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.