Skip to main content

View Diary: False diary gets 200 recommends: shame on DailyKos (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's annoying to have stuff like that on the rec (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    2lucky, jukeboxgrad, Turkana, skymutt

    list.  Something that's you know, not true.

    •  Indeed (7+ / 0-)

      Corecting in the diary is best.

      Overreaction is my comment, not that the reaction is not meirted.

      •  I may have overreacted a bit (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        2lucky, jukeboxgrad, Turkana

        ...I diaried on this earlier, and I only got 1 comment. had to spice up the title a bit to get it noticed.

        •  Well... (11+ / 0-)

          From where I stand, I don't see how posting and then deleting this diary so that you could repost with a more sensational headline and get MORE attention is much different from what you're complaining about in the first place.

          Hmmm.

          k/o: 2006 politics and local blogs

          by kid oakland on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 11:06:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How so? (0+ / 0-)

            Nobody saw the earlier diary... doesn't everybody title their diaries to try to get readers? I don't make a habit of this type of diary, btw... my last diary was on the F-22 Raptor.

          •  Big difference (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skymutt

            "I don't see how posting and then deleting this diary so that you could repost with a more sensational headline and get MORE attention is much different from what you're complaining about in the first place."

            Writing a second diary based on the same idea (and without breaking any rules, as far as I can tell) is indeed very different than posting a diary that consists mostly of a false statement.

            •  actually (4+ / 0-)

              deleting and reposting the same piece with a more sensational title is not something that qualifies as "not breaking the rules" as I see it.  At the very least it runs against the spirit of the website, which, after all, relies on folks NOT TO indulge such tactics or this place would be unworkable.

              I've always opposed deleting diaries. Deleting diaries permanently erases the work of others as well as one's own.  It also means no one can link to or see what was in the first diary; it erases the record here.

              Further, the reason skymutt couldn't post was BECAUSE there are blocks in place to prevent multiple postings within 24 hours.  Hence the need to delete IN ORDER to repost.  That's, uh, breaking the rules.

              My advice would have been to take the case up in the diary itself.  That's the usual m.o. here.  It's seemed to work pretty well and solves the problem of having to win attention to the new diary.

              k/o: 2006 politics and local blogs

              by kid oakland on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 01:22:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Meanwhile, Rome is burning n/t (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dems2004, dkmich, Cato come back
              •  Are you sure it isn't one diary per calendar day? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kid oakland

                I am positive I've seen people post a diary in the evening, and then again in the early morning hours.

                The thing that was blocking me was the bad link, I'm pretty sure of that. After I deleted the earlier diary, I still couldn't post. I essentially agree with what you say about deleting diaries. If I had gotten even 5 comments, I wouldn't have reposted. But with 1 comment, I was certain that next to nobody had read the diary. As they say, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a noise? I just used my best judgement in this case, and I stand by it, I'm glad I did it in fact. I'm anything but a disruptive person, I usually have and will stay well clear of site politics, and certainly well within the rules.

                I did comment in pontificator's diary, as I have mentioned downthread. Unfortunately I only saw the diary several hours after it was posted after the comments were nearly dead. My comment went unnoticed.

              •  What actually happened (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skymutt

                "deleting and reposting the same piece"

                I think you would have more of a point if skymutt had somehow posted twice on the same day, by virtue of deleting the first diary. I think some people in this thread sort of jumped to the conclusion that's what he did. Trouble is, that's not what he did.

                "At the very least it runs against the spirit of the website"

                In my opinion, posting blatant misinformation is a much more serious example of something that "runs against the spirit of the website."

                "I've always opposed deleting diaries."

                I see your point. Maybe it would be better if there was some kind of limbo status, like "inactive" or "unpublished."

                "the reason skymutt couldn't post was BECAUSE there are blocks in place to prevent multiple postings within 24 hours.  Hence the need to delete IN ORDER to repost."

                This is a good example of making an incorrect assumption (which is understandable, because skymutt himself made the same assumption, at one point). Skymutt has now pointed out a couple of times that "the reason skymutt couldn't post" was different than the reason you're claiming.

                "My advice would have been to take the case up in the diary itself."

                I completely agree, but this is something else that skymutt has already explained. By the time he noticed, the thread was almost dead. But that's no reason to let the error stand.

          •  There is no rhyme or reason to this place. (0+ / 0-)

            Don't know that I could find it, but there was a diary about how to make the rec. list which made the rec. list which suggested this very same strategy.  Another "big name" diarist announced in his/her diary that it was a repost of a previous post because him/her that the diary was worth two goes.  

            Dean, Feingold, Sanders, and Conyers are an all star cast.

            by dkmich on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 05:19:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sobermom, dkmich, coloradobl

              I'm just one voice, but I'm not a fan of delete/repost or "hey look at me, the SKY IS FALLING" headlines.

              k/o: 2006 politics and local blogs

              by kid oakland on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 07:24:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In defense of my title (0+ / 0-)

                ...it basically represents how I feel about the matter. The "shame on DailyKos" part is a bit strong, in that I'm really just saying "shame on the diarist and the 200 recommenders and the commenters that all failed to get this fixed."

                As a new writer here, I have to construct my headlines in an eye-catching way to get readers. Witness the fact that essentially this same diary got 1 commenter when it had an alternate title, which ran along the lines of "We knew Kolbe knew back in October. What is the bombshell?" When I retitled the piece, the matter got the discussion that I think it deserved. That being said, there are certain bounds that I will not cross when titling my diaries. My titles will always bear relation to the content of the diary, and I think that this title meets that standard.

                I feel that this diary served a purpose. If nobody had read it, it wouldn't have served that purpose. As for the delete/repost, I agree with you in general, but in this special case where I was issuing (in my mind) an important correction to the record, AND an earlier diary had failed to get ANY NOTICE WHATSOEVER, I think it was the right move. If I had just had a "pet" diary and it got no notice, I never would have even considered reposting it; in that case, you just gotta hope to be rescued, etc., or just let it go, no question about it.

    •  happens much too often (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sobermom, 2lucky, cowgirl, skymutt

      about a month ago, a very popular diarist (who i've gotten in trouble for criticizing, as the diarist uses highly questionable sources to validate personal biases) wrote a diary bashing hillary, among others. the main link was actually to freeperville! a couple people were giving the diarist hell, but the cult was rec'ing it, thanking the diarist for the info, saying they would bookmark it and read it later, etc., etc. and then markos left a very succinct criticism that caused the diarist to twice apologize, before taking the diary down. this stuff happens often!

      © 2006 "we've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!" -malcolm reynolds

      by Laurence Lewis on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 10:49:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site