The new Recommend/Unrecommend system--Yea or Nay?

[Bicoastal]

Personally, I'm ambivalent--for now, it's a shiny new toy for us all to play with (and break.)

[snappyturtle]

1. Love the instant results! nt

[cliffordu]

2. Yay on this poll.

:hi:

[el_bryanto]

3. It's hard to know till we see it used

It's a tool that has been handed to our society; it could end up being a positive thing or a negative thing, depending on how we use it.

Bryant

[MNDemNY]

6. Or it could be as meaningless as internet chat .

[hlthe2b]

4. Too easily abused by those with an agenda or just "goofing off"

Evidence this thread on the graveyard scandal in Illinois, an important news story and, one would think, fairly uncontroversial from the standpoint of discussion. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6022055

Yet it continues to get "unrecommends" whether by accident (I suspect) or intent (why on earth?)

[FLAprogressive]

8. I don't think it's an accident. Just like threads on the DLC and bad Dems will not get "accidentally

unrecced.

[JonLP24]

14. I gave it a recommend

It went off to the Greatest Page when I gave it 5+. Not sure if it went back down but it is a very important issue. I've seen a few important news stories drop off the greatest page due to "unrecommends".

[Bicoastal]

16. Because people dislike the event, not the article...

...I've noticed the same thing happening in LBN. When it's an article on, say, Sarah Palin or Bernie Madoff, people unrecommend the article it even if it's well written or critical of the people in it.

[MoonRiver]

17. People have axes to grind.

No accidents.

[Hepburn]

39. Exactly....

...and if we are the DEMOCRATIC Underground ~~ then we do not need a bullshit feature like UnR.

JMHO

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. You'll be glad to know it is a +9 now

Thanks for pointing it out to me.

[Ms. Toad]

62. No offense - but as to whether the story should be on the

greatest page - not in my opinion.

I don't care enough to unrecommend it, so I'm not the culprit, but I'm not tied enough to what happens to my body after I die that I particularly care.

I suppose, if all of the stories on the greatest page were of similar import I might unrecommended a few just to make more important (in my opinion) stories move up.

[hlthe2b]

66. That is precisely the point... We all disagree about what makes

a "greatest" post, but those with questionable intent now can unrecommend even benign posts, just for the heck of it, because they are bored, don't like the subject of the posting, don't like some who posted on the thread, etc., etc.

You just underscored why this system is so easily subject to abuse, for those so inclined. I certainly wouldn't go through all the greatest posts and unrec them just because they don't meet my own personal idea of what is interesting or important enough to be a "greatest," and neither do I believe, would you. But some will.

BTW, the issue with this story is not the traditions tied to burial or any other aspect of the dead. The story is fraud and greed that drives some to prey on people at the most vulnerable--facing their grief. So no matter what we all might think of the importance of death traditions, the importance of the story is independent of that issue, IMO and that is why we should all care.

[Ms. Toad]

72. Nonsense.

If enough people think something else is more important, they will recommend those other stories - and if fluff stories supported by herd mentality end up on the top of the heap (or vengeance posts - or whatever else doesn't really belong there) and those posts interferes with the stories people really think are important we now at least have a way to express that opinion that was not available before.

Personally, I don't really care (aside from really wishing it had been available available to unrecommended the "STFU you crybaby gays" posts that kept floating to the top a few weeks ago since I might not have had to see them every time I logged on). The system is more balanced than a system that only has a recommend option.

[hlthe2b]

73. I agree with the concept...just not the execution...

It appears that lurkers can unrecommend... But, I do agree that some type of mechanism like this would have cut out one heck of a lot of ridiculous, repetitive or obnoxious posts the last weeks.

[Ms. Toad]

75. If you mean people who never say anything

that is correct. You do have to be logged in, though. Same as when it was recommend only - lurkers could make recommendations then, too.

[whoneedstickets]

68. yeah! and the Rec feature is NEVER used by people with an agenda...

...oh, never mind..

[FLAprogressive]

5. here come the cheerleaders.......

[Ikonoklast]

13. Rah-rah-rah!!!

And here come the naysayers and gloom-predictors.

[MadBadger]

26. Cheerleaders for what?

[TheCoxwain]

7. If ..I got a dollar each time I clicked it

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Nay

"Hey gang, let's go "unrec" that thread from that person we disagree with just because of who it is"

"I hate that person. I'm going to unrec everything of theirs that I see"

It is anonymous face slapping. Allows the nasties to be nasty anonymously.

Serves no real purpose.

[Common Sense Party]

44. Or

"Hey, gang, let's go 'rec' that thread from that person we usually agree with just because of who it is"

"I love that person. She's one of the 'cool' crowd. I'm going to rec everything of hers I see."



Same difference. Serves no real purpose, other than to perpetuate herd mentality and cliques.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. I agree.

But this makes it a sport.

[Hepburn]

65. I totally agree...

...talk about a gang bang.

[omega minimo]

10. Obama's only been president for 6 months, GIVE IT some TIME

[Mojambo]

11. Nay. Do away with the recommend system completely. n/t

[Tim01]

12. It is more effective at suppressing unpopular opinions.

Sort of like a group of people shouting down another.

[FLAprogressive]

15. key word is "suppressing"

because that's exactly what it does.

[scheming daemons]

18. and yet your soliloquy about the evils of the unrec/rec system is at the top of GD

....

Really been suppressed.

:eyes:

[JonLP24]

19. How would one unsuppress a thread?

[scheming daemons]

25. Because a "less than 0" score would label the OP as batshit crazy and not to be taken seriously

That's what the whiners are REALLY afraid of.

[Hepburn]

70. I would think that ...

... he/she would PM pals and give a link to the thread and ask that they unR the thread. Bu-bye forever for some to the Greatest Page.

This is nasty stuff and I hate to see the DU sink this low. :puke:

[Tim01]

33. Hey, we don't like your type around here. Wait a minute...

I'm confused again. Which side are we on?

Damn it.

[Echo In Light]

32. It may be too early, but it seems as though posters I generally disagree w/really favor it

So that alone tilts the scales ...but whatever, if there's been a large % of moderates who hate seeing leftist-friendly threads get high Recs, than it makes sense that that group in particular will be salivating over the prospect while insisting there's nothing imbalanced about it. As I said tho, it may be too early...and in the end it's not going to drive leftists/progressives away from DU.

[Quantess]

20. A better idea: require 7 recommends to be on Greatest Page

Question: what if a thread already has 5 recommends, has just made it Greatest Page, and somebody unrecommends it?

[Bonn1997]

21. Too easy to hurt people's feelings

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. Best Idea: How about we don't have a Greatest Page at all?

Since apparently nobody can act like a damned adult about the whole thing.

[MercutioATC]

23. I'd like to see it be more of a "thumbs-up/thumbs down" rating system.

...with (and I know this is asking for extra coding) an additional "kick it" button that would tally what used to be the "recommend" votes.

That way, you could give a "thumbs down" to a thread while voting that other people read it.


As it exists, I don't see a legitimate use for "unrecommend".

[FLAprogressive]

24. kick

[Joanne98]

27. Nay.

[WI_DEM]

28. Isn't it funny that this is something that I've seen requested many times here and now that we have

it (and only hours after getting it) so many people are opposed. My solution is to get rid of both recommend and unrecommend because they both are abused.

[scarletwoman]

36. SOME DUers have requested it, the many opposed have been opposed to such a thing all along.

I like the "recommend" system just fine, but the "unrecommend" is an awful idea. :thumbsdown:

[LiberalFighter]

29. Hmmm... Should I click unrecommend?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I don't use the greatest page, it's kind of irrelevant

I just go straight to GD and GDP.

[Deja Q]

31. WHY CAN'T WE UN-VOTE ALL THE 'YEA' ANSWERS?

:cry:

[OhioChick]

34. Nay. n/t

[Raster]

37. Nay!

[BlooInBloo]

38. Don't care.

[guitar man]

40. I think it's ok

It's democratic, you can vote one way, the other or not vote.

[girl gone mad]

41. One thing that bugs me:

Threads show up on the greatest page only to disappear a minute later. I hope that once the novelty wears off there will be more consistency.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. nay.

[Odin2005]

43. Good thing.

Keeps the good stuff on top and keeps the flamewar threads off.

[Gregorian]

45. It's democratic, which can suck. But it's best, in my opinion.

Hey, if we didn't have options we may be sitting under a Palin vice presidency right now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

50. It's interesting, to say the least.

I liked it initially when you could see the real underlying dynamics - 12 recs, 13 unrecs is a lot more interesting to read than <0.
If people are too math challenged to figure net recs than that system would better their math skills and fulfill an academic rehabilitative function at the same time.

I enjoyed watching posts being taken down in real time and banished from the Greatest page, even if it was my own. So I would say, give us complete transparency or give us nothing and go back to the old way.

I also have to say, some completely innocuous posts are being negatively rated which is pretty weird. I would say use the rec or unrec when you have strong feelings about the content of a thread and try to leave negative feelings about individual posters out of it. You don't have to use either button on EVERY thread.

[demoleft]

46. nothing particular, but i voted nay because...

...it enhances negative feelings and may be very useful to those who have personal feelings against someone else.

but anyway - it does not matter. i enter threads on my own decisions, so i do not care much about it.
i will never unrecommend anyone, anyway.

[FLAprogressive]

47. kick

[redqueen]

48. Definitely yea. (nt)

[JackRiddler]

49. kick for votes

[scubadude]

51. I've never banned or blocked anyone, no matter how much I disagree with them.

I am against unrecommend.

There are issues that are important which are not popular. Is that what DU is aiming for? Is DU trying to make the news into a popularity contest?

I see a consistent effort here to push controversial posts to the sideline. Why?

Scuba

[L. Coyote]

52. Nxt step, sort by REC #s

Pleeeeze

[conspirator]

53. I am nay a and I don't accept this poll. It's rigged. This will cause a civil war nt

[Uzybone]

54. Ive never seen such whining on a message board before.

[Laelth]

61. It shows we care about it.

And that's a good sign, don't you think?

I say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This didn't need fixing, imho.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Uzybone]

63. People care too much IMO

its just a damn message board. Lots of ideas on it, some are great, some are trash and most are mediocre. Reccing/unreccing/greatest page or any of that other nonsense will not kill a great post.


Those that like an OP will continue to rec it, and now those who dislike the OP can make their opinions known as well. Having anonymous people on a message board support an idea doesn't mean its a good idea.

[Laelth]

71. Evidently, you care a lot too.

Otherwise, I can't understand why you're cursing at me.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Uzybone]

76. no I really don't

and the curse word (damn) was not directed at you. Sorry, my apologies. I was just using it as a figure of speech to show how little I think this should matter.

[Raine]

55. nay nt

:thumbsdown:

[marketcrazy1]

57. I posted a new poll

with basically the same question. I missed this one! sorry............ MODS locked mine! OOPS!!!!

[SpartanDem]

56. yea

[Milspec]

58. nay

subject to much abuse, much like any mass media online polling. Can you say freep.

[KoKo]

59. I voted "Nay"....but it allows Trolls and Such to be exposed.

so many are putting out posts that show "true colors" it might be worth it to keep it going for another month until it all "sorts out." But, so far, it's looking bad for driving away folks who don't have time for trolls and wannabees stupid posts to see if they get a Rec or UnRec.

[Laelth]

60. Nay. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

67. I no longer recommend threads

From now on, I will unrecommend every thread I open regardless of content.

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Why?

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

69. couldn't care less...

i never go to the greatest page.

[zeemike]

77. The worst part is that it takes away your ability to reward a good post

Because someone that disagrees with you or the OP can take it away.

[Dappleganger]

78. Yes.

People need to stop kvetching over it--the real substance is in the posting and not the recommendations.
The conspiracy theories are getting fucking OLD.

[chill_wind]

79. Meh.

Seems like the ignore and hide thread features should have been adequate for those who needed this kind of discussion policing.

[TexasObserver]

80. It's almost laughable that anyone would oppose this system.

Finally, we have a way to express displeasure with those who start idiotic threads.

[SpartanDem]

81. A lot of people love starting stupid threads.nt

[notesdev]

82. Make that

a way to anonymously express displeasure with those who start idiotic threads

We may as well extend this to individual comments... no difference between that and your standard out-of-the-box "Web 2.0" discussion forum.

[Control-Z]

83. On the fence/I would like it better if...(explain below)

I would like it better if we could have a troll alert. One that actually removed them from the site.

[eridani]

84. I think there should be a post count minimum to either rec or unrec n/t

[cascadiance]

85. Perhaps find some place to put those threads that are very "controversial"

That have large recommend counts, and not just high positive rating counts...

I don't know if this would mean having a separate summary page besides the "Greatest Page". That might be a bit much. But perhaps put all threads with more than 5 (or some other count threshold) number of votes on the Greatest page in the right column, but show the negative vote totals and have those way at the bottom.

That way, we can also see what threads are getting voted off, to better assess whether fringe groups (or rogue freepers) aren't coming on to disrupt getting certain issues exposure by doing "unrecommend campaigns", etc.

On the other hand, by having the net positive or negative totals as the sorting criteria, those looking at the top of the page can focus on issues that they have more sense of affinity with the rest of DU board members. And maybe have it a profile setting where you can see those "negative rating" posts or not near the bottom of the page.

Still haven't decided whether it's a net positive or negative just yet.