We are going to keep the unrecommend feature.

By now, I think most of you have probably heard that we upgraded the DU Recommend function to allow people to "Unrecommend" as well. For those of you who missed it, here is my thread from last week announcing the change.

The DU admins have been monitoring the new feature, and we are pleased to see that it is working more-or-less how we intended it to work. In fact, I think it is working better than I expected. Our motivation for giving you the ability to unrecommend was to improve the overall quality of the threads that make it to the DU Greatest Page, while giving a boost to topics that have broad appeal to our members, and it seems to be doing just that. We believe the unrecommend function has been a success, and it is a net positive for our community.

Obviously, there are many people who are not happy about this change, and have said so. After trying the new system for five days, we believe that the most dire predictions have not come to pass. However, we do believe some of your concerns are legitimate. We have been closely monitoring the system to see how it is being used and abused, and will continue to do so. So far, it is our impression that the vast majority of DUers are trying to use the system in a fair and responsible manner. A small number of people have used it in a manner we would consider irresponsible, and an even smaller number have been grossly abusive in their use of the system. We have the ability to bar members from using the system if they abuse it, and we have taken advantage of that ability in a few extreme cases. But we believe it is very difficult for the small number of abusive users to have much impact because there are so many people using it in a responsible manner. For the most part, the ratings seem fair. Obviously, there are exceptions -- but I don't think it makes sense to throw out the entire system because a few deserving threads did not make it to the greatest page, or because a few undeserving threads did. Overall, I think that happens a lot less under our new system compared to the system we had before.

We are going to continue to monitor the system to see how it is working, and how it is not. We are committed to making any changes that we deem necessary and appropriate so that the system is relatively fair and free from abuse. One change that we are considering -- which has been suggested by many of you -- is to get rid of the "<0" designation so threads will never display a rating lower than 0. We believe this change would take away one incentive for people to abuse the system, and it would not affect our goal of improving the content of the Greatest Page.

Also, now that we have the system in place, there are a lot of cool things we can do with it. Many of you have suggested that we could crunch the recs and unrecs in new ways in order to create lists of highly controversial threads, or popular threads, or threads with the most positive recommendations, or whatever. We think it would be cool to do this. If we can provide you with more different ways to experience DU, that's a good thing.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we improve DU. And thank you for all of your feedback.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
DU Administrators

It is amazing that many DUers think that the only way to prevent a thread from being "great" is to "U" it. They are too lazy to realize that most threads do not get there. That these are not the only two options.

The fact that some threads get "less than 0" within the few seconds of posting and with fewer than 10 views suggest that some have their own agenda.

Thanks

or even worse: "ditto"

or me too..

+1 obviously for (i.e., "i agree, good comment"), and -1 obviously for (i.e., "crappy comment")...


DU doesn't have that functionality/software (yet?), hence many people who use that feature have to do it manually here, i.e. by spelling "+1" or "-1" next to a particular post. (although i've seen some people here use "+100", or even "+1,000" when they strongly agree with something - it's cheating, though! )



anyway, in context of DU, +1 or -1 is simply a shorthand way to express one's agreement or disagreement...

Who needs the negativity?

This isn't an unrec feature it is a "report an anti-Obama post" feature. I work 12-14 hours a day. Still, I had no problem filtering through the greatest page.

So, why not make it official and create an "anti-Obama" button where Obama enforcers can look for anything critical of Obama and flag the poster with a scarlet letter next to his name every time he/she posts? Patent it and sell it to the free republic. They will love it.

I guess server space is so expensive we can't afford to waste valuable space with minority opinions. Mass censorship in any of its efficient mechanical embodiments is simply the wrong way.

Otherwise I have no problem with the new system. Thanks for implementing it!

This encourages interpersonal pissing matches. Leaving it at 0 is just fine.

Get outta my head!

If we are showing the positive tally, then we should show the neg tally.
Otherwise, change positively rec'ed threads to >0 to be fair, as the negative rec'ed threads are <0

of what is going on. If you show the one you should show the other.
Thanks for letting us speak up.

Transparency is a good idea. As it stands right now if people want to stop something from making it to the greatest page they know what number to overcome. You have no idea what number to overcome to get something to the greatest page though. Obviously this should not be the goal of rec or unrec but good luck enforcing that.

Rp

How many DUers have mostly stopped Reccing or UnReccing due to the arbitrary nothingness of the current display? Something to consider in looking at how this is working out.

And I don't think that the "clarity" explanation of eliminating <0 count is exactly "accurate".

The point isn't to show how down in the dumps unpopular a given thread is. That could have a shaming effect on the unlucky poster or lead to popularity rec & unreccing... It's enough to just say thread X does not reflect the feelings of this board.

Whether the minimum is <0 or 0, it is terribly ambiguous and unsymmetrical.
Recommendations should be represented on a scale from -∞ to ∞.
Or, for practical purposes, from -2^63 to 2^63-1.

I wholeheartedly agree

(damn your no-html tags filter! )

Because then we'd have to get rid of the right column on the Greatest Page, too.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Or will those continue until people run out of steam? Just curious.

It should die down on its own eventually.

Sort of like how they do it at DK...with a drop down bar?

nt

I've gotta' don that for that one.

Don't tell me you've gone to the Dark Side...and that you've forgotten "Selection 2000?"

Skinner, with all due respect, you have had a great thing going with DU from the start but, over time it seems that the dialogue has become more about people's personal grudges and petty nonsense that really in the end just dulls down the level of discourse on the site. I am sure it is not easy to run a site like this. I have to say that I enjoyed the way things were back in the "old days" when the site was less restricted. I learned a lot from fellow posters, even those I disagreed with. Now I find less interesting discussions and a narrow viewpoint being expressed. I don't have the time to come here as often as I used to and when I do and find a discussion that interests me I often find it locked before I can even post my own comment.

I also find that some posters and opinions are more equal than others in some very obvious ways. When I first found your site in the early Bush years it was a rare oasis of free thought. Over time that has diminished considerably IMO. I don't assume to accuse you of having any agenda but I see a difference in the way people are allowed to express their ideas here. I enjoyed reading posts from many different perspectives. Sometimes I enjoyed OP's that I disagreed with more than those I supported. It gave me a chance to examine a different point of view. I do think that the name calling and the personal attacks should be kept under control but that is a separate issue from what I see here that bothers me. I do think the site could do more to civilize the level of discourse and that would only make DU more attractive and effective as a place to share ideas and potentially help people organize for the Democratic/Progressive cause. I have never been bothered too much by opinions I do not share. It is more often the way they are presented that is disturbing.

Best,

Sterling

will not be enough for a few, along with ignore, hide, alert etc.

????

I have no control over and probably shouldn't be driving in the first place.

I trust Skinner.

Of course, DUers residing in alternate realities may be able to siphon off water from elsewhere for all I know...

I believe the new function is a positive addition to the site and am glad it is to remain.

I'm glad to be a member.

...at my children's elementary school.

Everyone howled and had VERY strong opinions when these changes were proposed.

Then, when the changes happen--everyone just adjusted without a whimper.

Human being resist change. Even when the change is really not that big of a deal.

I pay no attention to stuff like this. If DU is still here, I'm happy as a clam!

I did not have my glasses on when it first started and thought it was a rec place by muscle memory. There is no ability to correct for this. I miss the confirm option on the rec/ unrec. It is a real bummer when you want to rec something and you accidentally unrec.
Thanks,
Melissa

That would make it harder to make the same mistake. And "unrecommend" is kind of an awkward term anyway.

... have an option on the View menu to control the Text Size. Maybe you should use it.

After scrolling size, I move to glasses. Depending on how tired my eyes are, I sometimes need them. The unrec size type is borderline for my eyes. There are sometimes I can read it, sometimes not.

I'm sure there are a lot of baby boomers and up on this board that have challenges with the type size.

continues to bother me is the "un-recing" of LBN threads.

EarlG acknowledged the issue, but I still think it reflects poorly on DU that factual stories about rescued miners, kids getting organ transplants, etc. can be rated <0 (as has happened).

I'm fine with people thinking they don't belong on the "Greatest Page". In fact, I don't post with the intent of getting on the "Greatest Page." But there's something bizarre (and morally wrong, IMHO) about DUers visibly voting down a story about the Khmer Rouge facing justice.

Thanks,

Coventina

Also, you're probably aware of this, but there are many reasons someone might unrec a thread. In my case, the topic may be fine, but I really cringe at the language used to convey it (violent or misogynist language, for example). I find I'm rarely using the unrec, but I do use it in that case.

I was thinking the same thing. There are as many reasons why someone would use un rec. The vast majority of posters here feel the same 'core values' and will rec or un-rec accordingly.

There are responsible reasons for going against the grain.

If there were a 'neutral' vote perhaps this would give a voice to that other sphere.

I would think visibility of the total vote/recommendation both pro and con would/should be a basic Democratic/democratic fundamental tenet of the people's ability to express them selves.

I believe the current system of not reflecting pro/rec votes and con/anti rec votes does a disservice to the minority of whatever issue,subject or candidate the thread will be about.

You could still require a 5+ pro rec to make the Greatest Page.

Thank you for your efforts.

what is the reasoning behind showing only the total net votes?? seriously, why??

why not show the tally of positive and negative votes, like many other forums do?


it's somewhat misleading when a thread that got 100 recommendations and 97 unrecs looks exactly the same as a thread that got only 3 recs.

Like rubbernecking a car wreck, I think I would pay MORE attention to a thread if it had high negatives.

... but basically i'm all for transparency, and i simply do NOT understand Admin's argument against transparency. (if there's one, that is.)

Actually that would be kinda fun...

Helpful to know just how much negativity an affirmation is up against.

(no, i really do. )

...I mean, really. WTF, man.

but you missed it because he used his sockpuppet and only six people know who that is.

as a mandatory 11th option to all polls, either. It's probably just as well, since it would invariably win a lot of them (when it didn't come in second to "I like to vote".

I kid, I kid.

"Our motivation for giving you the ability to unrecommend was to improve the overall quality of the threads that make it to the DU Greatest Page"

Define "quality" for me.

Which is why I used fudge words like "it seems to be" and "we believe".

You can still define the term, as you use it, even if that definition is subjective.

So we'll agree no objective definition is possible. That doesn't rule out the ability for you to at least explain how you're using the term in this context.

I for one would like to hear what you define as "quality" in the context of your post, subjective or not.

I think you're too bored. Perhaps some time spent feeding the homeless at a local shelter can give you some renewed perspective?

Then, given the fact that my grandmother is in the last stage of cancer, and I've moved home to support my mother while her mom dies a very painful death I do happen to have some extra time during the day, though I can't exactly go volunteer right now since that sort of defeats the purpose of why I dropped everything to move out here (which was to be with my mother for support while she goes through this and help as needed with my grandmother).

It always amazes how how frequently a difference of opinion gets spun into personal judgments and assumptions about the personal life of someone, which you know nothing about, which has no relevance at all. It's cheap, childish and petty.

Finally, take a look at my profile... particularly the "I have been:" section. And get over your judgmental self.

"It always amazes how frequently a difference of opinion gets spun into personal judgments and assumptions about the personal life of someone, which you know nothing about, which has no relevance at all. It's cheap, childish and petty."

You have expressed my least favorite thing about DU these days. Why can't people act like grown ups? I can't say back in the old days here I was never guilty of getting caught up in that but my better sense of respect won out in the end. The board has degenerated a great deal and it seems that personal insults have taken the place of rational thought. I find the site less interesting as a result and definitely less informative. Sometimes it can be out right bad for a person’s character if they spend too much time here in that kind of environment.

...whether the thread, taken as a whole, would appeal to the interest of the average DUer, or has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I call this the "Modified Miller Test".

More often than not though, I simply apply Justice Stewart Potter's wisdom; I know a quality thread when I see one.

And the "I know it when I see it" response to a definition of pornography has helped absolutely no one.

It's not that much to actually request that the administrator of a site define what he means by "Quality" even if that definition is subjective. It's fair.

If I don't get that I'll live. But people writing back acting like its ridiculous ....are ridiculous.

from the perspective of the owner of a message board: that which attracts more people than it rejects'

as for Potter's definition of 'pornography' that is in fact, the right one for a country of this size and diversity. how can you possibly establish a community standard for a country that includes Time Square (at the time) and Dubuque? (nothing against Dubuque) Pornography, like a great threat, is a purely subjective standard. you know it when you see it. you and I may well have completely different definitions of both. heck, my avatar on this board was banned because it included a picture that some people on this board complained about. It was a photo of the girl on the side of a WWII bomber. 55 years ago. and yet, since people complained, I removed it. community standards and all. I don't expect this community to completely comply with my personal standard of propriety. Surely there is stuff that I would see as perfectly normal that would sicken people on this board, and stuff that would sicken me (there must be something) that would be titillating to others. c'est la vie.

being dispelled about it. These questions, although they're being serious in asking them, make me giggle that I don't have this kind of drama over simple ideas to give people the voice to say they don't like a thread without having to comment on it.

My hats off to you three for running the site pretty smoothly for the 5 years I've been on here. I can't imagine running the thing, thank God for the mods to help! LOL

Peace!

There, that fixes it.

containing a funny typo inn title, or are have a "whoops, please delete, meant to reply not start a new thread" or something really lame like that that make it to greatest too often. among other types of "lower quality" threads.

Being deemed "greatest" is subjective in itself, so being deemed less or greater quality is of course subjective as well. How could it be otherwise?

but recommend and unrecommend don't work for me right now.

Between Palin V. Letterman, MJ and unrec, I must have hidden over a hundred.

I would look forward to seeing other changes and experiments and watching how some get all wired and bent out of shape about them. It does make for amusing reading.

What is even the point of the ratings if being on the greatest page isn't a big deal? I was outright mocked by some of the pro-unrec posters for pointing out that unrec gives power to people who blog on behalf of groups.

Besides tipping me off to the fact that many user like unrec TOO much for it to be a good idea, it made me think---for all those who claim to delve deep into the DU lobbies, why would they care about recs one way or another if not for the power of having your post on the greatest page?

And I would like to see the total positive and negative numbers rather than just 0 or <0. When I read something and think "wtf, is this person crazy?" it's nice to know if everyone else is also thinking the same thing or if in fact I am crazy and the person's view is the mainstream consensus.

Maybe that's what people feel like anyway, on the computer, unwilling to use their words, needing a disembodied "vote."

You want mainstream consensus? Democrats and progressives are looking for "mainstream consensus"?

For example, if I thought that the unrec feature was a crime against humanity but realized that the vast majority of other DUers thought I was silly, I would probably shrug, reconsider my point of view, and move on. Or I would recognize that my opinion was obviously in the minority and think about why I hold that opinion and possibly reconsider it. Or else strengthen my minority opinion by thinking about it more deeply and coming up with good arguments for why I feel the way I do. That's what any reasonable progressive does on any issue.

This is exactly what I had hoped for. I posted a wish last night that the three of you would post a thread stating your intent to leave Unrec as a permanent part of the DU experience.

Got roundly trashed for it too. Now I feel vindicated LOL.

Sid

k/r