A modest proposal for improving the Recommend/Unrecommend function

[FlyingSquirrel]

Poll question: A modest proposal for improving the Recommend/Unrecommend function

I'll avoid rehashing the arguments here, and simply put forth my proposal for improving DU.

Like the original "recommendation", the "negative recommendation" is now being used in two different ways: In its intended fashion (to determine which threads are worthy of appearing on the Greatest Page) and in an unintended fashion (to register agreement or disagreement with the premise of the OP). It's not currently possible to tell which is really happening for each particular thread.

We need a way to differentiate between whether someone is saying "I recommend that others read this post" and "I like or agree with this post".

How about three simple icons: A thumbs up, a thumbs down, and an open book (for suggested reading).

(Or if the software only allows text, "Thumbs Up", "Thumbs Down", and "Recommend Reading")

A person would then have many options: Do nothing; Click on the thumbs up or thumbs down (but not both, obviously) without also making it suggested reading; Click on the book (but no thumbs up or thumbs down); or, Click on both the book and the thumbs up (or thumbs down). I can't think of any reason someone might click both the book and the thumbs down, but ya never know.

The topics would then be displayed on the GP in order by the number of open book icons or "Recommendations", with the thumbs up and thumbs down also displayed.

Topics with the same number of book icons or "recommendations" would be sorted by highest percentage of thumbs up.

A few possible results:

50 book icons or "recommendations", 75 thumbs up and 25 thumbs down.

This would indicate that 50 people thought the topic to be worthwhile reading; and 75% of those rating the topic agreed with or liked the actual subject matter.

50 book icons or "recommendations", 25 thumbs up and 75 thumbs down.

This would indicate that 50 people thought the topic to be worthwhile reading; and 25% of those rating the topic agreed with or liked the actual subject matter.

5 book icons or "recommendations", 75 thumbs up and 25 thumbs down.

This would indicate that 5 people thought the topic to be worthwhile reading, and 75% of those rating the topic agreed with the actual subject matter.

5 book icons or "recommendations", 25 thumbs up and 75 thumbs down.

This would indicate that 5 people thought the topic to be worthwhile reading, and 25% of those rating the topic agreed with the actual subject matter.

I believe this proposal would greatly reduce the "rec this thread if you agree...." situation, because instead, people would hit the thumbs up icon -- but not necessarily also hit the "recommend" or book icon. It should reduce the number of frivolous topics hitting the greatest page, because most DU'ers are likely to be more frugal with their recommendation on reading than with their thumbs up.

And of course, it would prevent the majority from being able to prevent a minority opinion or controversial topic from appearing on the greatest page (though they could still make it perfectly clear that they didn't like it being there).

Well, I'm not gonna bother suggesting that anyone recommend this thread (I very rarely do that anyway) and I fully expect to see it get < 0 recs, but please do vote in the poll.

[elocs]

1. Why race to change it in the first week?

There is no indication that there is widespread dislike of it. People don't deal well with change and that applies here at DU also.

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. There's no race, just like there was no race to put it in place to begin with.

There doesn't need to be widespread dislike of it for there to be a need for change. Is there widespread dislike in this country for the current MSM crap? Widespread like or dislike is not the issue. In this particular case it's even FURTHER from the issue, because the main issue those who disagree with the system have is that it allows for tyranny of the majority. It's like free speech zones set up by the government. Sure, your free speech is not impeded but you're set apart from the action, away from the area covered by the TV cameras. Unfortunately here on DU they've already set a precedent for this kind of thing - relegating those discussing alternative theories about 9-11 to "the dungeon". Now they'd like to relegate those with ANY minority opinion to the separate dungeons of the minor discussion forums. (I can understand the Lounge, I actually think they prefer having their own little room away from the action). But hey, whatever works. If this new system sticks, it will really drop my opinion of the place and I'll probably quit coming altogether. It's the principle of the thing.

[TexasObserver]

3. "relegating those discussing alternative theories about 9-11 to the dungeon"

You're claiming that the use of Unrecommend is similar in effect to the use of the 9-11 forum.

Since sending the 9-11 conspiracy topics to the 9-11 forum and using the Recommend feature are both ideas created and implemented by Skinner, isn't your beef really with the site owner?

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. My beef is with the concept of stifling minority beliefs or opinions.

And I have let Skinner know exactly what I think of both the 9-11 forum and the Unrec feature in his original thread, so what's your point exactly? I only made this thread to see if there might be some kind of support for a more reasonable (IMO) approach. But as usual mob mentality rules.

[TexasObserver]

5. It's fascists who call democracy "mob mentality."

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic

True democracy IS mob rule. That's why the minority is protected under our current system. Are you calling me a fascist?

[TexasObserver]

7. This is DU and democratic voting on Rec v. Unrec. we're talking about.

The country is a representative democracy. That's not news to anyone.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. That's right, we're talking about Rec vs. Unrec

So why did you feel the need to bring fascism into it? I repeat, are you calling me a fascist?

[TexasObserver]

10. Your uber disdain for the democratic process here is troubling.

Your calling the process created by the site owner "mob mentality" is also troubling.

You are what you do.

[FlyingSquirrel]

11. Oh, I'm so sorry for disagreeing with the site owner.

I shall now lie prostrate at his feet, but first I shall kiss your ass since that's what you're obviously wanting.

[Senator]

12. "Republic" Merely Means Non-Monarchy

I fear you may be tangled up a bit in the dreaded "Not a democracy, but a Republic" meme. It's something that sounds reasonable but in reality is nearly devoid of content -- a particularly insidious type of propaganda. And in fact, neofascist propaganda. What makes the phrase so troublesome is not really what it says -- the 2 terms are not mutually exclusive -- but rather what it implies without actually saying.

(Note: It is not my intent to single you out personally, as you are far from alone in relying on this oft-repeated canard. In fact, this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1190658#1192705">post is a cut/paste, as this has become a pet peeve of mine.)

The word "republic" simply means "non-monarchy" (which would be a kingdom). Cuba is a Republic and the "evil empire" was the USSR(epublics). They also have/had constitutions. And since the US is not a monarchy, we are certainly a republic. But that's not really saying anything substantive.

The only real content in the statement is "not a democracy," which in addition to being false about the US -- implies something derogatory about democracy or democracies (and thus about America and Americans). The implication is that there is some "other thing" that is better than a democracy. The purpose is to allow people to fill that void with whatever vague notion they'd like to: presumably some form of a theocracy, or autocracy, or "our side"-ocracy.

It sets up a false dichotomy between "Bad Democracy" vs. "Something Good." Also, on a rhetorical level it projects a Democra(tic Party is bad) vs. Republic(an Party is good) subliminal message.

In an attempt to save time, I'll describe the next step in this argument (as I have had this discussion before).

Next comes an attempt to claim that "representative democracy" itself is somehow not democracy. And that this is the "other thing" that the founders wanted and agreed to, in order to avoid the dreaded "mob rule." The reality is that there has never been, nor could there be, a "non-representative" democracy. Not even in ancient democracies was there ever a situation that could be considered "direct democracy" (i.e., "mob rule").

But the "mob rule" threat is simply a bogeyman. Again, the intent is the same. To disseminate a message of "democracy is bad," without revealing that what is being promoted is some nonspecified form of fascism -- minority rule.

--

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. Ok I'll stand corrected on that one..

I don't really want to get into a deep discussion on that particular issue here anyway. In reality the "mob mentality" I'm referring to is the way the majority here seems to have quickly latched onto the Unrecommend as God's gift from Heaven, and to Hell with all those who disagree. Stifle dissent on the issue, QUICKLY! And then make sure you keep pointing out how the VAST majority agrees with you and is happy with the new system - never mind that we can't tell just how much of a majority they really have since they keep unrecommending threads that disagree with them, and all we know is that it's "< 0".

Anyway, my concern is really for this site that I have loved up to now but that I really will feel obligated to resign from if the new system is kept in its present form.

[elocs]

17. No there was no race to implement it, this was under consideration since last year.

Besides, this is Skinners boards and he can ultimately do as he pleases if most people like how he has changed it. People just do not do well with change and DU is no different than anywhere else.

[Senator]

8. K&+R and Other

I K&Red for your effort at constructive improvement. That said, I've made no personal judgment about overall loss/benefit of the new functionality.

As for the Recommended Reading option, that is what I always took the (positive-only) function to mean. I've always considered it my duty to the community to promote posts that I think others would benefit from reading. I keep it as a higher priority than posting myself.

I've been using the new functionality applying the same standard -- reccing what I think is important/informative/amusing and (to a lesser degree) unreccing what I think is not -- mainly what is trivial and/or a waste of time. (I don't really understand the desire to "vote" based on "(dis)agreement" -- I thought the point of forums is to voice/explain one's disagreement.)

I have my doubts about whether or not the "added negativity" will improve the quality of the Greatest Page -- which at one time (prior to Hillabamania) was literally the most valuable single web page on the entire internet (yes, really). But I don't know that it won't.

Your notion of separating and providing both the "old way" and the "new way" seems reasonable. But I'm not sure any such tweaks can compensate for the changing nature of the community.

---

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Other: get a life

This angst over a feature on an internet board is getting ridiculous.

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. The angst is there for a reason, it's because we're talking about a higher principle.

One that we thought was supported by this internet board, and if you think the internet board is such a mundane, unimportant thing then why are you posting on it?

Why did you even bother opening this thread which has < 0 recs? Don't YOU have something more important to do with your life?

[JTFrog]

16. The only thing I'd change about rec/unrec is make it available only to those who can start posts.

Most trolls are outed before they get to that point.

[Obamanaut]

18. Restrict OPs by the same member on the same topic to only one,

e.g., Michael Jackson, Susan Boyle, unrec - most readers can tell from the first OP whether or not the author likes/dislikes or agrees/disagrees with the subject/topic. Additional OPs on that topic by that author are redundant.

Oh, unrec

[KatyMan]

19. Here's a proposal:

Get rid of the greatest page altogether. Let go of the herd mentality that tells you what posts should be read, and go to the forums themselves and decide for yourself what to read.
I think the anti-unrec crowd want a world where if they post something good, someone will pat them on the head and say 'Good boy!' and give them a treat, but they don't want anyone to be able to point it out when they shit on the floor.