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.

  • cobysevEnglish
    12•1 year ago

    I tend to upvote if someone brings something unique to the discussion. If you’re just giving a quick generic response to OP or parroting the same opinion a dozen other people in the thread have already posted, then I’m gonna read your comment and keep going. But if you provide thoughtful content that promotes discussion, provides a unique perspective, or at least had a lot of thought put into it, I’m likely to upvote it. Same goes for the post itself.

    I generally avoid downvoting, even if I disagree with the comment. But if someone is factually wrong, misleading, posting in bad faith, or just being a troll, I’ll downvote their comments in a thread and upvote anyone who attempts to be reasonable with them. If two people are just bickering back and forth, they both get downvotes. And as always, any comments that distract from the discussion or are off-topic will get a downvote.