A humble suggestion regarding the Unrec function.

[drm604]

Only allow people to unrec something that actually has recs. There's no reason to allow a post to go below zero. All it does is allow lurking freepers to quickly deep six a thread before most people even see it.

I've seen a number of threads on subjects that are controversial in the world at large, but aren't likely to be controversial amongst DU members, that are below zero almost from the beginning.

[drm604]

1. And of course this is now below zero.

I would have bet money that would happen. :eyes:

[PuraVidaDreamin]

2. still is after I just rec'd it.

I like your idea!

[madokie]

3. Still is after I rec'd it too

[UTUSN]

16. Rec to undo the UnRekkk (no can do). n/t

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

4. mine too

You have a great point.
I have seen many <0 on threads that interest me. I believe they would interest a great number of us here but the DeepSix got them and down the tubes they went.

Too bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. interesting != great

you can find interesting threads easily enough, but that does not make them worthy of being on the greatest page and thus on the front page of DU.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

24. Have you seen some of the Crap on the 'front page'?

If this were my site I'd be embarrassed.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Well as a point in time right now it looks pretty good.

If DU were my website I would be quite proud of it.

HEADLINE: NYT "Blows Cover Off Trading Scam." Schumer Flips On Wall St.

Greatest:
NYT "Blows Cover Off Trading Scam." Schumer Flips On Wall St.
Smedley Butler Stopped American Fascist Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR
Racist Web Posts Traced to Homeland Security
John Edwards was RIGHT...
Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide

Journals from davidswanson time for change TygrBright madfloridian...

LBN...

And lots of videos.

What exactly are you complaining about? And how exactly has rec/unrec changed that?

[Bill McBlueState]

5. "quickly deep six a thread before most people even see it"

Why wouldn't you see a thread with more unrecs than recs? I see plenty of them.

[drm604]

8. You would see it,

but if it has a large number of unrecs at the start it becomes difficult for people to move it into positive territory and then possibly to the greatest page. Maybe "deep six" wasn't the best term.

If they have to wait for positive recs before they can unrec then it becomes more tedious to keep it at zero. It becomes a cat and mouse game where they have to wait around to unrec recs as they occur. This would make organized efforts to drive something down more difficult.

[Obamanaut]

10. So it is a quest for the greatest page. If it is interesting enough,

people will respond, or the OP can simply 'kick' it from time to time to keep it up front.

"...and then possibly to the greatest page..."

[drm604]

11. The point is to prevent, or at least slow down, organized attacks on a post.

People could still unrec posts that they don't think deserve recs it's already received.

If you think about it, it makes no sense (at least not to me) to be able to "un" something that hasn't even occurred yet. You can't untie something that hasn't been tied yet. You can't unfreeze something that hasn't been frozen. Why can you unrecommend something that hasn't been recommended?

[Warren Stupidity]

27. the point is to prevent, or at least slow down, organized support for a post.

People could still rec posts that they don't think deserve unrecs it's already received.

If you think about it, it makes no sense (at least not to me) to be able to do something that hasn't even occurred yet.

I completely agree that rec'ing a post should only be allowed if the post has already gone below zero.

[havocmom]

29. to some, the OP is more like an attempt to suppress voting

NOT a very democratic endeavor, that vote suppression business.

[Obamanaut]

6. This one is still up. And there is one that has over 200 responses,

but is <0

edited to add that it has over 3,000 views

[drm604]

9. See my response to #5. n/t

[Better Believe It]

7. It's working just the way it's suppose to. It's undemocratic because it allows a minority to .....

censor and control discussion by keeping certain subjects and/or posters off the front page and off the greatest page.

One poll indicated that a vast majority of DU'ers wanted DU to indicate how many "voted" to recommend and how many "voted" to censor but it seems their views have been ignored.

150 should see and only 10 should not see total recommends and unrecommends (censor) "votes".

Ahhhh .... here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6066414

[Warren Stupidity]

20. "It's undemocratic because it allows a minority"

er, uh, well no actually it allows a +5 majority to put a post on the greatest page. The previous system allowed an absolute value of 5 to put a post on the greatest page, even if 10,000 others thought the post was crap. The new system is far more democratic than the old. But do carry on.

[cwydro]

12. Unrec.

Automatic unrec because I'm tired of the whining posts saying it "deep sixes" a thread.

It does not.

Plenty of threads with <0 have stayed at the top of the front page for days.

[drm604]

13. I already admitted that "deep six" was probably a poor choice of words.

Characterizing a viewpoint that you disagree with as "whining" is also a poor choice of words, and a cheap rhetorical trick that adds nothing to the conversation.

[cwydro]

14. Duly noted.

[slackmaster]

15. That would adversely impact my mission to Unrec all Sarah Palin and Birfer threads

Before anyone Recs them.

[Better Believe It]

17. I won't unrecommend threads. I managed to do without it like most of us here.

There was not a huge uprising on Democratic Underground with masses of DU'ers demanding the "right" to censor and remove posts from the front page or "greatest" page.

[slackmaster]

18. Unrec has nothing to do with censorship

It's a way of expressing an opinion that a topic isn't worth discussing.

[Better Believe It]

32. Here's why removing posts from the front page or greatest page is censorship

I thought this was rather obvious and didn't require an actual explanation, however, here it goes.

When you "vote" to remove a post from the front page or the "greatest" page what else can you call it, target marketing?

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing the post from that location should be very clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. Or some posters just don't like a particular poster so they remove it from a prominent location on DU! That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a peoples censorhip!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And that's why some political cliques and more conservative people love it! In the case of DU administrators, it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck again.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like.

Democratic Underground clearly stated: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. less than zero!

I have a better suggestion: if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

If your feelings are going to be hurt by having your glorious OP that should have been NUMBER ONE on the Greatest Page instead be a low post count less than zero fail, I suggest not posting.

[drm604]

22. My feelings aren't hurt.

It's not about my posts. I just think that it distorts conversation on DU when an organized effort can take a rec count way below zero.

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. How?

How the hell does it "distort(s) conversation"?

And what "organized effort"? Do you think there are roving bands of pitchfork and torch wielding DU'rs conspiring via PM to humiliate a poster or distort conversation by using the unrecommend feature?

I'm sorry but that's asinine.

Not everything deserves "greatest" status. As a poster above pointed out, the current system is much more democratic than the old, as it lets dissenting opinions have a say. Unrecommending a thread is not distorting conversation in the least. You are still getting conversation on this thread. How is it possibly distorted because it has a negative number?

Why is it so important that a thread - ANY thread - get on to the greatest page? If that's where you start looking for threads to read, I have to ask why? Are you dependent on the opinions of others to determine what you should peruse? Are you aware that you can instantly sort the threads in every single forum on DU by author, last post time and replies by a single click of your mouse? Or simply scroll down the GD page and look at the number of recs or views.

It seems to me all this conversation about the greatest page is little more than some egos being bent. The fact that a given thread does not get the 5 positive votes in no way diminishes the validity of the thread. All it does is show that a majority of viewers who decided to click the function at all don't agree the thread is one of the greatest.

Kicked and UNRECOMMENDED. Because this isn't a greatest thread. Not by a long shot.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. yeah well as an argument that is just stupid

this same 'organized effort' could take a rec count way above zero as well. These organized efforts you seem so scared and fearful of are people here on DU voting on the Greatest Page worthiness of an OP. The only distortion here is your thinking that somehow 'less than zero' is a distortion while 'greater than zero' is not a distortion, that the dreaded < 0 is reflective of the evil 'organized effort' while the blissful positive rec count is not.

Actually of course less than zero is somewhat distorted as we cannot see just how miserable a failure an OP is, I'd be fine with ending that distortion. Let the true rec value show, positive or negative.

[havocmom]

28. If a post is bad, or useless, we shouldn't be able to unrec? No recs/no uns?

:wtf:

Ya know, DU is not here to help build false self esteem. If something is bad, let it be so labeled (un-rec) and let the OP learn something from the exercise. This is not kindergarten where we are more concerned with making everyone feel all warm and fuzzy. A little less delusion and a lot more reality is how we can actually improve things, from DU to the world.

Less delusions. Those who rely on delusions probably could find more comfortable ways to pass the time than being on DU.

[distantearlywarning]

30. Unrecced Because This Is *ANOTHER* Whiny Post About Unrec

And because:

1) Unrec doesn't "deep six" any thread. It's not censorship. It's not the worst thing to happen since the Patriot Act. The DU secret police are not removing unrecced posts before people can read them. It just means that some random strangers on the Internets don't like what you wrote.

2) The Greatest Page is just a stupid popularity contest anyway.

3) Who cares if the post is below zero? Newsflash: nothing happens if a post is below zero except it might not get on the Greatest Page. O Noes! What will your friends think? See #2.

[reflection]

31. That would force the people who want to unrec

a thread to wait for it to receive a rec before they cast their vote. The current way allows them to cast their vote immediately. It all works itself out.