Bug or feature?

[HughMoran]

I've noticed a whole bunch of threads on the Greatest Page that have 2 less votes listed when the thread is opened.

I know it's a pain to find each of these threads on the GP to check, but I'm seeing 2 more votes on the Greatest Page than shown within the thread. The column listing recs in the forum view shows the lower number as well. Bug or Feature? Did the DU admins add 2 "mulligans", or is it just a code issue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3972404

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8532255

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6066972

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8531752

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3972308

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8531341

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6080348

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6081657

[leftofthedial]

1. the whole unrec fiasco is a giant open mulligan

for the DLC politically correct

[BlooInBloo]

2. Answer1: The number of recs can change. Answer2: The greatest page is prolly sampled...

on a periodic basis (every 10 minutes or something like that), and what's listed there reflects the number of recs at the last sample time.

Note that Answer2 is speculation.

Since I believe the persecution paranoia is stupid, I'm confident that the DU admin is not gaming the system.

[HughMoran]

5. Votes change GP instantly

So it's not answer 2. In one case, a thread ended up on the GP today that was 2 days old! maybe it's a bug.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Verified...

Additionally, I found numerous other threads that had the correct number of (net) recs.

I don't know - I suspect the discrepancies you noticed cannot be diagnosed at the phenotype level. Would need an admin for a good answer, methinks.

[HughMoran]

8. I tried to alert to tell mods about it, but DU crashed at the exact time I tried

So I just thought I'd find a bunch of threads and hope that the admins would see the thread :shrug:

[MADem]

13. You might want to send a note to the ADMINS and give them a link to this discussion.

I think there's a way to get a hold of them privately, listed in the rules IIRC.

[Hepburn]

10. I saw some odd things like that going on, too.

There is a thread on the GP ~~ I decide to give it a rec...and when I do, I get that message about only being able to rec threads that are less than 24 hours old...and yet, there is the thread on the GP.

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

18. I think that there's a timing issue with when things go off the greatest page...

versus when they stop collecting recs. This was happening even before the rec/unrec page. Usually when this happens, the thread will go off the page within an hour or so. Probably just the way the time counter works differently for each set of code.

But the different vote counters seems to be likely a bug and should have those at DU notified to make changes to fix the problem. I would almost expect such small bugs with likely big changes they've been making with the unrec/rec features that were added. Probably nothing sinister about it, though it might be coincidentally more apt to happen on "popular" threads with more potential for simultaneous recs and unrecs, which could just be a timing side effect and not anything that they are trying to artificially raise or lower totals for some "sinister" reasons. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions on this until perhaps the mods/developers have had a chance to look at it and respond.

Another possibility just occurred to me if older threads are staying on the greatest page longer than a day and don't allow votes later.

There's a period of time that passes after a thread gets started and when it gets added to the greatest page. That gap might also be accounting for the discrepancy where it stays longer on the greatest page after it is older than a day and can no longer receive votes. So it might be more than just an hour. If this accounts for the discrepancy, then this could be made worse with the newer code if the thread goes off the greatest page for a while when it's been unrec'd to the point of going off of it for QUITE a while, making that discrepancy larger and potentially very large, if the thread is just barely getting enough recs over unrecs to stay on the greatest page any length of time. Then I could see the potential for two day old threads still on the greatest page, since they've only been on the greatest page itself over a period of time for a day, if the time its not on it is subtracted out.

[babylonsister]

3. There's a few people devoted to voting some threads down.

It's pretty obvious, and the subject doesn't matter as long as it might be pro-Dem.

There are others who don't like the topic, so vote it down for that reason.

And there are some who might just vote down any thread depending on who posted it.

I don't care. I like it, I rec'd it. I don't un-rec much unless I think it's a lie.

[HughMoran]

6. But that has nothing to do with my technical question

I am asking a question as to whether the system is working correctly or if the admins have allowed a 2-vote differential between GP as listed and actual + vote count.

[cascadiance]

9. Perhaps if a thread gets a lot of simultaneous recs and unrecs...

... the mods are giving a 2+ vote buffer on the greatest page to keep it there as a way to help "controversial" pages not get shot down too quickly by the "unrec"'ers.

There are many other threads where the count totals are consistent, so it would seem to me most likely due to one of two things:

1) some sort of timing conflict with the way things are counted when things are added to the greatest page and the way recs and unrecs are handled at that time...

2) as noted above, some "help" from the site admins from some admins if they think that unrec'ers are "attacking" a thread. My guess is that if this is the case they are told to give it two votes extra in each of these cases.

[HughMoran]

12. It's something like you suggest I think

The only problem with the system is a thread from 2 days ago made it to the GP. I couldn't vote for it if I wanted to even though it was the most recent added to the GP. Something's up.

[babylonsister]

11. I can't answer that. As they say, "ask the Admins". I don't

know about differentials, we can't see the negatives, so who cares?

[HughMoran]

14. I'm not criticizing the system

You've misunderstood why I posted.

I am asking if the website is broken, or if the vote discrepancies have been allowed on purpose.

[babylonsister]

15. OK! I'm asking, why do you care? Seriesle, why?

It doesn't matter, and as soon as we 'get' that, all the discrepancies may or may not go away. I think if they get too severe, the admins will address those disturbers.

OK, I just don't care, and I'm sorry if I interfered in your thread.

[HughMoran]

16. It's not people who are the disturbers, it's the code that runs DU

I care if the software running this place is screwed up, don't you?

[babylonsister]

17. Do you think the code is screwed up?

I don't. There was maintenance done today, but I'm not worried. I worry about too many other things, unless I'm ignoring them. ;)

[HughMoran]

19. So you think a discrepancy between votes listed on Greatest Page and what's in actual thread

is by design then?

That's my question - so you think it's a feature then...

[babylonsister]

22. I've seen threads with

100 rec's and 25 or less, or more, comments. I rec'd threads w/o commenting.

I can't see neg. comments or how many have been made.

I don't care.

That's all! Bon soir!

[HughMoran]

23. So you have no idea what I'm talking about or why I posted this

You didn't read my post, and you just reacted reflexively, and I'll bet you're going to get angry with me now for telling you.

[cascadiance]

4. I'd earlier noticed this about my recent thread too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6085032&mesg_id=6085032

It's interesting that in all of these cases there's a difference of two votes.

Could it be something like:

1) Some voter out there has three id's and has been unrec'ing certain threads three times from each different DU id, and that in some cases the counter is checking for dupes of the same IP address and in other caes it isn't?

or perhaps:

2) If there's some correction mechanism that I think I was hearing that site mods have that introduces this discrepancy.

3) Perhaps there's a timing of unrec/rec votes happening at the same time when the thread goes on to the greatest page that has them out of synch.

[Cerridwen]

20. That was me. I broke it.

We noticed it the night it happened. We decided to stay quiet about it.

I confess. It was me.

:blush:

[HughMoran]

21. I knew it was you!

:rofl:

[Cerridwen]

25. Ah, I see. So you were just trying to shame a confession out of me.

Yeah, I see your evil plan.

Fine. Just fine.

I broke it. I admit it! I broke it!

:evilgrin:

And I had a helluva fun time while I did it, too. So, :P

[HughMoran]

26. You will be punished.

:spank:

:nuke:

Heh, and someone unrecced this thread for good measure :rofl:

[Cerridwen]

27. Yeah, like THAT hasn't happened to me before.

O8)

Well, I did NOT unrec - I do good to remember rec much less unrec.

Geez.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

29. We couldn't figure out if it was the anti-wrinkle cream spammer or

Cerridwen's frozen bra:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6029944&mesg_id=6030088

[EFerrari]

28. I told you to just act normal!

:smoke:

lol

[cascadiance]

24. Another "controversial" thread with this "feature"...

Features a video interview with Wayne Madsen... Greatest or not greatest at the moment?...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x338312