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).
the instance i use does not have downvotes. i personally like this, as if someone disagrees with something, they must express that via their own words, which i find to be a lot more productive and useful!
my basis is, if the comment contributes meaningfully/helpfully to the subject at hand—whether that is via explanation, personal storytelling of something relevant, something funny or kind that makes other people smile/feel joy, among many others—then i elect to give an upvote.
if it is unintelligible to me (like a reference i don’t get), overly provocative, actively harmful (anti-vaccination stuff etc.) or otherwise not made in a real effort to contribute anything useful or interesting, then i elect not to give an upvote.
that is just my reasoning though :)