I see both positive and innocuous OPs unnrecc'd right after they're posted

[MrScorpio]

And a lot of those unrecc's never come with either a cogent objection and any objection at all.

Clearly, some posters are NOT using their responsibility to provide intelligent feedback responsibly.

To those of you who are so trigger happy with the unrecc function, (if you are willing to explain your actions) please answer to all of us; aren't you the least bit ashamed by your lack of civility?

For the sake of having an intelligent discussion in this forum, I believe that we are owed an explanation.

Thank you.

[ret5hd]

1. Why would you feel that way about unrec but not rec?

[MrScorpio]

2. I'm writing that one right now

I'm changing some of the words around

[jobycom]

3. I still don't get this whole argument.

If people want to comment, they can post. The rec/unrec feature is just a vote on whether a person thinks the thread is worth reading by others. I don't get all this argument about the protocol of the diplomatic manners involved in the process.

[MrScorpio]

7. Surely, knowing why or why not it's worthy is very helpful to allay misunderstandings, is it not?

The way I see it, having a clear explanation does wonders for turning that light bulb on over our heads, am I right?

Also, to help find common ground... If that's what we really want to do.

[jobycom]

8. Yeah, it would be helpful, I guess, but I don't see it a moral imperative. nt

[Ken Burch]

20. It always fascinates me that those who defend "unrec"

Almost always say

a)that it's no big deal

and

b)that anyone who doesn't like it should leave.

Doesn't INSISTING that opposition to the "unrec" feature has no place on DU pretty much negate the "it's no big deal" argument?

If it actually were no big deal, why are those who support it so adamant that it remain in place?

I personally accept that it's here.

What I don't accept is the insane touchiness and defensiveness those who support it have. Or the "DU is OURS and not YOURS" subtext that lies just barely below the surface of the "pro-unrec" posts. Who are they to take that tone anyway?

[Lars39]

4. There is one poster in particular who gets immediate unrecs *no matter what she posts*.

That is clearly an abuse of the system.

[ret5hd]

6. Probably pissed about her threads not getting to front page, so she asked her friends to unrec...

so she could complain about unrec.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Perhaps that poster you're referencing "clearly" abuses her privilege to post here by consistently

posting barrels of typed, steaming shit.

:shrug:

It's a thought.

[rd_kent]

30. +1000000

[HughMoran]

33. That's mature

bye.

[saigon68]

63. posting barrels of typed, steaming shit.

STEAMING

[rwheeler31]

5. It makes no sense,

[Skittles]

9. it ain't me darling - I don't use unrec at all

[MrScorpio]

10. Thanks, Sweetheart

Just keep that combat boot handy, though, OK?

[Skittles]

11. JUST FOR YOU MY USAF SWEET

[SoCalDem]

58. nor do I

I wish they had never started this whole rec/unrec thing.. ..but then I never go to the Greatest, latest or home page, so I don't care what's on them:)

I've always enjoyed the back & forth..not anonymous drivebys..

[apocalypsehow]

12. You are owed *nothing*. Grow up. Unrecc'd. n/t.

:thumbsdown:

[MrScorpio]

13. Your reply was explanation enough NT

[apocalypsehow]

15. Happy to oblige. n/t.

[Ken Burch]

21. Mr Scorpio was owed the same respect any other human being deserves

And all of us here are also "owed" the acceptance by everyone else at DU that we are equal, that we are loyal, and that we have a right to express our views. That's what everyone in the world is "owed", and we'd have no wars if everyone were given what they were owed.

Who, might I ask, do you think YOU are to disrespect anybody in the way that post disrespected Mr. Scorpio?

If you post here, you're a progressive and an ally and should never be treated as a lower form of life.

[RoyGBiv]

16. I'll address this ...

Since I respect you and don't think you're just trolling for an argument on website features, I'll offer my opinion. I use that phrasing because I do believe most people who broach this subject are simply wanting to argue for some personal reason, and I tend to hide those threads immediately without even reading them.

The rec/unrec feature has only one purpose in the functioning of this website. Those threads with five or more aggregate positive recommendations are featured on the Greatest Page. Threads with a large aggregate positive total are featured at the top of it. The rec/unrec system is a sometimes clunky system of voting on whether those threads should appear on the Greatest page and at what position. That's it.

Others have ascribed different purposes to this feature. Some take it as a personal commentary, and I'm sure sometimes it is, but such is the case with all voting systems. Recently I, a person who is not well-known or popular in GD or GD: P, posted a thread with commentary on a topic during a prime part of the day, got three responses, and 4 aggregate positive recs. I know at least one person unrec-ed it. A couple hours later, a more popular person posted the same story with no commentary, got hundreds of replies, and the thread was on the Greatest page in minutes. Do I care? No. The subject was what mattered to me, not my personal glory.

Others view it as an attempt to silence debate by throwing the thread into obscurity, a notion I find astonishingly bizarre given how many views and replies many, many threads with aggregate negative totals receive. I have nothing to add to that silly notion.

Others, such as you apparently, see more nuance, which would normally be a good thing but in this case detracts from the point, I believe.

You want feedback on "why" a thread was, in this case, unrec-ed. Let's assume I had unrecc-ed this thread and given you feedback. If I had, my comment would be, "I don't think discussions of web site features display the greatest this website has to offer and should not be featured on its Greatest page." Or, I could have been far less civil and simply said, "I'm sick of this fucking subject, and your mother wears combat boots." The latter I would not actually say, but many would, especially those who unrec for personal reasons.

And so then what do we have? Well, if I had given my first example response, you might have responded, and I might have been feeling squirrely that day, and I might have responded back, and someone else might have come along and put in their two cents, and all of a sudden what we have is not a thread about a topic, but a thread about whether that topic deserves to be on the Greatest page or perhaps what the purpose of the Greatest page is or even how math works. It might even have been "great," but does it have anything to do with the purpose of this website, and is it an example of the "greatest" this website has to offer? I do not think it would be. If I had given the second response, what we end up with is a flame war that probably goes far away from the original topic and devolves into the subject of your mother and her affection for certain kinds of footwear.

Is that productive? Is it any less or more productive than simply casting my vote on whether the subject should be displayed as the best this site has to offer and figuratively walking away?

I'm not a writing critic. If I were, my head would explode in this place. But I do know what I'd like to see on the Greatest page, and I would *not* like to see "OMG!!PONIES!!! Rachael looks so GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD today. I wanna make puppies with her!!" and I would not like to see threads that simply parrot right-wing or hardline libertarian think tank talking points passed off as somehow "progressive" without any analytical commentary. Neither is too much of an exaggeration of the kinds of threads I far too often see get around five immediate recommendations moments after being posted. If I do bother to wander into one of those threads then, yes, I will unrec it immediately, despite my possibly agreeing with it and despite its, overall, innocuous nature.

To be perfectly blunt, when I do use the feature, I use it on posts I think are either a) crap subjects/false or wildly speculative opinion, b) so poorly written they make us all look like idiots, c) shrill talking points that add nothing of value to a horse that's been beaten to a pulp, or d) threads that may have a good OP but are themselves trainwrecks. Commenting on that, in public, has very little chance of resulting in substantive discussion. Perhaps I'm not representative, and maybe I'm a jerk, but I have in fact started using both rec and uncrec far more frequently recently, and I have unrec-ed items that have nothing particularly objectionable about them but which are not, in my *personal* opinion, representative of the greatest this site has to offer.

Just as I do not have time or inclination to opine on every subject/thread posted on DU, I do not have time/inclination to explain every vote I cast, especially when doing offers so little possibility of accomplishing something productive.

[MrScorpio]

18. You're no jerk, my friend

Thanks for that definitive explanation

[RoyGBiv]

19. Sorry for the length ...

I think that's been in me awhile, but you're the first person to come along whom I've noticed that offered the question in a way I felt I could respond somewhat intelligently and whom would offer a reasonable response.

And that *is* one of the greatest things this website has to offer, and so I question my criteria in these situations, and then my head explodes.

:toast:

[CTyankee]

37. Some of us just feel that if you feel you need to Unrec a post, you also should back it up

with your objection to it. I am of the old school that says if you have an opinion you should stand up and say it. Same for Recc-ing. OK? You back your argument with whatever you've got. If your point is important enought to Rec or Unrec a thread, then it's important enough to stand by what you say.

Does anybody have a problem with that?

[RoyGBiv]

39. Yes, I have a problem with that ...

Constructive criticism offered in good faith needs to be taken in good faith, and in this place, that rarely happens. Disagreeing with a hardened position is tantamount among the majority of the most voluminous participants who post things I find in need of being unrec-ed to a call to battle. A certain contingent will then go off to their Facebook accounts and sound the klaxon, bringing down the thunderous hoards upon the unwitting individual who dared to offer an expression of displeasure.

I don't care for pissing matches, in other words.

If my reason for unrec-ing a thread is that the OP signed up two months ago and has done nothing but post streams of nonsense, I have absolutely no desire to sit there and argue with that person incessantly.

Some people seem to have a need to argue. I don't. I can register my displeasure with a topic without having to bang my fingers against the keyboard, as though anything I write has the slightest ability to improve the quality of those threads I believe do not belong on the Greatest page.

[CTyankee]

40. Wow, you go out not with a bang but with a whimper? Gee...

I still would register my reasoning, if only because I feel it is valuable to offer my own thoughts against those that I feel are wrong or misguided or whatever.

It's the way I was brought up. If you have something to say, you say it and you back up what you say. A sneak "hit and run" with no accountability does not hold a lot of respect in my book. If you believe in something, you state it, no matter what "pissing matches" might ensue. You don't have to go on and on with them. You can just say "well, we agree to disagree" and be done with it.

You say you don't see the "need to argue." I don't see the "need to not stand by your views." You should feel that your opinon has the same worth as those with whom you disagree and just state them. Stand up and be counted.

[RoyGBiv]

43. A Whimper?

See, this is *exactly* what I mean.

What is the purpose of this questioning? Do you really want to understand what I think and why I am engaging in the behavior I am, or are you looking for holes in which to throw rhetorical barbs? You don't seem to be actually taking my viewpoint into account. Your rhetoric implicitly refers to me as a whimp/coward/etc., i.e. someone unwilling to "stand by <my> views." In other words, this sub-thread has now begun the sometimes long, slow decent into trading personal barbs and questions about our mothers' clothing choices. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's where this is going, and I want no part of it.

I stand by my views just fine, thank you, and my view of this subject is that I will use the features of this message forum in whatever way I deem appropriate. The way I use this particular feature fits precisely with the the reasoning behind administrators introducing it.

[CTyankee]

44. I welcome your views, Roy. Why don't I see them?

You are depriving me of your point of view. You may have something to say that I hadn't thought of. You may have some information I need to form my opinion further about a subject. You may further the debate with an intelligent analysis of your scrutiny.

I am dead serious about my argument here. We are defeating the idealism of our founders, such as Jefferson, if we are unwilling or too lazy to defend our points of view in the public marketplace of ideas. Democracy will not stand long if people depend on zapping other points of view with an "unrec" function and not giving their reasoning to others for doing so.

[RoyGBiv]

49. #16

Those are my views on this subject, rather lengthy ones at that.

My views on other subjects are introduced where and when I feel an opening for reasonable discussion exists. Pick your battles. It works both in military science and rhetoric.

Unlike many, many people who populate this forum who seem to have nothing better to do than find ways to complain (and I am not including you among this group), I personally have better things to do, better things than think up cute new nicknames for Republicans or Democrats we don't like. I prefer to spend my energies on things other than rhetorically facing off against someone who has never found a silver lining without a cloud or who discounts experts merely because they are experts or don't fall in line behind a lockstep ideology.

There is a lot of demagoguery on DU, no more so than other forums of its type, but enough that certain subjects are impossible to discuss rationally except at randomly odd moments. I get nothing out of that. I've played the game for years and years of believing that the introduction of what I believe to be a rational point of view or voice will somehow offset the shrill voices of those who have no particular purpose in mind than to bitch and moan and try their best to inflame the mob. We've got a bunch of little Robespierre wanna-bes who have discovered that the Internet protects their necks as they shout and scream and beg for the blade to drop on those of people they don't know, don't want to know, and will never, ever even attempt to understand. I lost at that game. I lost about the same time AOL's free minutes offers exceeded 24 hours.

Call it cynicism. Call it cowardice. Call it whatever you want to call it. It makes no difference because at the end of the day I am a pseudonym typing at a pseudonym. If I click a little link on a topic thread indicating my negative opinion of that thread's place in the larger forum (not disagreement with or unwillingness to participate in the debate about, but whether I believe that thread should be front and center for all passersby to notice instantly), I have done just as much as if I had engaged in a lengthy rhetorical shouting match about whether the topic starter had little other purpose in mind than engaging in the same kind of sensationalist inanity that countless forum participants decry on an hourly basis but nonetheless are inspired by just the same. And I would have done quite a bit less as well. I would have avoided raising my blood pressure, needlessly pissing someone else off inadvertently, and, best of all, done something more productive elsewhere with the time I would have wasted in that nonsense.

Do an experiment. Read through GD or GD: P for a day without making any comment or getting involved in any way. Look for threads that are straight news or even non-inflammatory opinion on straight news. Look for other threads that are clear sensationalism, attempts to troll for an argument, or just flat-out expressions of stupidity. You know the latter is there. We all do. Now do a comparison of the replies and views that the sensationalist threads have in comparison to the straight news. You will find (and I have done this) that straight news inspires very little discussion. The rantings of Glenn Beck will inspire a firestorm.

In what world am I suppose to believe the latter is better than the former? And why on earth would I bother to kick the latter to the top of a forum by adding my voice of "Burn the Witch!" or even the hypocritical "would all of you stop kicking this?" to it just so that it gets displayed ever longer?

As a practical matter, put it simply in those terms. I don't think a thread should be on the Greatest page. This usually, but not always, means I don't think it should be displayed at the top of a forum's topics either. Why would I post in it and kick it? How do I consistently register my opinion of it without doing that with which I disagree? I click that little link that says "unrec" in my humble attempt to keep it from the Greatest page and the "ignore thread" link to prevent myself from having to view it.

Now none of this should be taken to indicate I don't engage in the silliness from time to time. Of course I do. I am no more or less perfect than anyone else here. But I have personal priorities. I do more to change the world, if we much think in such grandiose terms, having casual conversations with students or co-workers or some guy I met in a bar than I do doing the keyboard dance here. And so I don't expend all my energies here. But I do sometimes get involved in this place, and I do sometimes play the whack a mole game. Such is the life of a netizen.

[CTyankee]

54. Well and good. You did articulate your views and that's fine and I also thank you for your response.

First, I will say that I don't care what is on the Greatest page or not on it. It doesn't matter to me so the Rec or Unrec function has no function for me whatsover. In a way, I have my own "greatest" page, i.e., what I deem worthy of my time and intellectual effort. I suspect that the official Greatest page is somewhat of a popularity contest -- certainly not always, but certainly often -- and that doesn't interest me.

Second, I have always done what you recommend that I do which is scroll through GD and GD-P and I pick and choose what I care to respond to. Yes, if it is arrant nonsense I don't bother reading past the post (if I read it at all). So right there I'm not wasting my time. And I often don't bother making a comment I could make because either it has already been made (probably better than I can make it!) or it's a waste of time. And, btw, if I do respond it is not to "kick" the thread anywhere, it is to respond.

You raise an interesting question. We are anonymous here. Before our computer age, people had to be identifiable, either in person by protesting or by arguing at town meetings, or in LTTE, when they raised their voices in protest or praise. Yes, you could print up a poster or hand out broadsides on the streets a la Federalist Papers ("Publius") but that was OK because they were promoting reasoned arguments in the public market place of ideas. And after the debate and the question is put to a vote, our vote is kept secret to prevent retaliation or intimidation against the voter.

I like the fact that you do consider whether you have something to offer before you post. I really don't mind if someone disagrees with me and offers their reasoned arguments. Sometimes I have had my mind changed! I don't take this stuff personally but I will object to having my argument distorted. I don't respond to name calling at all. That doesn't happen very often, tho, at least to me.

Mostly, I learn stuff on DU because there are lots of smart people here. I'm a curious sort so I'd rather hear what they have to say if I am interested...

Thanks. We've had a good exchange! I appreciate your taking the time and effort to give me your opinions...

[RoyGBiv]

55. I agree ...

It has been a good exchange.

For the record, and just to wrap up my thoughts on this before I go back to ignoring the fact there is an argument about it, I don't really care what's on the Greatest page either, at least not from a personal perspective. I never look at it. I did, however, start looking at it a bit more often when I noticed that of the few times DU has been mentioned in the popular press or in other blogs, that mention very often is of a thread or piece of a thread that is rankly highly on the Greatest page. That made me pay more attention to the fact that on occasion some serious whack-jobbery gets promoted front and center, and our ideological enemies will pounce on it as representative of all of us.

I've seen some wonderful posts at DU, some well-considered, artfully written, forcefully argued pieces of opinion as well as reporting of fact. Some of the sub-forums have incredible writing and expressions of ideas that I don't often see. It saddens me that relatively very few people ever see them, much less have the opportunity to engage in discussion of them.

Meanwhile, the latest "All is lost! ALL IS LOST! thread or the newest take on just how insane Glen Beck actually is ... those are floating at the top of the pile and being read by thousands.

Rec/Unrec doesn't solve that problem as it currently stands, but it's better than nothing, I think. Frankly, I'd like to see separate, equal (did I just say "separate but equal"?) lists of items recommended by users with, perhaps, one column highlighting the Big Forums and another all the sub-forums, hopefully bringing those out of such obscurity ... just a random thought.

In any case, take care.

[RoyGBiv]

57. FYI ...

I did some pondering today during idle moments, and I came to a decision.

I am no longer using the unrec feature. Those threads I wish to ignore I either am not opening to read or am "ignoring" via that feature if their presence annoys me too much.

I'm not sure if this means anything in the grand scheme of things, but I wanted to mention it.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Good news sucks, concern articles from "independent ""journalists""" are good

Welcome to the *New* DU.

And remember, like we say in DU-GDP, go F**K yourself.




(j/k)

[AllentownJake]

22. Can we stop whining about unrec

It's been like 3 months. Let it go.

[Lilith Velkor]

23. No, I am not the least bit ashamed

Unreccing without explanation seems to be a more courteous way to register displeasure at a stupid post than disrupting the thread with flames and catcalls and such. That way, those who still want to discuss it can do so in peace.

[Renew Deal]

24. How does unreccing advance the debate?

Nothing is learned.

[Lilith Velkor]

26. WHARRGARBL is not debate.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

[CTyankee]

38. It makes certain people feel good about doing a drive by shooting without

feeling the need to back up their argument (most likely because they either don't have one or they are too lazy to articulate their reasons for doing so).

Lazy, whiny and irresponsible...

[Lilith Velkor]

53. Now, THAT is a reasonable argument

and not passive-aggressive or whiny in the slightest.

I bet it made you feel good, too. :rofl:

[Posteritatis]

25. Unrec for whining about unrec. (nt)

[arcadian]

27. auto unrec for mentioning rec function

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. I usually unrecc any post that whines about unrecc's

No one likes a whiner.

[jenmito]

29. My thread stating that Obama was about to speak to the press got unrec'ed.

It was kind of funny. Some posters just don't like certain posters and unrec anything they post.

[TheDonkey]

31. Haven't been on DU recently. This Unrec'ed thing is confusing and I accidently did it!!

to this post, because I was used to the "rec" link being there. :(

[HughMoran]

32. I've learned to accept it

apparently the unrec is the new "I don't like you"

[aikoaiko]

34. Its really very simple: You can't make everyone happy with a post.

Someone will think that a "positive and innocuous OP" is sappy, trivial, and/or unwarranted.


The unrec is a fine response -- the unreccer simply does not recommend the OP. Its really not that difficult to understand.

[CTyankee]

42. well, you should have the confidence of your convictions...

believe in what you believe in.

Of course, it IS easier to click on a button rather than articulate a reasonable argument, isn't it?

[CBGLuthier]

35. No

I unrecommend every thread that talks about the recommend process as the entire argument is stupid and boring.

Did you know there was time on DU before the greatest page? Worst change ever. Who gives two shits how popular their post is. Are you all in fucking high school?

[NYC Liberal]

36. You aren't "owed" anything but

an unrec does jack shit except for the thread not being on the "Greatest" page - that's IT. It doesn't push the thread down in the forum, it doesn't hide it, it doesn't delete it, it doesn't lock it. The only - ONLY - thing an unrec affects is the Greatest Page - NOT the thread itself.

[Kingofalldems]

41. Who has the most to gain from serial unreccing?

Disruptors of course.

[TexasObserver]

45. Some reason you started two identical threads in this forum about this?

[bigwillq]

46. Unrec

While you are free to post on any topic you want to, I unrec any thread complaining or discussing, good or bad, about the rec system.

[niceypoo]

47. Well, doesnt that make you important?

[bigwillq]

48. Yes, it does.

Very.


:rofl:

[KoKo]

50. The Owners of this site LIKE the "Unrecommend" feature. We need to live with it...

is what we are "told."

[Egnever]

51. So what?

I just dont understand the constant whining about recs and unrecs. Do people really need to see validation of a post before they read it?

[quakerboy]

52. Unrec with no post is sometimes the definition of civility.

I don't rec or unrec all that much. Most posts don't really hit a threshold for either. But when I do, its with a mind to what I would want to hit the front page. If I were coming here for the first time, what information would I find valuable, what would catch my interest and make me one to stay and look around

From dictionary.com:
ci⋅vil⋅i⋅ty
1. courtesy; politeness.
2. a polite action or expression: an exchange of civilities.

Synonyms:
1. affability, amiability, manners, tact.

Rec or un, I often say nothing. Many times someone has already said what I think. If its a hot enough topic, probably several people have posted parts of what I would want to say. Often enough posting would be, at least to my perception, akin to yelling my opinion into the middle of a heated gang fight. Not bright, not helpful, and certainly not civil, affable, or tactful.

[Peacetrain]

56. There are some personal vendettas going on me thinks...

I have seen it happen so many times.. a person could have a 12 paragraph op, and the unrecs hit it within half a second... so whoever is unreccing is doing it because they just do not like that person and anything they post, they are going to try and stymie''

[Jennicut]

59. It is a message board about politics and it is the internet

I would never take any of it personally.

[backscatter712]

60. Here's a genuine question:

What rules & expectations (written or unwritten) are in place for the use of recs or unrecs?

Is it like Reddit, where you can upvote or downvote a link for any reason at all, including none?

Or are you expected to use recs & unrecs in a certain way?

[boppers]

61. Trolling for attention = instant unrec.

Being "controversial" (aka, trolling) is anti-intellectual, and should not be rewarded.

It should be discouraged.

For that matter, responses explaining an unrec merely "kick" a thread up, so it further rewards trolling when reasons for unrec are given.

I'm hoping that in the future, all <0 threads can be filtered out somehow (maybe in personal settings?), so there's less garbage trolling to sort through when reading DU.

[ZombieHorde]

62. If the unrecing really bothers you, you could just rec every thread.

You could get five or ten people to just check Latest Discussion Threads and rec them all.