I was wondering how users tend to judge what to upvote, what do downvote, and what not to vote on.

I made this comment which got me wondering what others think and do

Personally I upvote almost everything. I see upvote as “this is a good Lemmy post/comment” and downvote as “this is a bad Lemmy post/comment”. Most of what I see is good. Bad things are things such as misinformation, bad faith stuff / trolling, people being mean/annoying, bad (in my opinion) takes, people being wrong/stupid about stuff, irrelevant things, etc. When I do not vote it’s for one of 3 reasons: either I don’t understand what it is saying, it makes a reference I don’t get, or I can’t determine whether it’s good or bad (usually because it’s unclear).

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
    31·
    1 day ago

    I think the point of view described in the reddiquette is the most beneficial for good communities:

    Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it doesn’t contribute to the community it’s posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.

    (Yes the link goes to reddit’s website and I understand people are avoiding it, just keep in mind there was a time before everything went wrong and the reddiquette dates back to the early years)

    So I don’t upvote what other people say just because I agree with their opinion, or downvote because I disagree, but rather based on whether they’re contributing to the conversation in a useful way. I frequently upvote people that argue with me, as long as they’re addressing what I wrote in good faith.

    This idea goes back further too - back when Digg was the most popular such website, the idea was that you “digg up” things that you think should be more visible (things that you think are worthwhile for other people to see), and “digg down” (bury) things that aren’t.

    For example, if I upvote an article about genocide, it’s not because I approve of genocide, but because I think it’s important for other people to see the article.