What are your criteria for upvoting/downvoting?

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.

GONADS125, (edited )

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.

snooggums,
@snooggums@kbin.social avatar

Upvote for funny posts, posts that contribute to the discussion even if they drift a bit off topic, and anything that promotes positivity.

No upvotes/downvites for things I disagree with that are just differences in opinions, or something that is trying to be funny but doesn't work for me. Also posts I just don't understand or understand the context.

Downvotes for people being jerks, posting misinformation, promoting terrible stuff like fascism, racism, sexism, etc. It does mean I mostly downvote anything positive about US conservatives, but that is because they tend to promote those things I mentioned already.

I sometimes also downvote people who go overboard with generally positive things by assuming anything other than agreeing with their narrow view is automatically malicious. Some of us are trying and admitting we aren't perfect or that maybe there is more than one way to be supportive than the one they think the only way.

rhythmisaprancer,
@rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social avatar

I was never a reddit member and so may miss some of that nuance, but I vote for things I enjoyed reading or for folks I enjoyed interacting with. I thought about down voting one thing, but then leaned that group didn't work that way. The whole point was to say something that was against the grain.

sentient_loom, (edited )
@sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works avatar

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.

xkforce,

Upvote: contributes positively to the discussion, hasnt been said before in the same thread, well researched/high effort

Downvote: trolling, obvious/overdone, bad/disingenuous reasoning, spreads misinformation, bigotry/sexism

scytale,

I neither upvote nor downvote stuff.

noride,

Downvotes are for off topic or inflammatory comments, not for things you disagree with, in my opinion.

OddFed,
@OddFed@feddit.de avatar

I’m afraid it’s the same algorithm I use to answer the question whether I need a receipt.

Godnroc,

If I like it, I upvote. If I dislike it, I downvote. If I have no strong feelings, I do nothing. If I commented and it got a lot of upvotes, I return the favor and upvote the post and any decent comments.

Erasmus,
@Erasmus@lemmy.world avatar

I tend to agree about the down cote it if you disagree with it. I tend to just leave the thread or try not to comment to avoid silly online arguments.

However, if I read something posted that is obviously misleading or someone is just outright lying, then downvote away!

Gallardo994,

I generally don’t downvote anything. I, however, upvote stuff other people might want to see first. Easy as that.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #