Opinion of the Recommend Feature

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I never get recommended, so massive horrible feature. It's a giant circlejerk used to get off popular posters regardless of the actual content of their post.

[Big Abraham]

We either need a "do not recommend feature," or no recommend feature at all.

[Big Abraham]

Also, HenryWallaceVP is one of the best posters here! I heartily recommend this user

[Schiff for Senate]

I never get recommended

You aren't wrong about the recommend system being imperfect, but to be fair, you did get a very recommended post once...it was a very funny and entertaining read about, something to do with which party was 'cool' at which time. It racked up a lot of recommends, including (if I remember correctly) mine, which would honestly say something since I recommend very few posts (and if I didn't, it might be because I make it a point to almost always recommend only meme/funny posts, not those with political content, even if I agree strongly with what the post says).

[KaiserDave]

This reads like parody.

Anyway, far better than empty quoting. I like it.

[Joseph Cao]

Good system, but I recommend that Abdullah get a Super Recommend feature which only he gets to use.

[Calthrina950]

Good system, but I recommend that Abdullah get a Super Recommend feature which only he gets to use.

Agreed. He absolutely loves to recommend my posts, and those of most others on here. In contrast, there are many posters on here who have never recommended any of my posts, not a single one. And who probably never will. And there are some posters who never use the recommend feature at all. Tekken Guy, who is probably one of the more prolific thread creators, is an example of this, as someone who never recommends others.

[John Dule]

I never get recommended, so massive horrible feature. It's a giant circlejerk used to get off popular posters regardless of the actual content of their post.

Maybe their content really is that good.

[_.]

I never get recommended

Yeah, I don't browse the history board much 

[VBM]

I never get recommended, so massive horrible feature. It's a giant circlejerk used to get off popular posters regardless of the actual content of their post.

Maybe their content really is that good.

Not really. I’ve seen many people get 20+ recommends for generically using a stale olawakandi meme

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Let's see what Abdullah has to recommend us in order to properly answer this poll

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I still empty quote, but far far less with the recommend feature.   FF.

[Xing]

Definitely a FF. I'm glad that some users, particularly Abdullah, can spread some positivity in the torturous realm of negativity that is politics.

[TDAS04]

At first I wasn’t so sure, but now I know I like it.

[Torie]

I love it. I use it to compliment a poster for a well crafted post, usually also one as to which I am in agreement but not always. If I think a poster eviscerated me in a classy way, I recommend that too. Yes, as to the latter, that is quite rare in my own narcissistic opinion. 

[HillGoose]

FF, helps me gauge when my jokes kill or when they fall flat

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Anyway, far better than empty quoting. I like it.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I never get recommended

You aren't wrong about the recommend system being imperfect, but to be fair, you did get a very recommended post once...it was a very funny and entertaining read about, something to do with which party was 'cool' at which time. It racked up a lot of recommends, including (if I remember correctly) mine, which would honestly say something since I recommend very few posts (and if I didn't, it might be because I make it a point to almost always recommend only meme/funny posts, not those with political content, even if I agree strongly with what the post says).

What I don't like is how my historical effortsposts get very few even if they're good. There are numerous examples I could pull from, but here's a particularly egregious one:

The premise of your question is incorrect. Like Stallius said, your examples are all over the place and not consistent with reality. In particular, I want to highlight a few specific areas to evince why what you're saying could just as easily be argued the other way.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Spain, the most fervently Catholic country in Europe, was highly restrained in fashion compared to the rest of the continent. Look at Renaissance or Baroque paintings of Spanish people and you'll notice that they are usually wearing dark, sombre colors that lack many frills or decorative items. The reason for this is simple: in a hyper-religious country (even for the time) like Spain where the clergy wielded great power and influence, worldly pleasures like fancy clothing were discouraged. In contrast to this fashionable modesty, Protestant England was, after France, arguably the capital of foppery in Europe. At least since the Elizabethan era fashionable Englishmen and women embraced flamboyancy like few other Europeans. Of course, this was objected to by the Puritans, but they were in power but briefly and foppery was restored alongside the monarchy. That is not at all to suggest that the Puritans were culturally deficient simply because they scorned high fashion; on the contrary, it is well worth remembering that no less than John Milton and John Bunyan were Puritans.

In art, too, your point can be easily disproven. You mention the nudes of Botticelli, but neglect to consider that in the early 16th century the Lutheran convert Lucas Cranach the Elder was painting a series of intentionally provocative female nudes. It has been argued that this was the artist directly applying Lutheran theology to his art - just as Luther had renounced celibacy and the Catholic view of sex as a sinful necessity, Cranach in his work embraced human sexuality in rebellion of Catholic artistic norms. Traditionally, in Northern European art the body had been portrayed as an object of pity or shame (see the many suffering Christs of Early Netherlandish painting), but the Reformation openly challenged this tradition. The Catholic response to this threat is indicative. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the Church explicitly condemned "lasciviousness" in art. In Spain, meanwhile, nude paintings were outlawed altogether in 1640; it was the only country in Europe with such a law. As late as 1815, Goya was brought before the Inquisition for nudes he had painted decades earlier.

Musically, it is true that in the Renaissance and for much of the Baroque period Italy and France were still the leaders of the continent. However, in the Elizabethan era the English madrigal school was one of the most sought-after in Europe, and a century later Henry Purcell established himself as England's greatest ever composer. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the rise of Germany as the third great composing country after Italy and France, and its most celebrated composers like Schütz, Pachelbel, Handel, and Bach tended to be Protestants. In fact, Lutheranism already had one of the most prized musical traditions in Christinaity, Luther himself having been a prolific hymnist.

All this is not to say that your observation is totally without value. It has been sometimes remarked upon how under the Borgias Italy had warfare and terror alongside Michelangelo and the Renaissance, while in Switzerland 500 years of peace and democracy produced only the cuckoo clock. While this is more of a political comparison than a religious one, I think you probably had something similar in mind when posing this question. Even so, this related notion that republics produce nothing of cultural value can just as easily be disproven by the fantastic artistic output of the Dutch Golden Age, to give just one example.

If you see the post right above mine it has 7 recommendations (including my own) while my post has 1. How is that fair? Statilius' post is fine, it easily disproves the OP's contention with a few counterfactuals, but I spent at least an hour on mine and gave all sorts of evidence. I guarantee to you that were Statilius' post mine and mine his, the recommendation count would be switched. It's just such bogus and I'm tired of it.

Another recent example, and the one that prompted me to create this thread, is in the thread I just created on the History board about the Radical Republicans. I don't mean this as anything against Nathan, as I think he's a great poster and I like him (I hope the feeling is mutual but I'm not sure), but what exactly made his post deserving of 18 recommends compared to mine in that thread? I know I'm being petty but this bothers me, as it just seems so unfair. Honest to God, I want somebody to explain it to me. And if your reason is "I like the poster in question but I don't like you" then  off.

[Schiff for Senate]

I never get recommended

You aren't wrong about the recommend system being imperfect, but to be fair, you did get a very recommended post once...it was a very funny and entertaining read about, something to do with which party was 'cool' at which time. It racked up a lot of recommends, including (if I remember correctly) mine, which would honestly say something since I recommend very few posts (and if I didn't, it might be because I make it a point to almost always recommend only meme/funny posts, not those with political content, even if I agree strongly with what the post says).

What I don't like is how my historical effortsposts get very few even if they're good. There are numerous examples I could pull from, but here's a particularly egregious one:

The premise of your question is incorrect. Like Stallius said, your examples are all over the place and not consistent with reality. In particular, I want to highlight a few specific areas to evince why what you're saying could just as easily be argued the other way.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Spain, the most fervently Catholic country in Europe, was highly restrained in fashion compared to the rest of the continent. Look at Renaissance or Baroque paintings of Spanish people and you'll notice that they are usually wearing dark, sombre colors that lack many frills or decorative items. The reason for this is simple: in a hyper-religious country (even for the time) like Spain where the clergy wielded great power and influence, worldly pleasures like fancy clothing were discouraged. In contrast to this fashionable modesty, Protestant England was, after France, arguably the capital of foppery in Europe. At least since the Elizabethan era fashionable Englishmen and women embraced flamboyancy like few other Europeans. Of course, this was objected to by the Puritans, but they were in power but briefly and foppery was restored alongside the monarchy. That is not at all to suggest that the Puritans were culturally deficient simply because they scorned high fashion; on the contrary, it is well worth remembering that no less than John Milton and John Bunyan were Puritans.

In art, too, your point can be easily disproven. You mention the nudes of Botticelli, but neglect to consider that in the early 16th century the Lutheran convert Lucas Cranach the Elder was painting a series of intentionally provocative female nudes. It has been argued that this was the artist directly applying Lutheran theology to his art - just as Luther had renounced celibacy and the Catholic view of sex as a sinful necessity, Cranach in his work embraced human sexuality in rebellion of Catholic artistic norms. Traditionally, in Northern European art the body had been portrayed as an object of pity or shame (see the many suffering Christs of Early Netherlandish painting), but the Reformation openly challenged this tradition. The Catholic response to this threat is indicative. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the Church explicitly condemned "lasciviousness" in art. In Spain, meanwhile, nude paintings were outlawed altogether in 1640; it was the only country in Europe with such a law. As late as 1815, Goya was brought before the Inquisition for nudes he had painted decades earlier.

Musically, it is true that in the Renaissance and for much of the Baroque period Italy and France were still the leaders of the continent. However, in the Elizabethan era the English madrigal school was one of the most sought-after in Europe, and a century later Henry Purcell established himself as England's greatest ever composer. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the rise of Germany as the third great composing country after Italy and France, and its most celebrated composers like Schütz, Pachelbel, Handel, and Bach tended to be Protestants. In fact, Lutheranism already had one of the most prized musical traditions in Christinaity, Luther himself having been a prolific hymnist.

All this is not to say that your observation is totally without value. It has been sometimes remarked upon how under the Borgias Italy had warfare and terror alongside Michelangelo and the Renaissance, while in Switzerland 500 years of peace and democracy produced only the cuckoo clock. While this is more of a political comparison than a religious one, I think you probably had something similar in mind when posing this question. Even so, this related notion that republics produce nothing of cultural value can just as easily be disproven by the fantastic artistic output of the Dutch Golden Age, to give just one example.

If you see the post right above mine it has 7 recommendations (including my own) while my post has 1. How is that fair? Statilius' post is fine, it easily disproves the OP's contention with a few counterfactuals, but I spent at least an hour on mine and gave all sorts of evidence. I guarantee to you that were Statilius' post mine and mine his, the recommendation count would be switched. It's just such bogus and I'm tired of it.

Another recent example, and the one that prompted me to create this thread, is in the thread I just created on the History board about the Radical Republicans. I don't mean this as anything against Nathan, as I think he's a great poster and I like him (I hope the feeling is mutual but I'm not sure), but what exactly made his post deserving of 18 recommends compared to mine in that thread? I know I'm being petty but this bothers me, as it just seems so unfair. Honest to God, I want somebody to explain it to me. And if your reason is "I like the poster in question but I don't like you" then  off.

Let me say two things:

1.) I say this not out of an attempt to insult you in any way, but you shouldn't be spending an hour to write any forum post; it's not a good habit. You should avoid spending so much time writing one post.

2.) Secondly, I know what you're saying. I put lots of thought into my posts and often write posts spanning multiple, very long paragraphs, only to get 1-2 recommends (and most are from Abdullah, who while a great poster, recommends everyone's posts indiscriminately). On the other hand, I get way more recommends when I write short, perceivedly witty posts.

To show you an example of this, I will show you four posts I wrote, two which are very long and thoughtful; two which are shallow and surface-level.
The first is a short essay I wrote against reparations for slavery. It took me a while to write, and I'm very proud of it (I'd personally call it one of my best posts, but I might be wrong). Here's the link: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=454650.msg8169337#msg8169337. I got 1 recommend.
In contrast, here's my most recommended post ever...it took me around 15 seconds to write and was nothing special whatsoever. I honestly didn't even write it as a joke; I was pretty serious...and I got 17 recommends: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=464860.msg8270107#msg8270107.
My second most recommended post (I believe it's this) was equally short and equally effortless, and racked up 11 recommends: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=473581.msg8376074#msg8376074 (I wrote it just two days back!)
Lastly, if you go onto the second page of that same thread, you see a couple posts I write in reply to THG. I am much prouder of those than I am of my 11-recommended post, but they got about zero recommends each (I think they got one recommend between them).

So in short, if what you're looking for is a lot of recommends, you could just write short posts that a lot of people concur with, that are witty and which barely scrape the surface but very briefly and to an end that most people agree with (so you could write a short post insulting a conservative, for example, and you'd get a lot of recommends from the Democratic majority of this forum). I believe this thread sums that concept up: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=470894.0.

But that is not the point of this forum; it is to write intellectually stimulating posts and to share your ideas and debate political topics, to discuss political events, not to fish around for recommends, as a lot of posters do. I'm not saying it's wrong to fish for recommends - I do it myself sometimes - but you should focus more on long posts that are actually substantial and add to the discussion, that you would be proud of later on (I'm exceptionally proud of my reparations post, while I consider my 'hard to follow' post quite mundane). I'd also advise you to give less thought to recommends. Your posts and threads are appreciated, and even if not, the only person who you have to satisfy is yourself. Write posts that you are proud of. Don't worry about the recommends. They might come, they might not. You can fish around for them. But I'd advise you focus on writing genuine posts that are well-written, and the recommends will follow (they probably won't, but who knows, they might just). I can tell you one thing: I myself have more respect for posters who write long, detailed, thoughtful posts, not those who right hollow, shallow posts that end up attracting recommends. I have more respect myself for those who write thoughtfully and write what they believe eloquently without worrying for recommends than I do for those who write vapid, empty posts. I would advise you choose the former over the latter, or find a balance between the two. I'd like to conclude with a gem of mine in response to your being jealous with those who have gotten more recommends than you: do not resent the success of others, celebrate your own. It might not be apparent in this case to you what's to celebrate about your posts, but if you're proud of them, then that is something you should celebrate.

[TheReckoning]

I never get recommended

You aren't wrong about the recommend system being imperfect, but to be fair, you did get a very recommended post once...it was a very funny and entertaining read about, something to do with which party was 'cool' at which time. It racked up a lot of recommends, including (if I remember correctly) mine, which would honestly say something since I recommend very few posts (and if I didn't, it might be because I make it a point to almost always recommend only meme/funny posts, not those with political content, even if I agree strongly with what the post says).

What I don't like is how my historical effortsposts get very few even if they're good. There are numerous examples I could pull from, but here's a particularly egregious one:

The premise of your question is incorrect. Like Stallius said, your examples are all over the place and not consistent with reality. In particular, I want to highlight a few specific areas to evince why what you're saying could just as easily be argued the other way.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Spain, the most fervently Catholic country in Europe, was highly restrained in fashion compared to the rest of the continent. Look at Renaissance or Baroque paintings of Spanish people and you'll notice that they are usually wearing dark, sombre colors that lack many frills or decorative items. The reason for this is simple: in a hyper-religious country (even for the time) like Spain where the clergy wielded great power and influence, worldly pleasures like fancy clothing were discouraged. In contrast to this fashionable modesty, Protestant England was, after France, arguably the capital of foppery in Europe. At least since the Elizabethan era fashionable Englishmen and women embraced flamboyancy like few other Europeans. Of course, this was objected to by the Puritans, but they were in power but briefly and foppery was restored alongside the monarchy. That is not at all to suggest that the Puritans were culturally deficient simply because they scorned high fashion; on the contrary, it is well worth remembering that no less than John Milton and John Bunyan were Puritans.

In art, too, your point can be easily disproven. You mention the nudes of Botticelli, but neglect to consider that in the early 16th century the Lutheran convert Lucas Cranach the Elder was painting a series of intentionally provocative female nudes. It has been argued that this was the artist directly applying Lutheran theology to his art - just as Luther had renounced celibacy and the Catholic view of sex as a sinful necessity, Cranach in his work embraced human sexuality in rebellion of Catholic artistic norms. Traditionally, in Northern European art the body had been portrayed as an object of pity or shame (see the many suffering Christs of Early Netherlandish painting), but the Reformation openly challenged this tradition. The Catholic response to this threat is indicative. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the Church explicitly condemned "lasciviousness" in art. In Spain, meanwhile, nude paintings were outlawed altogether in 1640; it was the only country in Europe with such a law. As late as 1815, Goya was brought before the Inquisition for nudes he had painted decades earlier.

Musically, it is true that in the Renaissance and for much of the Baroque period Italy and France were still the leaders of the continent. However, in the Elizabethan era the English madrigal school was one of the most sought-after in Europe, and a century later Henry Purcell established himself as England's greatest ever composer. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the rise of Germany as the third great composing country after Italy and France, and its most celebrated composers like Schütz, Pachelbel, Handel, and Bach tended to be Protestants. In fact, Lutheranism already had one of the most prized musical traditions in Christinaity, Luther himself having been a prolific hymnist.

All this is not to say that your observation is totally without value. It has been sometimes remarked upon how under the Borgias Italy had warfare and terror alongside Michelangelo and the Renaissance, while in Switzerland 500 years of peace and democracy produced only the cuckoo clock. While this is more of a political comparison than a religious one, I think you probably had something similar in mind when posing this question. Even so, this related notion that republics produce nothing of cultural value can just as easily be disproven by the fantastic artistic output of the Dutch Golden Age, to give just one example.

If you see the post right above mine it has 7 recommendations (including my own) while my post has 1. How is that fair? Statilius' post is fine, it easily disproves the OP's contention with a few counterfactuals, but I spent at least an hour on mine and gave all sorts of evidence. I guarantee to you that were Statilius' post mine and mine his, the recommendation count would be switched. It's just such bogus and I'm tired of it.

Another recent example, and the one that prompted me to create this thread, is in the thread I just created on the History board about the Radical Republicans. I don't mean this as anything against Nathan, as I think he's a great poster and I like him (I hope the feeling is mutual but I'm not sure), but what exactly made his post deserving of 18 recommends compared to mine in that thread? I know I'm being petty but this bothers me, as it just seems so unfair. Honest to God, I want somebody to explain it to me. And if your reason is "I like the poster in question but I don't like you" then  off.

It’s a well known fact that Effortposts get far less attention and recommends than good quick one-liners, as Xing summarized well in a meme recently. It doesn’t have much to do with whose making the posts.

[John Dule]

I never get recommended, so massive horrible feature. It's a giant circlejerk used to get off popular posters regardless of the actual content of their post.

Maybe their content really is that good.

Not really. I’ve seen many people get 20+ recommends for generically using a stale olawakandi meme

The market of recommendations decides the value of a post. If my posts get more recommendations, that's because the market has decided they are high-quality.

[Hammy]

FF. Keeps the threads neater (aside from the massive quote blocks when two people get into excessive arguments). I use it often if I don't have more than a couple words to add to a topic at a given time.

[beesley]

Well public history garners more attention than academic history, doesn't it?

[Virginiá]

Simple really, the bigger the post, the less people read it. It's part lazy but also but part time management, in a way. It takes a lot of time (relatively speaking) to read and think about posts that big, and if you have no idea it's even going to be worth reading in the first place, why bother?

I'll read effort posts from people I know to make good points on a regular basis, but if I don't know them or don't really care too much about the subject, I'll just skim it or skip it entirely. I don't have time to read pages of effort posts on a regular basis. I imagine I'm not alone on this either.

And I say this as someone who used to write more effort posts than I should have.

[Gracile]

I would say that the recommend feature most rewards users who are able to get their point across quickly. Sure, that can lead to joke posts getting tons of recommends, but there is also value in trying to be concise for analysis purposes over writing long effort posts. I agree with Virginia's point that many users simply don't have the time to engage with longer posts and that shorter posts are more ideal for the purpose of having thoughtful conversations with other members.

That said, I think the recommend feature is helpful for filtering which effort posts are worth reading (if I see one with several recommends, then I will certainly give it a second look).