As the topic of the day seems to be navel gazing, metadiaries and how to fix DailyKos, I'll add my own take on this.
The gist of the complaints is that the recommended list is hogged by the celebrities and their inane diaries and that the reclist has become a high school popularity contest.
Suggestions include rationing the number of times you can be in the reclist in a given period, limiting the number of diaries you can write, banning crosspostings, limiting the number of diaries you can recommend, or the more complicated options with moderators and/or new displays on the screen.
I feel somewhat targeted by that criticism. Let me tell you why the system is working just fine...
Let's see what you find in the rec list most of the time:
- breaking news / hot topics. There's an element of randomness to it, but the community needs a place to discuss these issues, and the first, ot most active diary to bring up the topic is the logical place to do so. So the recommends do not necessarily reflect the quality of the diary, but the fact that the issue is important and needs a visible place for the discussion to cristallise. Other diaries on the same topic can get on the reclist at the same time if they bring new information, new perspective or smart commentary - and in that case, it will be the diary which is acknowledged. Both kinds of recommendations are useful and necessary, and breaking news will get recommended only if they are really important. Sometimes, diaries that hint at hoped-for news will get recommended even though there is little substance to them. That reflects the hopes or prejudices of the community, but these diaries also play a useful role in that false information or ideas are debunked in the accompanying, and highly visible, threads, and that in itself is worthy of the recommended status.
- live threads on hearings, press conferences, etc... fall in the same category: the need for a single place to do it. You'll note that such diaries don't usually get that many recommends overall - just enough to stay on the list as long as it's relevant, thus showing that enough kossacks practise "tactical" recommending (i.e. recommending a diary so that it stays on the list just a bit longer, or not recommending a diary that does not need additional exposure, even if it was worth it).
- rants, personal accounts, testimonials. These get recommended for the quality of the writing, or the fact that they vividly illustrate a theme (PTSD, rape, homelessness, the aftermath of Katrina, etc...) that is important to the community or that is felt to deserve, at least for a moment, wider attention. Such recommends are almost always deserved, and often spawn second generation diaries on the same topic that can be just as interesting, or that generate enough controversy to warrant a lot of attention. At times, the reclist gets dominated by several diaries on such a theme; it's a good thing, as it means that a chord was struck within the community and the topic is worthy of such detailed exploration - or is disputed enough to be re-hashed several times. This is a political site - if this is not the place to discuss hotly contested issues, I don't know where else you'd do it to get the full breadth of viewpoints (including those that provide input on the political impact of various view points, proposals, and of the sheer fact that the topic is disputed) and opinions. If tempers are lost, and flame wars get started, well, that's life, especially on that kind of site, with lots of people from different walks of life.
- specialised topics, series. Some writers have become clearly identified with a topic, as they write regularly, or relentlessly on a more or less wide, but well identified, subject (whether Wal-Mart, religion, the environment, real estate, one State politics, energy). Once you are identified with a topic, people will use your diaries to discuss the topic, and that can bring recommends less correlated to the quality of the diary - some kossacks simply want that issue to be more visible on the site, and know that the diaries by the best known kossack for that issue are the best way to do that - and the best place to meet like-minded kossacks. Thanks to networking effects, these diaries become clearinghouses for that subgroup, just like dKos has become a kind of clearing house for all progressives. Some topics (like energy and the economy) attract bigger groups, and get recommended more often, especially if the topics are addresses less on the front page (and kos has mentioned that he actually counts on that not to write on topics he is less interested in, or less willing to write about). Topics that are of interest only to the group can make it to the reclist, but won't stay there for very long if the diary does not resonate with the wider community; if it does, it will be deservedly recommended more. You also see tactical voting here, as people recommend these diaries just enough for them to be visible but not to hog space unless they are really more important to the community as a whole than to the sub-community. So the name-recognition is actually an important and valuable aspect of it, because it is a useful signal to the sub-community: you go there because the others are there, and it makes sense to recommend that diary to "call" all sub-community kossacks to join the diary. But that works only for important enough topics, and interesting enough debates within that topic.
- star writers. In that category, you have the few senior politicians that write here. Some of the best known writers on the site, like Maryscott OConnor, Meteor Blades or Kid Oakland, also fit in that category, which gets recommended most of the time, thanks to the combination of a rarity effect, the sheer fact that they are gracing the site with their words, and/or the usual quality of their writings.
- diversions. Sometimes, when the mood is right, a less serious diary will sneak in. Some of the site humorists belong in the "series" category really, like Dood Abides, Carnacki or Bob Johnson, and their diaries are used as free for alls for banter and light chatter, or more insidery conversations. Sometimes, a particulary silly GBCW (goodbye cruel world) or a good meta diary will get in and generate the kinds of free for all threads that we all need once in a while.
So how many diaries get on the rec list and are not in these categories? How many get on the list and really do not deserve to be in there? Not that many.
How many should get in but don't? That's a harder question. There is an element of luck to it - some times are simply denser in information and content, and good diaries can be drowned by the abundance of even better content. But if you look at the dynamics of the rec list, you will see that most of the time, really reclist-worthy diaries DO make it to the list, simply displacing the oldest, or weakest of the existing recommended diaries.
So I'd say the system works fine, and it has the advantage of being fully democratic- each of us gets a vote, enough to be counted, but not enough to game the system. You can get in by sheer talent, by hard work on a given topic, or by being on the right topic at the right time. Talent does get recognised pretty quickly - see for instance how quickly, in recent times, the excellent diaries by Chris Kulczycki or GlennGreenwald have repetedly made it to the reclist although they were not known on the site earlier.
And remember, the readers decide who goes on the reclist, no one else. Name recognition, popularity, fads, populism, catchy headlines, etc... are facts of life in the real world just as on a big community like dKos.
Democracy can be a pain, but it's still the least bad of the systems. Trust the community. What's the alternative?