Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:08 AM
Original message |
cliffordu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message |
1. That's the rumor. I wonder why. |
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Here is what I got by Unreccing your thread, which I did only for reference & not as an opinion |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-04-10 11:11 AM by KittyWampus
on you or the subject matter of this thread.
Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)
So it does look like the Feature has been tweaked by the PTB.
|
bigtree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I just tried to unrec this one. I like the change.
|
Dr. Strange
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:11 AM
Response to Original message |
4. I unrecced as a test. (Hope you don't mind.) |
|
It says: Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)
|
bigtree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I wonder if the unrecs still build up |
|
. . . and make it harder to get to +1 etc.?
|
Dr. Strange
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
15. I'm guessing it does. |
pipi_k
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
17. I would guess they do... |
|
otherwise why bother having an unrec to begin with...
|
WheelWalker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:12 AM
Response to Original message |
6. I just gave it a rec and it didn't move it past zero... |
|
Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: +1)
|
FourScore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Original message |
I just tried giving this thread a rec and it's not showing up. n/t |
951-Riverside
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:12 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-04-10 11:13 AM by 951-Riverside
The "who unrec'd my post!?!" crybabies got their way. The feature is completely useless now.
|
bigtree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
Tommy_Carcetti
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
12. The Unrec Patrol is NOT pleased. |
Dr. Strange
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. The one on the right looks somewhat pleased. |
Tommy_Carcetti
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
21. You must understand.... |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-04-10 11:25 AM by Tommy_Carcetti
....he's got the inside track on dating the sole female Unrec Patroler. He's able to effectively play off the whole, "Unlike the other dorks here, I slightly resemble Boston Red Sox slugger Kevin Youkilis....isn't that cool, huh?"
So naturally he has something to smile about. That, and he's holding Snuggy Bear.
|
Tommy_Carcetti
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-04-10 11:23 AM by Tommy_Carcetti
|
pipi_k
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
it appears that the unrec votes are cumulative
they just don't show up...
which makes it harder for people to wretch about negative recs if they don't even know about them.
|
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
24. The feature was completely useless in the first place |
|
And it was people like you that made the feature a problem.
|
951-Riverside
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
26. "it was people like you that made the feature a problem." |
|
...What did I say that made you come to that conclusion?
|
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
35. The "who unrec'd my post!?!" crybabies got their way |
|
The unrec mob was causing a lot of bad feelings on this site. The problem was that perfectly non-controversial posts were getting unrecced, sometimes for the dumbest of reasons.
|
Bobbie Jo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Someone has ALREADY complained because their number went down.
Good grief. :eyes:
|
Maine-ah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
pipi_k
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
9. It sure is...nice, isn't it? |
|
So now even if someone jumps in and unrecs a thread two seconds after it's posted, that < 0 thing won't show up and that should end the, "OMG...WHO UNRECC'ED MY TOPIC????" stuff.
|
HughMoran
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
This was a great compromise - it really puts a damper on those who get their jollies having their least favorite poster see "<0" within seconds of posting. I like it :)
|
arcadian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
|
They should show the actual negative amounts. This kind of shows that the function was not being used as it was intended, it was being used by packs of like minded people who have an agenda.
|
Heidi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
13. With apologies, I just unrecommended your thread to try it. |
|
I bet it still exists behind the scenes, but it apparently doesn't show up as an unrec. :hi:
|
myrna minx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:23 AM
Original message |
JustABozoOnThisBus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message |
14. I unrecc'd also, no offense intended |
|
just checking.
Plus, I've never unrecc'd a thread before, gotta do it before the unrec vanishes altogether.
:hi:
|
cliffordu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message |
18. I that you were talking about a DU'r with a USERNAME of |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-04-10 11:37 AM by cliffordu
<0
Which is about as stupid as I've been in years.
:rofl:
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
23. I thought this thread was about LoZo. |
|
lol
Time to beef up the coffee.
|
bullwinkle428
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE!! |
nyc 4 Biden
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)
after I unrec'd this for test purposes.
|
HughMoran
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I think this was a very good idea. No need to know is a post is below zero - 0 is 0 and won't make it to the Greatest Page. This is the best compromise yet. Now people won't feel put upon when they see the <0 - they simply won't know and it adds a disincentive for the negative rec as there is little satisfaction without the <0. I will repeat, I think this is the best compromise yet.
|
Subdivisions
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:31 AM
Response to Original message |
28. I noticed a change too. I'm sure there will be an explanation from |
|
the admins any minute now.
|
Gold Metal Flake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Just show how many recs and how many unrecs and be done with it. The people complaining about the unrecs are just being dramatic and hyperbolic. A good thread will often receive a few unrecs at the star and then go one to be highly recced later so there is no reason to worry about it. I see no reason to hide some aspect of the process. The way it was was flawed because an aspect of the process was hidden. The way it is now is flawed because an aspect of the process is hidden. If forum management would stop treating member like babies and just present the whole rec vs. unrec count we could all stop worrying about it.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
37. I don't see it as flawed as long as the system keeps up with net recs or unrecs |
|
I believe rec numbers were always the number of recs minus the unreccs leaving the net total.
|
Amerigo Vespucci
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message |
31. We'll have to provide some other outlet for lurking freeps who don't like the Palin threads. |
Capn Sunshine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message |
32. I just unrecced you to see |
|
apparently the new rubric is "net votes -1"
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message |
33. It's gone, but I still wish we could see how many unrecs |
|
an OP gets. Reccing a 0, when it has more uncrecs, just sucks up my rec like a vacuum and stays 0. I think a total count on recs and unrecs would be helpful.
I also think this is a way to let chronic unreccers know that their votes are recorded and observable. With each rec or unrec, your vote is listed next to the total.
|
Echo In Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
36. The refusal to display unrecs only serves to fuel suspicions |
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #36 |
39. In effect an individual's reccing ability |
|
could be turned off. Or the unreccing for threads could be disabled, and no one would know.
I think it should ALL be public. Who recced, who unrecced and the total count of each. No anonymity on the vote. That would go a far way in stopping unrec trolls.
|
Echo In Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #39 |
40. Here's my take on it from the other day. Not a popular view, but I stand by it... |
EarlG
ADMIN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The system continues to count the number of unrecs below zero, and the number of unrecs is still not displayed. That has not changed. All we did was remove the "<" sign. (We also added the line that tells you how you voted on a particular thread.)
|
Heidi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
|
I do think the unrec feature was often used as a weapon of sorts against folks unrecommenders didn't like. But I think the rec feature is often used in an opposite, but much the same, way: people recommending the threads based on fandom for the poster, rather than the content of the OP. :hi:
|
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 12:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It may cut down on the number of threads in which the first dozen responses are people griping about the early display of '<0'
|
hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message |
43. Hooray! No more less than zero. |
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message |
44. What a screwed up mess ..... |
|
..... first we got to see how far underwater a thread was
Then we got to see only that it was underwater, but not how deep
Now we don't see shit, but a hundred recs mean nothing.
When can we finally admit the whole damned idea was a bad one that caused nothing but more rancor and bad feelings and just scrap the whole thing?
|
SidDithers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-04-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-04-10 12:35 PM by SidDithers
I'll be glad to see the complaining about unrec stop, now that fragile egos are protected from the dreaded <0.
Sid
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:28 PM
Response to Original message |