I left in a huff yesterday...

[Mythsaje]

I awoke feeling crappy and signed on for my daily dose of sanity. So what did I find? Something I've opposed since I first saw it proposed. Some folks are feeling vindicated--and some positively radiant--and they're going to decide for the rest of us why we dislike and/or oppose the new un-recommend feature.

First of all, everyone already HAD an unrecommend feature. It's called NOT RECOMMENDING in the first place. If something didn't interest you, didn't recommend it. Now one actually has the power to step in and eliminate someone else's vote, render their opinion, effectively, null and void. Canceling someone else's belief about that particular post. One doesn't have to contribute anything to the discussion but push-button denial.

Or not.

Either way, it's pretty obvious to me how a concerted effort by as few as ten people could effectively silence any single person's voice on DU from here on out. If a post doesn't make it to the Greatest Page within about an hour, it never will unless someone makes the attempt to kick it up where others can see it. If such a group wanted to make sure a person's voice, or a certain subject, should die, they could make it happen.

And for those critics who'd suggest that this is about my ego, or anything like that, I'd just like to remind them that I'm a writer. Writing is what I do. And so far this is not only far more gratifying than ninety percent of the idiotic things an author is expected to do these days to promote oneself, it also has the added benefit of being more effective for me in the long run. When I post here, and get those numbers, it drives more people to my website. Of course, one must also decide whether that's good, bad, or indifferent. We all want to be recognized for what we're good at, do we not? I'm not forcing anyone to buy my books, or even asking all that often. But I sure as hell want people to be aware that they exist.

I think this whole unrecommend thing is a really bad idea. And, though you definitely don't have to take my word for it, I'm right about these things far more often than I'm wrong.

Regardless--I'll catch everyone later. Just not now.

[TexasObserver]

1. disagree

[Jakes Progress]

101. See. That wasn't so hard was it?

Posting a disagreement was always allowed.

This situation reminds me of the old Huey Long story. He was fired up and giving a speech about sharing the wealth. He yelled that anyone with cattle should be willing to share with their neighbors. A farmer on the front row yelled "That's right, Huey."
Huey said anyone with a car should be willing to share it with his neighbors. The farmer yelled "You tell 'em Huey". Then Huey said that anyone with pigs should be willing to share them with the community. "Can't go along with you there, Huey." said the farmer. "Hell, I already got pigs."

Those here on DU who bask in the warmth of the majority see no reason to share. Hell, they have approval before they post. Un recing en masse is just their way of letting others know how very special they are.

It is already happening. There are several regulars whose posts always have a<0 for anything they write. Read the post and it is innocuous - lacking any way for someone to take a side. But it racks up dozens of un recs just because of who posted and because they ruffled some feathers.

God bless the feather rufflers.

[TexasObserver]

105. What a bizarre post!

It's not that complicated. They're not opposed because they ruffle feathers, but because they're insufferable.

[Jakes Progress]

108. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Your post is exactly what I meant. Perfect example.

[TexasObserver]

109. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. Thank you for agreeing with ME.

[Jakes Progress]

112. No you're not.

You're saying that you don't know what I'm talking about. You just don't know it.

Others get it. You should be able to understand, but you want to disagree so you willfully play dumb. I've read other posts from you so I know you aren't dumb. You can just disagree without being rude, but you choose not to.

[TexasObserver]

114. Your nagging won't alter my opinion.

Get a new coping mechanism.

[Jakes Progress]

148. What opinion?

I didn't say you couldn't have your own opinion. The very gist of my post was that we already had a way to disagree with someone, just as you did with the OP.

Or did you want to advance another opinion other than that I don't know what I'm talking about? Would you care to expound on that one?

I don't want to play snark-who's-got-the-snark with you. I already said that from reading you at other places I believe you think better than your first post or your catty little shots at me reflect. I assume you just got in for a lark and then felt caught out. That is the only reason that explains why you avoid discussing the topic while shooting back silly comments about nagging and coping mechanisms. Really now. How is my post nagging? What definition of the word do you reach for to make that claim. And what about my post reflects a coping mechanism? Are you a psychologist - and on line psychologist? Do you understand how silly that comment is?

You and I disagree about the benefits of the new policy on un-recommending posts. I think it perpetuates a bland, majority-driven agenda that reflects poorly on DU and renders the Greatest Threads page irrelevant. Do you have anything to say about the topic or do you want to question my toilet habits or dreams?

[WillyT]

110. Yep...

They're UnReccing because of WHO they are, and not WHAT they posted.

Great system.

:banghead:

[TexasObserver]

117. There are many reasons to unrecommend a thread.

One of them is duplication. We have some posters who think they have to start a thread no matter how many other threads already exist on that topic. You fail to acknowledge that a worthy reason to unrecommend a thread is the fact that the thread starter originates far too many threads, duplicates the threads of others, or simply doesn't do a very good job of making sense. Ideally, they would be limited to starting three threads a day on GD, but since many here love to see their name as thread starter, we have massive duplication.

You have a vote on each thread and so do I. It's none of your business how or why I use my vote, and your vote is none of my business.

You think posters are using unrecommend to punish those who start too many threads. It's not a matter of punishing them, but of choosing to recommend the threads of others, and not theirs. Unfortunately, high volume thread starting and quality of threads started do not often go together.

[Jakes Progress]

156. You misread the post you refer to.

WillyT did not say that the threads are being unrecommended because the posters post too much. it is because of who they are. Some are going through and automatically unreommending all posts by people they have disagreed with in the past. It is quite obvious when a post about summer vacations receives multiple un-recs even though it only sought to ask others about their summer plans. The post was shot at because the poster has pissed off people in some posts. Usually, the poster being sniped is someone who has written a post that has complained in a way that some here perceive as anti-Obama. The funny thing is that they are often attacking one of Obama's huge supporters who might have a question about one policy.

That is, I think, the reason for installing the unrecommend feature. Some complain that any disagreement looks bad. Some of us disagree and believe it is good and powerful to signal the fact that some of the decisions coming from our new president (for whom I voted and campaigned) are discouraging to the progressive base of the party. We see DU as a progressive forum. Some do not.

It doesn't really matter though, because the new policy only substantively affects the five threads on the home page and makes them less contentious. It makes the Greatest Threads page less relevant and gives some members an even more cowardly and less than open hearted way to show their mainstream conformity. The image of a DU'er pot shotting away at fellow DU'ers without taking the effort to even comment is not a nice one.

[defendandprotect]

166. You have no right to eliminate a RECOMMEND . . . let's see both tallies . . .

That's the problem here -- not that you get to "not recommend" ...

but that you have a double privilege where you also get to subtract from

Recommends!

[TexasObserver]

171. I have the right to Unrecommend, and you have the right to complain about it.

It's a vote on threads, and it really doesn't matter why a person Recommends or Unrecommends a thread. It's a thumbs up and thumbs down vote, and anyone who doesn't care for it is anti Democratic.

Save your rationalizations for someone who shares your aversion to logic.

[Jakes Progress]

177. Making another long drive around the point

won't prove yours. Maybe the better analogy is the hole you keep digging. Best to just crawl out. We'll understand. Each post demotes your overall level of response.

Why have a thumbs down vote? What is the purpose. That is the point being made, which I suspect you know, but don't want to debate. So you dodge the subject matter and insult other's thinking.

And, what does logic have to do with this. This is a disagreement about a procedure. You keep bringing in red herrings to avoid looking at or discussing the subject. Each post is another proof of why the new program is not a good one.

(Maybe you are not unaware of how you are proving the point you argue against. I have admired your thought processes before, but if you are clever enough to play this as a ruse to prove how stupid the un-rec program is, my hat's off to you. Very, very clever.)

[Pyrzqxgl]

2. I usually drive a Ford. It's hard to get parts for a Huff.

[Forkboy]

24. Oh sure, steal my gag.

:spank:

[cwydro]

143. Lol!

Thanks for a morning smile.

[lamp_shade]

3. Disagree.

[stranger_with_candy]

4. So you require 2 threads to state you are leaving....

get over yourself.

[anigbrowl]

8. I think this is #3 actually...

[redqueen]

15. Yep. (nt)

[stranger_with_candy]

39. my bad...

3rd time is a charm. though i'm guessing there will be more.

[EFerrari]

44. The OP isn't about leaving. But it would require reading it to know that. n/t

[anigbrowl]

60. Temporarily or permanently, the OP is about not posting on DU

and this is the 3rd post about 'unrec sucks and makes me not want to post' from this OP.

[EFerrari]

78. It must suck to have nothing better to do than pass judgment on your fellows.

[anigbrowl]

87. Strangely, that's exactly how I feel about the content of the OP.

[EFerrari]

122. Saje didn't post judgments of others. He talked about, gasp, the issue. n/t

[cali]

141. lol and you never do that.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

152. I counted 4

but they managed to get a plug for their books in there on this one.

[EFerrari]

11. This isn't the Ugly Forum. If you want one, you need to petition Skinner. n/t

[stranger_with_candy]

16. I wasn't asking for one.

[EFerrari]

22. That's right. You weren't asking, you were assuming. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Save it for the ugly forum, Hippocrates.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. We might not have been aware that the first thread existed

:rofl:

[stranger_with_candy]

29. probably because it got so many "unrecommends"

according to a few on here, that apparently makes your threads go away never to be seen again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Unrecommend precedes essence

:rofl:

[DJ13]

5. Im in the minority, I agree with you

[eleny]

6. I agree - I didn't like it yesterday and feel the same today

Nice to see your posting, M.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

7. I guess I've decided I don't like it but not exactly for the reasons you mention.

I don't like it because we need more civility here, not another way for people to be jerks.

It's not an elegant opinion, but there it is. :)

[eleny]

34. Well said, EF - It has opened a door best left shut

[canetoad]

67. +1

A pointless exercise encouraging distasteful behaviour.

[ret5hd]

9. Disagree

[Mrs. Overall]

12. Glad to see you back.

I hated the "unrecommend" yesterday, but I'm warming to a bit. Once things settle and it's no longer a new toy, it might not make much of a difference.

I just don't want trolls making use of it.

[monmouth]

13. It has become abundantly clear to me that many, many people on

this board have way too much time on their hands. Getting in a lather about stupid shite like this is ridiculous.

[K8-EEE]

36. It's unbelievable to me too

I really hope this is the worst problem this person ever has!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

154. Not only did it hurt the OP's feelings

they posted a "goodbye forever" post then thought better of it so it is a "goodbye for now" post. They did this on 4 seperate posts but they managed to plug their product this time. Good job!!!

[Laelth]

14. I have also noticed that they're nastier than usual.

When they know they're in the majority, they feel free to be particularly rude and vicious to those of us whom they know hold the minority opinion on a given subject. I've seen several new threads downright attacking the people who believe the unrec function is a bad idea. Once they know they're in the majority, their worst instincts come out, and they become quite mean.

I knew I hated high school for a reason. This is it.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Are you posting from a fish farm?

[scubadude]

18. I'm with you Mythsaje.

I've been hammering it out quite a bit today.

Small passionate groups will be silenced. Herdspeak rules. One more move in the genericizing of DU.

Scuba

[Spazito]

19. Wow, I am sorry you left in a "huff" but...

I take issue with your contention that the 'unrecommend' is a bad idea because it might reduce the number of 'hits' on your website. DU is a great deal more than merely a place to 'showcase' one's work in order to generate revenue for a professional writer and to take umbrage at a change that gives every DUer a voice as to what should appear on the Greatest page because it affects your own website is astounding, imo.

If your OP is supported by the majority of DUers it will appear on the Greatest page, if not it will still appear in whatever forum you choose to post it where it can be read, commented on, kicked, etc.

[Faux pas]

88. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[TorchTheWitch]

140. Amen!

I can't even believe I read that! How incredibly selfish of the OP be upset that DU no longer provides them the free advertising they were enjoying! :wow:

I'm stunned. And disgusted.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

155. I didn't know that the reason to post on DU

was to push your product, I better get working.

[omega minimo]

20. UnUnRecced

:yourock:

[omega minimo]

25. I think people are going to stop Reccing. The OP was at 0 when Post 21 was first Rec.

Unless 20 previous posters didn't like the OP, that's a hint of how imbalanced the new process could become.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Yah! I wish ballot initiatives were like that too! Either vote FOR it, or don't vote!

Because allowing people to vote 'no' STIFLES DISSENT!!!!

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

[EFerrari]

26. Another generous contribution to the collegial atmosphere at DU.

Well done.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Thanks!

[Teaser]

95. Welcome to the internet

been here before?

[EFerrari]

102. That's what you think? "Welcome to the internet"? Aim low. n/t

[Iggo]

93. You suck!

But you ain't wrong. :thumbsup:

[zeemike]

23. Well I agree with you.

And I am just as dismayed at this as you are.
And by the way I rec this post but you can bet that it will be taken away by someone else in just a few minuets.

And it is kind of ironic that you click a button that says Recomend...How can a recommendation be taken away?
i mean how can someone tell you that your recommendation is null and void?

[Obamanaut]

27. Ok. See you tomorrow for #4? I was particularly moved by your

humility in stating you are right about these things more often than not - right after saying it isn't about your ego.

[EFerrari]

35. I didn't get the memo that we need to clear our OPs with you.

What were you saying about ego?

[G_j]

42. not sure what to think, but I've seen a few strange things

for example, unrecommends given to an article about the archaeological site of Babylon being damaged by a US military base.
WHO the hell would unrecommend a factual news article about something like this?

they have to be trolls

edit:
oops! meant to respond to the OP....
:shrug:

[EFerrari]

49. I don't think it's trolls. DU has always been a free for all but since the primaries

the civility rule has been eroded to the point where it doesn't seem to exist any more. People post ugly things because they don't know what else to do with their hands and they don't seem to get called on it very much. It's a tone change and one for the worse, imo.

[charlie]

58. There's a thread about a drop in wholesale prices in Japan

I made the sole comment in the thread, then noticed it was in negative rec territory.

Wholesale prices. In Japan.

I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't seem healthy. Like mindless button mashing or something.

[EFerrari]

61. It's really reactive and just seems to get more so.

Maybe that's all message boards.

[hileeopnyn8d]

153. I don't think it's trolls

just confusion, and the same thing happened with the recommend feature from what I've noticed. If it's an awful or unpleasant factual news article, even if it isn't critical of anyone, it doesn't get recommended.

I think some view "recommend" as approval of the subject in the article, rather than approval of the OP for bringing the matter to our attention. This especially happens when there is no commentary by the OP.

[Obamanaut]

48. I don't recall suggesting such a thing either. Testy, are we?

[EFerrari]

50. Don't waste your time. n/t

[Obamanaut]

51. delete, dupe post

[spiritual_gunfighter]

158. And they had to throw in that they are an important writer

and the reason to get their post counts up was to push product. Classy.

[K8-EEE]

31. I think you're being childish

God it's not this big life and death thing. If it doesn't work they'll put it back the other way. So far I see nobody being "silenced." I don't really like the whiney tone of this OP but not caring enough to un-rec.

[COLGATE4]

33. To quote the great Groucho Marx

(S)he came in a huff and left in a snit. They just don't make cars like that any more.

[Strong Atheist]

186. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[JVS]

37. OMG! This is going to be a HUGH thread!

:popcorn:

[Laelth]

90. This thread is HUGH, in fact, but it won't appear on the Greatest Page.

Minority opinions don't get to show up there any more.

For better or for worse.

:dem:

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

119. It is a "Goodbye Cruel World - (for a couple days)" thread... it shouldn't be on the Greatest Page

[EFerrari]

134. Maybe your problem isn't that you're rude but that you just can't read worth a damn.

[cali]

142. wow. I'm so impressed by your civility- you know the civility that you pat yourself on the back

for, the civility you constantly lecture others about. Impressive.

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

147. You think this is the type of post that SHOULD show up on Greatest?...

Really?

Sid

[Laelth]

175. Well, that's the question.

Personally, I used to read the Greatest Page to see what DU was "talking about." This thread is a perfect example of what DU is really talking about. The innocuous threads on the Greatest Page now are worth reading, of course. I love a happy, liberal news feed, and that's exactly what the Greatest Page is with the unrec function working, but it's not a reflection of what's really being discussed by the members.

It will simply be more difficult for me now to find out what people are really discussing. The threads that appear on the Greatest Page now are interesting and worth reading, but they're not really generating interesting discussions. It takes a controversial thread like this one to get people talking.

I like to know what's really important to DU members. This thread shows this topic is really important. If it doesn't appear on the Greatest Page, I hope the admins will create for us a "Hottest Page" so we can easily find the threads that are really generating discussion.

:dem:

-Laelth

[redqueen]

187. So the question is should the GP have tabloid stuff or just news.

This thread is like a tabloid... it's not important, it's distracting. It's like a slow-motion train wreck.

[Laelth]

190. I hear that.

And if we want the Greatest Page to bee a happy, liberal news feed, that's fine.

But if we do that, I hope we can institute a "Hottest" Page for those of us who want DU to be a "Discussion Board" and not a news feed.

As I said to Skinner in response to another post, I think that my concerns can be entirely eliminated with the addition of a "Hottest" page (a page like the Greatest Page that ranks threads by the sum of recommends and unrecommends with, perhaps, a 30 total vote minimum, and with an aggregate sum of less than +5--because threads that are +5 or higher appear on the Greatest Page). If there were a nice little icon at the top of the forum, say between Greatest and Lobby, it would address my concerns perfectly. With such a page, minority opinion OPs that generate lots of responses would still appear in an easy to access place and would get significant attention, but they would not "poison" the Greatest Page and would not project from DU's home page an opinion that the majority did not share. That addition, I think, would satisfy both camps in this particular debate.

:dem:

-Laelth

[COLGATE4]

38. To paraphrase the late great Groucho Marx

"He came in a huff and left in a snit. They just don't make cars like that any more".

[fascisthunter]

40. that's what I was thinking too... what purpose does unrec have

other than trying to cancel out recs so that certain posts do not get to the front page.

[scubadude]

55. That is exactly what it is for, more herding.

As if there weren't enough of that already. We live in a country where the group mindthink has been moved rightward by almost 40 years of Republican/BigBusiness media control. A little bit more is just we need to keep ourselves right with the rest of the herd.

Listen and be heard!

Scuba

[anigbrowl]

64. Don't forget 'sheeple'. That's always a good way to insult a broad swath of people

and of course it's so sweeping that you can't be accused of calling out anyone in particular. Later you can point to the general lack of interest in your posts as evidence of their cowardice.

[scubadude]

97. Sorry, I see the herd mentality here every day.

Supporting actions of a President because he has a D beside his name, even when his actions are wrong. Isn't that what the Freeps do? The pleads of "He just got started, give him a break"... I won't support Obama when he acts like Bush, period. I heartily support him at all other times. Sweeping or not, that's the way I see it.

"You've got to have the guts to stand for something or your gonna be trapped! Trapped in a world you never made."

Scuba

[Individualist]

161. One would have to be blind not to see it

:thumbsup:

[OhioChick]

41. Agreed and Well Said. n/t

[redqueen]

43. So wait... this is about marketing your books?

"When I post here, and get those numbers, it drives more people to my website. Of course, one must also decide whether that's good, bad, or indifferent. We all want to be recognized for what we're good at, do we not? I'm not forcing anyone to buy my books, or even asking all that often. But I sure as hell want people to be aware that they exist."


Wow... brave of you to admit that.

[BlooInBloo]

47. I love it when people use "principle" as a cover for their business concerns.

[EFerrari]

52. But, wait -- don't we always try to promote other DUers' projects?

Isn't that what communities do?

[redqueen]

53. We don't always freak the hell out over board enhancements...

and tie that into marketing practices... not that I've noticed, no.

Two hyperventilating threads yesterday... and now this melodramatic "I'm right more often than I'm wrong" nonsense... and he brings up how this is going to affect his being able to successfully market his books on here?

Wow...

[EFerrari]

54. People have their own reactions. That's what people do.

lol

Whatever.

[redqueen]

56. "lol & whatever" YES!

That's the whole point!

It's a fucking message board feature! :rofl:

[EFerrari]

59. Right. But people are different. That's why message boards have more than 1 poster.

That's why we come to them, to read something new or different.

This is only a message board, true. But it's a message board for adults, not a game of whack-o-mole. If I wanted to play that, I'd go to a pizza parlor.

[redqueen]

63. And meaningful threads are doing quite well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6036670

Nobody seems to be playing whack a mole there, yet. It could change, but I doubt it will... the thread about Kucinich on Single Payer did fantastically well, despite all the DLC / rw / whatever kind of 'factions' people are so all-fired paranoid about.

This drama is all much ado about nothing, IMO.

[EFerrari]

77. You can read the ugly up and down this thread.

Too bad that we can't have more well informed opinions about issues and a few less about each other.

[redqueen]

146. Yes, but this is a meltdown about the unrec feature.

Not about how hostile people become about whine-a-thons.

[EFerrari]

183. It's never the issue that is the issue but the way people talk to each other.

You'd think after someone's 51st flame war, they'd figure out that slamming upset people isn't the winning strategy. But, noooooooooooo. We have to keep doing the same thing, over and over. Our poor mods. lol

[redqueen]

188. Other people, though. Not you, right? (nt)

[Mythsaje]

115. I've never hidden it.

I've stated it in so many words more than once. I'm a writer who does both fantasy and political commentary. If one leads people to the other, great. But if not, that's fine too. It's not as though I don't contribute to the political discussion. As a method of getting people to notice me, I consider posting here to be relatively benign. If people are surprised by this fact, I would have to say they haven't been paying attention.

I am an author. I write novels. I have fans who are DUers, I have fans who are not, and I have fans who are DUers who haven't read a single one of my books. I'm neither ashamed of my status as an author, or as a DUer known for posting his own original rants. I'm gratified to know I have a following here.

I see no reason to be ashamed by admitting this. If there is, I'm missing something.

[dysfunctional press]

45. "...I'm right about these things far more often than I'm wrong."

:eyes:

[Oregone]

46. K & U!

[county worker]

57. Wow, If I knew someone was using DU for their private business dealings I would

seek out every OP they had and un recommend it. You are using DU to drive people to your web site!? What a self serving crock of shit that is! That's one very good reason to have the un recommend feature!

K&U!

[Uncle Joe]

62. The minority on any subject or issue will now lose every-time, say hello to the Silent Majority. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

65. It seems that only those that really hate the 'unrec' feature are moved to post about it.

The vast majority seem either to like it, or are indifferent to it.

After one whole day, I have not seen enough to make a definitive decision if it is overall a plus, or minus.

I'm trending towards a positive opinion.

Many have asked for just such an option here for quite a while.

[Laelth]

68. I beg to differ.

Look at earth mom's thread with over 500 responses. Most are attacking her (she dislikes unrec, but the majority of posters support it and are attacking her).

This afternoon I saw about 5 threads posted by people who support unrec, each nastier than the one before it, telling those of us who dislike it to "grow up," "get a think skin," "shut up about it," etc. The people who support the unrec function have been far more vocal, imho.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Obamanaut]

69. Some of those have started multiple threads about it. nt

[Life Long Dem]

66. It's not about the individual as much but...

A badly written story will take a dive but a well written one will rise to the top.

[malaise]

70. I'm just glad you're back n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

71. Cue that old Marx Brothers joke from Duck Soup:

"Well, that covers a lot of ground. Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself.
You better beat it - I hear they're going to tear you down and put up an office building where you're standing.
You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff.
If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.
You know, you haven't stopped talking since I came here?
You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle."

:rofl:

[timtom]

73. Damn!

I didn't get here fast enough!

(But you did it better than I would have. I'm lazy.)

[CakeGrrl]

72. What's the big deal about making the Greatest page other than an ego boost?

I ususally don't even look at it. I go directly to LBN or GD or GD: P to see what's been kicked to the top, and if I'm inclined, I'll scan the next few pages of threads to see what's been going on; it doesn't take too long.

All the Rec count told me was how many people agreed with the OP and decided to click their support; maybe that's a feel-good for the OP, but seeing a 'net positive' or a general 'less than zero' instead doesn't bother me much. I'll decide by reading the post content whether I think it's good or whether I agree with it.

[scheming daemons]

86. Read the OP again.... he was using it to drive people to his website to sell his books

[gkhouston]

106. Hmm. I wonder if any of the other poutraged are "helpers" in this "unrecommend

is an Evil Bad Thing That Will Destroy DU" campaign.

[EFerrari]

128. Yes, that's right. We're all 12 year olds who are conspiring to tank

UnRec. It will be a big coup for our nefarious side, whatever that is supposed to be!

[Confusious]

74. Do your advertising

Somewhere else. I don't think DU was created just so you can sell books.

[MineralMan]

75. I'm also a writer. I also have a website.

That doesn't mean I use this site to drive people to that website. They're welcome to visit, but I'm not selling anything there, and I don't link to it, except on my profile and when I directly quote something I've written there.

That's not what DU is about. I come here to make political comments and to read what other progressives are talking about. Sometimes I even joke around in the Lounge.

The unrecommend option is just that...an option. People can use it or not use it. The posts remain and nobody is silenced in any way. I'm not using it. I don't recommend threads, either, except in rare situations when someone posts something so spectacularly intuitive that it demands a recommendation.

I'm retired now. I write on my little blog and I write in online forums. I'm enjoying the freedom of not depending on my writing for my income any longer. So, I write for fun, now. I write to express my opinion, and I write to tell some stories I find important from my own life.

I don't care if my OPs are recommended or unrecommended. They'll still be here on DU, where those who find them of interest can read them and comment however they choose.

You're disappointed? So am I. I'm disappointed that so many people can't see that the ideas and discussions here remain right where they are, and are available for commentary and discussion. The Greatest Page has nothing to do with that.

[immoderate]

76. Unrec lends itself to abuse.

I will particularly miss the occasional offbeat, frivolous, but entertaining threads that make it to the greatest page.

I predict that some of the topics that might once have gotten there from the interest forums will not get the larger audience that they sometimes deserve.

I, for one, do not have to have a person or a thread on "ignore" to ignore them.

I think it's obvious that this is a negative feature.

--imm

[MoonRiver]

79. Let's see,

the last time I looked at this thread, about 2 hours ago, it had 4 recs. Now it has <0. Something is WRONG with this picture.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. Yeah, people are still reading this thread.

That's unpossible.

[ecstatic]

80. Everyone who regularly bashes our president

seems to think the Unrecommend is a bad idea. They miss the days of being able to log on, plop a pile of dung onto the forum and watch the recs from trolls pile up.

[MineralMan]

83. I had noticed that, too. Odd, huh?

Well, maybe not so odd...

[scheming daemons]

84. +10

[EFerrari]

120. If you actually make of list of those of us on this thread

who have come to the conclusion this isn't a good idea, and then go search our posts, you'll find that isn't true.

[Egnever]

123. What is a river in egypt?

[EFerrari]

125. Me? malaise? Time For Change? Saje?

lol

I don't think so.

[Mythsaje]

126. Funny, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find even a few posts

where I "bash" the President, much less any pattern of "regularity."

Try again.

[MicaelS]

82. Sorry Sage, I think you're wrong this time.

A number of 'sites give posters the ability to "mod down" others' posts. Personally I think it help keeps the trolls and spammers under control. Maybe if some people see their threads keep getting unrec'ed, they might change their behaviour.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Faux pas]

89. Ooh snap! Love it. I almost forgot to unrec this thread. n/t

[EFerrari]

127. Gee, maybe you could provide us with a list of OPs spammed

by this DUer to the Greatest Page. You know, to back up your accusations?

[Mythsaje]

131. Oh, so it's not just me who doesn't understand that comment?

Thanks, EFerrari, for backing me up. I can't believe the can of worms I opened with this one.

[EFerrari]

133. That's Beth to you.

:)

This thread is ugly and I don't even recognize DU any more. Skinner is probably right that there was no golden age of DU but I swear, I don't remember this kind of gratuitous viciousness being the norm here. For a while, it was contained in poor GDP but now, it's leaking all over. Wtf.

[Mythsaje]

136. Ah... Beth, then.

Thank you. And, no, there probably wasn't "a golden age" but some of this IS far worse than I ever remember. Cruelty and nastiness. Vindictiveness. Self-righteousness (well... there's always been a lot of that--given that most people can't seem to recognize the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness)... LOL

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[Iggo]

91. Except it doesn't silence anyone's voice.

Unrec-ing a thread does not kill it, lock it, or disappear it. It merely keeps it from going to the greatest page...a page that it seems most of us never go to anyway.

[Texasgal]

92. Sorry...but in the grand scheme

who gives a shit about the greatest page?

:shrug:

[Iggo]

94. I know, huh.

It sounds like it's some place where lazy people go to be told what to read.

[scheming daemons]

116. People like the OP who are using it to try to sell more books

[Mythsaje]

124. What the fuck is your problem?

I've never hidden what or who I am from anyone here. I'm among the least anonymous DUers out here. I'm not saying what I say from the comfort of some screen name that obscures my true identity. I've cussed out the government, religious zealots, and suspected criminals for the whole time I've been coming to this site, and not once have I lied about who and what I am. Now you're all self-righteous because posting here brings traffic to my website? It was never my original intent in posting here, but a pleasant side-effect of being a DUer. Whatever sales it brought was, to me, simply the liberal community seeing a way to support another liberal in their professional endeavors.

I daresay it's easier to say whatever the hell you want behind the nom-de-plume of "scheming daemons" than to actually state your opinions using your professional name, but, hey, who am I to judge you for it?

Go ahead, make a big deal out of the fact that posting here served to promote me as a writer to some extent. I don't happen to think there's anything wrong with that, but obviously you do.

What are you going to do about it? Follow me around and unrec anything I write, thus proving my point for me? Be my guest.

[Lorax]

96. You might need another marketing strategy

If your marketing strategy is so dependent on traffic from this site that a simple change is so monumentally detrimental to your business, then it's probably time to rethink your strategy. To my knowledge, DU wasn't started as a marketing vehicle for anyone. And you have the nerve to get indignant because you are using DU in a way it wasn't intended and now it's changing in a way that doesn't benefit you?

Wow.

[Mythsaje]

121. Actually I simply NOTICED that posting here

drove people to my site in greater numbers than anything else I was doing. I'm not sure it significantly affected sales (given that sales have never been particularly high) but at least people KNOW about them. You may notice I never said anything about sales at all. The traffic is good enough for the most part. And how many big name liberal authors do YOU know? Ones who post this sort of shit on a regular basis? Not many, eh? So what does it hurt me to be a radical progressive author? I'm not lying to anyone about any of it. I never have. My signature line includes my website, through which people can, if they're interested, purchase my books.

The change will affect anyone with the nerve to go against the majority on anything here. Not just me, who's trying to make a name for himself in his own small way, but anyone who's still bucking the system and arguing a generally unpopular point of view about anything.
Unpopular opinions will never get much mileage now. But that's obviously the way people want it, so let them see where it gets them.

[Time for change]

98. After thinking about this a lot, I've come to agree with what you say here

It's hard to explain, but generally something is judged by how many people find it useful -- or in the case of a post how many people find it useful (or entertaining, or whatever) to read it. Anyone who doesn't find it useful shouldn't have to worry about it because they don't have to use it (or read it).

[That Is Quite Enough]

99. Yeah, I really don't like unrecommend either...so I'm with you on this one.

[Jakes Progress]

100. You are right here.

The whole thing just makes the Greatest Posts irrelevant and pointless.

[Iggo]

107. You're on the right track.

[BoneDaddy]

103. Must be sad to rely on a website for so much of your self

I could care less about DU in regards to who or what I am.

[LostInAnomie]

104. Good God! How can we tolerate people disagreeing on an internet forum!?

Ahhh... solipsism. Isn't it grand?

[omega minimo]

111. How come your OP has "Less Than Zero" Recs, mythsage?

[SidDithers]

150. Because the community has deemed it's not a post...

worthy of appearing on the Greatest Page? :shrug:

Seems pretty simple to me.

Sid

[orleans]

113. .

"First of all, everyone already HAD an unrecommend feature. It's called NOT RECOMMENDING in the first place."

that's how i feel.

[Born_A_Truman]

118. Believe it or not I rarely go to "greatest page"

Not sure how many others do or not, but I go to individual forums and read the threads that interest me. I have never used the "greatest page" to filter my reading on DU.

[earth mom]

129. I recommended your thread.

Sorry it didn't help.

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Me too. n/t

[1]

132. i have no problem with someone leaving in a huff. but if you do? please mean it...

otherwise its just some "drama queen" bullshit with the queen coming back in a day or so with some bullshit excuse.


if you want to leave in a huff? take a minute. then leave in a minute and a huff.

[Mythsaje]

138. Since when did leaving in a huff preclude coming back?

I wasn't aware they changed the locks on the doors when you did that.

[1]

139. so stay. or go. whatever. be the drama queen you were meant to be...

we love the drama queen you are here.

continue...

[masuki bance]

135. Funny, another 130+ commented OP with a negative rec.

How is that effectively silencing peoples voices?

[Warren Stupidity]

173. I can't find this OP anywhere!

[pecwae]

144. K&U

Good goddess! Isn't it time to stop?

[Dorian Gray]

145. Since I never go to the Greatest Page

or start topics, this is something that doesn't particularly rile me up.

Honestly, what is the benefit of being on The Greatest Page? Is it something that means anything?

I am not asking to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious.

[proud2BlibKansan]

149. For some it's an ego thing

For others, it's a way to make sure lots of people read your thread.

[Dorian Gray]

185. I'm more of a commenter

than a topic starter, so I guess I never really thought much about it.

[ellie]

151. I can't believe

how some people feel so affected by it. It makes me think it is a good thing.

[itsrobert]

157. <0

Says it all.

[SidDithers]

162. I like this one...

Sid

[myrna minx]

165. Did you create this graphic? LOL

The creativity here always amazes me. :D

[SidDithers]

167. Yeah, proud to say that it's mine :)...nt

:hi:

Sid

[Warren Stupidity]

174. !

[Joe the Revelator]

159. You post seems to be all about Ego

Just as much as 10 people can kick you from the greatest page, using your logic, all it would take is 10 like minded people to get you back on it.

At the end of the day though, you're taking things too seriously, and seem to be an attention seeker, and not much more.

[Joe the Revelator]

160. Hold on, you're whining because not being on the greatest page will hurt your book sales

You've got to be kidding me. DU is not your free advertising.

[BlooInBloo]

163. Astonishing, isn't it?

[Joe the Revelator]

172. My mind is boggled.

[defendandprotect]

164. Agree -- Recommendations should not be cancelled by non-recs . . .

How about getting a petititon up here and let's see how many are against this?

If enough, we can move it to Skinner and hope he reverses this dumb idea?

[Iggo]

168. Still at the top of GD, I see.

Fucking free speech rearing its ugly head again.

[PatSeg]

169. I personally don't have a problem with an "unrec" button

if it would show totals of both "recs" and "unrecs" like other sites do. I think the feature is being misused for the wrong reasons. I would like to know how MANY recommendations there are for a thread.

[frogcycle]

170. nonsense

this "gang of ten" you are worried about can cancel ten recs. Period.

Lots of drivel gets 100 or more recs. It takes five to hit the greatest page. So now it takes fifteen, assuming those ten exist and are picking on you. Given the population of DU, fifteen does not seem that bad a threshold. If something is truly deserving, it will get many more than that.

BTW, the mods can see who recs and who unrecs, so if they want to watch out for some pattern of conspiracy they can.

[CJCRANE]

176. I generally like your posts and recommend many of them.

You should've just waited to see how it pans out, I don't think you would have been affected by it too much.

[Obamanaut]

178. K

[suede1]

179. K&R. Completely agree.

And the negative recs prove your point.

[apocalypsehow]

180. "I'm right about these things far more often than I'm wrong" - Modest, too.

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

181. Oh, and lookee here what happened! My reply kicked this wankstain of a thread back to the top of GD!

So much for your voice being "effectively silenced," eh?

<0

[and-justice-for-all]

182. DU is not a popularity contest...

It is a information sharing site for like minded people.

The things that make it to the greatest page are what is considered to be worthy of the DU front page.

If your ego is bruised because you THINK that your post deserves to be on the DU front page, well I think you need find some thing else to do and perhaps find a real friend or two.

Again, this is not a popularity contest.

[PretzelWarrior]

184. you're right about things far more often than you're wrong? YIPPEEE!!

me too.

The sun did actually come up today as I predicted.

When I put my finger on the stove burner it really did hurt as I had anticipated.

My dog came up to me begging for food as I surmised he would.

DU was full of "Wahhhh!!! I don't like the unrecommend feature" posts as I expected.

I unrecommended all those posts I saw including this one.

Good day, sir.

[KatyMan]

189. I thought you left?

How many times does a door have to hit you in the ass?

I'd like to see a poll done on how many people on DU read a post based on its recs, or based on whether or not it's on the greatest page. I think you'd be surprised.
I also think all of this talk about stifling dissent or voices is bullshit. How about you give DU'ers a little credit for being able to decide for themselves what to read based on looking at thread titles in a given forum? Honestly, I've never been to the greatest page, and never noticed until the Great Unrec Tiff started that the recs even showed on the forum. You can't sort by recs, you aren't forced to not read unrecced posts. Why is this so hard to understand? I put this in another whaaa! thread, but it bears repeating:

Does a thread go away if it's unrec'ed? No.
Does it get moved to a different forum? No.
Does it get translated into gibberish code so no one can read it? No.
Does it go the greatest page? No.
Does it silence the person posting it? No.

So get the fuck over it, act like a grownup, see reason or go away. Way more important things going on in the world.