Is the "rec" feature contibuting to polarization? An honest discussion

[Go2Peace]

I don't know how others think, but having been around a while, it seems like greatest page has become a touch of a "rec-war" lately. I don't know if the purpose is to try and dominate the discussion, or if some see it as kind of a "competition". But it has gotten to the point that one has to sift through a lot of posts that essentially say many of the same things again and again. I think most of us know how this works. Send out constant posts that tend to follow a "narrative", people who agree with that meme rec up, people that don't unrec. The objective sometimes becoming to change the narrative instead of to inform and discuss.

I suppose it should not be surprising that on a democratic board there should be an ongoing "competition amongst ideas", but it seems to me that it is greatly "amplified" by the rec feature, and it is part of what tends to increase the polarization of expression. I wonder if we can't turn that phenomenon down a touch?

I have a suggestion to add to the current algorithm. Rec seems to have it's place, but should it be the sole factor? I will post a potential algorithm; I don't expect this to be perfect, and hopefully others might contribute something even better?

Here is a possible algorithm where participation also weighs in. In this algorithm recs would still weigh pretty heavily, but also a lot of discussion by many different people would also gather some steam :


(number of recs)*4 + (number of replies) + (number of unique repliers)*3 = Score


Here are some scenarios and how they would score:

150 recs, 50 replies, 30 unique repliers = score of 690

35 recs, 90 replies, 40 unique repliers = score of 350

50 recs, 5 replies, 4 unique repliers = score of 217

12 recs, 60 replies, 40 unique repliers = score of 228

12 recs, 60 replies, 8 unique repliers = 136

4 recs, 40 replies, 8 unique repliers = 80

4 recs, 60 replies, 8 unique repliers = 100


I only spent a little time on it, so maybe someone else could think of a better algorithm. Something like this would not be difficult to implement. And maybe we could then submit the best ideas to the mods and see if they might not be interested in one of the suggestions?

[Go2Peace]

1. and it starts with an unrec :). How about discussion instead? I don't care if it makes the "greatest

I am honestly looking to see if others percieve the same issue and we can't find another algorithm that might help.

That's part of the problem, rec has too much power, in this case a discussion is being desired, not popularity, but it is treated like a popularity/personality thing, which was not the intention.

[aikoaiko]

2. Looks like something you should just email the Admins about.

[Go2Peace]

4. My thought was to come up with some potential algorithms then email them

They hear "we don't like rec" all the time. I thought it would be good to offer some possible solutions. I figured there is enough "brainpower" here to offer some interesting insights.

If we can rise above the need to fight each other on it that is LOL

[Bobbie Jo]

3. Question?

How long have you been around? Your profile is disabled.

:)

[Go2Peace]

6. I protect my privacy on the web, others should do the same. What about the merits?

rather than being suspicious? I don't think there is anything political about this discussion is there?

[Go2Peace]

7. as far as "how long", I have been on and off since Bush was first elected

There is a lot of good info here but I find I have to take a break from time to time from some of the agressive nature of the discourse

[Bobbie Jo]

8. It helps.

When someone says they've been "around awhile" it helps to put their particular experience in context. That's all.

Not a suspicious question, really.

[Go2Peace]

10. OK. Sorry, I have had people tell me I must be an enemy because my post count was low

lol.

I only recently found out that I could actually turn off the profile. I didn't keep anything in it anyway so I turned it off.

[Political Heretic]

21. You just contradicted yourself.

You said you were protecting privacy, but then said you didn't keep any information in your profile anyway...

So what are you protecting, exactly?

[Go2Peace]

25. suspicious suspicious people. I had my location and something else

I can't remember. You do realize that google picks up what you write here. If you went for office it could be possible for someone to link your id or your IP to who you are, and take something out of context.

I decided that while I like many things about this site, there are people here who are so agressive that I just don't want any of my information available. Sorry if that makes you suspicious. There are other reasons than "I am a freeper/agent of the enemy" that people might not feel they want to expose any personal info.

You know, think about this a little more: If my intention was to fool people, it would be MUCH more effective just to place incorrect information in my profile. Why would they even turn it off?

[Political Heretic]

50. I welcome their scrutiny.

:hi:

[Quantess]

23. Having nothing in your profile is the best reason to keep it visible.

People like to see how long someone has been around, and their gender if they are willing to offer that info. But "undeclared" works too.

[Go2Peace]

27. OK. for goodness sakes.. I have turned it back on

I guess I underestimated how suspicious people are here.

Why would anyone trust anything in someone's profile in the first place. And as for how long someone is here, that does not tell the story either. Someone could make new accounts again and again, and other the other side, they could change their email account and forget their password and make a new account. Which I have done (changed my email and lost the password), I have actually been around for more than 5 years.

I used to really like being here and people used to be MUCH nicer. I am wondering if it is worth the effort still. But there are few places on the web that really have as much info about what is going on than this site so I keep coming back, and then of course get drawn into the discussion ;)

[bananas]

46. Turn it back off! Don't let them bully you!

I keep mine turned off for the same reasons.
It's enlightening to see how judgemental people are,
and how they base their judgements on such unsound reasoning.

[Statistical]

53. I am suspicious over how quickly you changed your mind on the profile issue.

[Go2Peace]

57. lol, no kidding. Thanks for the levity... you were joking... right ;)

[Statistical]

65. Yeah. Figured I didn't need the /sarcasm but some days on DU it can be hard to tell.

[JetCityLiberal]

58. Your profile shows post count when and when you joined

privacy? meh...bs. Please.

Why not show when you joined DU and your post count? No big deal.

If you are that worried about 'privacy' despite the contradiction in your initial post, then don't post at all.




Paul.

[Go2Peace]

59. yea right, I turned it on anyway. But your little suspicious mind deserves my 3rd ignore

only 3 in almost a year and you are one. You should be proud. Buh bye!

[JetCityLiberal]

60. Thanks!!! Ignore away! You cannot take it.

The right wing posts I read can always dish it out and never take it.

"Privacy" on an internet forum in 2010?

You cannot make that kind of ignorance up.



Paul

[BunkerHill24]

9. You my friend, took the words right out of my...Mind.

:hi:

[Go2Peace]

11. man this place is suspicious. There are good reasons to stay private

but even more important, how exactly does the topic warrent you to look at people suspiciously? Why does it matter?

[BunkerHill24]

42. Johnson, you IS a Suspect.!

kidding, of course. I think people are suspicious of all sorts. But, hey, we DUers protect one an other, that's all.

Cheers!

:hi:

[Go2Peace]

43. True, indeed there are no doubt freeper types that try to stir up here

But not me. I just likes me some privacy. Thanks for understanding :)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. One benefit of having half of DU on ignore...

You can narrow down anybody's registration date to the month.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Not sure what you mean about 'ignore', but you can do it with anyone

Just substitute their unique userid plus or minus 1 in the URL for someone who does have their profile enabled, and you'll see someone who joined around the same time. If they have a hidden profile, or were tombstoned, then use the next one, and so on.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

36. This may be easier:

Put the poster on ignore, go to ignore list, and poster in question has popped up in between two ignoreds on the ignore list, whose join dates surround the join date of poster in question. Takes 15 seconds. E.g., this guy is June/July 2009.

[truedelphi]

5. One of the things that occurs,now that we have the "unrec"

feature to contend with, is that if a post has a lot of "unrecs," then it "sinks" to the bottom of the listings.

And in some cases disappears!

So if a topic sinks, or is disappeared, by an initial amount of unrecs, then no one can look at it later. (Unless they are an exceptionally devoted scrolling of topics, which most people are not.)

I also simply cannot fathom how any topic can receive unrecs in less time than it would take to read the OP.

[tpsbmam]

14. I hate the "unrec" feature -- gives too many right-wing moronic trolls

too much power. I'd like to see that dumped. I personally like the "rec" feature, though. Though I don't always agree with it, I sometimes have precious little time to read here and it helps me cull through the jillions of wonderful posts here. There are days that I can read through more, but there are days that I can't do much more than go through some of the top rated posts. Maybe not a great way to use the feature or DU, but it's a truth & reality for me.

[NYC_SKP]

18. It is a fact that certain members get an instant unrec by other members...

...just because of the author, not the content of the post.

No doubt about this.

Another reason it needs to go, like "that other" system they tried.

---->>>>

.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Yes, the "unrec" is misused and causes division and disharmony on this board.

Whereas before we had it, one could just not recommend and it wouldn't be such an insult.

It's true, it's divisive, it needs to go.

[blueworld]

13. Forgive me, but I thought we already had that or something similar?

I thought separate algorithms were used on the "Top Tens" pages and some of these include "replies"?

I've always enjoyed the Greatest & Latest pages, particularly in previous years when I was short of internet time. There is a ton of information here on DU that I can access quickly. Sometimes I can "reply", sometimes I can't or choose not to.

Basically, I like it as it is:)

[Go2Peace]

20. I didn't know that. Where do you access it? I will use that feature

Thanks by the way, for offering a reasoned opinion and not just unrecing or telling me I am wrong. I guess what I am really interested in is how/why the discourse has gotten so harsh on this site. I honestly think the feature increases that polarization.

But I could indeed be wrong. If nobody here is interested I will figure maybe I am.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

There are also a couple of links to that page from the top of the Greatest Page, marked "Top Tens".

[Go2Peace]

37. Very interesting. I can't believe I never noticed it. Thanks!

[blueworld]

72. De nada:)

At the top of the "Greatest" Discussion threads are two small icons(?) that say "top tens" - if you click those, you'll see what I mean.

[CTyankee]

68. The problem I have with Rec is that it tends to intensify the "popularity contest"

mentality of crowds. Not always, but it does happen. It is natural. People tend to do that IMO in a group. In a sense, we ARE really all in high school. It's a group instinct. So it doesn't surprise me but people shouldn't be fooled into thinking it fairly encapsulates what is important for the reader who, like you, has limited internet time. I'm not saying the crowd is wrong...often it has good reasons for voting to recommend a post. But "groupthink" has its limitations, too. That being said, if you have limited internet time it makes some sense that you consult the most popular, looked at, post. But don't think you are getting everything you really need to know (admittedly, that's tough).

[Political Heretic]

15. It was a bad idea. It hasn't had the effect on the Greatest Page people said it would.

Look I don't have too much trouble with unrecs personally. But I think the rec vs. unrec system has created an entire subculture that is just plain ugly and divisive.

I have a hard time believing that the admins like what the system has become, but I also highly doubt it will ever be removed. Now that is implemented its easier to just live with an ignore than change.

[Go2Peace]

39. But if the admins always use the "Greatest Page" they will never see our conversation ;)

[Political Heretic]

51. Then write better. :)

[Go2Peace]

56. You know what. I don't care about it anymore.

Most people here didn't even read my post, they just read the first lines and reacted.

To hell with it.

On the positive side though someone did give me another heart. Maybe they felt bad for the pummeling I got ;)

[LWolf]

16. It's something interesting to consider, anyway.

There are definitely factions that use rec and unrec, as well as some other unsavory tactics, to try to dominate the discussion.

It's hard to have a constructive discussion exploring ideas and issues; one is expected to take a stand immediately, and defend it to the death.

Sometimes an important topic or discussion is swarmed by people whose attacks and hyperbole get the thread locked for "flamebait," when it wasn't flamebait to begin with. Sometimes I think those swarms are purposeful, in order to silence a discussion that a group doesn't like.

[NashVegas]

17. "Rec" Is No More Often Abused, or Polarizing, Than "Post Message"

This is not a problem computers can be programmed to solve.

[Go2Peace]

22. The old algorithm was based on reply count. I am simply advocating using both weights

[EmeraldCityGrl]

24. I never look at the recs. I don't care how many recs

an article or post has, just whether or not it offers something interesting. If it's an absolutely great
post I'll rec, but mostly I'll respond and let the OP know.

Why have this very competitive feature? Or at the very least why put so much emphasis on the rec's
and unrec's. A great post is going to generate many responses and good debate. You know it when you see it.

[Go2Peace]

35. But it does affect what is presented to you when you log on

I see that it is not a big deal to at least the people responding which is fair enough.

[Obamanaut]

62. I'm set up on desktop such that I go straight to GD, and very rarely

go to Greatest Page.

This way as I scroll down I can hide the dupes of such things as "Pam Tebow may have lied" or "Michael Jackson died" etc.

This is easier for me, may not be for everyone.

[Codeine]

66. Many of us don't look at the Greatest Page.

I've never clicked on it even once in the seven+ years I've been reading DU.

[Coyote_Bandit]

26. I don't care about recs BUT

I do think that each DUer should have only a limited number of recs and unrecs to dole out in any given 24 hour period.

[Go2Peace]

29. That could be one way, how do you deal with the OP spam wars?

which is the other half of the issue. There are people here who literally spam OPs day and night. I think that is sometimes the same thing, and attempt to dominate the "narrative".

That is why I put "variety of participation" in my proposed algorithm.

[Coyote_Bandit]

47. If

DUers can only give 5 recs and unrecs during any 24 hour period then some of the spam OPs are going to cease simply because they will start to go unrecognized.

Instead of seeing lots of different short threads expressing the same views I think we will start to see longer threads with more participants.

[undeterred]

28. You are overthinking this.

[Go2Peace]

34. I am an analytical thinker. When I see something is not working I want to find a solution

One cool thing about IT, you can use as complex algorithms as you want. Look at google?

The existing algorithm is way to simple and it is obvious it is easily manipulated. But it is not so hard with technology to improve it. It just takes some imaginiation.

oh well, after the response I am not sure if any algorithm will resolve our tendancy here to want to fight each other rather than put our heads together.

And I appreciate your response, because while it was not what I was hoping for, it is productive and honest.

[TexasObserver]

30. First of all, Al Gore doesn't have any rhythm.

So this algore rhythm you have in mind won't work.

Did you ever see him try to dance or clap with the music?

[Orsino]

31. The Greatest Page is not that big a deal, IMO.

I'm pleased that each of us gets a single vote for or against the inclusion of a given thread there.

[LostInAnomie]

38. Why do people give a shit about recs or unrecs?

Seriously, the only time it actually effects the conversation is when someone whines about being unrecced, or someone tries to use the number of recs as proof of something. Both instances are childish and petty.

Other than that, the rec system has no effect on the conversation. It doesn't prevent anyone from discussing anything at anytime or at any depth they want. If anonymous recs and unrecs are what you base your discussion forum experience on, you probably shouldn't be taking part in an internet discussion forum.

[Go2Peace]

40. For me, when you don't have a lot of time it provides a condensed view

I know many folks spend a lot of time in sub-forums and such, but many also come here to find and discuss the news and information that isn't easily available elsewhere. So it is really handy to have a single place with the "hottest" issues. It is still quite useful as a feature, but it is losing relevance as it is seen as a battleground of sorts.

[LostInAnomie]

41. The greatest page has never been a good place for that.

Before the unrec system was put in place it was choked with "K&R if...", pablum, popularity contests, and sub-groups reccing the hell out of their own stuff. A thread being on the greatest page had nothing to do with the factual information or the discussion contained within. At least, unrec has given some kind of counter-balance.

Ultimately, the purpose of a discussion forum is to have a discussion. Too many of the people that are up in arms about the rec system think the ultimate purpose is to be recced and validated.

[Mike 03]

44. I left DU shortly before this new feature came into being, and

I can't stand it, and I don't understand what it contributes in any way, although I did receive a lecture from someone about how it was "democratic."

At first I was convinced of that argument, but when I began to really think about it, it made no sense at all, especially considering how many people don't get along here, or who are not really interested in the Democatric agenda.

I would rather we have NO recs at all, pro or con, than have the un-rec feature. It is really not something I have any enthusiasm for, and I don't understand why people voted for this feature, assuming they did.

[Mike 03]

45. By the way, I obviously rec'd your thread, but it had no influence whatsoever. NT

[pipi_k]

48. My honest opinion? I think it only contributes to polarization when

the issue keeps getting brought up again and again and again....

[Go2Peace]

55. It's obvious that people haven't even taken the time to read the whole post

This place is incredible.

[pipi_k]

67. "People" DID read the whole post, and that's the point

It's being brought up again and again and again.

Dress it up, put lipstick and a tutu on it, hang tinsel on it, try to sneak it in under the guise of something else...

A turd is still a turd, no matter what you do to it.

The rec/unrec whining is still the same old shit over and over again.

People aren't stupid. We can't talk about the rec feature without also addressing the unrec feature, which is really what this whole thing is about.

Are you suggesting we do away with REC and leave UNREC?



PS...It's also pretty disingenuous to ask for an honest discussion, then get snippy when people ARE honest.

[MineralMan]

49. Why are people continuing to whine about this?

If you don't like the system, email Skinner or start your own forum. For pete's sake.

[ChicagoSuz219]

52. I'd rather see a 'fanned' feature... n/t

[Confusious]

54. Yes

But only for the people who seem to have so much ego tied up in it, which seems unhealthy. The rest of us could care less.

[MilesColtrane]

61. The rec function in it's current state actually decreases the ability of a faction...

to hijack the Greatest page.

In the past, when there was no "unrec", it was easier to get your post, and it's opinion, to the top by blatantly appealing for recommendations.

[thotzRthingz]

63. re: "it seems like greatest page has become a touch of a 'rec-war' lately"

...just my observation:

I think so as well... perhaps mostly because the CONs/teabaggers/RWWs have infiltrated DU?

As for myself:

* ONLINE experience/history: I've been online since the early 90s. While I no longer do so: for a ten year period I was an independent contractor: provided original content; served as a community leader; served as both a moderated CHAT and BB host/leader ... IOW: I'm no stranger to the online world, with its groups and individuals bonding, its flame wars, its suspensions & bannings, etc., etc., etc.

* DU experience/history: I've lurked DU for more than 6 years (coincident with BUSH's 2nd bid for POTUS)... but being a registered-INDEPENDENT I never registered/contributed ... until January 2008 (under a different username) and when I "registered" I also donated (to wit: a gold star next to that username) ... since August 2009, I decided to abandon that username, registered with this one--with which I also "donated" (and also donated to the recent fund drive as well)

Presently: I'm retired and wish to remain so for the duration of this sojourn into the earth. I choose to frequent (and financially support) DU because I think many, if not most, who participate here... really DO care about the condition of our country (economically, environmentally, socially) and the world at-large as well... and these forums provide an excellent "networking" medium.

I've stated my opinion of REC / UNREC before, but will summarize it here:

If someone deems a topic worthy of "REC" then by all means do it. OTOH; by not adding a "REC" one is effectively doing its opposite (an "UNREC") ... and it should be left at that (i.e., they did not "REC" it). Having the ability to "UNREC" is what lends itself to the point of your discussion (i.e., a "greatest page war"). Being the "greatest" is not my goal in life... so I don't care if TOPICS which I start (or participate in) make the DU *greatest* page.

...just my thotz (prolly worth about "2cents" to others, but there they are)

[igfoth]

64. Unlike the OTHER sites

DU will let any one join and post...some sites and we all know who they are, will ban, kick you out or not let you join if you are not a lemming. Just look at the unrec feature as a badge of honor, you got under the skin of the mischief making Pub Keyboard commandos of the Lay Z Boy Brigade.

Not only does the GOP pay people to go to liberal/progressive sites and stir things up but there are a buch of mentally unbalanced pubs who do it on their own too.

[bridgit]

69. Well yes, but it isn't just the "rec" feature - its an aggregate of neg features on each side...

of the screen predicated *upon* negativity; negativity being a component of polarization, the aggregate of its neg features is able to be seen as polarizing if for no other reason than it generates no creative balance between +/-

[11 Bravo]

70. You have your answer. Any post containing the words "rec" or "unrec" in the title ...

will automastically be unrecommended. DU is peopled with passionate people, eloquent people, and a host of great thinkers. We also have a few of the most juvenile, petty, and vindictive mother-fuckers on the planet.

[Political Heretic]

73. LOL so true.

[bridgit]

74. hahahahaha: ding! Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

:spray: :kick:

[Ohio Joe]

71. Seems to defeat the purpose of greatest page

I thought greatest was meant to represent the best of DU. Lots of replies does not equal best of DU.

[Echo In Light]

75. The "greatest page" justifier has always been bunk. It's true purpose is attacking unpopular views

Not suggesting there aren't some who honestly believe otherwise, but some of them are likely the types who religiously disavow any data which ascribes criminal collusion to powerful people, and the systems they're beholden to...if ya follow

[TahitiNut]

76. Sheesh! I stay away for months and come back to the SAME WHINING CRAP.

:puke: :puke: :puke: