Can the unrec feature be disabled for the first hour or 2 of a new post?

[no limit]

I personally really like the unrec feature eventhough I almost never use it. But it seems like there are people on this site that run around and unrecommend threads as soon as they are posted. Would it be possible to disable the unrec feature for the first couple hours of a new post to prevent this from happening?

[Teaser]

1. cosign

.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. I'm perplexed whether to recommend this or not.

:rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Xipe Totec]

5. I recommended, though I disagree

It's just too funny and innocent!

:rofl:

[goldcanyonaz]

20. I'll recommend too. Poor thing is like a deer caught in headlights.

:rofl:

[Liberal Veteran]

3. For what purpose?

After two hours, someone is suddenly going to decide they really want to rec the post instead?

[taterguy]

4. Eventhough? Unreccing because you're a lazy typist

[trotsky]

6. Automatic unrec for whining about unrec. n/t

[hayu_lol]

8. Unrec for whining about unrecs...

and not saying boo about recs. They are two sides of the same coin.

[trotsky]

10. But recs are OK because they give me the validation I so desperately need.

From anonymous posters on an Internet message board.

[IndianaGreen]

13. unrec because the unrec has done so much for generating more unrecs

Perhaps there can be consensus to ask for the unrec to be eliminated.

[trotsky]

16. This place doesn't run by majority rule.

We are here at the discretion of the 3 admins, and we play by their rules. I'm perfectly happy with that.

[IndianaGreen]

27. they do listen to the community

and the unrec function was put in at the request of many DUers, some of which are having second thoughts.

[trotsky]

31. Well then, the people who have problems should take it up with the admins

and quit cluttering the other forums.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

56. some people here suffer from an authoritarian streak

in case you haven't noticed.

[no limit]

59. Well, it is the internets; so thats a given

[trotsky]

64. Newsflash:

It's an authoritarian board. Don't believe me? Call out Skinner and see what happens. DUers won't vote on whether you should be banned - you'll just be banned.

And guess what? This place would be total chaos if it weren't. Now you can continue to project whatever you want onto me, but the facts are the facts.

[bigwillq]

7. Then the rec system should be disabled then too

I am against both options. Keep the system as is, or get rid of it.

[elocs]

9. Sure, as long as the Rec feature is disabled also.

Imagine a thread with this subject: "Dennis Kucinich sucks!" Think there might be some DUers who would want to immediately UnRec this new post? UnRec is simply a tool and threads which deserve Recs will get plenty of them in spite of those who immediately cry about UnRecs. Ultimately, kicking a thread by responding is more valuable since it can move a thread to the top of its forum even after 24 hours when Rec/UnRec is no longer any good.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Stop being a baby

[tammywammy]

33. +1 n/t

[no limit]

12. For all those saying this isn't a big deal, I'll make a bet with you

make a post saying that killing kittens is a bad thing. I'll bet anything within 5 minutes you will have a number of unrecs.

[trotsky]

14. And those unrecs would be deserved.

Because while only a complete asshole or troll would disagree, it would still be a dumb post, and not something that should represent the "best of DU" on the Greatest Page.

Rec/unrec seems to work quite well.

[no limit]

15. Ok, I'll give you a more literal example

Post a video of Bill O'Reilly getting his ass handed to him by the son of a 9/11 victim then cuttin him off. See how many seconds it takes for you to get an unrec or 10.

[trotsky]

17. Well if I post that video in GD, again the recs would be deserved...

because we have a political videos forum and it should be there. But it might still get unrecs because it's old news and the Greatest page tends to be on more timely issues.

[no limit]

18. Do you take everything this literally in life? Jesus fucking christ (excuse my french)

[trotsky]

19. You're the one who's so big on *literal* examples.

I can't help it that you don't like my answers.

[no limit]

21. The point is there are disruptors on this site that use the unrec feature when new posts are made

this is no secret and it is a problem, my apologies for sharing my idea on how I think this could be improved.

[trotsky]

25. You make a huge assumption that MANY of us, including the admins, do not.

That "it is a problem."

The only way it would be a problem is if there are MORE "disruptors" than DUers - and if that's the case, NOTHING good should make it to the Greatest. Take a good look there right now and tell me honestly if you don't think there are some mighty fine threads featured there right now. Hint: there is no evidence whatsoever that disruptors are keeping DU's greatest threads off the Greatest page.

[no limit]

26. But when you have threads that clearly the entire community would enjoy

minus a few disruptors, getting unrecommended as soon as they are posted then there is a problem. But you are right, that doesn't mean that good topics are kept off the greatest page. I'm just thinking aloud about fixing the obvious abuse even if it doesn't have a huge effect at the end of the day.

[trotsky]

30. "clearly the entire community would enjoy"

Clearly the entire community did not, it would appear.

Again you make assumptions, like there is "obvious abuse." I'll tell you when there was OBVIOUS abuse: when there was only Rec. Get 5 of your buddies to come rec your thread and you're automatically on the Greatest. Embarrassing, nasty crap was appearing up there and it was obvious.

[no limit]

32. I agree with you that it was bad before the unrec feature came along

I wrote a thread back in the day asking for the unrec feature.

But I dont think that I am making a crazy assumption about clear abuse. This is a progressive web site, we can all safely assume that people with progressive ideals will agree to certain things (that Bill O'Reilly is a douchebag for example). The greatest page is designed for those progressive ideals. Yet you have disruptors that don't share those ideals trying to keep topics off the greatest page that should be there. I agree with you they don't end up successful in that regard at the end of the day but they certainly do delay the process.

[trotsky]

35. ???

I agree with you they don't end up successful in that regard but they certainly do delay the process.

Even if this were true, what would be the point?

I really don't understand the belief that there is some dedicated group of disruptors (presumably paid by the RNC, right?) who have nothing better to do than come log into DU, look for threads that are "good," and then unrec them if only to delay their appearance on DU's Greatest Page by a few minutes.

You're kidding, right? What the heck is the point?

[no limit]

42. No, not paid by anyone. But you seem to underestimate the free time some people have online

the internet is a big place, and DU is visited by a fairly signification portion of the internet population (I have no clue of the stats, but Im sure its millions of views a day). There will be people that will do this out of pure spite and they have plenty of free time on their hands. I really hope nobody assumes I think there are secret RNC agents on this site because Im usually the first to frawn upon that kind of stuff, I don't, but I do believe there are people that would do this because they have nothing better to do. And maybe I'm crazy, but that's my theory. And I could be wrong. But explain to me how threads that would clearly be enjoyed by 99% of the community (again we can make this assumption in some cases) be unrecommended as soon as they pop up without someone with a lot of free time on their hands abusing the system.

[Zywiec]

61. DU is visited by a fairly signification portion of the internet population?

Are you kidding?

I would say a majority of the internet population has never heard of DU.

[pipi_k]

49. While Billow Reilly is a certifiable douchbag....

I would not go so far as to say that a thread pointing out his douchebaggery might deserve to be on the "Greatest Threads" page because it's pretty much a given here that most of us already KNOW he's a douchebag.

The only possible reason I can think of for someone wanting a "Billow is a douchebag" thread on the "Greatest Page" would be as sort of an advertisement for newbies, or maybe even a bit of provocation for any Freepers lurking on the site. "Nyah, nyah, Freepers! See what we think of your stupid Bill O'Reilly? He sucks so much that 3 billion DUers rec'd this thread, so there!!!"


Not to mention that even if we all agree that someone of his ilk is a douchebag, we certainly might not all agree that such information is worthy of appearing on the "Greatest Page".

Just as an example.


Which is as it should be. If I wanted to spend time with a bunch of beings who all agreed on everything, I'd sit around watching the earthworms in my compost pile...

[no limit]

50. But do you really believe there isn't abuse of this feature?

[pipi_k]

55. Maybe. But then...

there's probably just as much abuse of the rec feature as well.


Let's not fool ourselves into believing that threads aren't rec'd or unrec'd for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to with their worthiness for the "Greatest" page.

Like some above have said...people don't want unrec? Fine. Then let's do away with its opposite, the rec feature.

It's not fair to have one without the other. How would people feel if there were ONLY the unrec but no rec?

Balance is good.

[no limit]

57. I agree balance is good, and this system is better than the one before

but I don't know if I would agree with the abuse being applied to the rec feature, maybe. Seems kind of pointless though to get a thread you dont agree with on the greatest page.

And maybe I am making too big of a deal about this, as someone above said it doesn't really prevent topics that should be on the greatest page from getting on there. But when you unrec someone's thread you are telling them you don't agree without ever having to identify yourself or comment why, which could be said about the rec feature. Hey, here is a new idea. How about it is required that a reason is required when you rec/unrec a thread?

[pipi_k]

82. Actually, when I say that "rec" is probably being abused also, I mean

that perhaps people are automatically clicking the "rec" option for those they consider friends. Or DUers with whom they usually agree.

And who knows if there isn't some kind of "buddy" system going on? You rec mine and I'll rec yours...

We just don't know. That's really what I was thinking of when I mentioned how rec could be abused just as handily as unrec could...

[jonnyblitz]

54. i bet your definition of "disrupt" is any post that you like that

gets UNRECd. it's all subjective and everybody doesn't think like you.

[bigwillq]

28. Who cares?

:shrug: There's more to this discussion board than a silly rec system.

[TorchTheWitch]

36. and it SHOULD be unrec'ed

Because an OP that just says killing kittens is bad does not belong on the Greatest Page! WHY do people not get what sort of posts the Admin intended to be considered Greatest Page worthy? Rec and unrec are NOT for whether or not you agree with the OP no matter how stupid it is, it's whether or not you think it is important enough to be on the Greatest Page. Who the hell thinks that an OP that just says killing kittens is bad belongs on the Greatest Page or belongs on DU at ALL? What the hell is noteworthy about that?

The whole Greatest Page thing probably just should go. It's obvious that the great majority here have no clue what it's for and they rec and unrec for all the wrong reasons.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. Conversely...

If I post a thread that says

FUCK BUSH!
INDICT KKKARL ROVE! and
NEVER GO HUNTING WITH DICK CHENEY!

It will be on The Greatest Page in the amount of time it takes five people to find it.

[no limit]

45. But my point is that it wont

even if 5 people that actually care about progressive values see your thread.

[cynatnite]

58. I probably got in the range of 5000 unrecs....

for this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7294741

It's not a big deal. The unrec feature is a useless device. It says nothing about the content of the OP.

[no limit]

60. Well I dont think thats a problem with the abuse I'm talking about

that's more of an issue with people not liking to be told facts that fuck with their little enclosed world. Interesting post.

[Catshrink]

22. The only threads I unrec are the threads whining about the unrec feature

Accept it, move on.

[Zywiec]

23. +1 n/t

[bigwillq]

29. I unrec any thread

that mentions the rec/unrec system, even if it's not the OP. As soon as I post pops up saying "how can anyone unrec this?", then I unrec it.

[no limit]

34. That makes no sense

[trotsky]

38. It does when you consider another valid motive for unreccing:

When it's evident the OP is fishing for recs.

[no limit]

43. But he specifically said even if its not the OP

that means I can come in to a perfectly good thread and say "I cant believe people unrec this" and he would unrecommend it.

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of the rec/unrec feature, but that just seems irrational to me. When you unrec the thread you are naturally telling the OP you don't really like their thread.

[bigwillq]

52. Yes, that's what I am saying.

And more times than not, it's a thread I would unrec anyway.

[pipi_k]

51. That's really about the only time I do it

unrec, I mean.

If it looks like someone is fishing for recs...oops...sorry...unrec from me

[bigwillq]

39. Maybe to you

And that's ok.

[Posteritatis]

94. OP or OP as first response here

I think the latter (the "which republican unrecced this?!" tantrums 90 seconds after the OP) actually annoy me more than threads that are specifically about the damn thing. Of course, I love the fact that they always derail their own discussions with it.

[ZombieHorde]

24. You could also find some like minded people and rec all of the new posts. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Just for You.

[trotsky]

40. LMAO

Perfect. :thumbsup:

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. I have more...

[no limit]

47. lol

[Thickasabrick]

78. Brilliant nt

[MineralMan]

46. How many of these have there been today? Seems like there

are a few every day. Unrecced for being an unrec thread.

[SoCalDem]

53. The Uggos simply must shit on any thread that is not personally pleasing to them

and they must do it before they even have had time to read the post.. It's like Tourettes.. they cannot help themselves :)


Un-reccer, Uggo in repose


his avatar

[superduperfarleft]

62. Oh, jesus fucking christ, shut up. Can't we have one day without someone whining about unrecs?

Don't you realize that a large majority of posters never even go to the greatest page?

Oh yeah, and unrec for whining about unrecs.

[A HERETIC I AM]

66. We did. It was yesterday. n/t

[JonLP24]

63. Only if it applies to a 'rec'

Meaning I'm sure some will rec a thread as soon as it pops up.

[AngryAmish]

65. Stupidest thing I have heard for a long time around here - actually not true

There are so many morons around here you have a high bar to compete with the elite.

[xultar]

108. +1 miilion gazillion

[Starry Messenger]

67. Damn, how did you rate a sticky post?

Who are you mystery man?

[NYC_SKP]

69. My question exactly. WTF?

I wanna do that!

:P

[demmiblue]

70. Too funny!

:rofl:

[arcadian]

99. third

I was expecting a remark from Skinner or Elad to show up in this thread, discussing it, but nope, ain't never seen no average post been stickied like this before.

[dysfunctional press]

68. as long as 'rec' is disabled for the same period of time- that would be great.

WHY are so many insecure people still focused on, and/or whining about this bullshit..?

there are some SERIOUS self-esteem issues out there, as some people seem to NEED for their posts to 'make it' to the greatest page in order to validate their very existence.

i certainly don't get it...:shakeshead:

[Morning Dew]

71. I unrec posts about unrec

and have done so here.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, though.

:)

[HuckleB]

72. So this is now a balloon?

I vote to kill the unrec. It's just too durned ugly.

[demmiblue]

73. Lol!

:rofl:

[racaulk]

74. If the unrec feature is disabled for a short period for a new post, then the rec feature should be

disabled also.

There are people that reflexively recommend threads for the same reasons as those that reflexively unrecommend threads. I see no reason to give preferential treatment to one over the other.

Temporarily disable them both, or not at all. YMMV.

[A HERETIC I AM]

75. The feature works perfectly fine as it is.

No changes are needed.

It funny to read through a thread that has 50 or more recs and 100 responses and the first or second post is someone whining about it being unrecc'd.

Sheesh, just give a thread some time to see how it shakes out instead of complaining that a feature of this board is being used in the first 2 minutes.

[rucky]

76. How'd this thread get pinned to the top?

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

77. I prefer '"no limit."

[Monk06]

79. Sympathy rec Also nominated for the Unclear on the Concept Award for 2009

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[NYC_SKP]

86. I wanna know how big the contribution needs to be to get a post "stickied"...

It's an error, but I don't know how it happened.

[A HERETIC I AM]

87. Perhaps it's because your complaints were often accompanied by insults..

directed at a large percentage of DU'rs?

If you had refrained from constantly referring to members that use the feature as "cowards", maybe you wouldn't have gotten any warning at all, hmm?

I want you mods to retract your warning.

Yeah.

Best of luck with that.

[Nikki Stone1]

104. I said the unrec feature was cowardly if you didn't state that you were unrecing

I still think it is cowardly.

Next complaint?

:D

[Hutzpa]

81. You made it stick

you must have some kind of mystical power.


\/\/ o o T !

[NYC_SKP]

90. Magic? If they're THAT powerful than just make the rec rules they want just happen.

Why post at all?

:popcorn:

[krawhitham]

83. Can the REC feature be disabled for the first hour or 2 of a new post

[Pryderi]

84. Unrec should go away. It

leads to hard feelings and allows freeptards to ruin threads.

[tammywammy]

85. People should get a thick skin if a damn unrec on a freaking internet message board

hurts their feelings. People putting that much stock into rec/unrec need to realize it's a freaking internet message board!

And honestly, just because people disagree with an OP doesn't mean they're a "freeptard."

[Texasgal]

88. Good golly I agree...

This stupid assed rec/unrec shit has gotten out of control!!!

It's just a freaking message board people!!!

+100000000000000000000

God... this shit is stupid!

[Shagbark Hickory]

89. People shouldn't get offended when they get -1'd. It's just the internet people. Get out more!

[Bluebear]

91. Who on earth has time to revisit threads? Your method reward those who see the thread after 2 hours

..for the first time. Those who were online and reading posts for the first two hours wouldn't get to weigh in unless they remembered to return to it...and if you were disposed to unrecommend it, who wants to return to it?

Frankly, unrec is an awful idea to begin with.

[Powdered Toast Man]

92. You could still rec it right away...

And as I read it, it's not two hours from the time you first read it, it's 2 hours from the time it goes us.

However, I agree, the unrec is awful.

[Posteritatis]

93. I almost want an automatic ignore feature for OPs that continue to fucking whine about this. (nt)

[LostInAnomie]

95. Seriously. who thought this was a good enough idea to pin?

:thumbsdown:

[The Midway Rebel]

96. Sounds like a bad idea.

It means only those who spend more than an hour or two on DU can Un rec some threads.

Sounds like more pissin' and maonin' about the Un rec gnomes that no one can collect any real evidence of.

[Stevenmarc]

97. Swipe..... Denied..........NEXT!

[Beacool]

98. I don't like it.

I find the unrec feature rude and obnoxious. People cowardly unrec posts and not leave comments. I have never used it and think that it was unnecessary.

x(

[A HERETIC I AM]

100. Are people that recommend threads but don't comment cowards also?

Calling fellow members cowards for using a feature of this board in the way it was intended is what is rude and obnoxious.

[arcadian]

101. auto-unrec for mentioning rec function

[Iggo]

102. Unrecs don't mean a good goddam thing...

...and you really need to get over this.

[Quantess]

103. Oh, good grief. Leave Unrec as it is!

I really appreciate the Unrecommend feature, and I don't see the point in changing it, or making any convoluted rules about Unrec.

I like Unrecommend as it is!

[Behind the Aegis]

105. No.

If there is any change, make it impossible to rec/unrec without posting a comment, even if the post is nothing more than "K&R/U." Or, in the very least, let it be known how many recs/unrecs there are, like it was when the system was introduced. Or, make it known who voted what way. Otherwise, leave it as it is. To be honest, I think the whole thing should be scrapped (rec/unrec). It no longer serves a purpose imo.

[Quantess]

106. But that would only reward lousy threads by kicking them to the top.

DU already has a problem of excellent threads quickly sinking to the bottom because nobody can find anything to argue about.

Having to post a reason for an Unrec would only worsen the problem.

[Behind the Aegis]

107. I don't agree.

I didn't say they would have to post a reason for either rec/unrec, simply make a post. And in doing so, it would kick it to the top of the current forum, and if the piece is so lousy and is already passed on to the second page of the forum, why bother to unrec, let it sink as is.

[travelingtypist]

109. The early unrecs are noticeable.

This is a good suggestion.