We are introducing a new DU feature that people have been requesting for a long time. (EDITED)

[Skinner]

We have finally upgraded the DU Recommend function to allow people to "Unrecommend" as well.

Why Are We Adding This Functionality?

If you have spent any time on DU, you have probably noticed that under our old system -- which only permitted positive recommendations -- there was a tendency for highly polarizing topics to climb to the top of the Greatest Page. We believe that giving members the option to unrecommend topics will help insure that the threads at the top of the Greatest Page are those threads that have the broadest appeal to our members.

We do not expect that this will be a huge change for DU. But we do hope that it will put a little more emphasis on the topics that unite us, instead of those that divide us. Of course, you are still free to post discussion threads on highly polarizing topics. You just won't get the positive reinforcement of seeing them at the top of the Greatest Page.

How It Works

If you look in the bottom left corner of any discussion thread, you should see something like this:

Recommend 0 votes Unrecommend

I think this is probably fairly self-explanatory. You click the "Recommend" link if you want to positively recommend a thread, and you click the "Unrecommend" link if you want to register your disapproval. The number tells you the thread's net score (calculated by subtracting unrecommendations from recommendations). A positive score indicates that the number of recommendations is greater than the number of unrecommenndations.

As part of this upgrade, you will now see your vote added instantaneously when you click either "Recommend" or "Unrecommend". You won't be taken to a new page after casting a vote, and you won't have to click the back button to return to the thread. (Note that you will need to have Javascript enabled in your Web browser in order to use the system.)

When a thread gets a net score of +5 it appears on the Greatest Page. The thread posted in the previous 24 hours that has the highest net score is listed at the top of the Greatest Page. (If a thread's net score falls below +5, it will disappear from the Greatest Page, but if its net score returns to +5 it will re-appear in the same spot it held previously.)

If a thread's net score falls below 0, it will appear as "<0". You can continue to recommend or unrecommend these threads, and your vote will be tallied. But if the net score remains below zero, it will continue to simply show as <0. We decided to do this because the purpose of permitting unrecommendations is to improve the content of the DU Greatest page -- it is not necessary to show extreme negative scores in order to achieve that goal.

Comments And Bug Reports

We understand that there are some potential downsides to this change, as there are to any change. We are going to closely monitor this new system, to make certain that it actually does what it is intended to do, and to ensure that it makes DU better for most of our members. We welcome your feedback about this new system, and while we understand that there are likely to be a number of threads about the new system over the next few days, we hope you will post any comments or bug reports in this thread.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we implement this change. And thank you for being a part of this community.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
DU Administrators

ON EDIT: We have decided to remove the total number of votes, and only show the net score. It was apparent that showing the total number of votes was confusing to readers. It made it appear that you could simply subtract the net score from the total votes to get the number of unrecommendations, which was NOT correct. I apologize for the confusion.

[notadmblnd]

1. I like it.

thanks

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Zenlitened]

86. Wow. We could use an "unrecommend" for replies, too.

Signed, Gay-Issue Swarmer Destroying The Usefulness Of This Site

:wow:

[sui generis]

211. snork.

Nah, just really cool shamackitti-mackdown replies - :P

:yourock:

[Rhiannon12866]

351. And I've often thought that some replies are worthy of a recommendation...

:-)

[scheming daemons]

2. Awesome

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

367. heh, 300 people so far have unrecommended this thread

hehehe

[babylonsister]

3. Thank you all! nt

[Eric J in MN]

4. self-delete NT

NT

[Uzybone]

5. excellent

:thumbsup:


"But we do hope that it will put a little more emphasis on the topics that unite us, instead of those that divide us."

[anonymous171]

6. Interesting... nt

[Horse with no Name]

7. So, the 1000 recs on topics like "FUCK YEAH LETS GET HIGH"

can be offset and take it off the main page?
Cool.

[peace frog]

17. Snerk

Exactly. :thumbsup:

[Myrina]

46. Not to mention neutralizing the race to be the "5th Rec" ...

... "off to the greatest with thee" ???

:wtf: WTF is THAT about ?!?! Is this 6th grade?


:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

55. Yeah now it is going to be a yo-yo

"to the greatest with thee"
and the next one "oh no you don't"
:evilgrin:

[Fozzledick]

75. Let the unrecommend wars begin!

:evilgrin:

[NBachers]

368. I hope I never never never read that phrase again

never

never

never

Please, come up with something a little more original. Please.

[wroberts189]

255. Oh man I LOVED that thread ..would have given it a hundred recs. :) nt

[havocmom]

8. We thank you and your staff for listening to us, trying new things

and paying attention to the details to ensure new things are really doing some good.

Much appreciated!

[Jim Lane]

337. I second this reaction

My guess is that this change will be an improvement and will stick, but even if it craters, I'm very glad to see that the admins keep trying to improve DU.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Cool.

[scheming daemons]

10. How come this thread doesn't have the "unrecommend" link? ;-)

[Skinner]

30. It should appear shortly.

Elad is still setting up all the code, and then he has to sync the servers. Just a sec.

[MindMatter]

64. And what if everybody unrecommends THIS thread?

[gkhouston]

69. DU won't be crowded tomorrow? n/t

[Skinner]

73. If you unrecommend an admin thread, you are automatically tombstoned.

Just kidding. :D

[Horse with no Name]

95. Can I have double pepperoni? n/t

[NoPasaran]

155. The Walt Starr Special!

[Horse with no Name]

158. Uh Oh

:hide:

[madinmaryland]

253. Right the fuck now??

:D

[XemaSab]

304. I'm glad you were kidding

:scared:

[Madrone]

364. And people say all the funny has left DU!

Little did they know!

:D

[Neecy]

11. I like it.

[raccoon]

12. Muchisimas gracias. Rec'd. nt

[Glorfindel]

13. Thank you. An excellent idea, as always, from our DU Administrators

I look forward to seeing how it works! :toast:

[FrenchieCat]

14. Very Cool. Appreciate the expanded voice folks will have here at DU.....

and I'm sure that this system will have effects on all sides.

[Enrique]

15. will there be a "Worst" page?

aside from "My DU", that is? ;-)

[Skinner]

34. Currently, no.

But once everyone is comfortable with the system, we will be able to experiment with stuff like that. If we decide it is worth doing.

[orleans]

308. we could have a "greatest" worst page. that might be fun

just so long as none of my threads appear on it, of course.

[fishwax]

366. Rather than a "worst," I'd like to see a "most voted on"

That way if there are hotly contested topics that fall below the five recommends, they would still be visible in an easily accessible place.

[reflection]

381. That's not a bad idea.

Not a bad idea at all..
:think:

[Morning Dew]

131. lmoa - you have that as your worst page too? I thought I was alone. nm

[BR_Parkway]

16. We can't unrecommend this page? hmmmm

Seriously, sounds like a great system

[Skinner]

31. It should be working shortly.

Elad is still copying over all the code. Once everything is in place, you should be able to Unrecommend this thread.

[Mnemosyne]

262. You can now! :) n/t

[madokie]

18. Sometimes I wish you guys were running our country

This is a good idea.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. Now I see it!

I don't see an unrecommend feature on any threads. However, I do see the + sign on the main forum pages.

On edit: I was impatient. :D

[JackRiddler]

20. Will we see the individual tally of recs and unrecs, or just the end total?

[Skinner]

41. Currently we do not see the individual tally.

Obviously, if the net score is in positive territory, you can figure it out. But we thought it was not necessary to show a full tally for negative scores.

[tridim]

21. Cool, this'll be an interesting experiment.

Bring on the next controversial subject!

Gungeon beware. :evilgrin:

[Richardo]

22. Two words: Awe. Some.

Thank you Admins! :thumbsup:

[Scurrilous]

23. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[City Lights]

24. Sweet. Thanks!

Recommended.

[Forkboy]

25. Can we take it into negative numbers?

That would be cool. ;)

[Skinner]

45. Yes and no.

You can keep unrecommending a thread into negative territory, and all the recommendations will be tallied. But the thread will simply show as <0.

[Forkboy]

63. Awww.

x(

:)

[Chemisse]

81. So much for the races to be the most negative. That would've been fun.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

265. how about imaginary numbers?

:P

[Forkboy]

299. My threads would earn a negative Pi.

:)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

324. you mean like this?

I dunno... I'm so tech-tarded, I couldn't believe I actually said "imaginary numbers" up there....
:scared:

[redqueen]

26. Thanks!

Wish there were some way to troll-proof it, though.

[tekisui]

27. K&U!

:P

[AwakeAtLast]

28. More than anything, I like that our vote is counted immediately

Thanks so much!

:bounce:

[Horse with no Name]

29. Cool it works! Test thread. Sorry about that!

:evilgrin:

[Bicoastal]

32. Are you ever going to bring back the "color coded" critique system?

That was truly a fascinating trainwreck.

[Skinner]

47. No. (nt)

[guitar man]

33. sorry about that

just had to test it :evilgrin:

[onehandle]

35. THANK YOU! Maybe there will be less garbage on the front page now. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. nice. thanks.

:thumbsup:

[blogslut]

37. Noice

Here's to Skinner, EarlG and Elad! Always finessing some of the best community software on the planet. :toast:

PS: Adding an extra thanks for ending the page redirect annoyance after one clicks recommend/unrecommend. Bonus!

[NBachers]

369. Oh, Man - Thanks for stopping the page redirect

Now instead of getting annoyed about the software mechanics of the site I can focus on getting annoyed about the other posters.

No, really- that page redirect on "Recommend" made this site 33% worse for me. Thank you for getting us past that feature.

[SidDithers]

38. Great feature, Skinner...

thanks for the always working to make the site better.

Sid

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. It's great that by recommending or unrecommending, you don't navigate away from the page! Cool!

Recommended! lol!

[Froward69]

Hey Skinner!!! Well as no one

seems willing to Un-rec anything (as yet) let me be the first to do so here. just after this post I will be doing so Just to see the number change. as I am strongly in favor of this new feature I want to try it out... ;)

I am FROWARD after all.

on edit 10 people beat me to it... :(

[WI_DEM]

40. Wow! Excellent.

[tekisui]

42. I like it, my only concern is that important threads will get knocked

down because people will have an adverse reaction to the subject matter. I guess that is the point, we'll see how it works.

[Skinner]

50. That's not the point.

The point is not to bury important threads. The point is to bury junk.

[tekisui]

60. I agree, and I intend to use it in that constructive way.

I just see that as one point of potential abuse. I think it is going to be great for burying the junk, and keeping that junk off the front page.

[Zenlitened]

93. See Reply #62. One Reaganite's, er, person's "junk"...

... is another person's struggle for equality. Sad, but all-too-true, as we've all seen. :(

[Raster]

206. In other words, the point is to CENSOR!

[Pacifist Patriot]

223. Wouldn't censoring entail removal of content so it is entirely inaccessible?

Whether something is deemed worthy of the Greatest Page or not has no bearing on its existence in the forum in which it was posted.

[MADem]

239. Yay! I've been a fan of this idea for years! nt

[rateyes]

344. One person's junk is another person's treasure. nt

[NBachers]

370. Everyone who likes the "Unrecommend" feature rec this thread

[proud2BlibKansan]

Awesome!! Love it!!

[progressoid]

43. Hmmm...time to test this with a Michael Jackson thread,

:evilgrin:

[OKNancy]

44. LOVE it!

Oh how I've wanted to have this in the past.

[jgraz]

48. This may end up in the "be careful what you wish for" bin

Where the GP is filled with posts like "Puppies R Cute" and "I like pie" and anything interesting or contentious hovers around a net rec count of zero.

I'm curious to see how this turns out. No matter what, it's gonna be fun. :D

[Skinner]

52. I'll eat my hat if "Puppies Are Cute" or "I like pie" end up at the top of the Greatest Page. (nt)

[jgraz]

57. I'd post one, but I know you'll just lock it and declare victory

:P

[awoke_in_2003]

120. I've got to see this...

I am off to start an "I like pie" thread :)

[charlie and algernon]

162. looks like you can save your hat

DUers seem to be fighting to keep you from eating some wool or cotton

[TexasObserver]

245. I can finally vote against threads about someone's cat.

Dogs, puppies, birds, monkeys, lizards, ferrets, and other pets, too.

[Renew Deal]

261. Speaking of which,,,

The Lounge should be eligible for the greatest page.

[ihavenobias]

65. You might have a point.

Even constructively critical threads of the current administration (rather than reflexively bashing, etc.) may well get voted down leaving only threads critical of Republicans or other no-brainer topics that we all already agree on (Rec this if you want universal coverage!).

And of course the system could be abused for personal reasons rather than topic reasons. Only time will tell.

[jgraz]

70. Personally, I plan on un-rec'ing every REC THIS thread

I think they're the scourge of DU.

[spoony]

226. I think it's worth it just for the ability to do that

It may dissuade rec hounds from clogging up the tubes of which on I read my interweb.

[NBachers]

372. Hear, Hear!!

[tekisui]

74. That is my concern.

A post that discusses a controversial, but, important issue dealing with the Obama Administration, if at all critical could get whacked off the front page.

[Uzybone]

94. Why is that a concern?

do people who disagree not have the right to say they disagree by unreccomending. You can't have it both ways.

[scarletwoman]

165. Yes, people who disagree do have a right to SAY they disagree by SAYING it.

Now, when there's a controversial thread, instead of showing up and making an argument to support their viewpoint, they can just anonymously sabotage its chances of being seen on the Greatest Page by unrecommending it. They'll no longer have to go the bother of participating in a face-to-face debate.

The bullies and cowards will rule and no one will be able to call them out on it.

[jgraz]

325. An excellent point

We're already seeing it happen.

[Dragonfli]

329. Well, that is the intention of the feature is it not?

_________
_________
_________
___   ___
___   ___
___   ___

[pyoom]

363. I trust people who post less rather than more.

Silent "bullies" would be a blessing.

[reflection]

382. I dunno...

if we had more people around here that were capable of saying things like "good point" or "you're right - I made a mistake", then there would be more engagement. But very few people discuss here in search of the truth. Rather, they argue to win.

This tool provides a way to register disapproval without beginning what is sure to be a flamewar. I see some use to it, and I am glad that the admins here are trying to improve the site. It would have been very easy for them to sit back and do nothing.

[Dragonfli]

318. That is the point - "DLC loyalty test" feature , DLC folks can spend all day here unrecing criticism

The others have to work from 8 to 16 hour a day and can't log in on think tank time - "Rahm is god!" will be on the greatest page faster than Obama just sided with a corporation (even if/when he does).

Good for donations I gather. Oh well....

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

356. some surprising "unrecommends" in a thread about Andy Stephenson's health care nightmare

which indicates to some of us that there are several here who are not liberal,
hardly democrats, but have the conservative values.

[Dragonfli]

362. And they get to squash what true Democrats recommend with Their new rec "filibuster" minority power

Considering that the worst corporate infiltrators of our party have people here that can post on Think tank time while most of us have to work gives them the edge on Rec time don't you think?

Unfair advantage for the corporate minority as usual!

[noamnety]

49. That changes my ignore list considerably. (nt)

[Occulus]

51. This is a nice feature, but it seems only half-implemented to me

Is there any way it can show the actual cumulative rating? Right now, anything that has more unrecs than recs displays as <0 .

Can it be tweaked to show a cumulative negative recommendation?

[Skinner]

53. That's how it's supposed to work.

An explanation was provided in my OP.

[Occulus]

61. Ah. I missed that part, obviously. n/t

[jgraz]

54. OK, immediate impression: Greatest Page looks too busy

I'd suggest leaving GP as before and perhaps adding a way to sort groups on "total recs" (up or down).

[madinmaryland]

56. WTF?? Why can't we recommend or un-recommend threads in the Sports Forum??

This would be a perfect example of a sports thread on the front page...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=215x86656

:D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. What will happen: Swarms of trolls will unrecommend threads with valuable info about hot subjects.

Let's say, for example, someone posts an excellent analysis about the coup in Honduras, that is also very damning to its right-wing perpetrators. Do I really need to go on?

[jgraz]

67. This is exactly what happens on Digg

DIfferent "factions" organize via PM's or other boards and spend most of their time digging threads up or down. Digg has tons of proprietary algorithms to fight such gaming of the system.

[Lucky Luciano]

222. Those factions at Digg should probably try to get a job and/or

girlfriend to keep them busy and not being such incredible dorks!

[Raster]

314. and since there is NO proprietary anything to prevent gaming the system,

We know have PassiveAggressiveUndergroundPissingContest. Nice.

[Skinner]

68. Yes, that could happen.

We can monitor it to see if it is being abused.

[jgraz]

71. Are there any new rules pending on batch rec/unrec activity?

[Skinner]

78. I don't think any new rules are necessary.

The vast majority of people will use it responsibly. Any problem people can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

[scarletwoman]

118. I'm with you. There are already hordes of trolls ever at the ready to swarm on certain topics who do

their damndest to disrupt the discussion with personal attacks hoping to get the thread locked.

This just gives them another weapon with which bury thoughtful discussions of controversial subjects.

NOT happy about this new feature at ALL.

[corpseratemedia]

150. My concern also. n/t

[lamp_shade]

59. EXCELLENT.

[the other one]

66. NOW we need an ANTI-Greatest page

for the most unrecommended threads.

Don't we?

[inna]

84. LOL!

:rofl:


i still don't understand though - do unrecs cancel out recs, or is there an independent count for both? :shrug:

[inna]

85. never mind, i figured that out. doh! :) nt

[tomm2thumbs]

115. here here - and add a place where all the deleted posts show back up at random without context

all that anger and negativity in one place - it'll be a smorgasbord of tasty morsels

[unblock]

72. linguistic nit: "unrecommend" sounds more like undoing your own previous recommendation

perhaps "approve" and "disapprove" might be more appropriate.
or "positive recommendation" and "negative recommendation".

[Skinner]

76. We thought that this was the simplest way to do it.

We wanted to be consistent with the old system, while being economical with verbiage.

[unblock]

80. someone charges you by the word? :)

[aquart]

77. Wicked.

[BlooInBloo]

79. You took away the "confirm (un)rec" dialog! Why?

I would have thought that with *2* distinct rec-ing possibilities, such an "are you sure" dialog would be even more important.

[inna]

82. AWESOME!!! great idea!!!

:applause:

[glitch]

83. Yay! Thank you! :) K & R AND recommend doesn't go to another screen!

AND you can see you've already recommended and don't have to click and get error already recommended.
YOU GUYS ROCK!
:applause:

[Nye Bevan]

87. Nice. A couple of suggestions.

The "+" signs on all of the positive numbers in the "Recs" column are unnecessary as anything other than "<0" or "0" is always a positive number. So this column could be made a bit less cluttered.

A nice option to add now could be "Hide Unpopular Threads"- an unpopular thread being defined as something like a score of -10 or lower.

[Skinner]

112. Yes, the + signs are unnecessary.

But we felt that it was important to put it there so people would understand that the system has changed. Since we are no longer using a straight number of recs, the + is a reminder that we are now dealing in a net score.

[fishwax]

399. does that mean you might consider dropping the "+" after an introductory period

I know that the functionality of the new system, at this point, is much more important than the aesthetics, but I've always thought that DU had a great layout, and I do think the "+" is a bit of a blemish :)

[SeattleGirl]

88. Very cool, Skinner!

I like it!

[inna]

89. i don't understand why so many people unrecommended this thread!

right now it says: +37 (75 votes)

- which means that lots of people out of those 75 who voted unrecommended this thread.


why in the world?? what's the motivation here? or is it simply to practice a new feature?? :shrug:

[Skinner]

98. Actually, the number of unrecs isn't very high.

Remember that the +37 is the *net* score. Subtract the unrecs from the recs to get the net score. So the actuall tally is this:

Recs: 56
Unrecs: 19


I think the unrecs are either practicing, or they're registering their disapproval of the new function. Or of me. :D

[glitch]

Weird humor probably to try it out :) I am going to try and see if I can both rec and unrec. Can't.

Clever lads!

[TygrBright]

110. oh, c'mon. Seriously? You don't understand why?

It's the exact same reason why kids stick out their tongues at the teacher. They may even like the teacher. But the teacher can tell them what to do. So they stick out their tongue, even when the teacher tells them to do stuff that's good for them.

Un-reccing this thread is the equivalent of the psychological primary schoolers amongst us going "nyah-nyah, Teacher!"

I found out during my first modding term that we have LOTS of psychological primary schoolers amongst us. Some only part-time, but an amazing number of full-timers. It's a testament to the cleverness of the admins and the dedication of our volunteers that the average user who is mostly NOT a psychological primary schooler has no idea how many of them there are, here.

helpfully,
Bright

[Stinky The Clown]

119. Hahahaha

Bright ...... always the wisest woman in the room.


Admiringly,
Stinky

;)

[scarletwoman]

151. Excuse me, but some of us unrec'd this because we disagree that the unrec feature is a good thing.

I am very much against having an "unrecommend" feature, and I've posted why elsewhere in this thread.

sw

[TygrBright]

166. Then you should RECOMMEND the thread because you want lots of people to read your argument.

Getting a thread to the Greatest Page is the fastest way to get a lot of people to read your outstanding pwnage of an OP's stupid idea, isn't it?

Why would anyone unrec a thread they were posting in?

confusedly,
Bright

[scarletwoman]

180. It's my protest vote against the "unrecommend" feature. This thread is obviously in no danger

of not making it to the Greatest Page.

And I'm not sure why you felt the need to get all snarky with me -- "your outstanding pwnage of an OP's stupid idea..." -- when all I've done is express my honest reservations about this feature in a non-hostile fashion.

[TygrBright]

208. I'm sorry I sounded snarky.

I didn't mean it that way. A little flippant, perhaps, but not directed at you, rather as a general observation, in response to your remark.

We do have some limitations in this format, on how easy it is to see exactly how a writer is directing their remarks, and I should remember that and be more specific as I write. I do apologize.

politely,
Bright

[scarletwoman]

230. Thank you for responding. I appreciate the apology. (nt)

[Raffi Ella]

389. "...we have LOTS of psychological primary schoolers amongst us."

This is the obvious problem with the De-rec feature. It's evidenced by threads that have less than zero recs.

The admins must know that people are much more likely to hit a de rec than they are to EVER hit a rec.

The mentality of D.U. is for the most part arguing, getting the last word, one upping - it's certainly NOT a place where someone posts and lots and lots of people think Oh GOOD POST sweetie pie! Off to the greatest with you!

"If that were the case we'd have puppies are cute and I like pie on the greatest page."

The people that are interested in this sort of thing are interested in fighting, keeping something FROM something. Couple that mentality with the viciousness that seems to go along with the annonymity of the net and you have NOTHING but a gaming atmosphere much like a sports forum; It's not about the issues anymore, it's about fighting to keep it on or off a sites greatest page.


Call me cynical but I think this has more to do with keeping the fight going and keeping people interested than it has to do with anything else.

And hey, it's not just a Democratic Discussion board for The Admins, it's their business, I understand. But for the record: I HATE this nasty new feature.


We should at the very least be able to ignore this shiny new romper room toy if we choose to.

[NJmaverick]

90. Thank you! This is a great idea can I suggest a couple of others?

if I may, how about updating and expanding the smilies as well as have auto embed of youtube and other major video sites as standard on all the boards. Many other message boards have that and it's a great way to post a video with out asking people to click away from DU.

[Canuckistanian]

91. I love it! One-click recommending!

No more popup, confirmation, "back" then "View All" to see the full comments again!

+1!

:thumbsup:

[mopinko]

92. better than a whole case of troll-b-gone. thanks so much. np

[libodem]

154. (you can get that?)

;)

[mopinko]

182. shhh. it's a secret.

[Lerkfish]

96. my mild concern is that in instances like the previous primary

advocates for certain candidates could, if properly motivated, torpedo anything negative about their own or positive about the other candidate.

I would hope during an election posts in those categories would be exempt. (though, admittedly, I have no idea how you would work that)

but, like I said, its only a mild concern.

[Skinner]

99. I agree that is a concern.

Fortunately, we have a few years until the next presidential primary. Hopefully by then we'll have a full understanding of the dynamics of the system, and we'll be able to figure out how to deal with it.

[Lerkfish]

111. ok then, good on ya.

:)

[Kahuna]

97. Great idea!

:applause:

[Pharaoh]

100. Maybe taking the 911 threads

out of the dungeon would also be a good democratic free speech kinda thing to do?

Just saying :popcorn: :hide:

[robertpaulsen]

320. Perhaps allowing 9/11 threads to acheive Greatest status with this new function?

Perhaps if highly recommended threads from the 9/11 Forum were allowed to appear on the Greatest page, the 9/11 Forum would not have the stigma of being known as a "dungeon"?

:shrug:

[Bushknew]

331. Sometimes someone posts a brillant comment within a thread can we rec it?

[niceypoo]

101. Sort of like a blanket party...

...but nicer

[Papa Boule]

102. Very well thought out implementation

And despite any potential downsides (like organized "unrec" campaigns) I feel sure it will improve the content of the Greatest page.

[Cha]

103. Thank you, SKinner, Elad, and EarlG.

It's really nice..I discovered it myself over in GDP. I like the instant Rec'd, too!

[BlooInBloo]

104. Note: If you're not going to show negative rec numbers, then there's no need for the '+' sign....

It's just screen pollution, if there's no possibility of seeing negative numbers.

[RoyGBiv]

105. Excellent ...

Simple is best.

Personally, I liked the color coded system for some reason. It was so festive. :)

But I think this should work better overall.

[ismnotwasm]

106. Well good luck with it

I have a couple of reservations given how volatile folks get on certain topics, but it should be Ok.

[Cleita]

107. Okay, I'm late to the party, but it seems like when the Freeper lurkers

discover this feature, they are going to have a troll party unrecommending really good posts. Is there any way you are controlling that?

[Stinky The Clown]

108. Hey Skinner .... you are to be commended for always keeping an open mind and being willing to undo

changes that didn't work.

I've seen you do this more than once.

This latest change is going to result in "gang unrecs". I am already thinking I see evidence of it.



Jerk A makes a post.

Asshole A sees it and PMs his/her posse: "Jerk A just made a post that got to the greatest page. Go knock it down"

The thread bounces on and off the Greatest page like a super ball.



It is a nice idea. But it may have unintended consequences. Look at this thread, for example. At the time of this reply, +44/80. What's *that* about?


Maybe we go from 5 to 7 or even 10 to get to the Greatest page. We went from 3 to 5 a year or three ago and it was a positive change and the Greatest age was improved.

[OhioChick]

133. Good Point(s) n/t

[Horse with no Name]

139. Oh my

Are there REALLY posses?
I guess I am unloved. I have never been invited to be in one.:(

[BadgerKid]

109. Idea: color code the value.

It's a little difficult (obviously not impossible) to distinguish between "<0" and "+" some number. I was wondering if it might be possible to color the background of positive and negative values differently, insofar as being Web color friendly and color-blind friendly?

[shadowknows69]

113. Didn't we try this once and it sucked?

[gkhouston]

401. No, we tried something else that sucked. I don't remember what it was, but

people bitched so much Skinner went on a Swedish Fish bender and disappeared for a month.

[McCamy Taylor]

114. Popcorn please? I can already predict the half dozen ways that this will cause problems.

There are PAID posters online who work for a variety of special interests (like health insurance). DU has just made their day.

[rudy23]

191. THANK YOU! The debate should end there.

This system greatly favors the paid gangs over the concerned individuals.

[greguganus]

219. PAID POSTERS? Where do I sign up? I NEED A JOB!! n/t

[wroberts189]

251. They exist. I cannot prove it but I have lurked this board since it began. nt

[Bushknew]

333. Yup, some posters hardly ever venture out of the dungeon. Clearly paid.

[snooper2]

116. more people have unrecommended this thread than recommend

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jesus_of_suburbia]

128. I did... it's a terrible idea. Mob mentality will rule DU.

[scarletwoman]

142. I "unrec'd" this thread, too. I think this is a very very bad idea.

[EarlG]

136. Actually that's not quite right

Currently the thread has 130 votes with a net score of +52. That does not mean 52 people rec'd the thread and 78 people unrec'd it. It means 91 people rec'd it and 39 unrec'd it. The difference between those two numbers is where you get the +52.

[Political Heretic]

323. I did too. It's a lame idea.

[pleah]

117. I love it!

Thank you very much!:toast: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :hug: :woohoo:

[That Is Quite Enough]

121. Good times with unrecommending, lol

[scarletwoman]

122. I hope this new feature dies and soon.

It's a terrible idea. What it really means is, instead of people who hold contrary views having to actually post on a thread and make their argument, they'll now be able to simply anonymously ensure that any OP they disagree with will never make it to the Greatest Page.

Sorry, I know you mean well, but I guarantee this is going to benefit the most toxic disrupters among us more than anyone else.

sw

[Beam Me Up]

145. I agree with scarlet woman. I think this is a bad idea.

The expression and transmission of ideas shouldn't be about "popularity".

Lets say there is a predominant opinion about something -- the general consensus on a topic. Then some new, counter information begins to emerge about this topic that has potential to alter this consensus opinion.

Now if "opinions" were all informed and rationally based, this wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately -- and very often especially with consensus opinions -- opinions are not necessarily based on logic, reason or fact but based on "herd" prevalence. If one group says such and so is so then it must be so because they say so. We really do see this all the time and it is something that not only conservatives fall prey to.

I'm afraid this new policy is going to make it much more difficult for "unconventional" ideas or information to reach a broader audience through the greatest page. It may produce a kind of "pecking order" where ideas and opinions that are the "least among us" will be pecked out of view. Thus a form of "censorship" by popularity contest.

I'm willing to watch and see what happens over the course of time -- but I'm skeptical that this new feature will benefited a wide ranging awareness of ideas and issues.

[rudy23]

345. Bullseye. nt

[Karmadillo]

147. Excellent, excellent point.

nt

[Andy823]

346. I also agree with scarletwoman

The trouble makers will have a ball with this, the republican trolls will love it, and I have already seen good posts hit with negative numbers. I see major problems with this, but I am only a guest in this house so I will wait and see what happens.

[PassingFair]

412. I agree with you completely.

Hasn't this been tried before?

I hadn't noticed that the "Greatest" threads
WERE polarizing.

I must be at the North Pole and NOT know it!

[BuyingThyme]

123. This will accomplish exactly one thing:

It will give the blind Obama supporters an opportunity to censor DU. That's an unfortunate development.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

125. That's ALL this is about. How unfortunate. CENSORSHIP.

[BlooInBloo]

129. Awww... the whiners are no longer free from criticism. How sad....

Dissent is patriotic, whiners.

[BuyingThyme]

132. Wow. You're a really dishonest person.

[scheming daemons]

157. I think you need a new dictionary. Look up the word censorship.

Being "unrec'd" is not being "censored". Your words don't go away.


Even if they did, it wouldn't be "censorship", since censorship can, BY DEFINITION, only be done by the state.


A private enterprise, like DU, has ever right to delete any text it so chooses.

[BuyingThyme]

159. Tell me, scheming daemons, why don't you look it up yourself?

Did that ever occur to you?

If you look it up, you might find out what it means.

Again, did that even occur to you?

[scheming daemons]

169. Here ya go...

cen⋅sor⋅ship /ˈsɛnsərˌʃɪp/
–noun
1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.


cen⋅sor  /ˈsɛnsər/

–verb (used with object)
1. to examine and act upon as a censor.
2. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.


-----------------------------------------


Now... in exactly what way are your words being deleted when someone "unrecommends" them?



Next time, don't be so lazy and look it up yourself. Google is your friend.

[BuyingThyme]

177. Look how far you've come already.

By taking a moment to look the word up, you now understand that censorship is not particular to "the state."

Now what you have to figure out is how unrecommending a thread will prevent it from being seen by others.

Sorry, the "deleted" gambit won't work because it's so dishonest. But I'm still willing to walk you through this.

[scheming daemons]

188. It doesn't prevent it from being seen. Not in the least.

As long as people post to it, it will keep getting kicked to the top of whatever section it is in.


Keeping it off of the "greatest page" is not censorship. If the overwhelming majority of DUers think a thread is shit, it doesn't belong on the greatest page.


But controversial threads that get lots of discussion *WILL* stay at the top of their discussion session.... and therefore....



....no restrictions on them being "seen".

[BuyingThyme]

199. Hmm.. You seem to be running now.

So, your current position is that the people who UNRECOMMEND a thread in hopes that it will not make the Greatest page are not successfully keeping others from seeing it? Or is it that you just don't want to call it CENSORSHIP?

[scheming daemons]

203. Not running from anything.... You called it censorship... it clearly is not....

So now you're moving the goalposts.

That's fine. I'll have the "new" discussion with you as well.


People will unrecommend threads for the same reasons that they recommend threads. i.e.

"I think what this person has to say is important/I agree with this person" = recommend.
"I think this person is a disruptor/I disagree with this person" = unrecommend.


If enough of a majority of DUers feel the first way about a thread, it makes it to the greatest page. If not, it doesn't.


This will now mean that the greatest page reflects the majority opinion of the DU community, and not vocal minority opinions. But the vocal minority opinions are not in any way censored.

Which was your original point, which YOU are now running from.

[BuyingThyme]

207. So, just because the minority won't be heard because of censors,

it doesn't mean they're being censored.

Got it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

310. The trouble is that a lot of threads are generated by the minute, and it takes no time at all for

something to sink out of sight and out of mind as it disappears from Page One. Should someone wish to knock a contentious thread off the Greatest Page and into oblivion, he could mobilize some people to do so. It would feel a little like being hacked.

[FLAprogressive]

189. that's pretty much it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

225. Whether something appears on the Greatest Page or not has no bearing on..

its existence in the forum in which it originated.

I can understand the fear of "mob rule" in terms of what is deemed worthy of the Greatest Page or not, but it doesn't suppress or repress the content of the post itself.

Can I assume you have no problem with the concept of elevating something to the Greatest Page by popular consent, you just don't like the idea that others can deem something not quite so deserving of such esteem? That's a different concern than one of censorship.

[BuyingThyme]

227. Well then, I guess I can just print it out and stick it in my pocket instead.

[Pacifist Patriot]

386. Definitely an option. I print posts all the time. Which reminds me, I have one I printed...

a few days ago that I might have time to plow through today. It looked really good, but was lengthy and I didn't want to lose it. So I printed it. Come to think of it, I probably could have just bookmarked it. Although I remember the keywords so a search wouldn't have been too difficult. Wow, all these options not to lose something that intrigues us as individuals despite what others may think of it.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

124. We should be able to see the negative number. That way we see how delusional certain groups

can be.


As it stands, I expect GLBT'ers to be shit on whenever we disagree with this administration's stance.




We need to see the numbers.

[BuyingThyme]

127. You can simply subtract the positive rating from the total.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

135. Thanks :-) I just realized that. I still don't like it... but whatever, I'll still be here.

:blush:

[EarlG]

137. That's not quite how it works

See my post 136 for an explanation.

[BuyingThyme]

156. Thanks.

[BlooInBloo]

126. Note: There's little point in not showing the precise negative number...

The bulk of that information can be inferred from the bits of information that remains.

Easy Examples:

When net recs <0, (# unrecs) >= (# votes)/2 + 1

When net recs >= 0, (# unrecs) = (# votes) - (net recs)

[jesus_of_suburbia]

138. Note: I make mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out in your usual manner.

"Easy Examples"

:loveya:

[Skinner]

140. Your equations are correct, but they don't prove your point.

The available information does not show whether the vote is 100% negative or 50.1% negative.

[BlooInBloo]

143. Note that I said "the bulk of", not "all of". And similarly, I said "little point"...

rather than "no point".

I'm thinking that the typical situation where a person would be interested in knowing how many un/recs a thread has is going to be one where there are a lot of votes already - like 20 or more (especially now that the confirmation dialog has been removed). In such situations, and when (net recs) < 0, it's likely to be enough for the curious person to know that *at least 11 people unrec'd this thread*.

That's all I'm getting at.

[tiptoe]

312. The second equation is incorrect (or typo?). Using EarlG's terminology/example in #136 for clarity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6021920
136. ...

Currently the thread has 130 votes with a net score of +52. That does not mean 52 people rec'd the thread and 78 people unrec'd it. It means 91 people rec'd it and 39 unrec'd it. The difference between those two numbers is where you get the +52.

For NetScore >= 0








Solve for #recs
#Votes + NetScore =





Solve for #unrecs
#Votes – NetScore =

Unknowns

|#recs| + |#unrecs| =

|#recs|  –  |#unrecs| =



2 * |#recs| =

|#recs| =

#recs =


2 * |#unrecs| =

|#unrecs| =

#unrecs =

Example

130

+52



130 + 52

(130 + 52) / 2

91


130 – 52

(130 – 52) / 2

39

Provided/Known Values

#Votes

NetScore







( #Votes + NetScore ) / 2






( #Votes – NetScore ) / 2

(Add knowns; divide by 2)






(Subtract knowns; divide by 2)

The second equation for # unrecs should read (using EarlG's terminology):

When NetScore >= 0, (# unrecs)  =  (# votes – NetScore)/2

 

[jesus_of_suburbia]

144. On second thought.. the number SHOULD be shown because most people won't bother.

My point (and you weren't addressing me as I alleged in my post above, sorry).. was that it should be known when certain posts are shot down simply by the mob. That's not what we are about. If the Recs are front and center, the Unrecs should be too.

[BlooInBloo]

148. Doesn't matter much to me either way. I can see reasons pro and con on it...

And the bottom line is: it ain't my fucking site. :P

[jesus_of_suburbia]

153. True. Isn't mine either.

And by the way, I have noticed your support for GLBT'ers.. thank you.

[BlooInBloo]

176. :) It's the right thing to do.

[Hannah Bell]

193. in other words, there *is* a point, & it would be more transparent, to post the two totals.

& there's no reason not to.

[BlooInBloo]

195. They resolved the issue by taking away more information - hahahahha!!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

130. I LIKE it!

And I take it that Lounge threads are still not eligible for the Greatest Page?

[DCKit]

134. Thank you for the trial, but I'll understand if it doesn't work out.

Things do get a bit contentious every now and then, and then there's FReepers and Trolls who will do their best to derail important posts.

Should be interesting.

[tandot]

141. So, at this time your post has +52 recommends of 138 votes???

Which means that 86 DUers unrecommended it???

I really like this feature. Thanks!

[Beam Me Up]

163. Aparently 2 to 1 AGAINST this feature: Recommendation: +56 (152 votes) n/t

[Occam Bandage]

170. No, it's a net +56 out of 152 votes.

[EarlG]

171. That's not how it works

At the time you posted, there were 56 MORE recommendations than unrecommendations, out of a total of 152 total votes. So it's actually more like 2 to 1 in favor of the thread.

Having said that, it is confusing. I think we're going to make a change to remove the total number of votes so it just shows the net score.

[Beam Me Up]

172. Ok. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[Zenlitened]

201. Re: "I think we're going to...remove the total number of votes so it just shows the net score."

That just makes the system (and the sentiment it gauges) less transparent, no?

If I understand the skeptics correctly, they'd like greater transparency, i.e. a clear, easy-to-understand tally of the unrec total.

It may even turn out that their fears are not realized, that there is no mob-unreccing after all. But no one will ever know if the info is scrubbed entirely, and the concern will always linger.

Rather than removing the total-vote tally, I'd argue for leaving it as-is, at the very least, while the system is still new to the community.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

229. I think that's too bad. The most interesting part of the whole thing is the internal dynamics

I think rec says I strongly agree with this post

unrec says I strongly disagree with this post (or possibly, I hate this poster)

Having a net result is supremely uninteresting if you're going to unleash something like this. Go ahead and let it all hang out. The swarming will be fun to watch.

[Zenlitened]

302. Re: "Go ahead and let it all hang out."... I agree.

That way, whether there's swarming or not, we'll all know.

Hiding the figures doesn't solve anything... it only ensures the doubts and concerns will fester.

Transparency's a better bet.

[tandot]

197. I assume that half of those just simply thought it was funny to unrecommend a Skinner post

as opposed to being against the feature. I guess someone should post a poll to ask DUers about the new feature :)

On edit: The + number is a net score, so, the unrecs are not really that high

[Matariki]

146. Sweet! Love how you stay on the page now too.

[Beam Me Up]

164. Yes, staying on the same page part, that I like.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

149. My suggestion... if you keep this feature, show the actual negative number instead of "

That way certain threads that are always "ganged up" on will be known without having to do the math.


It will cause a backlash in my opinion. Nobody wants to see certain groups (ok, I'll say it in my instance - GLBT'ers) shit on.



Thanks for your consideration, mods.

[Faryn Balyncd]

152. Do we really want important, controversial posts to suffer & bland, noncontroversial posts to bene-

....-fit?

[merh]

160. I wish this feature was not added.

Take your thread

"Recommend +54 (150 votes) Unrecommend"

Does this mean that 96 people do not recommend your thread, vote against it?

People can use this to be cruel.

Unrecommend is good to keep nonsense off the front page but being able to see the totals of "<0" is not conducive to community harmony. IMHO, things will be better if you just leave it as "0" in the recommend column and delete the total number of votes.

:hi:

[reflection]

161. Bravo! n/t

[Skinner]

167. UPDATE: We are going to make a change.

I think we are going to remove the total number of votes. It's become apparent that showing the total number of votes is confusing to readers. It makes it appear that you can simply subtract the net score from the total votes to get the number of unrecommendations, which is NOT correct. We're going to make this change as soon as possible. I apologize for the confusion.

[BlooInBloo]

lol - Because giving people *less* information is the way to clear up confusion.

[Zenlitened]

210. I should've read the entire thread before responding to EarlG, above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6022540

But, honestly, I think removing the tally only ensures that the concern over mob-unreccing will only linger and fester.

Simplest solution, IMO, is to show tallies for rec and unrec, both.

[redqueen]

270. I agree.

Just MHO of course.

[izzybeans]

234. I don't know if there is a better way to present it

but it was certainly helpful to get a quick gauge as to how divisive a thread was going to be before clicking on it.

I'd recommend bringing it back in some form if there is a way to make it more obvious.

[Sophie-Helene]

409. Clearly, I Joined DU 2 Days Too Late

Well, I was going to post an allegorical ballad about my gorgeous pedigreed feline companion Twinkletoes, and I was going to embed at least 12 pictorals of her wearing her favorite outfits (and matching hats) that I know my fellow Democrats would have LOOOOOOVED to see............But now that this Unrecommend option has come along and given some Republican TROLLS the opportunity to torpedo Twinkletoes' chance to hit the big time on this Grand Page of yours, what is the point?

[Occam Bandage]

168. I like the rec/unrec total. People are tryin' it out! nt

[PatSeg]

173. Cool

I like change and I especially like that recommending a thread doesn't take you to a different screen.

[berni_mccoy]

174. Woot.

[BlooInBloo]

175. (snarfle) "confusion".

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kenfrequed]

178. As much as I think this might be useful...

I have noticed a couple of new discussions on healthcare, particularly those on single payer and the public option, saddled with <0 minutes after their being posted. I am a little suspicious that there are people on DU that log on waiting to immediately unrecommend and sink these sorts of discussions on what are considered very progressive democratic issues.

[EarlG]

185. We will be keeping an eye on how the system is being used

And we will certainly make changes if we think it's necessary.

Obviously with a community this large it is often difficult for us to know how a system like this will work out until we just let everyone start using it.

[Beam Me Up]

187. Here is an example of what I'm afraid of (as posted above):

Why does this thread have <0 recs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6019939&mesg_id=6021944

[scarletwoman]

198. I just rec'd it and saw that it had 17 votes altogether. That means 8 people showed up to take

the thread out of the Greatest Page, all but one of them doing so anonymously. And the one poster who DID show up to post on the thread did so merely to express his glee that the "pro-Taliban cadre" (his term) "no longer gets to flood the place with its drivel".

So bullies with the kind of mindset that would call those of us who protest against the drone attacks in Pakistan "pro-Taliban" can just swarm over any thread they dislike and make sure it never gets enough votes to be seen on the Greatest Page, without ever having to compose a post to make their own case.

This is really going suck bigtime.

sw

[Raster]

218. Of course it's going to suck. The whole point is to allow community censorship, completely

negating honest discussion. This is just another chapter in the evolution of a discussion website that was created primarily for one purpose: to oppose the cheney*/bush* regime. Now that that regime is a *relative* non-starter, discussion has moved to all aspects of "the democratic spectrum," something this website's owners are clearly not comfortable with.

[HamdenRice]

233. How does this negate discussion? You are free to continue discussing on GD and GD:P

But if your discussion is not representative of the community's overall opinion, it won't be on the "front page" of the site.

[Raster]

235. It's the discussion at any forum other than GREATEST that is the issue.

Let's say you post a "Obama is doing a GREAT job" thread. You have 25 persons recommend that thread for the GREATEST. 25 of you feel/felt that the post was worth of the GREATEST. Now 26 persons come along that don't like your post. They unrecommend. That boots your post off the GREATEST, although there were 25 that felt like it was worthy of being there. Tough stuff. Live with it, eh?
Don't like it? Too bad. You can still discuss it in another forum, except now that the tyranny of the majority have decided that your post doesn't rate the GREATEST.

Trust me, we are all going to feel the sting on this one.

[tekisui]

266. It lessens discussion. Important topics can be kept off the greatest

page, anonymously--Without discussion.

[Raster]

238. Exactly. And there are plenty of trolls and closet subversives ready to stymie discussion.

[bridgit]

179. I love it!! In fact in honorarium I have an 'unrecommend thread' in the lounge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8915342 :bounce:

[HamdenRice]

181. If a post gets 5 or more votes, gets on Greatest Page then gets net negative votes does it come off?

Just curious. Because certain cliques could work around the unrec function by getting a quick five for an unpalatable OP.

I think, but am not sure, there's a post on the GP now that has fewer than 5 net positive votes.

In other words, is there a "Survivor" mechanism to vote a post off the GP?

[HamdenRice]

183. Dupe delete

[mimitabby]

184. what an interesting idea

we can look at a recommended thread and also see what DU's general response to it is.
If you like looking at posts that raise your blood pressure, just look for the most negative votes.
Ha

[Subdivisions]

186. Delete. Found sub-thread for my question... n/t

[yellerpup]

190. K&R!

This should be interesting. Thanks.

[Bobbie Jo]

192. Yep....Loves It!

Thank you! :fistbump:

[DainBramaged]

194. Works good, ugh

:evilgrin:

[Jackpine Radical]

196. A suggestion--

Add a "Most Controversial" page showing the threads that get the most positive AND negative recs.

[scarletwoman]

213. It's an interesting idea, I could live with that. In fact, I think it's the ONLY way this is going

to turn out to be fair to those of us who post material that upsets the DU hive-minders.

Otherwise, lets just rename this place Landru's Cave.



You are not of the Body!

[thesquanderer]

200. The problem I see...

...is evidenced in replies like #142... people unrecommending a thread not because they think the post is bad, but because they disagree with it.

I have read many "greatest" posts with which I disagreed, but they were well written, helped me understand the other side, and were worth my time to read. I would not unrecommend them just because I disagreed with what the person said. In fact, some posts where people disagree with the OP have yielded enlightening threads as people discuss both sides... and now, those good threads may sink as people who disagree just vote them down. Does this mean only non-controversial posts have a chance of making it to the Greatest list? Sadly boring.

Personally, I think unrecommend should be reserved for posts that someone thinks are a waste of time to read, rather than used as a kind of poll to see how many people agree or disagree with a post. But there's no way to enforce the reasons why someone recommends or unrecommends.

Maybe there should be separate buttons:

Recommend = A worthwhile posting that makes a good point
Recommend but disagree = A worthwhile posting, but I don't agree
Unrecommend = The posting is not worth the time to read, I wish I had those minutes of my life back.

[Raster]

202. Bad. Fucking. Idea!

Great. The tyranny of the majority in action. Get enough of "yes-men" sycophants to remove something off of the Greatest.

Tell you what, why don't you allow recommends in the Israel and 9/11 forums? Or is that just a tad too democratic for this Underground?

[tomm2thumbs]

204. just a thought -

If it does become an issue where majorities start to stomp out minority postings, maybe 'unrecommends' are worth half a point? if it gets to be a problem...

Or maybe there is a way to show that someone, at some point, recommended it, even though 30 others piled on to nix it. Sometimes the fact that a single voice agreed can help the person to put it out there feel like their effort was worth the time. I'm not saying to show the actual up or down votes - just a way of showing whether there was at least someone who did click the recommend at some point. <0+ or something like that. Discouraging unpopular opinions is like silencing the one jury member of the 12 that says 'maybe he's innocent'.

Just if it is possible.

[SIMPLYB1980]

205. I like this new system.

:thumbsup:

[satya]

209. Just staying on the same page after recommending was worth the price of admission!

But the "unrecommend" feature rocks!

Thanks for making a great system even better and reminding me why I never waste my time going anywhere else for news.

:yourock:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

212. Maybe a tweak is in order.

Wherein if a thread gets more unrecs than recs, instead of "<0" recs, it would simply say "0" recs. That would still be accurate in serving the purposes of the function, but not give the outside impression of unpopularity of a post.

[tomm2thumbs]

216. that's a good idea as well - 'less than zero' is pretty disheartening when zero would suffice

[sui generis]

214. can you have negative net votes? Oooooh. The Worst of DU page.

Hmmmmmm.

:think:

:evilgrin:

[grantcart]

215. Excellent

[Lone_Star_Dem]

217. Skinner, I noticed you've changed it so now one can't tell how many unrecommends a post has

I think that's a great move. What I'm wondering is why go less than zero at all? It just, in my opinion, encourages negativity and a false sense of competition. Just let it rest at zero unless it generates enough positive votes to be elevated above that point is my suggestion.

[earth mom]

220. You must know that people are going to game this. I think it's a bad idea. nt

[izzybeans]

236. No more than gaming the "k and R"

system.

At least it gauges both the plus and the minus.

[TWiley]

221. It did not work. It stayed the same after I unrecommend this thread

whats up with that?

[progressoid]

224. Maybe somebody rec'd it at the same time and cancelled you out?

[harun]

228. Why have the plus sign if not displaying the negatives?

Dump the plus, no need to show it.

[ecstatic]

231. Great feature. Hopefully one day we will also see just how low an OP's rating is

rather than just the >0 :)

[incapsulated]

232. Oh, they will love this in the GDP

Dumbest idea ever, most in that forum will be unrec'ing for no reason other than they disagree the message or the messenger, period. Nothing to do with substance or relevance. Yes, the opposite was true as well but now it's going to be a pissing contest.

Just get rid of rec's and unrec's or, as I always thought it should be, make the number of recs needed to go to the greatest page at *least* 10, that will unclutter it and solve your problem.

[FLAprogressive]

237. the all-star (assholes) are already disparaging anyone who doesn't like it.

[Raster]

241. And I guess the non-star (assholes) are already disparaging anyone who does like it?

[incapsulated]

240. I'm already seeing threads with less than zero that shouldn't bother anyone

Not if they are democrats.

So, it's either freepers or people unrec'ing for personal vendetta.

Just rec'ed this thread to bring it back to zero:

"Sen. Ensign's parents gave family of mistress $96,000"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6023142

[incapsulated]

242. Here is another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6023201

Just a question to open a discussion, <0, why?

I'm also seeing certain people's threads getting unrec'ed as soon as they post them, this is personal.

[incapsulated]

246. Acutally some freeper is going around unrec'ing anything to do with Ensign, lol

Even in LBN.

[gkhouston]

400. I rec'd and unrec'd about 6-8 threads yesterday when I encountered

a possible weirdness in the way votes were tallied. (I reported this privately yesterday.) Mostly I rec'd, but there were 2-3 cases where I unrec'd threads and yes, I was choosing ones I thought no dem would unrecommend.

[JonLP24]

243. How do you unrecommend something?

I know I'm playing with semantics but I think you invented a new word Skinner. I do understand what you're trying to do though.

[foo_bar]

380. an actual unrecommend function would be more handy IMO

i.e. the ability to cancel a recommendation you already made, since folks often recommend a thread based on the headline or OP alone, only to discover that the woman giving the finger to Ahmadinejad was photoshopped or whatever. I dunno what happens if you recommend and unrecommend the same post in this system, but it seems like the choice should be like flipping a rocker switch, 0->1 or 1->0 not +1 through -1, but I guess it's always fun to see knee-jerk reactions amplified on the internet.

[Liberty Belle]

244. I think this is a really bad idea.

It enables a small group of people/trolls who want to remove important stories to do so.

If a story makes the greatest page, it should not have the potential to be knocked off in the dead of night before anybody sees it the next day. Once it is knocked off and no longer on the "latest" front page, hardly anybody would find it to rerecommend it for the greatest page. How many people scroll page the first page or so? I rarely have the time.

So now all the Republicans have to do to keep people from reading truth on anything at DU is to have five people click "unrecommend" when something first pops up onto the greatest page, and a few more keep checking until it's scrolled off into the ether.

Very, very bad move!

[noamnety]

247. I hate this.

One of the strengths of the Greatest Page has been that stories which are buried by corporate media (rightwingers and centrists) have a chance to get wide visibility.

One of the weaknesses of the Greatest Page has been that threads which are without substance can be voted onto it. There were times this annoyed me.

In the grand scheme of things, the strengths outweighed the weaknesses. Now we've lost that and the mainstream folks (combined forces of rightwing folks who register here and centrists) can keep unflattering stories of conflicts of interest and valid criticism buried.

If the goal of the admins is to use DU to support DLC types and centrists while giving the impression that it exists to support progressive ideals, this accomplishes that goal admirably.

[wroberts189]

248. I got a couple of more ideas...

How about a super greatest thread that has no no 24 hour limit or lifetime?

Or at least lengthen the 24 hour limit ..some important posts/threads do not have a chance against major topics/developments.

[wroberts189]

249. One more ..you can only unrec after 1000 posts. nt

[omega minimo]

250. Double Plus Ungood

or maybe not. :shrug: I wasn't aware there was a problem with:

"....help insure that the threads at the top of the Greatest Page are those threads that have the broadest appeal to our members....."

It's a lot of finessing to an awesome interface. Thanks for all your work, Elad, EarlG, Skinner.

[backscatter712]

252. Good feature: May I suggest limiting the number of Unrecommends?

Say to five a day, sort of like Daily Kos's Hide-Rating?

I can see Unrecommends being abused by disrupters to crap on perfectly good threads.

I'd also recommend that the mods keep an eye on how unrecommends are used or abused, issue some guidelines on how they're supposed to be used, and if they're abused so as to crap on good threads, that could be grounds for issuing pizzas.

[wroberts189]

254. Like the admin said ..lets try it and see how it goes...

Only real way to tell and no harm done. I have seen lots of posts I would like to see sink.

[MadHound]

256. Heaven forbid we continue to have controversial topics at the top of the Greatest page

Nope, we must push broad based pabulum to the fore, and give as small a platform to those on the left as possible.

This seems to be just one more way to be divisive around here, and to punish the minority view.

[Autumn]

257. Thank you Skinner

k/r

[Deja Q]

258. What next, an option to recommend banning?

:rofl:

of course, the only people left would be the trolls for whatever "popular" topic is left... anyone who disagrees is summarily booted. Gots to luv it...

:crazy:

[PretzelWarrior]

259. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Heartily recommended!!

[missingthebigdog]

260. A suggested tweak that might help balance things:

Limit the number of threads a member can recommend or unrecommend on any given day. That way, the alloted recs will be used sparingly, and only on things members really care about. This should severely limit the ability of a "mob" to push an agenda. . . . Just a thought.

[Renew Deal]

We're trying this again?

:banghead:

[Renew Deal]

263. .

[pecwae]

264. Fabulous and fair functionality.

It's long overdue.

[redqueen]

267. Why are there new OPs which are just responses to this?

Why not just put it here?

:banghead:

[WheelWalker]

268. Register another positive response.

:kick:

[live love laugh]

269. YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!! Best. Feature. Ever. nt

[redqueen]

271. You know what would be good (IMO)...

if the user's name was listed after they recommended or unrecommended a thread. Like on Kos or Facebook.

[LanternWaste]

272. That would be fun!

That would be fun!

[eleny]

273. This is a feature that doesn't enhance dialog but seems more like a weapon

I believe that it's going to cause a lot of uneasiness and hard feelings. At least the "Ignore Thread" is personal and nobody needs to know about your choice to ignore.

This new feature could make the shy members have a hard time. I say this because I can shrug things off most often but I think I'll feel less inclined to start threads.

I'm sorry that this has been instituted.

[katsy]

274. K &

:woohoo: U :woohoo:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

275. Let this one play out longer this time.

The last time you played around with the system, you decided to abandoned it before the novelty wore off and you really got a good chance to see how it really worked.

[dsc]

276. I think this will be a disaster when you have a contested primary

I can only imagine what it would have worked like in the Obama Clinton primary season. There would be literally no pro Clinton thread ever on the best of DU under that system.

[Odin2005]

277. Thank you Skinner, this will keep the stupid flamewar threads of the Greatest Page.

[IntravenousDemilo]

317. Taking care of stupid flamewar threads is a mod's responsibility. Mods monitor and moderate.

That's already covered quite nicely.

[Gregorian]

278. I'm afraid this may be too democratic! Yes!

And now we may need to think twice before posting. Oh, this could be embarrassing. But it's a good addition to an already fantastic piece of forum software.

[Jakes Progress]

279. This can only further divide the community.

I read the OP and still don't see a good reason for this. If more top recommended posts are wanted, then just add to the number. Maybe list the top 15.

The keyboard warriors and cheerleaders will spend all their time unreccing and feel like they are actually doing something.

This is not a good idea.

[jeff30997]

284. +1

[ProudDad]

280. It's too much like "Freeping a Poll" ... not sure I like it (n/t)

Is it limited to ONE recommend OR Unrecommend per person?

Can one change from Recommend to Unrecommend?

[LynneSin]

281. Skinner - why not allow people to opt out of the feature

If people hate this so much, let them choose not to use it. However if someone chooses not to use this feature then they have to know that their recommendation count will always be zero and therefor never to be on the homepage.

And this shouldn't be a thread option - it's either you want to use it or you don't. (although if you want to change then you can go back into your profile and change the setting)

[satya]

282. Have you considered limiting the number of times someone can rec/unrec threads per day?

I've often thought that "frivolous" threads would not garner as many recommendations if we had a limited number to "spend" each day. Maybe this would help minimize troll attacks?

[masuki bance]

283. unrec'd.

Haha -just kidding



{whew}

[Adelante]

285. Very nice

As long as we don't ever have identifiable ratings, where everybody gets to fighting about who voted up and who voted down, which is a tremendous bore on other sites, I'm good.

[Tuvok Obama]

286. I love the current Greatest Page

I think this new system has already greatly improved DU

[Laelth]

287. The logic behind the new feature is sound.

It should accomplish exactly what you want (as that desire is expressed in the OP).

It might also have a serious negative side effect. Personally, I like divisive topics. People generally don't discuss the things they agree on. When was the last time you had a riveting debate about whether or not 2+2=4? No, people discuss points of contention. The new feature is, by its nature, anti-rhetorical.

It will be a shame to see interesting topics get flushed down the toilet because some members don't like them. This site might become a lot less interesting.

:dem:

-Laelth

[peace13]

288. May I be the first to unrecommended this/ n/t

[Laelth]

289. Too late. I already did. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[SharonRB]

290. This is great!

Thanks, Skinner.

[SpartanDem]

291. Well Done

[billyoc]

292. Oops. Um, it works.

:hide:

[HughMoran]

293. Alright!!!!

This is the best improvement ever! No more alternating day battles between different factions on DU!!

[adamuu]

294. this makes sense, and it is apparent you put alot of thought into it

i look forward to seeing the results.

[Gman]

295. And so, the Rec This Thread If... posts are finished

thank Skinner, et al.

[rpannier]

296. My problem with this is that I think it will have the effect of eliminating some very useful posts

be considered divisive by one of the larger groups within DU

As a result the greatest page becomes full of bland and repetitive posts.

Many may consider posts by those in full support of Obama or from people who are opposed to admin policies as being 'divisive'

I think serious discussion, even if it is heated and, at times uncivil, is better because it gets the information out.

It also gives people who spend their entire lives on the computer the opportunity to 'unrecommend' the posts of people they don't like (and please don't tell me this won't happen). Thus depriving those here who have lives outside of the computer posts and information they might find useful and/or interesting.

In the end, I think this will become as divisive as not having it and I think you'll lose people.
The site will become more 'cliquish'.

[MissDeeds]

297. Terrific idea

Thanks to Skinner et al for this new feature!

[nevergiveup]

298. Whew!

There was a thread a few days ago that made "Greatest Page" which clearly had serious racist overtones. After reading it I was ready to get out of here for good. I assume an administrator caught it because it vanished in a few hours but the fact it had even made it to "Greatest Page" was disturbing and meant some rule changes were in order. Thank you Skinner.

[ColbertWatcher]

300. I just clicked "rec' for this thread and it didn't add me in the total.

It was 79 before I clicked and 79 after.

Kick nonetheless.

[BlooInBloo]

301. Concurrency. Someone could have unrec'd around the same time.

[ColbertWatcher]

313. Ah. Good point. n/t

[TacticalPeek]

303. Sucks.

[tomp]

305. doesn't seem to make sense.

an important discussion about which people are evenly divided might escape notice. just because a thread is polarizing doesn't mean it shouldn't be read... quite the opposite, perhaps. it seems like a kind of like a communal ignore feature.

but that's just me, always out of sync with the popular trend.

[blaze]

306. Just testing

:hi:

[azul]

307. Give it a try. If it doesn't fly real well

may I suggest to have another information display on threads such as agree votes, disagree votes (#+,#-) and leave the recommends to mean only that you recommend other people to read the post.

Then you could get some idea of how divided or one-sided the readers and responders are on a posting too.

[JackRiddler]

309. May I cast my vote against this? Also against the new tweak of not showing vote totals...

Then you can't tell how many people reacted at all. (If you retain the feature and start displaying the votes again, people will learn how to do the math, by the way.) Thanks.

[Richard Steele]

311. Best of luck with the new function, Mr. Skinner. If anyone can make such a thing work...

...it will be Team DU. :thumbsup:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

315. Hmmm.... dare I "unrecommend" this thread?

tee hee

[marmar]

316. I'm totally NOT a complainer.....but this new feature blows. I hate it.

n/t

[iverglas]

319. was it necessary to require enabled javascript for this?

I use Firefox Noscript, and I use it heavily. For every site I visit, I carefully figure out which scripts are not essential to functionality, and block them.

Now I have to allow script for this site in order to recommend. I "temporarily allow" only, and then revoke the temporary permission. Bit of a pain.

[Raffi Ella]

321. I think you guys have jumped the shark with this one.

If the issue is really whether a subject is on the greatest page then why not just up the number of recs required.

This new feature will attract those that like drama, create a never ending game like atmosphere. And in the lounge, where posts are of a more personal nature? yeah, this will work out SO well cuz like you said it's such a friendly place, THE friendliest forum on D.U(not).

This is just a new toy in the romper room arsenal.



*Not to mention the numerous other very valid reasons people have given in here against this idea.

[iverglas]

339. try the gun dungeon ;)

I'm actually happy to recommend many threads there -- to get them onto the Greatest Page where non-regulars may notice them, and thus shine a light on some of the putrifaction found there.

I just started one --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=237532&mesg_id=237532

-- the subject being a scholarly paper reporting on a survey concerning "defensive gun use" / gun victimization in the US.

Already, it's at <0 recommendations. ;)

I think I have to agree with the view that this is a pretty dumb idea.

[Political Heretic]

322. I think you'll be surprised at what things still make the greatest page

We'll see.

[musette_sf]

326. do not want

[travelingtypist]

327. No confirmation?

"Are you sure you want to recommend/unrecommend?"

I guess I just hate change. I like the idea of the "most controversial" page better, separate the two sentiments completely, the recommend for greatest and the unrecommend for the "obnoxious."

[HughMoran]

328. Now, if we could only get single click poll voting

:)

[xchrom]

330. i did it! -- i just had to -- you had over 80 --

but it doesn't show up like recs --

still -- it is satisfying.

[beac]

332. So, instead of "K&R!" will it be "F&U!" ????

Just kidding. ;)

I think unrec will make life even more interesting around here. Bravo.

[usregimechange]

334. Thank you for your work and I love DU but: K&U, don't like it.

[RavensChick]

335. Great idea!

This could cut down on the freepers but they're gonna sneak around here anyway.

Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[Nailzberg]

336. Love it, thanks!

[Liberation Angel]

338. DU will get gamed and it will be very hard to catch

Certain subjects only will get targeted by the very sophisticated propaganda operatives out there.

Because they have access to the technology to get around a regular identification of who they are (they could have ten names on ten different ISPs and ten different computers) to unrec any discussion of matters which the shadow military intel types like Halliburton, KBR, Dyncorp, Carlyle etc wants to keep off the greatest pages.

DU is influential enough to be targeted in this way IMHO.

Because those who are well organized off this board to promote from or distract on certain agendas, and because the real eemy of democracy and freedom is a shadowy corporate military intel group who has had eight years to consolidate funds and weapons and technology off the books and off shore and off the shelf, they will be able to manipulate this board using this function.

I urge you to drop it.

There is no way you will be able to monitor it successfully nd pobably wil not have the remotest way to really assess if it is happening.

Ten disruptors using ten user names each wil be able to control the Greatest page AND will be able to disappear and return with different names in days or weeks if they are too obvious.

And i saddes me because you will never see an antiNke thread on the greaest page again because the pronukers are well organized and well resourced, (umlike most opponents o nuke power who are just online ctivists who want to be heard). Pronukers can and probably have nuclear corporate support or work for the industry and they KNOW how important this issue is and wil use this new feature to squelch it getting any attention.

[Mojambo]

348. It just seems so... lazy.

When I came up, if you had a problem with what someone posted in an OP you either jumped into the thread and let them have it or created an OP of your own completely destroying their argument.

Being able to just click unrecommend is too easy, and will make this place weaker.

[grahamhgreen]

358. AGREED! Please read this post and drop the new system!!! nt

[Peacetrain]

340. Thinking about this.. if we had only adults (emotionally) this could be a great feature

But quite frankly.. we have a few who are ruled by the emotions. So I would keep an eye on it, just in case... because there will be retaliation raids between a couple of very entrenched groups.

[usregimechange]

341. Good point

[Tindalos]

342. I like that it stays on the same page

It was always annoying to have to click back to the thread.

Thank you, Admins.

[chill_wind]

343. Why weren't the ignore and hide threads features

(for those who just can't abide debate and controversy or mere nonsense) not nearly enough?

I've never used them, but I've always known they were there as an option, and god knows the people who declare their use of them all the time have insisted it's changed their world. Guess not.

:shrug:

[Tarc]

347. Better late than never

but this sure woulda been useful during the primaries. :)

[Hepburn]

349. It sucks....

...big time.

JMHO

[Alcibiades]

350. Had to unreccomend this

Mandatory.

[donheld]

352. love it

[patrice]

353. Cool. Now, I want to know who can't handle, uh . . . has me on Ignore. nt

[Renew Deal]

355. lol, me too.

:D

[applegrove]

354. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

[MessiahRp]

357. Now that we have this there's hope that FB will add an "Unlike" button

Someday all of the internet evils will be corrected!

Rp

[grahamhgreen]

359. Who the heck wanted this? Did you run polls? Is it to get rid of a certain segment? nt

[annm4peace]

360. I dislike the Unrecommend. please take it off.

[grahamhgreen]

361. Why not post the total number & post the super hot threads with the highest total up & down?nt

[DesertRat]

365. Thank you

I really like the new feature. :thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

371. The Result: It accurately identifies threads truly Recommended by posters.

Your experiment has worked. This system separates the wheat from the chaff. It gives the Greatest Page threads that truly represent consensus of worthiness.

The previous system of Recommends only created a tyranny of the minority. I've had posters PM me and ask me to Recommend their threads. I assume that is fairly common.

The new system helps avoid people rigging the vote to give 5 Recommends. I like that.

[omega minimo]

373. How is this not polarizing?

[inna]

374. it's a horrible, disastrous idea, especially in its edited form - which just shows the net total.

PLEASE DO RECONSIDER. honestly, this is a recipe for... if not a disaster, then potentially the end of the democratic UNDERGROUND as we know it.

:(

[inna]

375. i just unrec'd btw, after my initial (not thought through) enthusiasm...

PLEASE don't do this, it's a VERY, VERY bad idea, especially in its current form that only shows the net score and allows a thread to be kicked off the greatest page by unrecs.

[notesdev]

376. Power to the people

with the most time on their hands!

[puebloknot]

377. K&U A very democratic idea -- mob "democracy," that is.

This is likely to squelch open discussion and open the floodgates to the cheerleaders who too frequently dominate the Greatest page, already.

I hope they don't take up this idea at, for example, Vanity Fair or Mother Jones!

[mogster]

378. Thanks

Nice to be able to recommend without confirmation too.

[Norrin Radd]

379. How about a "Neutral" button. Then we can have a "Whatever" page.

Kidding.

[bdamomma]

383. Good idea Skinner Thanks!!

[Orsino]

384. REC WARS!!!! FUCK YEAH!!!!1!

Yeah, I guess this could cause some problems, but I like the idea.

[realFedUp]

385. With cliques, who needs fairness?

It's fairly obvious that people
who get their stuff recommended
in most situations are by their pals.

This isn't a new concept to the
world of human beings or Internet
message boards. You recommend mine,
I'll recommend yours.

Not all that are recommended
should be.

That being said, it's a nice new
feature.

[Strong Atheist]

387. Good idea. I would change one thing.

I would get rid of the <0 feature. When a thread dropped to 0, it would look like a thread that had no recommendations. I think there would be less hard feelings that way.

[goclark]

388. L like it Skinner nt

[PerpetuallyDazed]

390. Can't get on the band wagon with this one...

This is a bad idea. I have fears of having the more important threads being relegated to the other/non-"Greatest" page and me missing them because of someone's personal agenda with certain OPs/topics... it happens, there are some really immature folks here :shrug:

[FailureToCommunicate]

391. Thanks Skinner, and all. Change we can believe in! Thanks for all your hard work.

[WeDidIt]

392. Bug Report

I am getting 'Error" whenever I try to rec a thread now.

[LiberalLovinLug]

393. I have doubts it is a net gain

sometimes there are videos featuring ratbastards like Rush Limbaugh or a clip from FAUX News.

It is important to hear these. But I have found that there is a psychological inclination to NOT recommend these stories because it goes against the inner liberal compass to "recommend" anyone listen to those assholes.

Also, I don't like the idea that only the lowest common denominator of stories will survive. Only the "Britany Spears" of stories. Sometimes the small ugly stories are the most interesting to a minority of readers.

[sojourner]

394. yay!

[live love laugh]

395. At some point I'd like to know who holds the record for unrecs. LOL. nt

[Renew Deal]

396. It looks like it's this thread. +96 of 424

[OregonBlue]

397. I don't like it. Too many trolls here. Perhaps going back to limiting number or recs per day or

enabling us to see who recs and unrecs would help. I think if we could see who was unrecing our posts, it would be clear pretty quickly who was trolling to bury stories. I also think that when recs were limited, we took more time with deciding what stories were really important and which ones were just fun or fluff. I have my doubts on this one.

[Greyskye]

398. SUGGESTION: Enable sorting by 'Views'...

This would help to mitigate the complaint that poorly received yet widely debated topics get no visibility.

Three possible implementations:

1) (Easy)...Enable sorting by 'Views', as well as by the current options of 'Discussion Topic', 'Author', and 'Start time | Last reply'.
2) (Medium).The above, plus enabling a "Sorted by Views" option on the Greatest Threads page.
3) (Harder).All the above, plus a "Most Viewed Posts" page, similar to the Greatest Threads page.


Personally, I like the new feature. I've participated in a few of the livelier threads since this started, and I believe that a form of this change would help to alleviate a good number of the complaints.

[Junkdrawer]

402. The count should only go to zero.

If you "Unrecommend" a post with no "Recommends" then you should get a "You cannot unrecommend a post with no recommendations" error page. Or, better yet, hide "Unrecommend" for posts with no recommendations.

[lindisfarne]

403. That stifles the voice of those who want to unrecommend. Their unrecommend should count against any

future recommends.

[Junkdrawer]

405. Can I vote against Palin today - just in case she even thinks about running....

Seriously I think "Unrecommend" is being used as a euphemism. If you allow <0, then Rate Up/Rate Down would be more honest.

[lindisfarne]

406. Not the same thing. An Unrec is a vote somehow against an aspect of the OP; a rec is a vote for

some aspect of the OP. (Or they could also be a statement on the entire thread in general, OP & comments).
No one can vote against a thread which hasn't started - which would be the equivalent of your"vote against Palin today - just in case she even thinks about running".

Quibbling about there being a difference between Rec/Unrec & "Rate Up/Rade Down" is ludicrous.

[Control-Z]

410. Then the URs

should be counted and displayed. And, perhaps, anyone who URs before the first rec should have to own up to it?

[mvd]

404. I agree with this

<0 isn't necessary.

[ConsAreLiars]

407. What is the policy behind keeping certain highly recommended threads off the Greatest page list?

Are there any guidelines for moderators, or are they just free to exclude threads whose content they don't want seen from being shown in the Greatest list?

[Scout]

408. k & r n/t

[Haole Girl]

411. I think you could take out the..

<0. It might not hurt people's feelings as much. I dunno.

[Better Believe It]

413. How about making it multiple choice. This is just like candidate elections!

In elections we frequently have three or more candidates running for office.

So in "the greatest page election" we could have multiple choices!

For example:

A Strongly recommend = +5 points

B Recommend = +2 points

C Sorta Recommend = +1 point

D Sorta Unrecommend = +1 point

E Unrecommend = +2 points

F Strongly Unrecommend = +5 points

:-)

[kentuck]

414. Skinner, I'm sure you are debating your decision...

about adding this feature. I think it is a positive feature.

The greatest page has never been a barometer for the greatest posts. It has been more of a barometer of controversial or inflammatory posts, although on occasions very insightful opinions make it there, also.

But, how would anyone know if this was not what the entirety of DU thought, if it was at the top of the greatest page?? If it got 200 recommendations, how would we know if anyone disagreed with the post?

The new feature is a more accurate reflection of what the entire group might think about one subject or another, in that it shows an overall consensus.

I hope you keep it. But, overall, I don't think matters a whole lot one way or the other. That is your decision.

[TexasObserver]

429. Good assessment of how Unrecommend adds badly needed balance.

If it's decided that the actual numbers for Recs and Unrecs should be given, I'd find that even better.

The objections to the use of unrec really come down to those who don't like the immediate impact it has had - the identification of threads that aren't receiving majority support.

[althecat]

415. Suggestion - Display both Unrec and Rec numbers

"ON EDIT: We have decided to remove the total number of votes, and only show the net score. It was apparent that showing the total number of votes was confusing to readers. It made it appear that you could simply subtract the net score from the total votes to get the number of unrecommendations, which was NOT correct. I apologize for the confusion."

I can see why you published the total number of votes at the outset...

I think it would be much more transparent to publish both numbers. Then an item which is controversial and both popular and unpopular will be identifiable as such rather than simply appear to have not achieved much level of interest.

[tiptoe]

416. Agree, fully. Provision of totals for both Recs & Unrecs at least affords a weight to the NetScores.

There needn't have been any confusion in calculations, if the numbers originally offered were the simple running totals of the "Recs"(+) and "UnRecs"(-): Intuitively suggested would be the easy math both for understanding the NetScore (difference) and for appreciating the weight of participation (sum).

Does "+95" mean:

1) "100 Recommends" and "5 Unrecommends" (a whopping, definitive outcome...amongst just 105 interested parties)

or

2) "4395 Recs" and "4300 Unrecs" (a controversial, "close call" amongst 8695 participants) ??

Offering just a single NetScore of "+95" doesn't really tell much, and would seem insufficient for relatively weighing same NetScore-rankings on some "Greatest Page". If the vote totals, however, were also easily-assessible or directly included, then despite a group of "+95" ranked topics appearing physically together, they would not be (and should not be) necessarily esteemed equally.

Resorting solely to a removal of the Total Votes in effort to obviate miscalculation of Recs and Unrecs is akin to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", i.e. deleting information deemed "confusing" (to some) rather than inserting transparent information intuitively useful to all.

[inna]

420. +1

[althecat]

424. +2

[Junkdrawer]

417. Blackbox Unrecommendations... n/t

[Haole Girl]

418. Much more transparent?

Hey, here's an idea: Show WHO voted the Unrec and Rec.

THAT would be transparent.

[noamnety]

419. What would you do with that info if you had it? (nt)

[TexasObserver]

428. I think giving the actual numbers would give a more accurate assessment.

This feature will help DU produce better threads, and that will enhance the process.

[WillyT]

421. Skinner ???

This really sucks so far.

It's just pissin people off for very little benefit.

:shrug:

[kentuck]

422. It's really no big deal to me but...

it seems to rub some people the wrong way. I cannot understand why? I had no idea the "Greatest Page" was so important?

I had made the suggestion that perhaps we could keep all the positives recs on the Greatest Page but with unrec number on the page also? It would simply show there is not unanimity with the post. It would show that DU is wide open to free speech. But it would also show how many DUers disagreed with the post. Both would be displayed on the Greatest Page but would not be necessary on the Forum page. This way, the OP would not know how many votes he had until he made the "Greatest Page".

Personally, I have no problem with the feature. It seems democratic and fair? But I could be wrong?

[Usrename]

423. Good see that you are now catering to the DUers that cannot do arithmetic.

:eyes:

They are so confused!!!

It's good that you decided the solution is to not give them too much information.

:eyes:

[FlyingSquirrel]

425. Is this a trial run and if so, how long until you decide whether to keep it?

Or has the decision already been made to keep this feature, (with the only decisions remaining being any tweaks or additional changes)?

Since the number one criticism of this feature has been the ability of the majority to stifle minority views (or dissent) - and since the majority seems to like this feature, and is currently engaged in stifling dissent of their opinion (note that every thread critical of this feature has < 0 recs), does it make sense to use majority opinion to decide whether the feature stays?

[TexasObserver]

426. Unrecommend is a success, broadly supported by DUers.

DUers are clearly enjoying using the Unrecommend feature. Even those who say they don't like the feature often admit they use it for threads they don't want recommended.

The previous system had a serious flaw. It allowed a small group of posters to have inordinate impact by placing almost any kind of thread on the Greatest Page, and by implying a level of support that DU simply did not give such threads. The new system cures that. We now have a host of wonderful threads on the Greatest Page, threads that represent well where the site sits politically.

The angry threads are gone from the Greatest page. Those bile filled screeds that mirrored right wing belligerence are gone.

Most importantly, DUers who have not had a simple right to vote R or U on each thread now have that right. It's clear that DUers like the feature, because most threads understandably end up with negative recommends. In a rational world, that's the result one would expect. We don't expect students who hand in weak work to get an "A" and we shouldn't expect every thread to get Recommended. Most threads are simply not that impressive. It's reasonable that a majority of threads would have a negative recommendation score.

No one is being silenced. No threads are being removed from the boards. No one is stopped from commenting on any thread, and no one is forced to post on a thread merely to have some ability to give positive or negative feedback.

The thumbs up/thumbs down rating system exists all over the internet. It's there because people LOVE THE FEATURE. Now DU has the feature, and it appears to be drawing heavy participation. That is democracy in action.

Of course there are posters who don't like it. The old system allowed any five of one's friends to award an "A" and now that "A" has to be earned from the DU population.

It's a great new feature, and in my view, has vastly improved the posting experience here.

[FlyingSquirrel]

427. Sig Heil.

Or whatever. Silencing opinion is silencing opinion. Do you think "Free Speech Zones" allow free speech? Sure, the protesters aren't being silenced - they're just only being allowed to express their opinion where the TV cameras aren't. Same thing here, the TV camera is the front page of DU and the people with minority opinions or views get to express their opinion in the forum (the "Free Speech Zone" but not reach the broader viewing audience because the majority doesn't want DU's precious image to be sullied.

What's more important, the face DU puts on to the rest of the world, or the actual ideal that DU supposedly stands for (the rights of ALL people to be heard including those in the minority)?

I have a better idea, which I'll making an OP about. I don't think I've seen the exact same idea posted, but if it has, I'll be happy to give credit where credit is due. The basic idea is to have BOTH the thumbs up/thumbs down rating system AND the recommend system. Recommend means you think it's worthwhile reading (and nobody can take away your recommendation); thumbs up/thumbs down adds perspective on the current level of agreement with the actual OP. You can recommend a topic for reading without giving a thumbs up/thumbs down opinion on it; you can give a thumbs up or thumbs down to a topic without recommending it for reading; or you can do both.

[TexasObserver]

431. I didn't realize THAT was your party.

I'm a Democrat. You should try it. We like democracy, where people vote, and through voting we arrive a decisions. Like the votes we have on Rec v. Unrec.

[EFerrari]

435. You also like to pile unsupported assertion on assertion

and to use the royal "we".

[TexasObserver]

438. Still stalking me, eh?

Please, get help.

[EFerrari]

439. LOL

I think you should contact the moderators of this forum IMMEDIATELY.

:rofl:

[FlyingSquirrel]

430. This system has the same drawback as the original,

plus the new drawback that those with minority views will feel as though they are being silenced. The argument that they can still discuss their views sounds a lot like those who say "Free Speech Zones" are Constitutional. (For the record, I also disagree with "the dungeon" although I don't agree with 9-11 conspiracy theorists.)

The drawback is that you can't tell whether a person recommending (or unrecommending) a thread is doing so because they feel it's important reading material, or because they actually agree or disagree with the OP.

The solution is to have two separate functions: "Thumbs up/thumbs down", and "Recommend reading".

Topics with the same number of book icons or "recommendations" would be sorted by highest percentage of thumbs up.

People will be more likely to use the above system appropriately and responsibly. If something controversial shows up on the Greatest Page with 50 recs, the majority can then register their disapproval with (for example) 85% thumbs down. But it's less likely that some controversial or frivolous topic will actually get to that point and receive the recs that it used to receive, because people will instead give it a thumbs up (or thumbs down) without also clicking the "recommend reading" option.

I'm looking at this current system in action and the GP is looking a lot like George W. Bush's news conferences.

[tiptoe]

432. OK. "Thumbs up":"Thumbs down" with unassailable-"Recommends": Sort by "Recs" and %-"ThumbsUp"

Running totals for all three columns

• At OP-site, display separate totals for "Thumbs Up", "Thumbs Down" and "Recommends" (no "Unrecommend")
  
• At Greatest Page, display "Recommends", TotalVotes (sum of non-blank entry lines) and %-ThumbsUp-of-TotV,
  sorted by Recs and %-ThumbsUp-of-TotV (positive numbers)
  
  Recommends can't be "assaulted" and undermined but can be weighted by "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" voting
  
  Discrepancy between Recs and %-ThumbsUp (of Total Votes) on GreatestPage could be a clue to possible suspicious voting activity, which might attract NEW visitors to the recommended OP-site for deliberation and further voting ("thumbing" and/or recommending)...kind of a red flag.

Reader options:

"Thumbs Up (at this time), no recommend"

 

•

 

 

 

 

"Thumbs Down (at this time), no recommend"

 

 

 

•

 

 

"Thumbs Up (at this time) and Recommended reading"

 

•

 

 

 

•

"Thumbs Down (at this time) but, still, Recommended reading"

 

 

 

•

 

•

"No Opinion (at this time) but Recommended reading"

 

 

 

 

 

•

"Neither opining (at this time) nor recommending"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Totals

 

+

 

-

 

Recs

 

[EFerrari]

434. Worse than that. At least W's press conferences were civil.

Look at this. One of the most civil posters to this forum raises a question and is verbally abused with impunity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6058818

[PretzelWarrior]

433. I vote to keep this. After a few days it's value is obvious

So please don't listen to the whiners who are mad their empty posts can't immediately go to GREATEST page.

[EFerrari]

437. Except that isn't what is happening. The people you are talking about

aren't complaining openly, they're learning how to game the new system.

The loudmouths (like me) that are complaining are thinking about what this means for our discussions. Like what it means that it's harder for the small forums to get anything seen, or how new things get tanked before they are even read or how even news stories in LBN are being voted down for no reason that anyone can see. How useful is that, exactly?

I know it's hard for you to understand that some people want our discussions to stay vigorous or for DU to remain a leader just because we'd like to see that, but give it a try anyway.

[HughMoran]

440. Nice of you to take a sly shot at the poster "I know it's hard for you to understand..."

You are really a big fan of the low blow!

[EFerrari]

442. And how is that responsive to the issues I raised? Thanks.

[HughMoran]

443. It's not!!

That's why it's so fucking fun here on DU.

There are no rules that say I have to respond in a specific fashion. Anyway, it's getting to the point where your attitude it permeating a lot of threads here and I can't seem to find many posts on this topic that don't have your venom in them ;)

[EFerrari]

444. My venom? ! Wow.

I hope you're alerting on ALL of those posts! :hi:

[HughMoran]

445. Nope, I'm not alerting on anybody any more (well, unless they're clearly a Freeper or it's vile)

If I did alert, perfectly good examples of lovely little underhanded jabs would be gone! No, I want others to be able to read what we're discussing. Of course, I'm not implying in any way that you have broken the rules in any of your posts - just answering your question as it was presented to me as it allowed me to comment on a different tangent, which is always a pleasure :)

[EFerrari]

447. And you have not addressed a single issue I raised. Your choice. n/t

[HughMoran]

449. Oh, Poo

[EFerrari]

455. Yes, you seem to be on an endless loop.

[Laelth]

436. For what it's worth, my observations over several days are condensed below.

Generally speaking, I am opposed to the unrec feature for these reasons:

1) It's anti-rhetorical. It allows people to limit the exposure of other people's speech. It's not unconstitutional, because DU isn't the government, but it is censorship of a kind.

2) It makes people rude. Once people know they're in the majority, they feel more free to viciously attack those they know hold the minority opinion on a subject.

3) It limits discussion on the Greatest Page. We don't discuss whether or not 2+2=4. We all agree on that. As such, posts on the Greatest Page are hardly discussed because the OP must contain, by definition, an opinion upon which we mostly agree. I thought DU was a "discussion" forum.

4) I write controversial threads. I will be less-inclined to write them if they will drop like a stone. I like to generate discussion. This argument is related to point #3, above, but the unrec function is designed to shut down certain discussions. I don't think that's a worthy goal for a "discussion" board.

5) It does not keep divisive topics off of the Greatest Page. Instead, it assures that an OP on a divisive topic must be written by someone who holds the majority view of active posters. That's certainly the case for the highly-ranked unrec threads that have appeared on the GP since this feature was activated. The unrec function is a very divisive topic, obviously. Threads that have made it to the GP all had OPs that espoused the majority view. Equally busy OPs that espouse the minority view did not make it to the GP. So, it seems the unrec function doesn't keep divisive OPs off, per se. Instead, it allows greater exposure for majority opinion OPs on divisive topics while hiding minority opinion OPs on the same subject.

For what it's worth, that is what I have observed.

As always, thank you for DU. With it, you have made the world a better place.

:patriot:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

452. This post is a correction/supplement to my post above.

Evidently, this issue has already been raised by Lerkfish, above. I started a GD thread on it (which, of course is now less than zero and fell like a stone off the first page of GD), but I wanted to make sure it got some exposure. As such, it is reposted here in principal part.

The unrec function does not allow tyranny of the majority on the Greatest Page. What it really allows is tyranny of the largest minority. I say that because it's clear the unrec function does not keep controversial threads off of the GP, as the admins had hoped it would. Skinner, LynneSin, Laurab, and Robb have all had threads on the unrec function itself (a very divisive topic) that have ascended the list. Two of those threads are near the top of the list as I write this. What the unrec function does is to assure that an OP on a divisive topic must be written by someone who holds the view of the largest minority--not the majority but the largest minority. OPs by posters from a smaller minority are squelched by not being allowed onto the list where they will be seen by a larger audience. Using discussion of the unrec function as an example, the majority, I would bet, actually doesn't care. The larger minority, on the other hand, actively likes it. The smaller minority doesn't like it. Nevertheless, the larger minority (and not the majority) controls the GP. No threads critical of the unrec function have appeared on the GP (to my knowledge) since the function was activated. Controversial threads still appear (the unrec threads themselves), but only the OPs of those who support the position of the larger minority appear.

Now, if I am right about how this function works and about its effect on the GP, imagine what the GP would have looked like during the 2008 Primaries. In December of 2007, iirc, there was no majority opinion on DU (there never really is) regarding our choice for the party's Presidential nomination, but the largest minority supported Dennis Kucinich, naturally. What would the GP have looked like while the Kucinich partisans controlled it? You would have seen lots of positive Kucinich threads, of course, but you would have also seen lots of negative threads about Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and the rest of the field. Pro-Obama threads would be unrec'd into oblivion, as would threads supporting any of the other candidates and any thread critical of Kucinich. Would that have been "representative" of DU or, even, of the Democratic Party as a whole?

Once the field was narrowed, and the largest minority here supported Obama, you would have seen plenty of pro-Obama threads on the GP and plenty of anti-Clinton threads, but threads critical of Obama or flattering of Clinton would not have been allowed to appear. The larger minority would have prevented them from ascending to the GP by using the unrec function. Would that have been "representative" of DU, Democrats, or the Democratic Party? Is that what we would have wanted to project from the Greatest Page and from DU's home page?

The revelation I offer here is that there is never a "majority" opinion here on any issue (unless it involves Republicans, and we generally agree that they are the disloyal opposition who should never, if we can help it, hold power again in the United States). Other than that, on all the issues that really matter, there is no majority here. Instead, there are competing minorities who are trying to persuade other liberal and open-minded people to see their point of view, or to support their candidate, or to DU a given poll, or to donate to a given cause, or, merely, to read an interesting article. We all know that the Democratic Party is a big tent. There is no "majority" in the Democratic Party, any more than there is a "majority" in DU. We are a collection of minorities trying to work together, talking to one another, thinking with one another, and trying to persuade one another.

The unrec function allows the larger minority to dominate the GP and squeeze out all the other minority opinions that are competing for the same, valuable real estate. For that reason, I believe the unrec function is wrong for DU and should be disabled permanently.

Thanks for your kind attention.

:dem:

-Laelth

[HughMoran]

441. Well, it's been 4 days and someone kicked this thread so I'll say this feature is working better ...

than most of us could ever have expected. Even some of the objections to this new system unintentionally show how this new system has improved the quality of post on the Greatest Page.

[FlyingSquirrel]

448. It is no longer the Greatest Page, if in fact it ever was.

It is now, as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6060183&mesg_id=6060183">zeemike said, the Most Popular Page. I'll repeat what he said since it's an undisputable truth IMO: "There have been many cases of greatness that was not popular and many things that were popular that were not great."

You like unrec, fine. Change the name of the "Greatest Page" to match its content.

[HughMoran]

450. Greatness is now agreed to by consensus

Not simply a post elevated by a group of people promoting a message posted by one of those in their particular "group".

No more

[FlyingSquirrel]

451. Never liked that either.

And I proposed a solution which could possibly address both issues (see above) but we'll see what happens. As far as "greatness agreed to by consensus," that's insulting at best. I know I don't bother to add my unrec to something that's hit 50 recs, or even 15 recs, and I'm sure many are the same way - once a topic has managed 15 recs or so, it's pretty much gonna stay on the GP and keep snowballing positive recs while those who might otherwise vote it down will not bother because they know it's futile. If we could at least see the positive and negative votes, we might bother to vote it down because then our vote would be seen. You think the "My old DU is back & I love it" would still be +100 if we could actually see the positive and negative votes? I somehow doubt it. Enjoy yourself while you're in the majority on a divisive issue, and we'll see how you like unrec when the tables are turned.

[Bluenorthwest]

446. I think the feature stinks

and it will allow bigots to vote according to bigoted ideas and lists that they keep of 'those people' without having to do so in the light of day. It lets the majority organize against the minority in secret, so they don't have to follow or break DU rules, just vote against all the stuff about 'those people'.
In my business such a feature would be a disaster. But I don't know the vote counts, can not see who is voting down what. I assume the admins will take note if the same set of people constantly vote down the same sort of stories and perhaps take some action. If the religionists, who ran back here for that feature, are just voting against the minorities they don't like, that should not be allowed to stand.

[FlyingSquirrel]

453. Just an FYI: So far, only 49% have expressed unreserved approval

in this thread, to the best of my ability to count. 83 "yes" to 61 "no", with another 24 uncertain out of 168. Most of the "yes" have been "hell yeah" comments without much actual thought or analysis, while a high percentage of those expressing disapproval have put a lot of thought into their reasoning.

[Laelth]

454. Astute and significant observation. Thanks for counting. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth