I hate that I always compare Lemmy to Reddit, but Reddit used to have (not sure if they still do) guidelines called “Reddiquette” that included guidelines about upvoting and downvoting. I don’t remember the specifics (and sending too much of my browser traffic to Reddit makes me feel dirty) but one of the guidelines was not to upvote/downvote on the basis of agreement/disagreement with the content.
On Lemmy, I’m honestly a bit lax about upvoting and downvoting at all. (I’m trying to be better about it.) Buy when I do upvote/downvote, I try to do so on the basis of whether the comment/post “adds to” or “subtracts from” the community or conversation. I can disagree with one comment’s take on some subject but still upvote them if they’ve given me a more nuanced perspective on the issue. If they’re just parrotting well-known talking points and not being thoughtful with their posts, I may downvote them evren if I agree with their ultimate stance.
I’m just mostly wondering how folks on Lemmy think about upvotes/downvotes and what implications that has for the content here.
Wow, I’ve used Reddit for years, and I have never ever seen such a guideline before! Now this is a really interesting post, and the comments are pretty insightful that make me think.
Yes, it totally makes sense not to upvote or downvote based on agreement or disagreement, but based on relevancy and accuracy. But what if the author is asking about our opinion, and someone has already commented my exact opinion? It feels natural to upvote it based on agreement.
Here’s an example: there’s a post asking about opinions, maybe advice, and then there are two comments. One that says “do drugs, kids, it’s good”, and one that says “no, don’t do drugs, drugs are always bad”. And I absolutely agree with one of those comments. If I upvote the one I agree with, and leave the other alone, maybe even downvote it, then the author of the post will see comments with weight. On the other hand, if I don’t do anything, because “oh look, someone already commented my precise opinion, so I’m done here”, then the author of the post might remain in doubt, because there will be two equally presented opinions and that’s like no advice at all.
So all in all, it makes sense to have a system about what to upvote and what to downvote, but there are just things that feel wrong to upvote, even if the etiquette dictates that it should be upvoted.
Nevertheless, it would be a great idea to come up with a system (that can be applied in any situation) and stick to it.
Here’s my take though:
What it felt like on Reddit by others:
Upvote: totally random
Downvote: totally random
What it feels like on Lemmy + what my impression of the voting system has been up until now:
Upvote: agree/useful/my girlfriend’s post or comment
Downvote: strongly disagree/useless/spam/troll
From now on:
Well… this post definitely makes me think. I still have to make up my mind.