Skip to main content

View Diary: Mindless Diary Recommenders, I'm Calling You Out (261 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  delete this diary (4.00)
    it would be better placed as a comment on the diary in question, rather than wasting diary space with what would be rather thin without the padding of the recommenders' list.

    not that i disagree that the salazar/dobson hearsay diary shouldn't have been recommended, but, well, i didn't recommend it, and i figure that's enough. it isn't my place to tell people what they can and cannot elevate to the top of the list, even if they're gullible.

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:19:35 PM PST

    •  Who Says It's Not Your Place? (4.00)
      If it's not your place, and it's not mine, than whose is it?  And if nobody calls out this shoddy judgement, then shit like the diary in question will regularly be recommended.

      There are standards for diaries.  Diaries that are clearly against those standards shouldn't be recommended.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:27:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  an entirely new branch of the diary police (4.00)
        this is new, is it not?

        i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

        by rasbobbo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:40:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I hear you. (4.00)
        I feel pulled in two directions on this.  On one side the site needs to be able to filter out the distracting noise that only pulls away from our credibility.  On the other hand, calling people out can discourage discourse.  

        There need to be forces that discourage people from spreading baseless conspiracy theories, I agree.  Calling people out, however, seems a little over the line, especially when all of the top rated comments on the diary already question its validity.  

        "Calling out" other site users by name in diary titles is prohibited. Diaries which "call out" another by name tend to needlessly inflame. If you feel compelled to address another user's comments or diaries in a diary of your own, please do so cautiously. Avoid ad hominems and stick with substantive, constructive criticism only.

        That's from the standards page you link to.

        I think the diary comments (and especially AAB), were doing a great job of voicing criticism.  I assume you have really thick skin (you must, or you'd probably never sleep).  I feel the need to tell you that when I saw this diary, I said "ooh damn."

      •  standards (none)
        4. Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.

        and that's not even getting into duplicate diaries where the same topic spawns a million slight variations. call people out in the diary in question, if you feel you must. rules is rules, after all.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:58:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's the community's place (4.00)
        then shit like the diary in question will regularly be recommended.

        OMFG people will discuss stuff you're not interested in discussing.
        If you or anyone has a problem with a particular diary, you have the option of posting that within the diary. You can debunk the theories or challenge the opinions expressed in the diary. You can persuade others, by posting within that diary, on why it shouldn't be recommend. You can ignore the diary and read one that interests you more.
        Until Kos gives you a baddass Hall Monitor crest -- a big orange delete button on crossed tonfa sticks -- and nuking powers to scrub whatever offends you, those are your basic options.
        You can always post on your own site with your own rules and manage your throng of fascinated followers from there.

        If scAlito is mainstream, why lie about his record? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:05:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  read it again (4.00)
        it is not my place to tell others what they can or cannot do with their reccommends. that is not the same thing as refuting a bullshit diary in the comments, which i would have done had a whole host of folks not already beaten me to it. refutation is always preferable to censorship, as those who would arrogate the authority to censor are not always correct in the judgement. one of the reasons why i prefer scoop to a moderated site, actually.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:05:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well shit (4.00)
        DHinMI? - if there are already standards for Diaries, and if Diaries and Diarists have been banned in the past (tinfoil)
        then why not enforce the existing standards?
        Wouldn't it be best to warn the Diarist? Even warn him/her in public? Then to pick on people's personal decisions to recommend or unrecommend a Diary?

        You want to moderate. There is a set of standards. YOU neglet to apply those standards to a Diary you strongly object to, and then proceed to attack the members that merely recommended a Diary. Why they recommended the Diary or not to, shouldn't YOURS or anyone else's business.

        This Diary is an attack on people's personal preference.

        A recommend is a marker for others to see this is something they should check out, for good or bad.

        Daily Kos should feel free to recommend what they will. This is a bad, bad, bad move, and terrible moderation.


    •  No, this diary is necessary (none)
      I've seen DH in the past try to be patient with the patently stupid diaries and I've even made the mistake of recommending one of them in the past - then proceeding to spend the next hour getting the diarist to FIX just about all of the diary (hoo-boy!).

      This happens so much as to necessitate this diary and comments fall by the wayside too quickly. It's a good reminder that part of the responsibility in a democracy is a little self-policing and common sense.

      Thanks, DH, and I'll try to be more careful myself!

      Peace y'all.

      •  Naming Names Sucks. (4.00)
        DH should have complained vehemently in a comment to the diary.
        Is DH a mindreader and allknowing as to  why people recommended original diary?
        This tactic reminds me of something Dick Cheney would do.
    •  dunno what changes kos is considering (4.00)
      for the reco list, but I'd love to see some means for voting against as well as voting for something's being on the list.  

      If you're right that I shouldn't be able to tell other people how they should vote, I'd like some means to cast my own vote or rating to the contrary.  Currently, the only way to do that is to run around recommending a bunch of other diaries, in the hope that they'll replace the offender on the rec list.

      •  i'd like that too (none)
        i guess we'll have to wait to see what kos pulls out of his bag of tricks. there is a big difference between reacting to idiocy by adding one's own voice on the one hand, and calling for the silencing of idiocy on the other, IMO.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:50:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I like the 'Cream of the Crop' approach too (4.00)
        There's a simple organic solution to that.

        If a well-researched diary, or thoughtful, well-written opinion -- even one that's not in line with my own views -- seems getting lost in a stream of Explosive Diaryha, I've linked to it in my Kos sig. Makes it easy to jump to.

        I can't understand what fussing over other people's tastes / inclinations accomplishes.

        If scAlito is mainstream, why lie about his record? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:27:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dos Mojos. (none)
        I also think having two types of Mojo would help along with the ability to rate a diary down without first recommending it.

        Something like this.

        Diary Mojo: You get this mojo for comments rated in diaries. You can get diary TU status, lose it, regain it, etc but it only applies to diaries.

        FP Mojo: You get this for comments made on FP stories and/or diaries that get FP'd. E.g. any Diary Mojo would become FP mojo if that diary gets FP'd.

        The reason I think this is important is because I have noticed lots people just hand out 4's to each other in the diaries for stupid one line comments that have no substantive content, whereas ratings are doled out in a much more reasonable manner on FP stories.

        I also think a meta-moderation scheme ala slashdot would be beneficial too.

        Behind the dark veil of patriotism a nation mourns itself.

        by Espumoso on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:14:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site