My view on how the "rec" system should be used

For example, I recommended the thread that quotes Kent Conrad as saying the public option is dead because it lacks the votes in the Senate. Very few have recommended it.

That's big news, even though I disagree with Conrad 100%. In unrecommending the thread, one would be punishing the OP, who did a very nice job finding the news. What if the OP attaches a very good commentary of his own to the linked piece? Why would we "unrec" the good effort by the OP because we don't like what Conrad said?

In short, we should recommend/unrecommend the impact of the news piece and how the OP relayed the information, not our agreement with the person quoted in the article.

we read the article, comment, and move on. without a gold star or a thumbs down

this whole rec unrec thing is childish and clique-ish, and takes away the fact that a thread with 3 bazillion Recs, but 4 replies, will still end up archived in a day and a half..

read and REPLY..

that keeps conversations alive.. and a "K&R' with no actual reply, does not foster much conversation either.

that is it.
that is all it does.
And unrecommended because this thread does not belong on the GP.

it only impacts the GP into their thick skulls boggles the shit out of my mind.

The only thing it accomplished back then was to make the Rec column meaningless. In fact, one could argue that the more unrec on a thread, the more likely it has valuable information that we need to know.

But if you want to keep the Greatest Page confined to threads about "Bush Sucks," you go right ahead. Whatever is on the Greatest Page has no bearing on what is going on in the country, or in Latin America, or anywhere else.

That is all.

We could unrec any story with a hint of DLC ideology on it, or just based upon who the poster is, without even bothering to read the thread.

:shrug:

as it was years ago.

No harm, no foul.


:-)

:P

:P