Suggestion Re- the Unrec Function

[snot]

Basically, I think I'm in favor of it.

But I'd like to suggest re- each post that, instead of just showing the net rec-vs-unrec total, we show a break down showing the no. of recs minus the no. of unrecs equalling the net no.

This might make it easier for everyone to get an idea if/when posts that are actually good and impt. are being sunk by trolls.

Pls excuse if someone else already posted this idea.

[masuki bance]

1. How about not paying any attention to the numbers? nt

[snot]

6. That's no help if I don't even get to see a post bec. trolls sank it before I got there.

[TorchTheWitch]

11. then don't use TGP to filter what you read

problem solved.

[SoCalDem]

16. AMEN to that..

The whole un-rec thing is odd , to start with. Do some people feel the need to "grade" every post? Why?

If there's a post I'm not particularly interested in, is it my "obligation" to vote anonymously, my "displeasure" that someone dared to post something that I (just an anonymous forum cruiser) might find not to MY liking?

How DARE someone post something that I might not like.. Does the place not exist just for my own gratification? :rofl:..:sarcasm:

DU was the first (and still ONLY) place I've ever posted to, and I always (maybe mistakenly) thought that people were "allowed" to have a variety of likes & dislikes, and the ones who liked something could say.."Hey, I like that"..and the ones who did not like something, could post something of their own that spoke of their ideas on a subject, or they could reply to the one that "grievously offended them", and then find something else to read , here at DU.

I do not "k&r" nor do I "un-rec". I read, and discuss (or not), and move on to other threads. But maybe I'm not doing this forum thing correctly.. I just don't think it's my responsibility to pass judgment on others who choose to post their own opinions, nor do I expect to agree with everyone.

I guess I identify with the newbie, who gets up nerve to finally post something, and with no replies at all, sees the dreaded <0.. It must feel like a pretty inhospitable place.
So to all you new people, I may disagree with you, but I'll post it, instead of a sneaky drive-by "un-rec"

[snot]

17. SoCalDem, thanks --

I know you've been around a long time and are a GREAT DU'er. (Thank you so much for all you've contributed!)

I can only spend so much time here per day. I start with the Greatest Page. Then i move to the Latest, but there's no way i can get through everything. So, initially, other DU'er's recs are v. impt. to me bec. they are my primary filter. (And I'd encourage you to participate in the rec/unrec process, bec. I'm certain your input would improve that filter to my benefit!)

I appreciate what you're saying re- posting a reply rather than rec'ing or unrec'ing, but I don't think those posts affect what get to the Greatest, do they? Also, with all due respect, replies that just say like or dislike lengthen the discussion without adding much.

I view recs and unrecs as rather like voting in general. They promote the things that are hopefully more worthwhile, hopefully demote what wastes people's time.

We all get to vote based on our own criteria, and of course we don't always agree, but i like democracy, think there's something to the "wisdom of crowds," and i like being able to participate by rec'ing things I think are really helpful -- I've probably helped send some of your posts to "Greatest" -- and i do occasionally unrec something that seems to me to be really unhelpful.

My main concern is that the unrec'g is more likely to be abused, and more effectively, by trolls or the like. I mean, some conservatives are highly organized. I can say from personal experience here and elsewhere, if one of them identifies a post here or elsewhere that represents a substantive threat (i.e., it makes and substantiates a point that successfully challenges their position), they will on occasion recruit a whole posse to attack it.

My concern is that the unrec feature may make it easier for these attacks to succeed.

If we could see the no. of unrecs, we might get a better idea of when one of these attacks might be taking place.

I haven't seen much in the replies to my O.P. that addresses this concern.

[SoCalDem]

18. I never go to "Greatest".. or "Home".. my default is GD

and I am just a "scroller":)

I do rec when I find something great, but a reply keeps it alive, so I'm more likely to do that..I guess my point is that rather than un-rec, I'll just move on..

[SoCalDem]

19. perfect example of what I meant, here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6129055

[BlooInBloo]

2. Wow. I wish somebody would have had that idea before. Thanks!

:rofl:

[snot]

4. I apologized if someone's mentioned this before. If they have,

a reference to the previous post would be helpful, so I and others could benefit from any ensuing discussion.

[obliviously]

3. This is absolute genius

Where have you been hiding. What a brilliant mind!

[snot]

5. Again,

I apologized in my O.P. if someone's mentioned this before. If they have, a reference to the prior post making the same suggestion would be helpful, so I and others could benefit from any actual discussion.

I did do a search before posting and didn't find anything on point. I come to DU once a day and check the Greatest and the Latest; but I and some others don't have time to read every single new post.

What's with the sarcasm?

[Confusious]

7. I don't understand how getting...

A number recommends minus a number of unrecommends equals a total is going to tell you trolls sunk it.

Spoon bending might tell you more.

[snot]

8. Because

if there are a large number of unrecs for a post that's inflammatory and unsubstantiated, that's one thing. I'd probably do nothing one way or the other re- such a post.

But if there are a large number of unrecs for a post that I find to be insightful and substantiated, I'm more likely to wonder if trolls are sinking it and go to more trouble to K&R it. I might even msg other DU'er friends to try to help save it.

Knowing the breakdown in the tallies could also help all of us in evaluating whether the unrec feature is doing more harm than good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. If you've decided if a thread is inflammatory and unsubstantiated, or insightful and substantiated

by reading it, then why would it make a difference to you whether there are lots of both recs and unrecs, or a small amount of both? Either way, your vote, and the votes of others you may wish to bring to it, will count the same.

Are you saying that if there was "a post that I find to be insightful and substantiated", but that you could see that it hadn't been unreced or reced by anyone, you wouldn't bother recing it?

As it happens, for the first couple of hours, the thread did display both the net number of positive recs: (recs - unrecs); and the total number of votes: (recs + unrecs). But people were apparently finding the display confusing - from Skinner's announcement of the function:

ON EDIT: We have decided to remove the total number of votes, and only show the net score. It was apparent that showing the total number of votes was confusing to readers. It made it appear that you could simply subtract the net score from the total votes to get the number of unrecommendations, which was NOT correct. I apologize for the confusion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6021143

[Confusious]

12. insightful and substantiated

That would be subjective wouldn't it? I think few people would think the posts about the unrec feature would be "insightful and substantiated" while the rest would think its garbage.

As the saying goes, there's no accounting for taste.

Unless of course, you're saying you should be the final arbiter of taste on this board.

[TorchTheWitch]

10. reading tealeaves might be better

Or reading entrails. Not sure which is the more reliable method.

;)

[snot]

13. So you really don't care whether a post sinks bec. no one's interested vs. bec. trolls hate it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Who are you talking to?

I'd point out any 'unrec' total wouldn't be subdivided as "trolls who hate this: n unrecs; honest DUers who hate this: m unrecs".

[snot]

15. Thanks for your info in #9; that's helpful.

I was talking to everyone who has replied here.

I personally feel that I have seen more than one valuable post on DU unfairly attacked and sunk by people who I could only assume were trolls.

Indeed, shortly after the new feature was implemented, I e-mailed one DU'er encouraging her or him to re-post, because I felt it had been a really great post and had been unfairly torpedo'd. S/he glumly replied that every post s/he'd made during the last 24 hours had been similarly sunk, and by at least some of the same people!

Apparently the mods may originally have had a similar concern, reflected in their original design -- or not; I realize that's speculative.

Granted, we'll never really know if the "unrecs" came from trolls or from honest DU'er's who simply didn't like a post. But frankly, when I see a thoughtful, substantive and substantiated post that someone obviously put a lot of work into -- something really effective against conservatives -- and it's getting unrec'd so fast that my own rec never even shows up, again, I'd like to know if it's sinking because no one cares or because it's being attacked. Again, at the minimum, this might affect my own opinion as to whether the unrec feature should be retained.

And again, I don't quite see why my original post has elicited such so much sarcasm. I was just trying to help.