OK, after a long time of seeing Rec/Unrec Feature, I believe it's time for a slight adjustment

[berni_mccoy]

It seems no matter how good a post is or innocuous it might be, there is a brigade of people running around here unrecing stuff. It's especially true of very damning posts of the GOP. I know not every post is clear cut, but there have been some seriously clear cut posts that no one should be unrecing here.

I'd wager that most of this unrecing is from low-post-count visitors or new visitors. You can't start a thread around here with a low-post count. Maybe you shouldn't be able to unrec a thread with a low-post count or relatively new account. I'd wager a great deal of it stops, but I could be wrong.

Just a suggestion, and I'm sure people will disagree, but holy cow.

[fascisthunter]

1. many warned folks about this very thing

there is no good reason for an unrec feature. If people don't like an op or article they just don't rec it.

[berni_mccoy]

2. I like the feature, but I think it should be an earned use of it.

[Xenotime]

26. Maybe it should only be for those who have donated.

[bobbolink]

52. Yes, let's keep cutting poor folk out of more things.

Is there any awareness left of poverty among "progressives"?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. I think the good posts are immune to random unrec trolls

The consensus rules here for rec/unrec and the consensus is generally progressive/liberal/left, generally by far more than required to push a worthy post to greatness. Not all posts, regardless of their viewpoint, are well written enough or unique enough or timely enough or funny enough to merit the greatest page.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Bull.

One of my articles has jumped from 0 to +1 five times today, at least. (I've been checking.) Under the old system it would have made Greatest, but a handful of trolls who vote everything down have kept it buried.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Has it occurred to you that there would have to be far more than

a handful of trolls to accomplish this feat, and that they would have to be coordinated?

I see no evidence at all from the contents of the greatest page that progressive/liberal/left viewpoints are not making it there. How do you explain that? The trolls are only teaming up on you?

Here is an alternate and simpler explanation: perhaps it was the quality of your post that kept it off the greatest page.

Until you can demonstrate that there is an effective rightwing troll team that is keeping worthy posts off the greatest page, I will go with the simpler explanation.

[TexasObserver]

58. Yes, most Unrecommended threads are that way for a good reason.

Under the old system, any five posters could make a person think their OPs were awesome. Now, reality is a cold slap in the face to many who previously thought their simple screaming screeds really mattered.

[bobbolink]

54. Right, that's why poverty posts get MORE unrecs than other posts.

[Obamanaut]

87. Maybe that is because the unreccers think the poverty posts

should be in the poverty section - in the same way gun stuff gets moved to the gun section, pets to pets, and so on.

But, I don't think the povery posts REALLY get more unrecs than other posts, it just looks that way to some posters.

[TexasObserver]

56. Very well said, and entirely accurate.

People who start mediocre threads used to see them Recommended by a handful of posters and wrongly believed their posters had great acceptance than they did. Now, the same posters are shocked to find out their postings aren't really that interesting to most posters.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. Why not making rec/unrec

a "donor only" feature? That would really cut down on the lurking freepers unrec'ing.

[Apollo11]

29. As a non-donor, I would have no problem with that.

It would give me an incentive to donate.

[Pangolin2]

86. Oh, a 'poll tax' of sorts. Great idea.

...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. That's a common sense fix.

That would seem to stop the conspiracy theory problems that are circulating regarding the feature. I do like the feature, however. I certainly don't want threads describing the Obama administration to be Bush's third term reaching our greatest page - that was an embarassment to the site.

[omega minimo]

9. The poster claims most are "progresive/left/liberal" and you're endorsing Groupthink

:crazy: Funny how UnRec has bit those who loved it right in the ass.

[berni_mccoy]

12. lol, you make a big assumption there. I'm making this remark after I saw a post today

That exposed media bias of CNN who totally flipped the facts of Wilson/Miller fundraiser story. It was kept down below 5 by apparently 6-7 posters who felt it shouldn't be rec'd.

I've seen other GP-worthy threads (not mine) kept from reaching the greatest page because of this. I believe the majority are trolls who shouldn't have the ability to unrec.

[omega minimo]

15. lol, you aren't making any sense. I was referring to two other posters words, to someone else.

:crazy:

[Warren Stupidity]

42. You mean this one sitting high up on the greatest page?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6525073&mesg_id=6525073

I have seen multiple OP's all upset about a point in time negative rec total on a worthy post, all rendered embarassingly idiotic by subsequent voting that quickly changed the situation. It is a voting system. It works over time. The consensus is generally right. It works better than the prior system, in my opinion, although it isn't of course perfect and clearly cannot satisfy everyone.

Did you have another specific complaint?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. There is plenty of diversity within the broad spectrum of progressive/liberal/left

opinion here. What we don't need, and what the owners of the board expressly discourage, is more media space for rightwing crap. Supporting freedom of speech does not mean that you get to spew odious rightwing bile on my property or skinners, it means that the evile gummint doesn't get to shut down this board for being progressive/liberal/left.

Yeah, I support 'groupthink' here, for some value of 'group' and some value of 'think' that excludes obvious teabagging trolls, and even subtle rightwing disinformation agents. I don't come here to get assaulted by more RNC talking points, I come here to get away from that crap.

Whining that you can't get any turd of a post up on the greatest page with a mere five sock puppets anymore, and castigating those who support consensus voting as advocates of some Orwellian Groupthink is beyond bogus.

The OP has no evidence of this alleged conspiracy.

[omega minimo]

31. "...reaching our greatest page - that was an embarassment to the site."

"I certainly don't want threads describing the Obama administration to be Bush's third term reaching our greatest page - that was an embarassment to the site."

It's not Groupthink as long as everyone agrees with your point of view and arrogance at presuming to know what the "correct" POV is, right? :eyes:

If you don't approve or agree with something from the "the broad spectrum of progressive/liberal/left," you brand it "Right Wing" to support your haughty assurance that you know what is "correct."

And your argument about it is so arrogant that you're flinging some cut and paste speech that has nothing to do with anything that I have posted:

"Whining that you can't get any turd of a post up on the greatest page with a mere five sock puppets anymore, and castigating those who support consensus voting as advocates of some Orwellian Groupthink is beyond bogus. The OP has no evidence of this alleged conspiracy."

Who are you talking to? Not I.

If you understood diversity or subtlety, you wouldn't make such pronouncements. You also wouldn't be blaming "raining trolls" for something that those who clamored for UnReccing have brought upon themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I can't brand it progressive/liberal/left but the consensus can.

"If you don't approve or agree with something from the "the broad spectrum of progressive/liberal/left," you brand it "Right Wing" to support your haughty assurance that you know what is "correct.""

No all I do is get to vote a post up or down based on my opinion. The consensus here gets to decide what merits sitting on the GP and what doesn't. Not me. My opinion counts for one vote only.

Show me the evidence that great posts are being routinely suppressed.

[omega minimo]

37. Yes, that's exactly what you did in your previous post. All of it. HelLO?!

"If you don't approve or agree with something from the "the broad spectrum of progressive/liberal/left," you brand it "Right Wing" to support your haughty assurance that you know what is "correct.""

"My opinion counts for one vote only." Your opinion is that something was "an embarrassment to the site" and that you know what should be on Greatest.


There is no consensus here because the "blame the trolls" geniuses and "I enjoy UnReccing" gamesters STILL don't factor in the people who DON'T DO MUCH OF UN/RECCING at all anymore. The whole thing -- without numbers -- is completely arbitrary and meaningless.

The UnReccers are playing with themselves. And complaining about what they asked for. And making assumptions they have no way of knowing.

"Show me the evidence that great posts are being routinely suppressed."

And you are still trying to foist some generic BS argument on me. Nothing to do with my posts.

:evilfrown:

Enjoy your petty button.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Wow my one vote is incredibly powerful. I had no idea.

Yes I in fact do have an opinion about what is progressive/liberal/left and what is rightwing bullshit. However all I can do with that opinion with respect to the 'petty button' is vote a post up or down. Big fucking deal. I am really sorry that you are so bent out of shape about the fact that people get to vote yes or no on posts. I suggest you get over it.

There is a consensus here. It is expressed on the greatest page by high rec counts. The consensus appears to be, in my opinion and perhaps not yours, generally progressive/liberal/left. The consensus appears to be fairly reflective of my own positions on most issues I care about. Consequently I am fine with it.

[omega minimo]

43. Enough with your strawmen.

"I am really sorry that you are so bent out of shape about the fact that people get to vote yes or no on posts."

You don't read anything anyone says, you just pontificate. :thumbsdown: UnRec you.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. How petty. How dare you express an opinion?

[omega minimo]

47. That's not even funny.

Just stupid. And petty. Nice try.

[Egnever]

70. I thought it was great actually

And on point.

[omega minimo]

7. The only people who care about UnRec any more are all those who loved the idea. Deal.

It's arbitrary. It's meaningless. And I'm UnReccing this for blaming newbies and for your 10,000 OPs yesterday. Isn't that spamming?

[uppityperson]

53. What "10,000 OPs yesterday"? I can only find several. I do not think you know what

"spamming" means.

[omega minimo]

65. then you weren't here. whatever you consider "several"? a dozen? "spamming" was posed as a question

back off.

[uppityperson]

72. No answer, I see. Typical. I checked to see how many that poster HAD started

found several, not thousands. You can't back up your claim so tell me to "back off". huh

[omega minimo]

73. another strawman

[uppityperson]

75. another non-answer. Still no "thousands" of OPs.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

8. I think there are many here who "think" that most people post stuff

with the intention of having their thread on "THE GREATEST AND MOST SPECTACULAR..EVAH!1!1!! PAGE"

they apparently see, as their mission, the responsibility , to un-rec posts that they "assume" are not "worthy"..

What many un-rec-ers don't realize, is that many of us never even GO to that "page", or even care what's on it:rofl:

[omega minimo]

10. That's why the word for it was

petty.

[Johonny]

11. I though the rules were simple

want a lot of recs post something positive about pot, want a lot of unrecs post something like Boosh is greatest prisedant evah or worse that you support an Obama policy. Really if all the unrecing came from non-DUer trolls wouldn't pro republican threads do great on here?

[berni_mccoy]

13. I don't think the feature is broken, just needs a tweak.

[omega minimo]

17. The feature sucks and is inevitably going to be divisive. You wanted it, deal with it.

[elocs]

38. Right, post something good about pot and you're guaranteed a trip to the Greatest Page. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

44. I guess the board generally feels that pot ought to be legalized.

Shame on us. How dare we?

[Johonny]

57. the post usually aren't about legalization

there often fantastic stories of magical pot smoking powers. But yeah I agree I think DUers overwhelming frustration about the war on drugs tends to make them lean towards recing pro-Pot smoking threads. Is there shame that goes along with recing things? I don't think so. It does however lead to some odd things getting a lot of recs.

How dare someone joke about the DU recing process

[The Straight Story]

18. Been here a spell myself and it is rare I go to greatest page, in fact

One of the complaints people make against me here is I post stuff in GD that should be elsewhere, but I mainly park it here on GD so consider that my home.

Unrec me all folks like, it won't make a wit of difference in the end to me personally.

ALL of that said, to some it does mean something and some use greatest as a quick way to sort through threads of interest. For them it does matter, and so I think their concerns are worth noting.

[NoPasaran]

16. Plenty of us with thousands of posts who enjoy unreccing

Donors, even.

[KoKo]

63. You "enjoy" unrecommending? That's kind of sick on first read. n/t

[omega minimo]

66. Exactly.

[MrsCorleone]

19. Agreed. The unrec feature has made it way too easy to supress viewership of crucial topics.

For instance, I have yet to see threads of the current the Supreme Court's corporate $'s = free speech case (corporate personhood) make it even close to the top, even though the final ruling will allow the outright purchase of politicians by big monied industries. A big 'effing deal to us all.

Your votes and small donations will never be able to compete if Roberts' Supreme Court get its way.

Over the past few weeks, I've noticed that threads like the following have been constantly unrec'd to keep views down.

"Roberts says he sees corporations as no different than people re free speech."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x479748


"The convergence of these events means the storm is almost upon us...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6523123

[omega minimo]

22. IMHO

once the UnRec chute opens, all bets are off. Who knows who is deciding which topics are verboten?

[MrsCorleone]

30. Yep. Who really knows, but given the serious nature of this topic, meaning Citizens United v FEC,

it's fairly clear that there is an interest in keeping the peeps uninformed.

DU is starting to look a bit like Freeperville with all of the distractions.

Just how I see it.

[omega minimo]

32. I don't know what it looks like there but it ain't nothing like this. Our "distractions"

tend to be of the reality based community.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Are you aware that both of those posts are way over +5?

Oh wait - the complaint now is not that the post doesn't get to the GP it is that it doesn't get to the TOP of the GP?

Is that it now? MY MOST IMPORTANT POST ISNT AT THE TOP OF THE GREATEST PAGE?

Seriously?

[MrsCorleone]

41. In this case, yes. Seriously. Btw, the CU v. FEC case threads are not my posts.

The most viewed posts are those at or near the top of the GP. That is the point of the GP. These are also the posts that are most often hard to ignore by other blogs and even a handful of respectable media outfits. You or others may not visit the GP, but great many do.

So, yeah, when the Supreme Court is literally in process of handing multinationals the complete freedom to use billions of their own dollars to directly elect or destroy a candidate based on the degree of his/her corporate allegiance, overturning a 100+ year ban, I tend to think that it's important to inform as many peeps as possible on what is about to happen.

But, that's just me. :hi:

[azmouse]

36. How does unreccing keep views down?

Please explain. Many DUers don't even visit the Greatest Page or care about it?

[elocs]

39. It has nothing to do with views. I rarely visit the Greatest Page and don't care about it.

Every time a thread is read it moves toward the top of its forum. UnRec has nothing to do with kicking a thread and the irony is that in order to UnRec a thread you have to kick it.

[azmouse]

46. So many here somehow think 'unrec' keeps people from viewing a thread.

All unrec does is either keep a thread off the Greatest Page or keep the thread from moving to the top.

Reading a thread or using the rec/unrec function does not move a thread up or down within the forum it is posted nor does it kick it.

[uppityperson]

51. This OP has many unrecs, yet I was able to find it. Maybe I'm special?

It is sad that people think unrecing keeps a post from being seen.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

61. At DU I start on the Home page and see the Greatest of the Greatest threads there,

then after I finish with the Home page I click on "Discuss" and scan down the Latest Discussion Threads. In the years I have been at DU I have only a few times gone to the Greatest Page. One thing I have noticed with UnRec from starting on the Home page is that it has pretty much eliminated the inane "Rec this" threads. The most deserving threads still rise to the top, they simply do not have as great numbers as they used to have.

[Ms. Toad]

78. "in order to UnRec a thread you have to kick it" Huh? n/t

[yodoobo]

50. Many confuse the news with the viewpoint

Many will rec that post in your example because its an important piece of information that needs to be known.

However, many will also unrec the same post, because they disagree with Roberts viewpoint.

Therefore, important, but negative stories get lower rec counts than important positive posts.

[Shipwack]

20. Ironic...

It's a little ironic that a post complaining about unrecommending now currently has more unrecs than recs...

:(

Kick.

[MrsCorleone]

23. No kidding.

Kick.

[spanone]

21. those unrec'ers are all over this post

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Must be raining trolls. nt.

[omega minimo]

27. one of those UnReccer's says he "enjoys UnReccing............"

I was a dissenter, forseeing the problems that those who wanted UnRec now complain about.

I accepted it for what it is. And don't pay much attention to it, for that reason. It's arbitrary. It's a petty game. Some folks "enjoy it."

So these OPs from UnRec fans complaining about it are beyond "ironic," they're annoying.

Oh well. I'll probably accept that, before they accept that they asked for it.

[Posteritatis]

34. All unrec-whining posts tend to stay under zero. That's fine by me (nt)

[redqueen]

28. Sounds reasonable to me.

Rec'd. :)

[yodoobo]

48. The fixation on post counts in one the dumbest things I see here

I've never seen a forum so fixated on post counts.

Its cracks me up to see people look down on an opinion simply because they haven't clicked the "post message" button 1,000 times.

If you want an example of how to do recs/unrecs. Look at www.digg.com They got it down pat and post count drama doesn't matter a whit.

[TorchTheWitch]

59. [phone]

[yodoobo]

49. It doesn't matter really

if a group of people are unrecing all the posts, then they lower all posts by the same number, but relatively speaking, better posts will have higher counts.

If you ban a group of people from unrec'ing, then all posts will rise about the same.

Relatively speaking nothing will change.

[TexasObserver]

55. It's your perception of what deserves recommending that needs adjusting.

It's not some GOP troll army Unrecommending all those ridiculous, angry, juvenile screeds that appear dozens of times daily. It's ME!

I think threads with some profanity filled three sentences of "those guys suck" should be unrecommended, and I do so.

We may agree on an issue, but I may find your OP seriously lacking. I don't recommend something simply because I agree with the notion contained in the OP. I unrecommend threads that are long are personal expression and short on substance.

[Trillo]

60. Add a couple more pages

"Greatest" page now exists as Most Recommended,
add a "Worst" or Most Unrecommended page,
and a "Most Obscured" page.

Logic:
Greatest = Score > 4 (as it is now)
Worst = Score < -4
Most Obscured = score value range {-4,4}, and |Un-Recs| + Recs > 8 (absolute value of UnRecs + Recs greater than 8)

[Egnever]

71. A best and worst could be fun.

[BlooInBloo]

62. That's not a problem with unrec, that's a problem with admins not watching the stats...

EDIT: If it's a problem at all.

Of course I unrec'd this thread, because it's about unrec.

[flvegan]

64. Why do you have to drag religion into it?

"holy cow" indeed.

[LWolf]

67. I'd just rather get rid of unrec altogether.

I'm sure some of the less than appropriate unrecs are from newer DUers.

I'd bet that a bunch, though, are from DUers, new or old, unrecing anyone they don't like or agree with just because, regardless of topic.

In GDP, any post critical of Obama, regardless of how valid, is automatically drowned in unrecs.

[ohheckyeah]

68. I think the admin has already addressed this issue

and said that unrec is here to stay, so what's the point of continuing to bring it up?

And maybe some threads deserve to be unrec'd. I've seen threads where the OP was completely incomprehensible except to a handful of people who happened to be watching the exact same thing as the OP. I've seen OP's with more misspelled words than a right winger's poster. I think those types of OP's deserve to be unrec'd.

[QC]

77. OMG! YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT SOME GUY JUST SAID TO SOME OTHER GUY

ON SOME TV SHOW ON SOME CHANNEL!

OMG! OMG!

You mean those?

[ohheckyeah]

82. Yep.

Or KEITH'S RIGHT with absolutely no information about what Keith said and why it's right, and it's a given everyone in the world knows who Keith is.

[QC]

83. I think some of our friends must watch TV in here -->

Also funny, if a bit annoying: the cute names that hose in the know have for these TV personalities. "Blippy just told Scrootie Wootie off bad!" Who???

[ohheckyeah]

84. LOL Yep, I agree.

It took me forever to figure out who the hell Tweety was.

[Orsino]

85. This is the Internet, and the Internet requires drama. n/t

[orleans]

69. and in case anyone is wondering what the "unrecommend fairy" looks like

i found a picture of it:

[KoKo]

76. lol's. That's how I pictured it. n/t

[Rowdyboy]

74. If there were only 3 posters at DU, one would be pissed about something. If they changed it,

that would piss off one of the others. :shrug: You can't make everyone happy.

Over my seven years here every single change has been bitched about, some massively. Its Skinner's party, he can set the rules any way he wants and apparently he's doing something right. People keep coming back for more.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.