I'll start by saying I love this site even when I hate this site

[tavalon]

I've been here a long time and seen you guys make so many changes and tweaks and 90% of the time it made for a nicer experience here. I remember when you set up the Greatest Page and at the time I didn't really see the point but I quickly changed my mind and that became the place I lived and DUers were so good at separating the grain from the chaff that I rarely ventured elsewhere. Then, as you are fully aware, that changed. And the Greatest Page stopped working as well. Yes, there is a question coming. I know you tried to fix the problem by adding an unrec feature. I think DUs heart got 4 times smaller and 5 times more cliquish with that decision. I'm wondering if you guys might be willing to work on an education campaign to help the good citizens of DU to understand that the Greatest Page isn't supposed to be about popularity but about allowing the best of DU commentary and discussion to bubble to the top? Or at least request that people explain why they are recommending or unreccomending a post.

I guess I'm thinking of that extra step during a poll when you are asked if that really is your choice. In this case, if we hit the rec or unrec button, it would take us to a page that either asked us to explain or gave us a laundry list of the usual reasons. I think all of us might benefit from the extra thoughtfulness that would require. I think people used to really weigh whether and why they thought a post merited being on the Greatest Page and now not so much.

[Skinner]

1. Let me start by saying:

I'm not sure the rise of incivility on DU is due to the unrec feature. I suspect this might be a case of correlation rather than causation. The unrec feature appeared after the Obama Administration took office, and DU had already begun to take a turn for the worse.

I don't see anything wrong with giving people a confirmation to make sure they clicked the right button. But I don't think it is really necessary to require them to explain their unrecs, any more than it is necessary for people to explain their recommendations. In almost every case, I don't think it's that difficult to figure out why people are doing it. A little self-reflection is a good thing.

[tavalon]

2. Self reflection is almost always a good thing

Speaking of which, I spent 45 minutes writing an impassioned critique of the unrec feature and then realized each and every argument could apply to the rec feature with only one exception. That being that rec is a positive and if used correctly, something that helps in community building and good feelings and unrec does the opposite. Since we are at a strange place on DU these days, keeping it positive is a good thing, you know?

You mentioned that in almost every case it isn't difficult to figure out why people are doing it. I think you're wrong. Certainly, in many cases it's a no-brainer but in many cases, people with usernames far more recognizable than mine, have highly devoted fans and also enemies. I think there are people using the unrec based on the person rather than the content of the post. Or are using it to try to suppress views they disagree with (though I haven't seen that work - usually if a post has merit, the unrecs are quickly overshadowed).

If we instead showed all recs and all unrecs (or thumbs up, thumbs down. Whatever), I think there might be less of a vacuum in which conspiracy theories can fester. And if the admins notice that X always unrecs Y, it might be helpful in figuring out if there is more going on than people simply deciding if a post has merit and should be seen by more eyes.

But really, I think we need to have a conversation about how we want the Greatest Page to be utilized and how to help our fellow community members understand how they can help make it into what they hopefully want it to be - a salon of fascinating thought.

[Skinner]

3. I think it's obvious that some people use it to try to suppress ideas they don't like.

FWIW, I didn't say that I agreed or approved of people's motivation when they used it. All I said was that it usually wasn't that hard to figure out.

Someone posts some positive news item about President Obama --> Gets unrecs because some people don't like it when positive news about the President is posted here.

Someone posts some negative news item about President Obama --> Gets unrecs because some people don't like it when negative news about the President is posted here.

I suppose I could run around telling people what is the "approved" way of using it. But I'm not really sure that's necessary. People are going to use it how they want. What matters is not that a thread picked up some unrecs that might not have been "fair" by someone's standard. The whole point of the feature is to help ensure that the threads at the top of the Greatest Page (and the homepage) are of broad interest to our community members. And on that, it seems to work pretty well.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to making the usernames of recs and unrecs public. Although I doubt the conspiracy theories would go away. Some people would fixate on the names of people who they believe have not evaluated their posts fairly.

[tavalon]

4. I actually didn't ask for that

I wanted transparency in the numbers and you guys could at your discretion decide if someone has a pattern that might suggest they aren't using the feature well. publicizing the usernames might be very useful or it might be Hester Prynne bad.

The much bigger issue which you guys are obviously trying to get a handle on (instead of running away screaming) is how to bring our village back to something of a common cause or at least affection even with the requisite disagreements. It's like Primaries here every day since the inauguration. That night was magical for all but after that, we lost our common enemy and our differences with one another, whether policy or pols, has just made it crazy here. I stay because I remember, and sometimes I leave but this is my cybercommunity.

I notice that CliffordDU and I are at crosshairs all the time, but after we met each other, we always give each other a grain of salt and a friendly nod.

Maybe this local politic thing really needs to start working on community building.

[Skinner]

5. I misunderstood your suggestion.

I think giving the total number of recs and unrecs would probably be for the good. We didn't do it because we thought people might get upset if they get a score of less than zero. (And it was unnecessary for the purpose of the feature.) Based on our experience thus far, I think our concern was warranted: People get upset if they have a score of +200 but suspect that there might be an unrec in there somewhere.

On your other point: Yes, we are hoping to bring this village back to some feeling of common cause.