From this moment on, when I do Un Rec a thread, i will explain why

[WCGreen]

I am taking this action.

I am doing this because the value of an Un Rec is minimized without any feedback.

Most posters announce that they are kicking and recommending a post.

I rarely Un Rec a post but I fairly often rec a post without explanation.

I promise that I will, from now on, offer my reason for recommending as well.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

1. Unreccing because it's yet another thread on unreccing. (n/t)

[WCGreen]

2. There you go...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. Yep! (n/t)

[hlthe2b]

3. Ahhh, taking away the mystery...

;)

I'm neutral on this so where is my "uncommitted" (unrec+rec) button?

[WCGreen]

4. Not much mystery since I rarely Un Rec...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. I think it's a very smart move.

And I think everyone should do it.

I have to be really pissed off at the topic or the poster to unrec, so I rarely do it.

Not sure if I'd have the courage to say so openly, though!

:P

[Duer 157099]

7. KnR, just because somebody else unrec'd n/t

[LynneSin]

8. Unrec just because I can

it was a whim. No real reason

:hide:

[jobycom]

9. I won't. Please don't. Freaking threads are long enough as it is.

There are threads on the Greatest page with over a hundred recs, which probably means they have close to 200 recs and unrecs. Last bullshit we need is for every person who recs or unrecs a thread to explain why, so that we have to skim through the "Look At Me!!" ego kicks to get to the one or two decent posts in each of them.

People need to bolster their fragile goddamned egos and quite worrying about why someone recs or unrecs them. If they're just posting to get attention, tell them to go post somewhere else. If it's worth saying, say if for that reason, not to get people to fawn all over you. Your mommie will do that if that's all you need.

[WCGreen]

11. then get rid of the whole system and let each thread stand on it's

own...

I don't post to get people to fawn all over me. If you check my threads I am not afraid to take an unpopular stance.

I post about all sorts of stuff and I don't ever say to myself, will this post get me to the greatest page.

[jobycom]

14. Each thread already stands on its own.

The Rec and Unrec are just a person's opinion of whether they'd recommend others to read the thread. If you aren't worried about it getting to the Greatest page, why are you worried about it?

[WCGreen]

15. because it's feedback with out any use...

[jobycom]

18. It's not feedback, it's a recommendation to others.

It's not meant to be of use to the OP, it's meant to be of use to the rest of us.

[tranche]

10. If it's crap (which I assume is one reason for an unrec) you're essentially kicking it to the top.

Not sure about this one...

[WCGreen]

12. That is true...

But I usually don't bother one way or another to post in threads I think are crap anyway...

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. And sometimes threads are actively disruptive

and DU is a far better place without any kicks to them at all. Sometimes someone has explained already what's wrong with the thread (eg the OP is inaccurate), and there's little point in typing it out again and kicking the poor quality thread. There are plenty of situations in which an unrec without comment is a Good Thing.

[TexasObserver]

29. This.

The silent UNREC warns off others without kicking the stink bombs to the top.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. If figure if it's unrecommendable, it's usually pretty obvious why.

And if they OP doesn't get it, he/she should spend some time trying to figure it out

[Better Believe It]

16. I don't unrecommend any posts because that is undemocratic.

I've explain how and why "unrecommend" can and has been used by a political cliques to censor posts they don't agree with.

[WCGreen]

20. That's why I don't like the whole concept to begin with...

But I guess since this is a political board we should expect that type of behavior.

Political campaigns always stuff the ballot boxes in straw polls, pay people to show up to events to make it look like they are more popular than they really are.

I have seen all sorts of stuff like that happen.

[jobycom]

22. You'll have to spell out exactly how "Unrecommending" a post censors it.

It's my understanding that the Unrecommend feature can't actually change or alter a post in any way. :shrug:

What was undemocratic was when they didn't have the Unrec feature, and political bullying cliques would ramroad some bullshit that most DUers disagreed with onto the front page. Now, the rest of us also have an input on what hits the front page. If the majority of people like a thread, it can represent DU on the front page. If the majority dislike a thread, then they can counter the bullies and keep it off the front page.

You'll have to tell me what part of allowing everyone to vote is undemocratic. When the old Soviet Union only allowed one choice, everyone claimed they were undemocratic, but you're saying that only allowing once choice is more democratic than allowing two? That's a strange definition of democracy that you'll have to expand upon.

[Better Believe It]

33. Why removing a post I or someone else doesn't like is undemocratic and amounts to censorship

You wrote: "You'll have to tell me what part of allowing everyone to vote is undemocratic. When the old Soviet Union only allowed one choice, everyone claimed they were undemocratic, but you're saying that only allowing once choice is more democratic than allowing two?"

Voting? We don't vote on Democratic Underground for anything! So what vote are you writing about? We don't vote in any DU elections for DU positions such as moderator or administrator. And we don't vote for any public candidates or public referendum on DU.

So the recommend and unrecommend features have absolutely nothing to do with electing people to public office, either here or in the old Soviet Union. That really was not a good analogy you made.

However, if you insist the recommend/unrecommend feature is just like democratic voting in elections, will you propose that DU'ers be given multiple choices to vote on? After all, we frequently have more than two candidates running for one office.

Following your mistaken "democratic" logic on "the greatest page voting" we should have multiple choices to make it really democratic with a big D!

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

Now that's a democratic DU vote!

These the recommend/unrecommend features are not like state referendums on issues such as gay marriage.

We do not change governmental policy and laws via these DU features.

Are you with me so far?

You also wrote: "If the majority of people like a thread, it can represent DU on the front page. If the majority dislike a thread, then they can counter the bullies and keep it off the front page."

A majority of DU'ers? Hardly. There are over 150,000 DU'ers and only a tiny fraction, far less than 1/10th of one percent, usually use this feature! Not even a majority of those who have actually read a specific post use the recommend/unrecommend feature.

So let me explain to you how and why the unrecommend feature is undemocratic and actually amounts to censorship on Democratic Underground.

Here's some points I made over a year ago:


Moderates, DLC supporters and Blue Dogs can prance around un-recommending any thread that's too liberal or challenges a "centrist" bi-partisanship policy.

Progressives, liberals. PDA supporters and Greens can bounce around from one post to another un-recommending any thread that echos White House talking points or is a simple cheer leading promotion.

Let's see which individuals and political cliques or factions can control and censor "the greatest page".

Let the games begin!

Of course, that's not what Democratic Underground is really all about .... right?

We can all see that this is encouraging unnecessary conflicts, harmful divisions, growing hostility and bitter rancor among DU supporters.

And that's not what DU is all about.

It's obviously not encouraging healthy, vigorous, democratic and civil discussion among democrats/progressives on DU.

And that's what DU is all about.

I'm not going to use the un-recommend feature against posts I disagree with or posters I don't like.

That would be undemocratic.

And why is that?

It's really very basic, simple and easy to understand.

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from anywhere on the DU website.

Those who un-recommend are censoring by removing a post from "the greatest" page. The thread is now hidden, it disappears from the "the greatest page", sometimes the DU front page, which means it will have fewer views. And that's the real reason behind why anyone would vote to un-recommend. (REMOVAL IS CENSORSHIP! GET IT?)

Now some will insist that DU'ers are casting a vote, for or against, the views presented in a post. When did that become the purpose of "the greatest page"? The purpose of "the greatest page" was not to conduct a DU wide referendum on posts, a referendum that had consequences.

Democratic Underground declares: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy."

That's all it's suppose to be. It doesn't even have to be a thread you agree with or have any opinion on! "The greatest page" was not meant to be a place to cast vote for or against posts you believe in or disagree with! It's a noteworthy post. That's all it was set up for.

And later:

Is anyone here proposing a simple vote, for or against posts, without their removal from the DU front page or "greatest"?

I haven't seen any.

Some just want the power to remove posts from the "greatest page" because they either don't agree with the posts or they don't like the poster.

It really has little or nothing to do with whether or not a post is noteworthy.

That's pretty fricken obvious, isn't it?

[jobycom]

35. Some fancy dancing there. You should be on that TV program.

Voting to unrec a thread does not edit the thread, censor it, or as you have now added, "remove" it. The thread is still there, in all its glory for anyone to see. It is simply a recommendation on whether the voter thinks the thread is worth reading or not. It's also not a vote to put a thread on the Greatest page, as you say. The Greatest page came long after the rec feature, as a way to group popular threads together. The problem before the Unrec feature was that these cliques you mentioned before kept locking up the Greatest page and the front page with drivel that maybe 50 people liked and the rest hated. Thus, an unrec vote was added, so that Greatest and Front would reflect more accurately the views of DU's majority. That's generally what democracy is about--the opinion of the majority. The opinions of the minority are of course also valid and wanted and protected--those posts still appear in all their unaltered glory for the majority of DU to express their opinion on.

There are not 150,000 users on DU. That's the cumulative total of all the posters who have ever created an account on DU. Many have been banned, many have wandered away, many were duplicate accounts, etc. According to the admins the last time they talked about this, there are maybe three thousand active members at a time, and many of those don't post, or don't visit every day. That was a while back, you can raise it to 5000 and I won't argue. I have no idea how many visit DU on any given day, but I'm sure it's not all of them. Of those who do, not everyone reads every post. I'd say Rec totals rarely break a hundred, and even more rarely break two hundred. Look at the thread views. The average thread gets less than a hundred. Many get between 100 and 500. A few get up to numbers like 5000, but those are in threads with lots of posts and many repeat viewers, like you and I are now in this thread. I've "Viewed" it, I don't know, maybe ten times now, so I've inflated the Viewed total.

We're talking about a hundred people or less seeing most threads, and the big popular ones being seen by a few hundred, or maybe a thousand or so if it's on the front page for a while. But not 150,000.

[Spazito]

36. Excellent summary of the facts re DU and the numbers....

as well as the reality of what the rec/unrec function actually does and does not do.

:thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

38. Here are the easy to understand facts. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out!

One would think that all those who love using the unrecommend feature would understand this!

And if they don't, why the hell are they using it?

Do they really think they are voting in some sort of strange election?

Here's the hard facts which a few choose to ignore or pretend to not understand.

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from anywhere on the DU website.

Those who un-recommend are censoring by removing a post from "the greatest" page or the "front page" of Democratic Underground. The thread is now hidden, it disappears from the "the greatest page", sometimes even the DU front page, which means it will have fewer views. And that's the real reason behind why anyone would vote to un-recommend. Some here don't want people to see and read a post thee don't like. And if they can knock it off the front page and/or "greatest page" they will have accomplished their not so carefully hidden agenda. (REMOVAL IS CENSORSHIP! GET IT?)

Period!

Case Closed!

I hope someone doesn't pretend they don't understand this.

You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to get it!

[Spazito]

40. Gosh, no arrogance in your post, no sirree!

"Period!

Case Closed!"

Your closing argument on the "case" is so full of holes you could drive multiple semis through it. There is NO censorship taking place with the use of the rec/unrec feature, there IS, however, democratic choice being offered. I can only assume by your voluminous yet empty hyperbolic rhetoric you don't understand neither censorship nor democratic choice and, to quote you, You really don't have to be a rocket scientist" to understand both.

[Better Believe It]

41. So you really don't get it or do you just need help in understanding what the word "remove" means?

So having a post removed from the DU's front page or "greatest" is not censorship in your book.

Do I need to define the word "remove" as opposed to the word "insert" for you?

Now trust me on this.

Those two words have opposite meanings!

I hope you don't have to struggle with that for too long.

Yikes!

Oh .... it's not arrogance.

It's just intelligence, understanding the meaning of simple English words and frustration with people who are pretending to not understand the meaning of censorship.

You are pretending .... right?

[Spazito]

45. Oh I get, I most assuredly do...

and so do the administrators of this site. Simply put, if the majority of DUers believe a thread deserves to be on the Greatest Page they have a vote on it and vice versa. It is NOT censorship, it is democratic and that seems to be a concept that is foreign to you. You may continue to harrumph and bluster self-importantly but your opinion will not change the facts.

[Better Believe It]

54. We don't "vote" on DU posts. If we did, the "vote" counts would be published

The unfortunate truth is that you try to remove posts you don't agree with from DU's front page and the "greatest threads list" of Democratic Underground.

And why exactly do you do that?

In order to reduce the number of DU'ers who will come across posts that don't meet with your approval!

Oh .... how very democratic of you! You're a regular ACLU'er! NOT.

One who truly believes in free discussion and democracy would not want to remove posts from viewing in order to cut the number of DU'ers who see it.

But once again, that's your real purpose behind your using the unrecommend feature. Isn't that right? Come on, admit it.

So drop all the sophistry and nonsense about how your just "voting" on posts.

We don't "vote" on DU posts. If we do, its a new kind of voting in which we never know the results of the vote!

If that's true, why aren't the "votes" for and against a topic ever published on DU? We just get to see the recommend "votes" after the "unrecommend" votes are deducted!

Why even in DU polls and public polls we see how people "voted", for and against a particular proposition!

[Mimosa]

42. Does just 1 un-rec remove a topic?

I hardly understand how the system works.

BTW, can somebody look at the topic (s)he started and see who had recommended it? Or un-recommended it?

[Spazito]

44. The system works quite simply in this way...

If there a 5 more recs than unrecs the thread meets the criteria to go to the Greatest. If there is not, it doesn't go there. DUers make the choice by either recing it or unrecing it as to whether it makes it or not. Prior to having both rec and unrec, 5 recs would send a thread to the Greatest even if the vast majority of DUers were in opposition to it because there was no way to express the will of the majority. Now there is. If the majority of DUers believe it should be on the Greatest, they recommend it more than it is unrecommended and vice versa.

Quite democratic contrary to those who want to go back to the old system.

[Mimosa]

46. Thanks!

I've been registered since 2003 & hadn't larned all that.:)

I agree that un-rec helps. I noticed how the greatest page used to seem 'fixed'at times. ;)

[Spazito]

47. You're very welcome!

I think the system works well overall.

[Better Believe It]

57. One person using the "unrecommend" feature can remove a post from the DU front page or from

the "greatest threads" list on DU.

And Spaziot calls that democratic and non-censorship!

Removing posts is free speech and democratic.

It's just old fashion democratic voting .... except in this method of voting we don't know the vote count!

The number of "votes" cast in favor of removing posts and the number of "votes" in favor of placing the post on DU's front page and/or DU's list of "greatest" posts is not posted.

Isn't that right, Spazito?

Care to tell us what other kinds of "votes" you participate in that don't indicate the "voting" results?

[Spazito]

60. Hmmm, it seems you have not learned that....

resorting to personal attacks is, in reality, an admission that one has nothing of value to offer on the issue. It is unfortunate your posts indicate an inability to understand the difference between democracy and censorship regardless of how many posters have patiently and repeatedly tried to help you.

Losing one's temper is not conducive to retaining one's credibility, it actually reduces it. Just another helpful hint from me to you.

Edited to add: One can see the results of the vote by which threads democratically appear on the Greatest Page, I even get an immediate acknowledgement of my vote once cast.

[Better Believe It]

62. I don't think that employing sophistry on your part has enhanced your credibilty.

So once again, why do you think removing posts from either the front page of Democratic Underground or "the greatest pages" list is one of the most democratic anti-censorship acts you can perform on DU?

You and I clearly have a totally different concept of democracy and free speech.

You think the removal of posts on DU is democratic, and I believe it smacks of censorship.

And you're pretending that you still don't understand the difference!

Come on. Stop the b.s. OK?

[Spazito]

63. "You and I clearly have a totally different concept of democracy and free speech"....

Yes, we do seem to have a totally different concept of democracy, thank goodness. As to "free speech", darn, I guess you, it seems by your post, do not understand this is a privately owned website with established rules which can and does limit "free speech" when it contravenes the rules set, another concept that, to me, does not seem too complex to understand.

[Better Believe It]

71. Well, we agree on something. You want the power to remove posts you don't like.

You favor having the power to remove posts you don't like via the unrecommend feature and I don't like or use that power of censorship while you embrace it.

Your use of unrecommend to remove posts has absolutely nothing to do with DU rules prohibiting certain types of speech, rules that I support. They are two unrelated matters.

Of course, you know that.

But, I understand your attempts to muddy up the waters.

I don't think you should constantly invoke Skinner's name as if you are speaking on his behalf or in order to give your views more credibility. He is fully capable of speaking for himself on this or any other issues and doesn't need your "help".

[Spazito]

74. LOL, keep hitting your head in hopes you can change your opinion...

into facts. I tried to help you understand the basics of democracy and how a privately-owned site works but it seems, by your post, the blinders remain. Like everyone else in this thread, I am moving on, maybe even recing and unrecing threads, gasp!

[Better Believe It]

76. Good. I finally stopped your weak defense of removing posts you don't like.

Bye!

[Better Believe It]

51. Yes and No

"Does just 1 un-rec remove a topic?"

Yes. For example. The top 5 "greatest threads" are usually placed on Democratic Undergrounds front page. Let's say your post is #5 on the front page with 100 recommendations and a different post is off the front page with 99 recommendations. If someone unrecommends your post that would knock it down to 99 recommendations and off the front page if "ties" for #5 are not listed.

And you can be removed from the entire "more greatest threads" list with only one unrecommendation! You need at least 5 recommendations to be placed on that list. If you have 5 and a single poster unrecommends it, your post can be removed from that list!


"can somebody look at the topic (s)he started and see who had recommended it? Or un-recommended it?"

No. And the total number of both recommendations and unrecommendations are not indicated.

[Better Believe It]

37. So removing a post from the front page and/or "greatest" is democratic and not censorship??!!!

Talk about fancy foot work!

Could you explain how removing a post is democratic?

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. The front page has limited space on it

And that space is used for the best of recent threads. Recommending thread 'A' might knock thread 'B' off the front page, as a result. Do you consider recommending one thread as 'censoring' all other threads? Do you consider the time limit for threads on the front page to be 'censorship'?

The unrec feature allows DUers to make their view that a thread is not of high quality known. It enables a balanced sampling of opinion of DU as to what is 'great'. With only recs, all the greatest page shows is that some subset of DUers like a thread; that may just show the existence of a clique. If, however, a thread gets a significantly larger number of recs than unrecs, it shows it is much more representative of DU.

I wouldn't have used the word 'democratic' to describe it myself - I think 'representative' is better. But your claim that unreccing is 'undemocratic' is absurd. If you think the greatest and front pages are about 'democracy', then a system that reflects the opinions of more DUers is plainly more 'democratic'. And 'unrec' enables more DUers' opinions to be used in rating a thread.

[TexasObserver]

49. The admins have repeatedly addressed and debunked your nonsense.

A poster claiming the rec/unrec vote isn't a vote is laughable.

It's a vote. You don't like the outcome? Rally your troops. Get them out. Get them to vote with you. And if you can't do that, you're getting all the democracy you can handle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. I unrec threads because it spreads democracy and helps poor people.

[TexasObserver]

48. It IS Democratic. It's a vote. You just don't like the result.

When you vote rec and others disagree in greater numbers, you're outvoted.

Skinner has repeatedly debunked your absurd "used by political cliques to censor posts they don't agree with" theme. Sometimes your opinion of what is recommend worthy is not shared by others. The only problem is your belief that you can intuit the reasons others vote unrecommend.

[Better Believe It]

65. Really? Can you tell me the results of even a single one of these alleged "votes"?

So how is that "vote" going on the "League of Women Voters calls for 'Medicare for all'" post which is on todays DU front page?

I'd like to know how many "voted" for it and how many voted against placing it on the front page.

Can you tell us?

Of course you can't.

In a DU poll can we tell how many voted for the different options provided in the poll?

Of course we can.

And the same of course holds true for actual votes for either candidates or referendum in elections.

[TexasObserver]

67. Sure. I can tell you when Unrecs exceed Recs.

I can tell you when they don't.



Again, you don't have to like it. You don't even have to understand it, as you are proving.

[TexasObserver]

17. From this moment on, when I Unrec a thread, I won't explain why.

I am taking this action.

I am doing this because the value of an Un Rec is its count.

Most posters announce that they are kicking and recommending a post.

I often Un Rec a post and I fairly often rec a post without explanation.

I promise that I will, from now on, offer no reason for recommending as well.

[WCGreen]

23. There is no count in the unrec...

I would rather they show this many recs and this many unrecs instead of just showing a postive number.

[TexasObserver]

25. Yes, there is, you just can't see it. You can only see its effect.

I would rather they show all the unrecs, but too many thread starters couldn't handle that sordid truth.

[WCGreen]

31. I would rather have full disclosure than have some kind of

Zen like feel about a thread.

[Better Believe It]

19. Please don't. In fact, don't unrecommend any post.

[WCGreen]

21. I think I have unreced maybe 10 posts since the option came on....

[bigwillq]

24. Unrec

For making the rec/unrec system out to be more important than it is. If you want rec, rec. If you want to unrec, unrec. Pretty simple.

[AngryOldDem]

26. I may be in the minority here....

...but I think unrec is creating more problems and adding more tension here than it's really worth. Just my uninformed opinion.

[stuntcat]

66. probably the minority.

I wish it wasn't there too though! It looks like it's just wasted a lot of people's time.. wasted a lot of bandwidth on non-issues of DU in-fighting.

I've recommended stuff a few times but really it's a feature I could do without. I absolutely hated it when they first started it, and since then I've seen way too many discussions about it.

[SidDithers]

30. Unrec...nt

Sid

[Javaman]

32. A topic that should have died long ago...

yet keeps rising from the dead like a zombie.

[Spazito]

34. Good for you.....and we need to know this....why?

Oh, wait a minute....I get it...this is just another OP whining about the unrec feature, clumsily disguised as ?. I believe the admins made it crystal clear the system stays and they have repeated that crystal clear statement more than once yet here we are.


Unrec'd, or....maybe not, lol.

[leftstreet]

39. UnRec keeps stupid shit off the greatest page n/t

[Catherina]

43. *Community* you say? n/t

[MattBaggins]

50. I am unreccing this post

because announcing every silly stupid inane reason one unreccs a post does nothing except fill the thread with useless banter and off topic rantings. It creates ill will and leads to flame fests.

Just unrecc and carry on.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. The anonymous unrec crowd has your conecpt unreced and underwater.

Kudos to you for manning up.

I do the same thing.

[Iggo]

53. Hello!

B-)

[Gman]

55. Unrec just because

[jotsy]

56. I appreciate the intent of starting a dialog about protocol, Mr. Green.

I generally don't unrec. I believe I've done it but twice and both were threads about marijuana usage causing schizophrenia.

There are other threads where I see several K and R's, with a lesser number of rec's recorded. If it's something I'm kind of neutral about, I'm inclined to rec to compensate without seeing an explanation as to why people have decided to recommend against.

[Dr.Phool]

58. Well, I'm not going to rec it or unrec it!

Consider it an undervote.

[Robb]

59. That was my idea!

...OK, mine's a spoiled ballot. :D

[Vickers]

61. I'm UNRECing this one because I just burned some toast. n/t

[KonaKane]

64. Good move. I'll join you in that.

Seems that unreccing as it stands is an anonymous chickenshit action with no accountability. I'm happy to see someone took the initiative in changing that.

[mmonk]

68. Thank you. I wish more people would.

When we get unrecommended for posts that aren't controversial, sometimes we would like to know why and if it is because of our positions on other unrelated topics.

[Obamanaut]

69. Look how long this has stayed on page 1 of GD, despite having a

zero net rating.

I unrecced earlier, but don't want to share the reason.

ETA and look, it's back at the top of the page

[xultar]

70. Robb you'rea a dingbat

[AnArmyVeteran]

72. Why is there an unrecommend feature in the first place?

It sounds awfully right wing to me. It looks like there are trolls who go through posts and read just enough of them to give them an unrecommendation. It would be better if there were numbers showing the actual number of recommendations and unrecommendations. I've had some of my posts get 5 recommendations and within a few seconds it's down to zero. Is there an 'unrecommmendation team' that trolls the board? It seems like it.

All the unrecommending sounds awfully petty to me. We're all adults here so I like to read just about anything without having to judge them negatively. If I disagree with a poster, I just move on to the next one. I don't have that need to be punitive.

[tammywammy]

75. I won't because that's just kicking a thread I think is stupid

BTW, I also rec sometimes without comment.