Is there any chance of the mods creating a setting that turns off....

[Aviation Pro]

...the rec/unrec function? Frankly, the feature is meaningless and I, for one, am more interested in the comments.

[gkhouston]

1. If you find the feature meaningless, ignore the number of recs. I do. n/t

[elocs]

22. Now THAT is deep. Somebody should have thought of that with their brain. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. how else will they make the Greatest Page...?

:shrug:

[Aviation Pro]

3. The greatest page should be based on number of comments....

...not on a bunch of trolls clicking a button.

[gkhouston]

4. Nope. By that metric, a monster thread some years back discussing whether or not

to send a tie to Keith Olbermann for his birthday would qualify. :rofl:

[Aviation Pro]

11. So? For every specious thread....

...there are dozens that engender serious and lengthy discussion.

[gkhouston]

14. and they don't have trouble getting recs. I am always amused to read a thread

with a lot of comments and the first few replies often complain about trolls unreccing the thread. It's not unusual to see those threads get unrecced in the first few minutes, yet within the first 30 minutes, they go positive, but there are still people who feel compelled to obsess on the rec count in the first 5 minutes of a thread's life. It's absurd and narcissistic.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. In that case...

Behold the greatest thread of all time!

[Aviation Pro]

23. And behold, I never knew this thread existed....

...

[Dr.Phool]

43. Then the greatest page would be filled with

Vasectomy threads.
Masturbation threads.
Smoking threads.
Jaywalking threads.
Cop shooting threads.
I hate/love Obama threads.
Threads complaining about the unrec feature.

[TexasObserver]

46. You left out circumcision threads.

[w8liftinglady]

5. I'm with you.btw-I rec'd this ;)

[Vickers]

6. Unrec by an anonymous troll freeper coward. n/t

[w8liftinglady]

7. yeah..too much of a coward to speak up.I'm getting sick of them

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. I'm not a damned coward lady, and I unrecc'd YOUR lame thread also.

[w8liftinglady]

10. lol...have a nice night.Think I'll pour a stiff one and watch a movie

[A HERETIC I AM]

13. I'm surprised at you, that's all. You have always struck me as somewhat rational...

albeit someone apparently obsessed with writing letters to the editor. But that's OK - everyone needs a hobby.

Using the word "coward" or calling other DU'rs who you can't possibly know "cowardly" is, in my opinion, HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.

I explained why a few days ago in another one of these threads;

You automatically assume that an unrec vote means that the voter automatically doesn't like the topic or the poster. How can you possibly know the motivation of someone you have never met using a feature of this message board? If I don't feel a thread you put up deserves placement on the greatest page, IT DOESN'T MAKE ME A COWARD.

This last item really burns the hell out of me and here's why; Calling someone a coward is a comment on their character. Questioning the character of me or any other member of this board in such a way is, in my opinion, HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. You don't know me personally and it is likely you don't know many other DU'rs personally, yet those opposed to the unrec feature have referred to members who use the feature as cowards REPEATEDLY. I consider being called a coward an insult, as it goes to my integrity and personality, two things damned few people on this board really know anything about. If you found out the DU'r DemoTex unrecc'd a thread without saying why, would you call HIM a coward? I've no idea whether he has or not, but I do know he is a Viet Nam war veteran who flew combat missions in hostile airspace. He is ANYTHING BUT A COWARD, yet it is possible he and his peers on DU have unrecc'd threads in the past. Making blanket statements about unrecc'rs being cowards insults DemoTex's integrity and the integrity of ANYONE else who have never done a cowardly thing in their lives.

If you don't like the unrec feature FINE. Ignore it.

[Vickers]

9. You misunderstood...*I* am the anonymous troll freeper coward.

Hope this helps.

[gkhouston]

12. But maybe Heretic was a coward first! Or anonymous first! Dammit, didn't you

register with the Troll Authority like you were supposed to?!?

[TexasObserver]

20. I'm shocked that so many DON'T use unrecommend when they should.

How can so many bad threads get recommended by anyone? Are recommend trolls trying to make DU look bad by recommending every thread, irrespective of how bad the threads are?

This argument has not changed one bit in over a year. Those who don't like the feature because it brings home the reality that their threads are not universally applauded want to return to that time when any five posters (trolls or not) could send a thread to the Greatest Page. Ever since the tyranny of the recommenders ended, the wailing about it has gone on. Their imaginary troll unreccers have been debunked by Skinner and EarlG, but they just keep coming back.

Instead of writing "I wish Skinner would ...," they should be writing to Skinner with their great ideas for changing the feature. The reason these threads always garner more unrecommends is because rational members think "not this shit again," and vote "unrecommend."

[Vickers]

44. I've asked that question before, too: "What did the Mods/Admins

say when you posed this question to them?"

Never get an answer for that one... :eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Or Skinner could make it a "donor only" feature, and make some money in the process.

The rec system should be a paid privelege, like the User groups.

[lamp_shade]

17. Has my vote.

[Scuba]

18. Are the Koch brothers hiring people to un-rec? I need a job....

I don't often use the 'favorites' page, instead scanning the most recent posts for item of interest. I can understand that if one can't visit often, the favorites page is useful.

I recommend some type of "recent posts with many comments" selection.

Thanks

[TexasObserver]

19. ... the complaining about unrecommend and the imaginary trolls?

That would be a great feature.

But nothing can turn off the complaining by those accustomed to getting the way by complaining.

Never have so few made so much noise about so little. Bad threads get unrecommended.

[NoPasaran]

21. Proud to unrec another thread whining about unrec!

:patriot:

79th Unreccing Brigade

:patriot:

The Fighting Cheetos!

:patriot:

[Aviation Pro]

24. Proud to tell you that I wasn't whining....

...I made a suggestion for a feature that would turn the useless function off for individuals. And this should be for paying individuals.

[tkmorris]

36. It was never a feature to benefit the poster

Which is why giving individuals the ability to turn it off is not going to happen. The feature was put it because DU admins wanted it. I would assume, though it has never been outright stated, that this was because the prior method (exactly the method you suggest BTW) resulted in far too many vanity and otherwise silly posts on the Greatest page. It seemed to me at the time that they believed the rec/unrec feature would allow more of the cream to rise to the top and their insistence upon keeping it seems to indicate that they believe it has been at least moderately successful in accomplishing this.

[NoPasaran]

42. Every thread about unrec is a whining thread

:patriot:

The 79th takes no prisoners!

:patriot:

I only regret that I have but one unrec to give to this thread.

:patriot:

[SargeUNN]

25. I wish they would

I have gotten to where I just laugh at it and try to train myself to ignore it but sadly fail to reach the goal. The fact it is used as it is just makes it something akin to having keys to a car that you can't get to. So I wish it was turned off but it appears the powers that be here haven't figured out it isn't worth anything and cling doggedly to believing it has some purpose.

[A HERETIC I AM]

26. I does have a purpose.

It is just that you don't LIKE the purpose.

[SargeUNN]

30. ok in your eyes maybe

but some can even find a way to defend the last admin. as having helped the country, so guess it is up to what you want to believe. I believe it is useless and doubt you can prove otherwise, but you certainly are welcomed to believe it is useful.

[A HERETIC I AM]

31. LOL...now THAT is rich.

"but some can even find a way to defend the last admin. as having helped the country, so guess it is up to what you want to believe."

Yeah. Equating a "No" vote on an obscure message board with defending the Bush administration.

I'm impressed. That hoop you just jumped through was what?.... 2 or 3 inches off the ground?

I know the feature is useful if for no other reason than it pisses off people like you, Sarge.

As far as me being able to "prove" the feature is useful, well there is certainly no way I can prove it to someone who is determined to be irrational about it, that's for sure.

If you don't like the unrec feature, just ignore it.

[SargeUNN]

35. maybe you should read my statements

seems you just want to argue. Here take a chill pill and relax.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. I did read your statements.

You have made statements that don't hold water.

I just opened that bag up a little more to let it all flow out.

I took a chill pill before I started and am VERY relaxed, thankyouverymuch.

"seems you just want to argue."

Ditto.

[Texasgal]

54. Thread jack here.

Just had to say I am LOVING your new avatar!!

What a good looking baby!!! :love:

Anyhow, sorry for the thread jack....carry on.

[LWolf]

27. Rec/Unrec discourages comments.

Yes, plenty of people still comment. Before the rec/unrec function, though, kicks were not so ubiquitous; more people weighed in and shared thoughts.

The system encourages less thought, and more lining up to agree or disagree. No explanations necessary.

[TexasObserver]

38. No, it doesn't. Traffic at DU has gone UP, not down, since Unrec was adopted.

Ask the site owners or do the research yourself. Traffic at DU has been higher since unrec was implemented than before.

There is literally no factual basis to your speculation. It's all based upon what you want to be case. It's a feature that works, and no amount of complaining by a very vocal but very small minority here will change that.

Since the feature was implemented, the DU population has consistently given it broad support. The number who attack the feature has remained small.

Crappy threads get hammered by unrecommends. That's a good thing.

[LWolf]

41. Traffic is not the same thing as comments.

DU has grown steadily since 2001, it's true. What has really increased since the rec/unrec features came aboard are people reccing and unreccing without commenting at all, or the constant "k%r," +1, etc. which don't require a comment.

Yes, there were "kicks" before the rec and unrec feature, but not to the same degree as we see now.

While I've read plenty of threads discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of the rec/unrec feature, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that those who oppose it are a "very small minority," or that it gets "broad support" from the general population.

Threads don't get hammered by unrecs because they are "crappy." They get hammered because people don't like what they say, true or not.

They get hammered because some automatically unrec the threads of anyone they disagree with, whether the thread has merit or not. It's divisive, and does not lead to constructive discussion.

[TexasObserver]

45. There's absolutely no evidence to support your speculation.

You may want to believe the feature has limited discussion, but it hasn't.

It hasn't even limited discussion in threads with no hope of positive recommends.

The never ending existence of threads complaining about Unrec prove over and over that unrecommending threads does not censor or silence those who complain about it. The only thing going on is your imagination, which tries to confirm what you wish was the truth.

[LWolf]

50. At least as much evidence to support mine as yours. nt

[TexasObserver]

51. Not true. Mine are based upon statements issued by admins.

Yours are based upon conclusions you've created out your imagination.

[LWolf]

52. I don't see any evidence.

Of course, my conclusions are based on my own observations, which are not imagination.

Are you one of those people who thrive on putting others down, "winning," or just getting the last word, or do you just like to hear your own voice, or what?

[Catshrink]

28. automatic unrec

[Codeine]

29. So don't look at the rec or unrecs.

I never notice them at all. :shrug: Why would anyone even bother looking at them if they don't care about them?

Honestly, it's akin to asking "Is there a way I can make my television not show Mythbusters because I prefer Kitchen Nightmares?"

[MilesColtrane]

32. How to avoid a "meaningless" feature:

Just avert your eyes from the 5 Greatest links in the middle of the Home Page. They only take up 10 - 15% of the page anyway.

Or, just avoid the Home Page and use your browser to bookmark directly to the forums you are interested in.

Unrecommended for making a post out of a question that should be directed to the mods directly.

[Quantess]

33. If you truly find the recs/unrecs meaningless,

why would you start a new thread about it? Is it so difficult to disregard a number attached to a thread?

If I see a zero next to a thread, I expect it to be either an unpopular opinion, a ridiculous OP...possibly a troll, something trivial, or a thread about rec/unrec.

I like the rec/unrec function just the way it is.

[lonestarnot]

34. LOL

[bigwillq]

37. Unrec (nt)

[woo me with science]

40. Why do people need technology to ignore something?

I am perpetually stunned by the helplessness of people here to control their own brains and reactions.

To clarify: I was against the "rec-unrec" feature from the start, because I have a quaint preference for actually reading threads and responding in words. But now that the stupid feature is here, I cannot fathom needing another layer of technology IN ORDER TO HELP YOU NOT LOOK AT IT.

[TK421]

53. +1

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[TexasObserver]

48. self delete

[Subdivisions]

49. The un-rec feature didn't work out the way some had hoped it would. n/t