Ask Lemmy

"Glad i saw that" -> up-vote, "Wish i didn't see that" -> down-vote

I downvote if it's cringe, or incorrect, or the opinion is disgusting. Usually it's a quality issue rather than an opinion/moral issue.

I upvote if it's useful info, or if it's funny or cool or impressive.

90% of the time, I just accidentally hit one of the arrows while scrolling on my phone and didn't notice.

I generally don't downvote. I report a comment/post if they break rules. I block users that are stupid, mean, comment in bad faith, or are otherwise negative to my experience. I use an app that allows me to apply unique labels to users that only I can see if I am not quite ready to block them but want to be ready on next offense. I.e., someone who uses dog whistle language but I'm not sure it was intentional.

Most of the accounts I made for Lemmy are on instances that disable downvoting. That wasn't planned on my part, but I don't mind.

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.

I agree with it then I upvote. Usually don't downvote.

Up/downvotes are not intended as dis/agreement buttons. You are supposed to upvote relevant content and downvote irrelevant content, spam, trolls, hate, and misinformation/propoganda.

Upvoting on the basis of liking something played a large part in reddit's decline, where every sub was inundated with off-topic shit-posts of r/funny and r/adviceanimals circle-jerking. They were upvoted for a cheap laugh, but should've been downvoted for being off-topic.

The best example I had on reddit illustrating the importance of maintaining the integrity of community topics was this:

Do you think it's okay for r/wtf material of animals to be posted in r/awww or r/EyeBleach? If r/TheOnion posts were posted in r/WorldNews?

Comments on subs like r/TIL and even r/science became nothing but irrelevant jokes and memes, which buried relevant discussion. This voting behavior is why subs like r/nonononoyes lost their purpose and were spammed with shitty r/funny cross-posts.

I strictly upvote on the basis of relevant content. My wife has thought I'm crazy when I show her something we both are entertained by, and then she sees me promptly downvote it. Even if I enjoy something, I will downvote it if it's an off-topic post.

Conversely, I upvote dissenting opinions I don't agree with, even if I'm debating someone, if it is promoting topic discussion. When people downvote out of disagreement, it suppresses dissenting opinions and healthy discourse.

Downvoting due to disagreement is what leads to toxic echo-chamers. (Again, there's a clear difference in downvoting content promoting hate/racism/bigotry.)

Upvoting on the basis of cheap entertainment promotes off-topic and low-quality discussion/posting behavior.

I rarely upvote/downvote anything. I've upvoted posts or comments that have actually made me laugh or are very thought provoking.

Downvotes start coming when I think a post is very retarded and/or has wasted my time reading that it gets what it deserves. Oh and repeated posts that aren't structured very well that the poster could've taken some time to word better but you know they're rushing it for validity.

I never downvote and judge people who do.

It's lazy fast food self validation that you're superior to someone at the push of a button, and a big reason social media is shit.