Potus Townhall Live thread gets 80 UNREC's??? What does this tell us about unrectrolls?

"Rec/Unrec" needs to become a paid-member-only feature.

I hope Skinner and Admins consider it. They might show that they are not totally intransigent to good ideas and do listen to everyone.

she's got like 10 recs, which means like 80 unrecs. This one has 40-some unrecs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6782239

according to the formula: points = recs + unrecs + replies

Her current point total is 106. She has a net of +22 with 84 replies. To me, that works out to 0 unrecs.

:shrug:

Now apologize to all the nice people you accused of being unrectrolls.

Sid

My computer screen doesn't say the recs and unrecs. It just says the # of replies, # of views. If it's in positive territory, then it says the difference between the number of recs and unrecs (although you still don't know the number of recs and the number of unrecs--a +60 could be 80 recs and 20 unrecs or 60 and 0 or many other possibilities).

what the OP was talking about was the new Top Ten groupings, which can be accessed from the Greatest Page.

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

The OP was speculating on the number of recs / unrecs based on the New and Hot section. That section ranks posts on a point system, where total points = # recs + # unrecs + # replies. Unfortunately, the OP forgot to include the #replies in their calculation, and thus erroneously figured that a post with 100 points and a +20 rating must have 80 unrecs.

Some threads appear in the On The Fence section of the Top Tens page, and you actually see the percentage of recs vs unrecs. With that info you can figure out the actual number of recs and unrecs for that thread, if you also know the number of points it has. I did the calculation for this thread earlier in the evening, in post#32. But at that time, we had the following information:

#points (recs + unrecs + replies)
# replies
%unrec vs %rec

Generally, though, you're right. We can't determine how many recs and how many unrecs a post has.

Sid

:rofl:

So nyah.

recs + unrecs + replies = points

That thread has 21 recs and 84 replies, total 105

So it's got 1 unrec.


Holy shit, people. You take unrecs way too fucking seriously.

Sid

I was lied to!

recs + unrecs + replys = total points

... on a freakin' internet chat board ... :eyes:

GROW THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE!!

Sid

It's nice to see someone just admit they were wrong rather than become more and more defensive and make a fool of themselves. It takes maturity and a bit of courage to do so. I wish more here would do the same.

Welcome to DU from another texan!

Not the "moderate centrists".. :shrug:

The more I hang around here the more confused I become. :crazy:

Sid

with a Balloon flying around Colorado.

:rofl:

that somebody can't do basic addition and subtraction. Read the responses above to see how wrong the OP was.

the calculations in the OP are a pile of shite.

Sid

Edit: nice edit on post #26. Not surprised you wanted to delete that embarrassing admission.

Sid

I edited after taking the OP's word for the #.

I also calculate that there are DUers like me who have lost interest and don't Rec + as much as before. Which means if more negatives are invested in UnReccing and fewer positives are interested in participating in this sort of contest, the outcome will reflect that. Perhaps the prediction that it's a petty game is proving true.

doesn't mean it is. The post referenced in the OP is now at +37 recs. Seems to me that good posts will still get recc'd, and shitty threads (like this one) will get skewered.

Sid

The possibility I'm suggesting may be considered, if not factored in. No one knows the impact unless folks speak up similarly and a few have.

It's something for the folks complaining about UnRecs to consider.

means it's got 30 recs / unrecs.

From On The Fence, we know it's 47% rec, 53% unrec, so:

16 unrecs
14 recs

Sid

Edit: which is fucking unbelievable, considering how spectacularly wrong the OP was.

with a +39 and 91 replies. That means the recs, unrecs have gone:

42 recs
3 unrecs.

Sid

Edit: removed smarminess.

˙How do you get the number of unrecs?

They must have heard you and are now launching false-flag, longterm damage control measures. I cannot believe the war over the front page. Ruthless.

....if there are more wingnuts here than progressives, I'd put that in the win column.

:)

or you would have seen that the OP was massively incorrect.

Sid

playing the counting games. :hi:

they'd not have read the post. ;)

This is a really simple concept that seems to escape those who hyperventilate constantly about unrecommends. You get one vote per thread. Use it. That vote is yours. My vote is mine. I don't have to agree with you about what makes a thread worthy of recommending or unrecommending.

I don't think I have a right to attack you for recommending some thread that has nothing to distinguish it, but you think you're just fine attacking those who unrecommend the crap you like.

Accept it. My vote is not yours. I don't use the same low standards you employ for judging threads. It's simple. Not every thread gets recommended. Most don't. Some aren't worth the time it took to click on the OP, and they get unrecommended. Threads about Freepers? Unrecommended. Threads whining about Unrecommend? Unrecommended.

You vote your vote, and I'll vote mine, and that makes for a difference of opinion. Stop thinking your problem is a bunch rightwing trolls. The problem is you're deluding yourself into thinking unrecommends are caused by something other than DUers rejecting weak ass threads.

Sid

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

I must have missed that class.