonderfully democratic, too. nt

[jody]

2. Makes sense and it would reveal the true nature of the issue, it's a popularity contest for kids. nt

[Common Sense Party]

3. I think so, so do most who have voted in this poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6066414

[BlooInBloo]

5. I certainly agree.

[bvar22]

6. Agree.

K&R

[HamdenRice]

7. Oh shit. I just unrec'd your post by mistake

I disagree, but didn't mean to unrec. My only gripe is that it's too easy. I would like that second page click back. I meant to rec to try to undo the unrec.

:rofl: :silly:

I unrec stuff that I am embarrassed as a DUer to see on the GP -- lies, predictions of Obama's failure or evil action in the future, incoherent economic statements -- but not just stuff I disagree with.

[Autumn]

9. It's okay I loaned you

my recommend. I wasn't using it.

[SpartanDem]

11. I agree we should see them

That said what if I don't think a thread in noteworthy? Why shouldn't I be given an equal vote?