DU3 shows who recced the thread

[Liberal_in_LA]

lists the people who recced. :shrug:

[Robb]

1. Indeed. The watchword is truly "transparency."

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. Internet isn't all about transparency. There is a anonymity factor also, that allows folks to

express opinions without fear.

[Robb]

In this case, it also translates to accountability.

We have user names to anonymize us, but our persistent identities have a reputation.

Fearing for one's username's ability to express opinions only should extend to the value one places on the username's reputation. And if it's to mean anything, it's got to be accountable for the views it espouses. :shrug:

[HereSince1628]

2. Does it distinguish between rec'd vs unrec'd?

haven't looked into it myself...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. There are no unrecs. NONE. Only recs.

[pnwmom]

Good. I think trolls were doing lots of the un-rec ing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Only if they were members...

Unregistered folks cannot do either.

[pnwmom]

19. Really? Has that always been the case?

I wonder if they had to have a certain post count, or if they could just un-rec away.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

22. I'm not sure, but I believe it has always been that way.

You cannot recommend or unrecommend unless you're a registered member.

I've never heard or read about having a certain post count for this.

[pnwmom]

26. So a troll could register, never post, and just un-rec at leisure.

That doesn't sound like a great plan -- but it would explain some of the crazy un-recs that occur.

[dipsydoodle]

32. Didn't you think you could rec or unrec

before a certain number of posts had been made. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

35. I thought you could, and that it explained why even the most

uncontroversial (for progressives) posts could get un-rec'ed.

But I've never been sure how it worked.

[dipsydoodle]

37. What I do know

is that you should beware of posters with just enough posts to PM who got to that number just by adding +1 whatever in reponse to posts. There were issues recently with some of the lady DUers receiving mail which was both foul and of a threating nature.

:hi:

[pnwmom]

38. Oh great.

:sarcasm:


Thanks for the warning.

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. And they do that quite frequently

They laugh about it on those other sites that can't be named here.

I find it a rather bizarre pastime. But they are indeed rather bizarre people:)

[Posteritatis]

18. Funny how the admins consistently denied that. (nt)

[HereSince1628]

13. ok, didn't know...so this DU3 function shows who supports what posts

So it's gonna be like being a benthic invert zoologist, you'll get to know your barnacles and everyone else is gonna be an anemone.

[provis99]

40. well, then it's totally pointless.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. No. Not really.

It's intended purpose is to get all the "I love Obama" and "Obama walks on water" threads to the Most recommended threads page. Voila! The whiners got what they asked for. That's all you'll be reading on DU3.

No dissent at all allowed.

[provis99]

48. I think you're right on that one.

Plus the "rec if you think I'm cool" type of threads.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Strange - the most whining about unrec I saw was from people critical of Obama

who would complain that their threads were, to their apparent amazement, disliked by Democrats on DU. :shrug: So they complained about the existence of 'unrec', and Skinner has got tired of the whining and got rid of it. Now, users have to put their names to their wish to see a thread on the 'most rec'd' page. Seems quite reasonable to me; those who are critical of mainstream Democrats are normally only too happy to say it openly on DU (just count the 'K&Rs'), and so I can't see why they'd worry about this.

[SidDithers]

60. +1...nt

Sid

[xiamiam]

63. well thats going to be a problem because i personally feel that they are misguided

and while they have a right to believe what they believe, i think they will come around unless they are getting paid..Maybe not.

We should be posting something this administration does to benefit us every day. It's not happening and its not going to happen. Check out the greatest page any day. Not our fault that we are just not represented. I've been voting straight democrat for 4 decades, and I've never been so disappointed in someone I voted for and had such hope for. Never. I'm not alone. I don't know anyone who feels differently.

The only folks I come in contact with who continue to post unquestioning support are people here at DU..so that in itself is a step outside of my comfort zone. I've been coming here daily for 7 years. I check current events here before I go anywhere else. I can't imagine that a voice like mine who is pretty tame but has felt the destruction of my profession and personal financial existence because of the meltdown, and continued because nothing has been done about it. Nothing. Zip...Nada..and neither has it for millions upon millions of middle class Americans.

I can almost name the 20 or so ardent supporters just because, to me, there is an unwillingness to challenge or honestly critique the things that so many of us are pissed about. The military defense budget for example..vs everything else.

There is a place for us at the table. An honest place. I don't know if you remember immediately after Obama got elected, Rahm started a program with programs on the internet called message managing or something like that. It was like give the guy a chance and tame down the rhetoric for a minute...everywhere on the net and even more progressive cable news sites..it was noticable to me.

I hope this place doesn't change as you suggest. I cant find another site like it which keeps me abreast of whats going on. I haven't checked out the new DU..I don't want to. So many complaints from you and others.

The majority of folks here are aware of what is going on...whether there going to hold their nose and vote or not. There is not a huge fan club here. It's not party before principle with me. I hope there is still a place for that.

[xiamiam]

58. that's good..i hate unrec although i have started using it ...

its not my proudest activity

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. not sure if unrec was allowed. Thread I looked at only had recs

[Uncle Joe]

14. I don't know if it discloses who unrecced but I believe it should.

That would make it more difficult for trolls to come in and unrec a quality thread without being known.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. There is no unrec. ONLY a rec button.

Should be lots of fun. :eyes:

[Ohio Joe]

3. I like that

Transparency is a good thing IMO.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Indeed it does...

I like it.

And, if you click on the number of recs, and then go to the place where it tells you who did the recommendations, you can then click on every person in there to see what threads they have recommended over the last so-many hours.

I REALLY like that.

:hi:

[Liberal_in_LA]

wow. No secrets. huh?

[Robb]

23. I'll probably use that as a micro-greatest page.

If you admire a poster (and I admire quite a few), you can see what they're recommending. Sort of like following an author you like on Twitter to get ideas for new books to read.

:hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

27. Exactly!

I'll also be able to see just who's recommending MY threads, lol!

:hi:

[progressoid]

36. Ha!

Good point!

[NightWatcher]

8. Who cares about recs one way or another? I could give a shit

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. just discussing DU3

[pnwmom]

16. Some people look first to "The Greatest Page" and recs put OP's there.

So recs give some prominence to those posts.

[Spazito]

10. Yep, it has been a clarion call by many here on DU2....

that those who rec or unrec should not remain anonymous so it seems the admin was listening. There is no unrec on DU3 but, after thinking on it a bit, I have no problem being identified as having rec'd an OP. I don't know why anyone would be concerned that readers of the thread knew who recommended it.

[ZombieHorde]

12. True, unrec was always the controversial vote. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. Why does anyone have a need to know?

That's the issue. WTF is all this "transparency" bullshit suppose to do? What is its PURPOSE. WHY do people need to know this stuff? No one will answer that...specifically. I keep getting, "Transparency" is good. There's nothing wrong with Transparency. Yet no one will say what is so GOOD about it.

[Spazito]

59. I can only speculate as to the admin's intent...

and I speculate that greater transparency as to what members are recommending, having DU members 'police' themselves as to what is acceptable or not within a framework, etc, is being done in hopes we will begin to act more like adults and think about what we are doing, how we are acting, etc.

That's my guess anyway. I have no problem with greater transparency if it results in less infighting and more substantive discussion because we, as posters, are giving a second 'sober' thought to what we do and post.

[intheflow]

64. This is my question.

If rec'ing is a form of voting - and it is - why not just extend this line of thought to actual elections? Why have private ballots? If you have nothing to hide, you can't fear any kind of retribution by the majority. Right? Right?!


:sarcasm:
Added for the sarcasm-impaired.

[formercia]

11. I guess I will have to be careful with my Recs

I wouldn't want someone profiling me based on which threads I recommend.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. DU3 = ZERO PRIVACY. The only thing they won't know is your real name. Maybe. As far as we know.

:(

[Hatchling]

39. I agree.

Plus people can see who you have on ignore. I dislike that immensely. You put one person on ignore, he sees it, rallies his friends and suddenly you are stalked.

The DU3 "transparency" is a recipe for stalking and bullying.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. Indeed it is and it WILL happen.

I would bet money on it.

[provis99]

49. well, I'll get it out of the way, then. Here's my real name:

Woody Johnson.:-)

[joshcryer]

55. Hi.

[backtoblue]

20. I kinda like the reccing anonymity we have now...

I don't necessarily want to be known as a certain "type" of reccer/poster.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. Dump the rec/unrec feature.

Who needs it?

[Spazito]

25. I am in agreement with you on that...

it seems to only create conflict, suspicion and infighting for the most part. I am not sure why it was kept in the new DU3 seeing as it created havoc when it was instituted here without the balance of unrec.

I think they should do away with it all together and let the number of responses be the designate as to how 'hot' a thread is, period.

[SidDithers]

61. I agree...

that's my preference too.

Sid

[pipi_k]

31. I agree with you, actually...

in spite of what I wrote below about there being more accountability with reccer names being known.

Who the hell cares about recs/unrecs anyway?

I never saw it as anything more than a popularity contest, anyway.

[The Doctor.]

24. What about unrecs?

Is 'unrec' going to be a feature?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

28. There are no unrecs. NONE. Only recs. n/t

[Spazito]

29. No, no unrec feature on DU3 n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Well, that's a good start. I haven't visited the new site yet.

I can't even find my way around this one yet.

[pipi_k]

30. Accountability...yeah

That's what many of the opponents of unrec were always kvetching about. Accusing un-reccers of being "trolls". Even though I saw Skinner say quite a few times that the majority of unreccers were not trolls at all.


People wanted to KNOW who the unreccers were. Not the reccers. Just the UNreccers.


They complained so much about unrec that on DU3 it will be gone. I'm not happy about that, but at least now maybe people will be a little more judicious about the actual recs they make.

More transparency. More accountability.

Well, now we'll apparently have both of those things in DU3.

[SidDithers]

62. I tried to not be anonymous with my unrecs...

you can't believe the amount of shit I got, just because I owned my unrecs. I'm not complaining, just saying that DU'ers are a fickle bunch. They don't want anonymous unrecs, but also don't want non-anonymous unrecs.

:thumbsup:

Sid

[badtoworse]

33. I rarely recc or unrecc threads, so it doesn't matter that much to me.

It's hard to see value in just showing recc' though because there is no way to interpret the number. I had the same issue with DU2 just showing a net number or zero.

It makes more sense to show both the recc's and unrecc's, as well as who did what. Suppose a post got 100 recc's - pretty good post, right? Would you look at it differently if it also got 80 unrecc's? If nothing else, it would provide more useful feedback about what a broader spectrum of people are thinking.

[Brickbat]

34. Gross.

[banned from Kos]

43. DKos shows recs - never a problem. the only problem was blatant campaiging

in the form of posts.

[Obamanaut]

47. One of the problems with 'rec' sending posts to the greatest page, prior to 'unrec' being

added, was that a prolific poster or a popular one could post an image of a tree with a message 'what a nice tree this season', and there would be responses from sycophants with comments such as "K&R. To the greatest page with thee."

'Unrec' slowed that down a bit so that less of the GP stuff was merely fluff.

Now, one will be able to see the sycophants to the prolific posters. The same names will appear, but not necessarily in the same order each time.

[whistler162]

51. That should smooth some ego's!

[inna]

52. should show both, really, for those of us in favor of Transparency

- and hey, i'm a huge fan of T, as much as I am of P (Privacy)...

so there.

[starroute]

53. It looks like it's also going to show what alerts you sent

Or maybe just how many -- that function isn't active yet, so it's not clear just what it does.

But I really don't like the way this is going. Transparency is one thing -- but it goes hand in hand with personal privacy. And a system that provides enough information about you to invite stalkers and potential retaliation does not provide a safe, welcoming space for open expression of opinions and attitudes.

[joshcryer]

56. It will show how many alerts + success rate, so you won't go about alerting...

...on random stuff you don't like.

[Fumesucker]

57. Just don't ever rec anything or ignore anyone.. Problem solved.. n/t

[mmonk]

65. Interesting.

[Ken Burch]

66. Does it also list those who "un-rec'd"?

Needs to be consistent on that, dontcha think?

[Ohio Joe]

67. There is no un-rec on DU3 - nt

[Ken Burch]

68. Interesting.

Any chance they'll get rid of it on DU2 while it still exists? No reason to keep it here if it's not going to be in the next incarnation.

[Ohio Joe]

69. As best I understand...

No changes are coming to DU2 since the launch of DU3 is so close... Like, I think it is weeks away.