Why NOT an "reverse recommendation" button on DU?

[Bicoastal]

Someone once suggested this idea, in a joking fashion, in the Lounge. To me, however, this idea makes loads of sense--a function that would, in effect, cancel out someone else's recommendation. This would stop highly contentious posts (for example, hit pieces on Democratic presidential candidates) from reaching the top of the "Greatest page," and would alert us all to heavily offensive/disliked threads. Those of us who like confrontations could join the fray to pump it up to the positive side, and the rest could steer clear.

This would definitely make the moderators' jobs easier, especially if when a post reached a negative enough rating (say, -100), it would be automatically deleted. Furthermore, it would stop cries of censorship around here for good, since the people monitoring your freedom of expression would be your fellow DU'ers. However, considering how easy it would be to abuse the system and target members you have a grudge against, I think, unlike the recommendation system, this would have to be systematically restricted--after de-recommending a thread, you would be unable to de-recommend another for 48 hours. Thus, you'd be compelled to save this function for posts you feel strongly about, instead of wasting them on trivial issues.

Like this idea? Recommend it, so it goes to the Greatest Page and Skinner sees it. If you detest this idea--well, short of posting your disapproval, you're screwed...for now. :P

Bicoastal.

[babylonsister]

1. I like it BUT the downside would be people who'd non-recommend

a perfectly legitimate post because they don't agree with it or are just being ornery. And the trolls would have a field day.

[hfojvt]

5. a dozen or so trolls could bring down the R factor of a great post

Of course, if the admins/mods could track people based on their Rs, that could be a sort of cunning trap too.

[MethuenProgressive]

33. Too much downside. Cliques would rule DU.

(even more than they do now...)

[Raine]

2. I like the idea

though I'm afraid it might lead to some sort of abuse but still think it might be worth consideration. :think:

[JVS]

3. bad idea. We had ratings and that was bad enough

[Bicoastal]

7. Before my time. What happened? (nt)

[JVS]

8. DRAMA!

[TomInTib]

4. I knew that "Fun Run" (or whatever it was called) was gonna cause problems.

For some reason, this sort of de-construction rubs me the wrong way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Note that 'DU 3.0' is planned to have a post rating system

See Skinner's post, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2312592&mesg_id=2312745

[Bicoastal]

11. Oh, cool--just like on Youtube's comment pages, where you can hide all the morons if you wish.

DU 3.0 is looking better and better all the time.

[shadowknows69]

9. Over my dead cyber body.

It's only purpose is to spread negative energy. You don't like a thread ignore it. In other words, if you don't have something nice to say about someone...you know the rest.

[H2O Man]

10. I agree. n/t

[TahitiNut]

26. ANONYMOUS negatives. I agree.

:puke:

[Quixote1818]

38. If it's a good post the positives will overtake the negatives

if it's not then it will drop as it should.

[Quixote1818]

40. Sometimes negative threads get positive votes

Giving a negative vote to a negative post will keep negative energy in check. I don't think a thread should show negative votes but the negative votes should be able to cancel out the positive ones.

[parasim]

12. Yeah, then we could have a Greatest and a Worstest Page

kidding... but seriously, I think it's a bad idea to cancel out recommendations with a bad rating.

If you go with a "rating" system, then at least have something like x positives and y negatives or some such. You know, more like a poll.

Personally, I don't like the idea of ratings in the first place, because of the nefarious shenanigans of questionable posters...

[BadgerKid]

13. Confused...do you want withdrawable or negative recs?

1. reverse recommendation = withdraw your own recommendation
2. negative recommendation = "vote down" a thread

I'm partial to #1 because it allows the most liked threads to rise. I think #2 could easily invite trolls, as others have pointed out.

[rug]

14. We sould be able to send out an electric shock if we don't like the post.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. Yes!

Taser inducing posts. Now we are talking Democracy!111!1111 What a concept...

:evilgrin:

[MADem]

15. I have suggested this a half dozen times. I find it insane when some bullshit,

uber-partisan, kinda creepy/nonsensical assertion gets posted, and then a bunch of "let's not read, because it sounds so good" types click the Yee Haw button.

And then the idiotic thing ends up on our front page--defining us.

I think all that 'number of negatives' stuff is too hard. I just hate seeing moronic crap on the Greatest Page. If we could cull some of that BS out, that would be a good thing...

[rug]

16. Zap . . .zap. . . zap. . . .

shit, isn't this thing working?

[MADem]

18. You'd only get one zap per post, though--like you get one rec. NT

[Boojatta]

22. It only defines the five who recommended it.

Perhaps the Search feature could be enhanced to give the option of requesting a list of the usernames of all who recommended a thread? Then the information would be available if desired, but would not clutter things up.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. I think that's a great approach.

Why not?

MKJ

[Boojatta]

28. Such an enhancement would also provide an opportunity

to expand the recommend function so that a person could type in a reason for recommending. A thread changes with time. Someone might recommend the Original Post and others might recommend a thread because of good rebuttals of the Original Post that are later added to the thread.

[Quixote1818]

41. I agree 100%. That shit drives me nuts!

Perhaps a thread shouldn't show negative votes but those who know the facts should be able to cancel out those who have no clue.

[Trillo]

17. I would presume the reason is similar to the reason why

we don't have a "none of the above" on our ballots.

[gollygee]

19. Great idea!

I just read one I'd love to "negative recommend"

[Boojatta]

21. Is this a joke?

if when a post reached a negative enough rating (say, -100), it would be automatically deleted. Furthermore, it would stop cries of censorship around here for good, since the people monitoring your freedom of expression would be your fellow DU'ers.

I thought that the Moderators were our fellow DU'ers. Was I wrong?

I also thought that before Moderators deleted a post, they discussed the question of whether or not a post actually violated a DU rule. I didn't think that a Moderator would merely click one button to express an unexplained preference for deleting a post.

[Recursion]

23. Go to slashdot.org sometime

They've been using a system a little bit like that for over a decade now. It has its ups and downs

[TahitiNut]

24. That's what "Ignore Thread" is for.

Since fucking when is it a Good Thing to spread negatives ANONYMOUSLY?? (Sheesh.) Why should MY disgust with certain threads have ANYTHING to do with telling YOU not to read it? Don't like it? Don't recommend it.

In my opinion, DISCUSSION is a Good Thing in a Discussion Forum and discussion is greatest when folks have differing perspectives. Just because some of us can't seem to distinguish between message and messenger doesn't mean we should have cyber-stones to throw at the house of cards built by others ... or threads involving topics of high emotional content.

There's ONE particular 'topic' that raises my own ire above all others (I shouldn't even have to specify which for those who've paid any attention) and it raises it's ugly misinformational head about 3-4 times each year on DU. Despite the fact that I regard the outright disinformation and insults totally reprehensible, I'd still not argue for a 'negative' recommend.

[Boojatta]

31. "I shouldn't even have to specify which for those who've paid any attention"

Why not start a thread about it, including in your Original Post the comment that the 'topic' raises your ire above all others, and then add it to your journal?

I admit that I don't actually know what 'topic' raises your ire above all others. On the other hand, I ordinarily pay much more attention to the messages than to the messengers.

Excellent post, by the way.

[dweller]

35. exactly, now what they need

is a count of the ignores, like "this thead has been x'd by ## Du'ers".
We already have a view #, and once the view count and ignore count start balancing out, the message is delivered.

dp

[Quixote1818]

42. Accept many of us us the ignore button to clear the board of threads we have

already read and don't plan on going back to even if we liked what they said.

[dweller]

43. why wouldn't you want to go back to a thread you liked

and see how the discussion develops?

you can use the option anyway you please, but i wouldn't use it to 'clear the boards'. The responses, or lack of them, usually do that anyway.

dp

[Quixote1818]

46. It depends on how controversial it is and what kind of responses it's generating

For instance I didn't do it on this one because I am posting on it but many posts are just news or basic info and once I have read them I just get rid of them so they are out of the way. I don't know why I started doing that but it's a habit now.

[L. Coyote]

25. "Avoid"

[dailykoff]

29. Only for threads about er er

misadministration.


(psst.. female trouble :blush: )

[The Doctor.]

30. I'd like to 'negative rec' this post.

;)

Since recs are an indication of 'community value' a given post may have, and recs are anonymous, it would become impossible to gauge that value.

Things rise based on their value to the community. So what if we don't all agree on what constitutes 'value'. The bottom line is that things which piss enough people off are going to have a rec ceiling anyway, and it's important to field crappy or controversial ideas so they can be hashed out in the greater light.

Adding negative recs will keep people from more widely dealing with flawed or controversial ideas.

[HughMoran]

32. On it's face the idea seems like a bad one

But after reading your well thought-out post, I like the idea. You have no idea how many times I wish there was a "negative recommend" button!

[WilliamPitt]

34. People will use it as a weapon in the clique wars.

[Quixote1818]

37. But what about threads that don't belong on the greatest page? See my other post. nt

[Quixote1818]

36. This is desperately needed!!!!!

I have seen really stupid controversial posts get to the top of the greatest page. The thread might have 70% of the posts in disagreement of what was being said but because it was controversial and got a lot of hits it ended up getting a ton of recommend votes. If that among other threads had an option to "not" recommend then all those recommend votes would have been canceled out and it never would have made it to the top of the Greatest Page.

Desperately needed!

[Renew Deal]

39. This has come up before and has always been turned down.

The problem is that there's way too much room for abuse; especially on a political site.

[chill_wind]

44. I'd rather see discussion than censorship or "ratings" nannyism anyday.

And that includes controversial, even contentious discussion.

I'm a civil libertarian first and a DU'er second. Let the free marketplace of ideas regulate themselves and let people continue to choose for themselves what is worthwhile to respond to or what isn't.

To me, the best measure of all that is by how active the actual discussions are. In fact, I'd be just as happy to see the "recommend" function and the whole often dubious construct of "Greatest" threads let go as well. The passive recommends without comment, especially, don't tell me anything.

For me, the "latest threads" page and a replacement of that whole "greatness" thing with a "most active threads" page would seem like a far more genuine process. People want to discuss what they want to discuss.

That way, if we were to continue to see advocates of repressing actively debated and discussed ideas that rise to the top by the pure virtue of active debate or interest, the protests of such discussion can be clearly seen for what they are: thought policing and nannyism.

What I'd *really* love to see most of all on DU is a million thread dupes *nuke* button.. :-)

[Mythsaje]

45. No.

Terrible idea. Rife with potential for abuse.

[scarletwoman]

47. Absolutely not. If you don't like what someone posted, either rebut it or ignore it.

If people are recommending a post, it means it holds some value for them. Why should someone else be allowed to just come along and negate the support that others gave that post?

If you disagree, then disagree upfront and honestly on the thread, not by slinking through anonymously taking away other people's votes. Or just leave the thread alone and find something else more to your taste.

Sorry, but I think this negative recs proposal is a horrid idea. Ugh.

sw