Time to lose the un-rec feature?

[mzmolly]

It seems that many are recommending cynicism and attempting to take positive, impartial information off the greatest page? This place looks like Free Republic or a Tea Party convention with all the over the top, negative rhetoric about health care. While I don't mind hearing from all sides on this issue, I find myself feeling as if trying to share anything even remotely positive is futile. And frankly I don't think I wish to participate here if this is what the future holds for DU. Sure that will please some, ;) but I will not be the only person to walk away if DU becomes merely a gathering place for the loud and cynical.

"I think the future also will not belong to those who are cynical or those who stand on the sidelines." ~ Paul Wellstone

I applaud everyone who refuses to stand on the sidelines, regardless of opinion, but I hope that we can lose some of our collective cynicism.

My question again is ... might forgoing the un-rec feature bring back some balance? Of course the mods know best, and they'll make the final decision, but I wanted to get your thoughts DU.

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

1. As long as there is an invisible army who's recs and unrecs vastly out number their responses

it doesn't matter. The system will be gamed.

[mzmolly]

3. That's probably true.

:(

[SoCalDem]

15. amen.. the stilleto brigade is stealthy & obnoxious

and have decided that only things THEY like are allowed relevance

a pox on them all... and even the rec-'n-runners, to some degree.. Before this nonsense, threads that had lots of replies, "Mattered"..and mods & admin always had the option to remove things from the "special" shrines...all that was needed was a click on "alert" to call their attention to it.

the un-rec BS just deputized the "score-keepers".:puke:


(D)Uggo at home in a candid shot


his avatar

[NNN0LHI]

17. They think they are invisible

I think the operators of this site know who and what posters are Recommending and Unrecommending and use that data to their advantage to weed out the goofballs.

I know I would be if I were running this place.

Don

[NoPasaran]

65. I don't know about that

I'm still here.

[NJmaverick]

191. I will add one idea that might work- Shift the rec/unrec feature to the donor's list

[Bobbie Jo]

198. +1

[SidDithers]

2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...nt

Sid

[shadowknows69]

199. DU wasn't broke before they added it.

[sendero]

4. Only vanity posters..

... who think they deserve special recognition care at all.

The unrec feature has had no important consequences at all.

[mzmolly]

5. It's not about vanity at all. It's about the mass negativity

on the greatest page.

[emilyg]

44. I agree.

[TexasObserver]

67. Yes, fragile egos and their need for public attention are the main victims of Unrec.

The common element of those who attack the unrec feature is delusion. They are deluded and actually believe all their crappy OPs that don't deserve reading - much less the Greatest Page - should be heralded by all. Because they cannot fathom the obvious, they invent all manner of nefarious "others" who are doing this. It can never simply be ordinary DUers exercising their judgment to say "this thread stinks!"

[mzmolly]

70. That's bullshit.

You're projecting. I've been here a long time, I've posted numerous threads. I don't expect every thread to get commentary, let alone a recommendation. My issue is with the overwhelming negativity that now represents DU ala the "Greatest Page."

[TexasObserver]

77. No, it's absolutely accurate.

You're kidding yourself, as most of the complainers are.

[mzmolly]

79. I'm not playing tit for tat

with you any longer. You may have ego issues, but don't suggest I share them.

[TexasObserver]

87. You'll have to get your ego fed by reading the handful who agree with you.

You have ego issues, as this thread amply reveals, and I hope you'll learn to deal with them.

[mzmolly]

89. Actually

this thread amply reveals that you're an ass, and I have some time on my hands.

You'll note that many here agree with me? Their egos are not at issue in this thread, either.

[TexasObserver]

91. Only a handful here agree with you, as your Unrecs reveal.

That those who agree with you are a noisy bunch is already known.

That they're a small minority at DU is also already known.

The vote on your poll is 3-1 against you on this issue. There are maybe 15 posters in thread who have spoken in favor of your position, and that's only about half of the meager total in your poll who want to ditch the unrec feature.

There is a band of maybe two dozen DUers who loathe the feature and can never stop complaining about it. Unrec is their chew toy.

[mzmolly]

96. This is true.

However, the noisiest are those who disagree, thus the greatest page being used to promote cynical, misinformation.

[TexasObserver]

101. By any measure, you're in the minority here on this topic.

That's the reason you're huffy. You've already said you're mad about the Greatest Page, and the fact that so many DUers don't share you view of the Health Care bill.

You can't stand not getting your way, and that's all this is about.

[mzmolly]

103. Ahh

I see.

[CTyankee]

161. Not true. I have attacked the unrec features and never typed one complaint when/if my threads were

unrecced. It is immaterial to me and often I don't even pay attention to it.

My quarrel with unrec, which I have stated on DU in several threads, is with those who unrec and don't explain what their dissatisfaction with the post is. I simply believe that you should stand behind your unrec and tell us why you feel the way you do. Otherwise, you do not contribute to the debate.

I don't pretend to know everything. If an unreccer doesn't explain the reason behind the unrec, I and others do not hear the argument they have. Perhaps it would change minds. I don't mind being challenged; I enjoy it. After all, I might learn something I didn't know. ..

[dysfunctional press]

190. question- does "vanity" mean the same thing as "laughably needy"...?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. It needs to go. While the only actual function of the rec/unrec feature

is to determine which threads turn up on the Greatest Page without "censoring" anybody, it's turned into a kind of obnoxious little game in which people simply unrec anything they don't agree with -- and probably they do it without even carefully reading the OP. It's a middle-school popularity contest and we don't need it. If you don't agree with the OP, at least explain why, and don't be an asshole about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I would rec this post...

if we had that feature :)

[mzmolly]

9. I agree - "unrec" seems a bit negitve in and of itself. And, yes it IS a form of censorship.

It's a bit elitist and even cliquish. ;) That said, I use it. But it seems we had more balance when we did not have the feature.

[eleny]

11. "It's a middle-school popularity contest"

Well put. I never liked it and have never used it. But I do like to rec something when someone puts a lot of time and heart into a posting with which I agree. I rely on the Greatest Page on days when I can't spend much time on the net.

[tonysam]

12. I will recommend threads containing articles I don't agree with, but

I feel the threads should be on the greatest page for visibility purposes.

[mzmolly]

14. I totally agree! I recommend many threads, in spite of having content I do not agree with,

because I feel that information should be accessible.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

16. It's a "middle-school popularity contest" as well as...

...an ongoing gift to the lurking freeps and their ilk. Threads that are the least bit critical of the GOP...especially Palin...or virtually any thread that is contrary to "Republican values" (:spray:) is un-rec'd almost IMMEDIATELY upon posting.

[mzmolly]

22. Yep

I feared that when the feature was rolled out. But I thought we could track trolls somehow? Perhaps not? ;)

[liberalmuse]

8. I completely agree with your sentiments.

I'm using the 'Ignore' feature more than the 'Unrec' feature these days, not for the honest critics, but for the dishonest haters who are going the way of the Republiican Party. Like the teabaggers and Republicans in Congress, if they don't get their way, \they would rather have nothing or worse, would seek to hinder progress rather than help the true progressives move forward, even if it is one small step at a time. Off to the basement with all of them. As a matter of fact, I see a couple of 'Ignore's' responding to this post.

[mzmolly]

10. Yes, it seems the word "progress"

has lost its meaning? Good point.

[EFerrari]

13. I saw the threads you posted, mzmolly.

And it was surprising to me that I didn't have the heart to take a look at what you were seeing because I'm always interested in your viewpoint.

Which leads me to think that upset posters here are like upset people everywhere. It takes a little time to move through the conflict. What's going on here isn't a predictor of the future except in the sense that we can predict the future will hold other conflicts that need to be moved through, imho.

Anyway, I hope you're having a good holiday. :hi:

[mzmolly]

19. Thanks for your

optimism on what's happening here E. You're right. We're in the middle of mass change, and it will take time to see transition. Especially given we were not afforded even a compromise/public option in the Senate bill.

I'm having a lovely holiday and hope you are too. :pals:

[boston bean]

18. No and unrec! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Why?

[boston bean]

25. so many of my post have been unrecced and some heavily recced

What's the difference? I think it helps give us an idea of the prevailing thought on du at a given moment in time.

Plus, after not using the unrec feature for a real long time, I started to use it and it started to give me a sense of pleasure and control. :P

[mzmolly]

31. I think we should change the name of the Greatest Page then, to

"prevailing thoughts at DU" ?? ;)

[SoCalDem]

55. or The UN-Rec Seal of Approval Shrine

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

58. LOL

I like! :hi:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. I see this thread itself has already fallen victim to the unrec squad.

Why am I not surprised?

[SoCalDem]

24. welllll. when I tried to vote yes.. the software would not let me

:rofl:

I had not voted..and would certainly NOT be voting to keep this intrusive little stink bomb feature:)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Love your sig pic.

:rofl:

[arcadian]

23. auto unrec for rec fucntion mention.

[Lisa0825]

26. ditto. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. So the first rule of unrec is that you can't talk about unrec?

[mzmolly]

30. I guess so?

:crazy:

[mzmolly]

29. Huh?

Are you saying I should lose the unrec notation I jested about in the poll?

[arcadian]

45. I'm saying that I auto-unrec any post that mentions the rec function.

:D

[sabrina 1]

178. That's a very childish reason to unrec a post.

Why are you so afraid of a discussion that you would try to shut it down? If you are confident of your position on the subject, the OP gave you a chance to defend it. Your admission that you don't even give any thought to an OP like this which asks a simple question, but immediately reach for the unrec button, convinces me that there is an argument for getting rid of it.

My opinion is that any board I have been on where there is a ratings system people use it more as a weapon to silence people about issues they don't want discussed, or against people they don't like. What is happening here, the endless arguments over it, always happens when people feel that pushing a negative button satisfies some kind of instinct to lash out at others. I can't see how it contributes to a discussion and you and others here who do what you claim you do, have convinced me that it only encourages the kind of childish behavior you just admitted to.

The fact is if it was a good system, and I'm not just talking about this site, why would there be this endless controversy over it? Clearly there is not a consensus that it is a good idea.

I prefer a no ratings at all system. They work better as everyone has to use their heads rather than their trigger fingers to participate. And on such boards the discussion is usually far more substantive.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. + 1

[DonCoquixote]

32. Good intentions that led to Hell

I understand why Skinner and crew may have thought Unrec was a good idea, but truth be told, they might as well have dipped this board in Blood and chum and said "here Freeper freeper Freeper!", as well as encouraging people who think that their political passion entitles them to be rude (the same people who wonder why they cannot convince people of their beliefs.)

The proof is in the pudding; since this feature go introduced, the vitriol on this site has hot the roof! Granted, some of it was inevitable as various camps that united against the GOP turned on each other, but this place seems to be outright rewarding and encouraging hatred at times, most notable with the abuse of the Greatest page. Sorry, but the Greatest page is becoming yet another insider's self congratulation ceremony, minus the Oscar-styled evening gowns, but with the long speeches.

Now, I will say, all sides are guilty, from the people who think Obama is a messiah to the people who still want that Guillotine heavy revolution Comrade Trotsky promised. I have seen people I STRONGLY disagree with act in a way that EARNS respect, and seen people I STRONGLY agree with act so FOUL I want to put a paper bag over my head. Left, Center, Right, it does not matter, all sides have their share of Clowns and Heroes, emphasis on the clowns. Unrec encourages the clowns, and the circus.

[mzmolly]

38. I wish I could rec your post.

Very well said! :toast:

[FrenchieCat]

39. Now I look for the unrec'ed posts to read...cause I know that those are the ones

with truth in them.

As for people who think Obama is a messiah vs. people who still want that Guillotine heavy revolution Comrade Trotsky promised, they are the same people.

Obama supporters know that Obama can't wave a magic wand or part the waters....it is those who expect the impossible from Obama who are the ones that believe him to be a messiah, and now they are disappointed.

They are also, along with Freepers, the people unrec'ing any positive mention about this anything dealing with the Democratic party, this President, and any legislation that Democrats should be for (and also unrec'cers haven't read the bill, they just pretend that they have), or anything that differs from their view. Perhaps it is because they feel helpless,
and so Unreccing a DU thread has become the only action that they can take to say, "I have a voice". Quite sad, what they have resorted to this.

[mzmolly]

42. ".... they are the same people... "

Well said!!!

[DonCoquixote]

196. VERY well said

It's the people that sit back and look at why things happen that realize real change takes time, Patience, and a lot of unglamorous toil. We are not suckers for the snake oil sold by either side.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. I would rec your post if I could.

:applause:

[Iggo]

33. Kicked and Unrec'd.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

36. LOL

okey dokey. :hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

34. I think the Unrec feature could be turned into a useful function

by creating a "Controversy" page sort of like the Greatest page, but populated by threads that draw the largest mix of positive & negative evaluations. If a given thread draws no recs or unrecs, it would have a net score of zero under the present system. If another thread draws 100 recs and 100 unrecs, it will also have a score of zero--but they will be very different threads in terms of people's interest in them. The Controversy score could be something like (R+U)-(|R-U|) where R=total recs & U=total Unrecs. The thread with no recs & no unrecs would score zero. The thread with 100 Recs & 100 Unrecs would score (100+100)-(100-100)=200, and would thereby place high on the Controversy page.

[mzmolly]

37. That's an interesting idea.

I'm game. :)

[Hatchling]

46. Well, there is the Top Ten Page.

I go there often to see whats hot, most recced, etc.

Oh, and an automatic unrec for threads that complain about the unrec. ;)

[mzmolly]

51. Fascinating results on the censoring of unrec discussion.

;)

Ahh the top ten, yes I'll have to give that a whirl! :hi:

[EFerrari]

57. Don't the Top Tens already do something like that?

[mzmolly]

69. Dumb question

but I can't find the top ten. Where the heck is it?

:shrug: I always use latest and greatest when I visit.

[EFerrari]

72. Go to the Greatest and there are links at the top of the two big columns.

[mzmolly]

81. OMG

:rofl:

This thread is at the top of the first column! LOL

I've never used that feature. I think I'll enjoy it.

And who knew the unrec feature would be such a hot topic? Not I!

[SoCalDem]

92. Sheez.. Now there are POINTS too?

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

98. I guess so.

:rofl: Ironic eh?

[SoCalDem]

100. performance anxiety³

as if we all are not under enough pressure already :)

I guess there's a reason I never stray from GD, MY posts & lounge :)

toooooo much presssssure

[mzmolly]

153. Ah the lounge.

I must visit sometime? I need a bit of levity after I hang around the greatest page these days. :D

[EFerrari]

138. I'm hoping next, frequent flyer miles!

Merry Christmas, SoCal.

[SoCalDem]

141. Xmas Smoochies to you too

:hi:

[mzmolly]

147. Ha, I love it!

:party:

[EFerrari]

133. LOL! See how it works?

:pals:

[mzmolly]

135. LOL

I shall enjoy my new, improved DU experience with your help E. :loveya:

[inna]

111. check this out, if you haven't seen this page yet:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

[mzmolly]

114. I find that hilarious.

I NEVER look at the top ten and when I did ... ;)

[inna]

119. I was going to ask you what was so hilarious about it, but then...

...I actually clicked on the link and saw this, at the very top of the list:

New And Hot

Recommendations + unrecommendations + replies = points (4 hours)

General Discussion
Time to lose the un-rec feature?
201 points : By mzmolly

Heh heh. Congrats! :toast:

[mzmolly]

121. It's

not an honor IMO, but it is humorous. :)

:hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

137. Duh.

:dunce: OK, so I been on DU since the spring of 2001 & have followed most of the changes over that time. I even remember there having been talk of this feature a while back, but I never figured out where it was. Now I know.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Why do you hate Skinner?

Skinner said unequivocally that Unrec was serving the purpose it was intended to serve and that it was here to stay.

Why keep whining and whining about it?

Threatening to leave? And implying others will leave for the same reason? Maybe you can hold the door for them.

[mzmolly]

40. Oh puleeze.

:eyes: I wasn't aware that Skinner had made a definitive statement in this regard, but even if I were your post would be laughable.

I'm not threatening to leave, I'm stating the obvious. If DU becomes a gathering place for cynics, the cynics are welcome to it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. I don't know how you could have missed Skinner's announcement during the Unrec wars that followed

the implementation of the feature in the first place.

Skinner's post on the subject put an end to the worst of it, but as with your thread today, there's someone who always brings it up even though it's here to stay according to him.

Sorry I was so rude, but I just got up and I'm a little hungover!

In my opinion DU has always been a place for cynics. It's just that the cynicism before had an sworn enemy to be directed at. Now, everybody gets it in equal measure.

[mzmolly]

56. I may have seen the thread

and forgot. You may be right about the cynicism. Perhaps I just "hoped" that we'd need good reason for it?

Peace

[elocs]

43. DU is too obsessed about Rec/UnRec. Kicking a thread by responding is more valuable

in keeping a thread read. I've seen DUers whine and complain when a thread gets an UnRec within minutes after it is posted and then it goes on to having over 10 Recs.

UnRec certainly does serve a purpose and allows DUers to express their point of view. That I may disagree with their point of view does not make it any less valid. How about a thread wit the subject "Kucinich sucks!"? Think a few DUers might think it is just fine to UnRec that thread? Also, UnRec has most eliminated those stupid "Rec this" OPs.

No, I think Rec is here to stay and although it is up to Skinner I think most DUers see its value, except when their OPs receive UnRecs.

[mzmolly]

50. It's not about my OP once again. It's about the tone of the greatest page.

I've been around here a while, and I've had posts get over 200 recs and some get zero responses. I have a thread on the greatest page now. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7319619&mesg_id=7319619

But negative, inaccurate information leaps to the top, for no other reason, than it's negative.

I guess I have trouble believing that this is the intent of the feature?

[elocs]

95. Then you know that Kicking is more important than Rec/UnRec,

especially after 24 hours when Rec/UnRec doesn't matter. Unless somebody is only surfing the Greatest Page or a thread gets enough Recs to make the Front Page, it will not be seen much unless it gets kicked.

I stand by my assertion that too many DUers are obsessed with Rec/UnRec, and I think that there are DUers who are simply Rec whores and are willing to post anything that gets them a Rec.

[mzmolly]

99. In all honesty, I've leared

about the top ten. I needed a reminder, and I'm glad for that. I guess DU is more complex than I knew? And I'm glad to know that I can look beyond latest/greatest page as the greatest page is a pissing contest these days.

You may be right about the obsession with rec/unrec. Perhaps it's because many, like myself are not as familiar with the features as they could be?

Thanks for the info.

[elocs]

139. A lot of what you see as getting lots of Recs depends on how you surf DU.

Some regularly surf the Greatest Page, some scope out specific forums such as GD or GD: P. I go to the Latest Discussion page rather than any individual forum except for The Lounge.

But as far as kicking goes, as an experiment I have moved a thread from way back in the page 20s on GD and moved it back to the top of that forum simply by responding. There are times when a good thread does not get much attention simply based upon the time of day when it is posted, in the middle of the night or during the day when people are working. As long as a thread is not archived it can be brought back up to the top of its forum where it may get further attention. It will no longer get Rec/UnRec after 24 hours, but it can be kicked.

[mzmolly]

155. "... depends upon how you surf.." Ironically

that seems to be the case. And, it only took me five years and this post to figure it out. I did so with the help of DU-ers, so thanks. If I would only learn to use the hide/ignore feature I'd enjoy my visits here much more.

[elocs]

159. I've found the "hide" threads to be tedious because you must do each individually.

It would be great to have a feature where you could hide threads by keywords (handy when DU gets into one of its Palin obsessions).

I use the "ignore" for individuals much more liberally than I did previously. I found posters who are not worth the trouble, whose mind you will never change, and who will not even consider any ideas or points of view other than their own. Also, you have the people who would drag you into a big argument and I've seen even old DUers get tombstoned because of that. They're not worth it--I simply ignore them. (If you really, really want to see what someone you have on ignore has said you can simply click the "printer friendly" button at the upper left of a thread an it will show you all of the posts, ignored or not.)

[tridim]

47. IMO there are two solutions..

1. Keep track of rec/unrec ratios per user, and require the ratio to always be '1' or greater. That is, your total unrecs must never exceed your total recs.

2. Remove the entire rec/unrec system.. And maybe replace it with a "karma" system. I've found that people generally don't enjoy giving negative karma on forums. This should have the effect of creating a culture of positivity on DU instead of constant negativity and hate.

[old mark]

48. It's broke.....fix it. nt

[donheld]

52. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

There are some threads that just beg and plead for unrecommend. Yes there's abuse but every system has its abuses

[mzmolly]

53. I use the feature myself.

So, I'm a hypocrite, admittedly. :hi:

[DefenseLawyer]

59. I have never looked at the "greatest page" and couldn't care less.

I look at what interests me and pass on that which doesn't.

[mzmolly]

62. That's a healthy

attitude. ;) I may try it.

[SoCalDem]

68. Same here.. I never go to Latest, Greatest or Home Page

I click what I'm interested in, post what I'm interested in, and move on:)

BUT that said, it does piss me off to see people post things that take some time to read, and withing a nano-second of posting, it's <0..

It would be nice if people at least took the time to READ the post before they un-rec because of the person posting it or the subject matter..

I LOATHED all the Balloon Boy & MJ stuff, but did not feel the overwhelming urge to <0, because I can just avoid things I don't like:)

[TexasObserver]

60. Maybe time to lose the posters who can't stop complaining about it.

[mzmolly]

63. This is my first complaint

how many are we allowed according to you? :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

74. That ship sailed long ago. How did you miss it?

Unrec is a helpful, positive, beneficial feature. It was created by the admins who own and run the site. I didn't create it. I simply use it, and I'm glad it's around. People who start lousy threads should get the voting feedback which informs them of that. If they can't handle it, they could either start better threads, learn from their mistakes, or stop posting a thread every time a random thought pops into their head.

Surely you don't think threads that shout out to other DUers deserve anything but unrecommend. Surely you don't think threads about someone's pet deserve anything but unrecommend. Surely you don't think threads complaining about the unrec feature deserve anything but unrecommend.

I don't understand how so many bad threads can be recommended by ANYONE, but I don't start threads about it. I accept that each of you has your vote, and if you want to vote up a crappy thread that says nothing, you can do it.

[mzmolly]

82. I'm not talking about a shout out. Good gawd, I've forgotten about that.

I'm talking about informational threads that are unrec'd because people don't like to read an opposing viewpoint.

Also, I didn't expect this thread to be heavily recommended. Quite the contrary, thus my 'unrecommending' choice in the poll.

[SidDithers]

66. +1...nt

Sid

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. They clearly need to get a life

[mzmolly]

76. Nearly 70,000 posts

and "I" need to get a life? ehem. ;)

Again, it's about the greatest page and the negativity that is essentially representing DU. I knew I'd open myself up to criticism, I knew some would suggest that my ego was the rationale for my post. Were that the case, I'd never have started this thread. However, given I knew the shit that would be tossed my way, I guess I should swallow it quietly.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. I'm talking about those who seem more interested in the rec/unrec crap than the content

There are some here who seem more concerned about that than health care, the war or any of the other issues which really are more important than whether some anonymous person on the Internet approves of what they post.

If the shoe fits . . .

Merry Christmas!

[TexasObserver]

84. It's hard to believe they are so repulsed by real democracy.

But they are.

You start a lot of threads. I recommend some of them, I don't rec or unrec many of them, and I unrec some of them. It all depends on the topic, the sources, the presentation, whether there are other threads on the same topic that are older or more comprehensive, or some other reason. It's never "well it's her, so I'm gonna Recommend it," or "it's her so I'm gonna unrec it."

Every day I recommend many threads by posters I don't even like. If their OP is worthy, if it's something I think is worthy of others reading, I recommend it. About a third of my posts are nothing but "Recommend." I don't feel a need to comment on every thread I recommend, and I don't feel that need on every thread I unrecommend.

People who want to see Recommends but see a majority of Unrecommends cannot seem to understand that everything they say isn't golden, or even pewter.

[mzmolly]

88. Ah yes, DU ... a microcosm of ahhh, "real democracy."

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

90. Democracy is present for any group voting, one vote per person.

The universe at this site is DU's membership. Those who read the board and choose to vote are the ones whose Recs and Unrecs appear here. That's democracy, and if that's over your head, that's unfortunate.

[mzmolly]

94. If you wish to romanticize the rec/unrec feature

with an all encompassing "democracy" banner, be my guest. However, I think the term is a bit strong in this instance, given it's generally used to describe a form of Government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

[TexasObserver]

102. Your limited knowledge does not bind me.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand the word, even after looking it up in a dictionary.

[mzmolly]

107. Well,

when you can point to a description that applies to your commentary in any modern dictionary, let me know.

Here's the Meriam Webster:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

I maintain that DU is not a "real democracy" it's a "real" discussion board.

[TexasObserver]

113. The voting by DUers on Rec or Unrec is Democracy in Action.

If you don't like that, too bad, but your ill formed opinion doesn't change it.

[mzmolly]

117. It's not a matter of what I like. It's a matter of using the word

democracy in the appropriate context.

[TexasObserver]

124. No, it's a matter of your not accepting the word's meaning.

Just because you want to limit the word to the meaning you find useful doesn't make it so.

If a family has five members, and they agree to be bound on certain topics by a family vote, that's democracy in action. When DUers vote on Rec or Unred, that's democracy in action. That is it over your head does not surprise me, since your entire argument is fueled by your ignorance and ego needs.

[mzmolly]

126. Repetitive, boring insults aside, I think you'd have a better argument

if you said the unrec feature is a form of free speech.

[TexasObserver]

132. You lose your poll, 117-38. Read 'em and weep.

Scoreboard. You lose big. You got blown out. You didn't even put up a good fight.

[mzmolly]

145. Is that your way of looking at this issue?

I'm suffering from some sort of loss? Bizarre to say the least.

As I've said, your assertion about my ego being tied to the rec/unrec feature was apparently projection on your part. Not to mention a desire to quell my ability to have a difference of opinion.

Thanks for the kick though. I'm on the "new and hot" page with your help!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

Keep the replies coming! My ego is in need of maintaining the OP's "new/hot" status in the top ten given the huge blow I received by your ability to unrec this particular thread. :sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

163. 126-41

[mzmolly]

167. 120-49 if you factor in the unrec

category I noted in the poll.

I don't mind disagreement. I'm glad that most people here today, enjoy the unrec feature and knowing that makes me feel better about DU's determination to maintain it.

Thanks for the kick. :hi:

[TexasObserver]

188. Here's the kind of thread I recommend. This is from Christmas morning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7319619#7320985

[mzmolly]

192. That's a thread that had several unrec's on a day of much negativity.

And, it partly inspired my OP. I feel no matter what side you're on in this debate, information is good.

When I see simplistic, negative posts that contain blatant misinformation, thrust to the greatest page simply because they're negative, it bothers me. I don't expect most of what I post to be of interest, or to get a rec. And, I'm really sorry people assumed that because it detracted from the point I attempted to make.

Thanks for the response TO. I'm sorry about my previous behavior in this thread. It angered me that people assumed my post had anything to do with vanity. I'd have left DU long ago if I needed regular, positive accolades from fellow DU-ers.

That said, I really appreciated feedback from people who like the unrec choice. I also learned about the top ten. I had not gotten into the habit of viewing the TT list, and I think it's a great feature.

I do tend to unrec negative threads that I feel lack value. And as long as we have the feature, I will do so.

Peace

[TexasObserver]

195. I just wanted you to know that I had already recommended your thread.

I know you haven't been one of the strident voices against unrec, but I've been arguing this point for six months.

I don't have an axe to grind with you. I tend to agree with you more than I disagree with you.

Peace.

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. I completely agree

I get most of my news here. It's so easy to check on my phone whenever I have a few minutes to kill. Right now I am sitting in a restaurant waiting for my lunch and drinking coffee while perusing DU on my phone.

I haven't started many threads lately but I do read DU every day. I also read several newspapers. I am here for information and support sometimes. But mainly information. I find it's a blessing I have made friends here but honestly that's not why I am here.

And in 6 years you bet your ass I've racked up a lot of posts. But I find that far removed from coming here to merely rec or unrec which I suspect some are doing.

Bottom line - big place; if you don't like what I have to say you can surely find someone you do like. :shrug:

[TexasObserver]

104. I've tested the meme "but they don't say why they unrecommend."

Believe me, no matter how much they say they want to know why a poster unrecommends, they don't want to know. They just want to complain about it.

Skinner has addressed this issue of the phantom unrecommenders who don't do anything but read and unrecommend. He's essentially said "come on, folks, it's your fellow DUers doing most of the voting."

[mzmolly]

120. I know why

people unrecommend. I just find the concept negative and I think the end result reflects negativity.

[mzmolly]

112. "I find that far removed from coming here to merely rec or unrec which I suspect some are doing."

I expect so too, which is part of the problem I have with the feature. Who might want to see negativity all over DU's Greatest Page? But, of course I'm in the minority in regard to my opinion, and the admins like it so it's a dead issue.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. It's the most entertaining part of DU these days

:)

[mzmolly]

64. 65% of DUers

agree with you thus far. ;)

[SoCalDem]

146. kind of like

[mzmolly]

154. OMG

that's a riot! :rofl:

Dare I say, I now want a Lucky Strike? And, I smoking years ago... :P

[onehandle]

73. No. Unrec keeps the most asinine crap off the front page. There was a horrible screed last year...

...directed at one of the top Democratic candidates. Nearly called for violence.

It somehow got voted to the front page before a mod finally picked up an alert and deleted it.

Unrec stays.

[mzmolly]

128. Sheesh, that's how I feel about

much of what's on the greatest page these days. However, it is good to recall the positive impact it has had.

Thanks for sharing. :hi:

[LostInAnomie]

75. I never give a shit if I get unrecced. But, that's because I'm an adult...

... and don't have the childish need to be praised or validated constantly.

If someone not liking your post bothers you that deeply, an internet political forum probably isn't the place for you.

[mzmolly]

78. Again, it's not about ME. It's about calling "shit" the greatest

DU has to offer.

I've been around here for years, I understand the dynamic of a political forum, thanks.

[Wardoc]

80. I notice the defenders of the health care sham bill are the ones most angry about the unrec.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. You're keeping score?

LOL

[grahamhgreen]

106. These days, you are right!

[mzmolly]

122. Start a thread. I'm sure your deep insight will garner at least

200 recs! ;)

[dhpgetsit]

85. #4 - I don't care.

I don't let unrecs stop me from reading a post. And people can just as easily play games with the reccomend feature as with the unrec feature.

[mzmolly]

148. Good

answer!

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[GodDamLiberal]

127. Great example for the unrec

AS I said some people will take things personal and in your case
lower themselves to posting baseless accusations.
Clicking the unrec is easier all around.

[mzmolly]

134. This from the person who trotted out the sexist "ignorant democracy hating drama queen" crap?

Your post was over the top, personal, sexist, ignorant about my intent, rude and uncalled for once again. It's not as though you didn't abundantly make your so called case with your other user name. Talk about ego issues!?

Here's a reminder of why I took what you said personally ~

Let's say mzmolly posts something that you think is ignorant or is acting like a typical "drama queen". You can click unrec and move on, without the risk of hurting tender feelings or wasting time in a minor flame war that will change nothing.
On the other hand maybe you agree with 1 out of 5000 of mzmolly's posts. Just posting that you agree may not be enough but you don't have the time or desire to post more.
You just hit rec and move on.
Either way you feel your vote counts even if it's not a perfect system.

So why does mzmolly hate democracy?

[GodDamLiberal]

157. Keep digging

You left out

Purely as an example-

You don't understand what an example is?

As to the "your other user name" enlighten me or ask someone to check.
Could it be you just don't like people that don't agree with you so you make up things to divert from the main topic?

[mzmolly]

160. The topic

was not me. You attempted to make it so. I am not the distraction here. You and your various incarnations are.

[mzmolly]

193. You have my apologies

for how I responded to you yesterday.

Peace

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[TexasObserver]

185. self delete

[grahamhgreen]

105. I'm opposed to unrec - but not as much as i oppose the Obama/Baucus Boondoggle!

[Catshrink]

108. After I unrec threads about the unrec feature I hide them.

Get over it.

[mzmolly]

118. .

"Get over it." Charming.

[SoCalDem]

136. like shitting on Mom's kitchen floor & then covering it with the rug

:)

[TexasObserver]

162. What a strange and inappropriate comment.

It's nothing like you've characterized, and that you would think in such terms pegs your infantile approach.

Some of the whiners who hate unrecommend have actually suggested that one should be required to hide a thread after unrecommending it. Of course, that's just another stupid idea of many stupid ideas put forth by the fragile egos who can't stand to see that less than zero icon adorning their mindless threads.

[SoCalDem]

166. Merry Christmas

[fishwax]

110. I think it's fine

:shrug:

[inna]

115. Now, I actually like the unrec function.

I used to be against it, but not anymore. The current rec/unrec system seems to be working just fine, I guess the admins knew what they were doing after all... :)

[hayu_lol]

129. Yesterday, at least one thread on this topic...

was locked because it was on this topic. Why was this thread allowed to continue?

Moving on, one forgets at times, during these kind of discussions, that we are all members of a representative democrach...a Republic. Many also forget, whilst screaming about the horrible users of unrec, that we actually had censorship right here on DU, on dems.com, on smirking chimp, KOS, and other sites during the recent primary. One was allowed to praise Obama, but to praise or discuss another candidate--absolutely not. Those who turned into hotheads(on both sides)were mostly banned immediately.

If you are going to have recs, then you must have unrecs. That is political balance unless you are from 1917 Russia. Some complain that there are too many(how many are too many?)unrecs that show up immediately on some threads. You might try and remember how many enthusiastic rec'ers did the same on their favorite topics without responding with text--how many K&Rs have appeared without messages? A lot, many, sometimes too many.

How many polls on the candidates were immediately skewed by the Kucinich cult? That practice continues to this day.

Rec and Unrec are merely tools. If there is negativity here, it must be in the eye of the beholder. If you have the one, then in a democracy, you must have the other.

Why was this thread not locked as other rec/unrec threads have been?

[Blasphemer]

116. Eliminating unrec would not eliminate "cynicism"

When the feature was first unveiled, many reacted with relief that "negative" and "pointless" posts had fallen off of the Greatest Page. Opinions cannot be contained or confined in a (relatively) open forum such as this one. It does not matter what mechanisms are in place.

[mzmolly]

123. That's true.

Perhaps I just need to stop looking at the greatest page? Or, putting too much weight in the word "greatest" when all it takes these days to make the cut, is bitching?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

125. I Unrecced this poll and now I feel bad about it. In the future the

only threads I will ever unrec will be my own.... I think it should stay but a person should only be able to unrec say maybe 2 threads/topics a day.

On edit to add nothing.

[inna]

130. But.... but.... you can't rec or unrec your own threads!

:P

[HysteryDiagnosis]

131. I know... it doesn't register but at least I know that I've done it

and really, that's all that matters. Doesn't anyone want to know what this tower is???

ON EDIT TO ADD: Nothing.

[inna]

142. what is it? (the tower?...)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

144. Well, it was a secret but I'll tell you and only you....

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Seville-Solar-Tower/



A futuristic looking 11MW solar tower has been completed is being built near Seville, Spain as part of a 300MW solar power project.

Located in the Andalusian countryside in the municipality of Sanlucar la Mayor, the 40-storey high concrete tower collects sunlight reflected by a field of 624 huge mirrors. The light is so intense that it lights up dust and water vapour in the air. The project has been widely described as looking like something out of a sci-fi movie.

[inna]

149. Awesome! I love the way it glows:

:wow:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

151. Carbon footprint probably too small to see. Yeehah!! Gotta love

them Europeans.

[Spider Jerusalem]

140. The Greatest Page is popularity-based bullshit anyway. My advice is to not use it.

Rather than whingeing about the unrec feature (or as we had before, whingeing about the rec feature causing the Greatest page to consist entirely of stipid 'rec this if you agree that' posts).

Popularity is rarely a good indicator of quality. Look at the bestseller lists and music charts. If quality meant anything John Grisham would be obscure and no-one would have heard of most of the people on the Billboard charts.

[LostInAnomie]

150. Word!

[mzmolly]

176. Yes

indeed. I feel foolish that I've spent so much time on the Greatest page now! ;)

[juno jones]

143. The negative posts may not be as negative as some assume.

Many of the 'negative' posts are by people who have experienced the world of shit that is our bottom-tier healthcare in this country.
We are not seeing the problems of the working poor adequately represented, but if we speak out, we are called 'debbie downers' or 'negative nellies' by those who mostly 'got theirs' and will not really be affected much by these bills.

The poor are not children, we are not 'unfortunate fallen flowers', we are not stupid. We know when we are being talked about in front of our faces as if we weren't present and we are tired of the table being set for everyone but us.

At this point, I don't give a shit, personally, sure as I'm typing, the gov will screw me three ways to sunday NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, simply because I (and many more like me) have no money for lobbyists to represent our needs.


We state the reality of poverty here, because there are so many who assume that we are getting insurance thru our work or that medicaid is not a punitive system that requires you divest yourself of anything of value in order to participate or that we recieve medical treatment in community clinics that is as good and comprehensive as what you recieve at your family doc in a private clinic. We aren't being obstructionist, we are trying to reflect the truth so maybe the real needs of the poor will be supported.

We also don't have a lot of extra money in the personal budget to throw around. If I pay 3X as much for a policy and only get a 1X subsidy how does that work out?

I respect you MsMolly, and agree with you often, but I cannot agree this time.

[mzmolly]

152. Thanks for the insight. I fully respect your views on this issue and I'll add that what you stated

was very well said. I also appreciate your sharing respectfully, juno.

As I've indicated previously, I've evolved on this issue. Though, I'm not glowing with abundant joy over the HC legislation, I do think it's a step forward. I have hope that it will be a help to Americans in need, including yourself.

Peace

[juno jones]

156. I hope it's a step forward too.

But we need to have teeth.

Make sure that equal resources are alloted at every level. Community clinics should do everything in house that a normal clinic does, and any refferrals should be subject to the same sliding fee scale. Make those clinics 100% percent UncleSamgovt owned and not extenstions of the 'faith-based' octopus that is attempting to eat out public education. Fight against any exclusions of gay partners, and any exclusions for women, or discrimination account of age. Make sure the poverty level as measured in this country is brought up to a standard that guarentees a basic income in this country including protections for the worker and make medicare requirements nationally reflect that standard.


We need you middle people to fight for us too, we are trying to contribute and I'm afraid the snappiness probably comes from a space of fear and pain. I've been there off and on for thirty years, it's a form of PTSD. Uncertainity IS a form of torture.

I hope we can move on from here. :hug:

Edit to add: merry christmas!

[mzmolly]

158. Bravo!

As I've said here openly before, I grew up in poverty and it IS a form of torture, no doubt. PTSD is an apt description. But for the grace of God or ??? go I.

[juno jones]

164. If you feed the pony properly

the sausage on the other end might be firmer and not stink so much.

To mix a metaphor. :D

[bigwillq]

165. No (nt)

[sabrina 1]

168. The OP asked a question. I don't understand why

anyone would unrec' a simple question especially when she provided a poll. I think she asked it politely and just asked for opinions. Although I don't pay much attention to recs or unrecs, the fact that people did unrec a request for a discussion rather than have a discussion, kind of makes the point that it doesn't serve much purpose on a discussion board.

Rec'd because discussing things is usually a better way to resolve issues people disagree about.

[mzmolly]

169. Thanks

Sabrina. :hi:

I've come to the conclusion that those who love the feature, simply use it more? ;)

[sabrina 1]

180. Hey, mzmolly ~

Lol, most likely. Once you give someone a toy to play with, it's hard to take it away ~ :-)

Hope you're having a great holiday ~

[sabrina 1]

170. The OP asked a simple question. I don't understand why

anyone would unrec' a simple question especially when she provided a poll. I think she asked it politely and just asked for opinions. Although I don't pay much attention to recs or unrecs, the fact that people did unrec a request for a discussion rather than have a discussion, kind of makes the point that it doesn't serve much purpose on a discussion board.

Rec'd because discussing things is usually a better way to resolve issues people disagree about.

[LostInAnomie]

171. Threads about unrec get an automatic unrec from me.

There is no use beating a dead horse. Especially, when the issue has already been settled by the admins.

[mzmolly]

172. That's a fair

point.

[sabrina 1]

177. Apparently it's not a 'dead horse'. That would mean there was no

more interest in the subject and nothing left to say about it. Judging by the number of comments in this thread, that appears not to be the case.

Your own interest in the subject actually contradicts you. I can't imagine myself, eg, going into a thread that no one is interested in, and taking the trouble to unrec it. I wouldn't even have the interest to make that much of a statement about it.

Clearly for me it isn't a dead horse, as I haven't really thought about it much. But now that I have, and see that you eg, believe that an unrec means someone has decided for me that the subject is not worth discussing, I'm leaning towards the opinion that the feature actually serves to kill discussion, or could if enough used it as you are doing. I like to make up my own mind about things.

So, for now, I think I am on the side of getting rid of it if its only purpose to declare a topic closed for discussion. If you have some more substantive reason for why it is useful in any way, I could be persuaded that I am wrong.

[elana i am]

173. a suggestion for you...

forget the un-rec function even exists and bypass the "greatest" page all-together.

it's what i do. recs have no bearing on whether i read a post or not. and i agree with you that the "greatest" page has gotten ugly, and i don't even have to look at it to know that. i can see that by which posts get recs and un-recs.

i never liked the "greatest" page to begin with because it's like a modified form of coercion. do you want other people basically tell you "hey, you should read this!" or would you rather seek out the info of your choosing without being influenced by outside opinions?

what draws me in is the subject matter and a clear, succinct title that doesn't mislead. recs and greatest pages have zero to do with it.

and because you can't argue, debate or even discuss an issue with a fatally entrenched cynic, i make an effort to bypass them as well. if they are prolific enough to recognize repeatedly then they go on ignore.

[mzmolly]

174. Excellent points, all! Thank you for the common sense suggestions.

:toast:

My rationale for beating my head against the wall was not to let the cynics become what DU is. However, I think I'll try another approach in the New Year. One like you suggest. I'll probably lurk and read more vs. post.

With that, I'm out for the day. Have a lovely holiday if you're celebrating.

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

175. Wow. You guys still do this.

[GreenStormCloud]

179. Modify it. Unrec or Rec must be accompanies by a post, even if ...

the post is only K&R or K&U.

[aikoaiko]

181. We should get rid of REC (not UNREC).

If a post actually received no UNRECs then its off to the Greatest Page.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

182. I can't rec this op LOL for real!

[HughMoran]

184. I will suggest that perhaps unrecs should be limited to 10 per day

I think this is plenty and would limit trolls who may never have even posted from unreccing everything based on some ulterior motive. Right now the system has clearly been gamed as many threads are unrecced before they could possibly have been read. Bad threads will still be beat down as a large number of posters will determine their lack of worth. Threads demoted due to author hate or topic hate may cause the unreccer to think twice before "wasting" an unrec.

[TexasObserver]

187. It's easy to unrec many threads after a glance at them.

It's easy because so many threads have OPs that I would not want to see on the Greatest Page.

If one uses profanity in their title line, I'm unrecommending it.

If one uses "fuckwad" or similar terms in the body, I'm unrecommending it.

If one issues a personal rant, I'm unrecommending it. I don't care about reading what some believe is their righteous anger. I realize we have people addicted to their own anger, but I don't care. Keep that crap off the Greatest Page.

If one posts about Palin, Limbaugh, Fox News, or Free Republic, I'm unrecommending it.

If one posts some post read somewhere else, such as at Kos, I'm unrecommending it.

If one posts about one's cat, I'm unrecommending it.

If one posts about something cute one's ten year old said, I'm unrecommending it.

If one can't write a sentence, I'm unrecommmending it.

If one can't spell and is too lazy to use spell check, I'm unrecommending it.

I can't understand why so many posters think their weak OPs deserve anything but unrecommend.

[bridgit]

186. I *love* the un-rec feature, it's one of the most accurate reverse barometers @ DU

:thumbsup:

[Liberal In Texas]

189. No. Nothing wrong with it. End of transmission. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

194. I like the feature, except...

It's pretty obvious some are "gaming" the system with multiple accounts. Spend enough time here, and you'll see the pattern.

[Violet_Crumble]

197. Never! Not while there's chatty threads about some idiotic movie being started here! n/t

;)

[ibegurpard]

200. I had to stop coming here regularly a while ago

because too much focus on political things I had very little influence over was taking its toll on my emotional health.
I come back to find it a bed of sycophants for corporatists.
Glad I weaned myself off.
Too bad you can't see it.