What is the purpose of voting up or down on? I’m not clear what voting is suposed to achieve?
I never vote up or down on here in the same manner that I never click Like on any social media sites either, I don’t see what the intent behind it is.
When things work correctly, it matters. Right now lemmy’s sorting system is bugged, so just using “new” is the best way to find content.
But, when it works, the upvotes and downvotes determine how much visibility a post is given. It’s basically a way for us users to tell the site what content is good, and what content is bad. If you see a thread with interesting discussion, or that links a fun video, or features a pretty art piece, upvoting will help more people find it.
If you see someone link to misinformation, or push a conspiracy theory, you can downvote to the tell the system that it is bad content, and it will show it to less people going forward.
Why you said makes me think the number of votes is wholly irrelevent.
What is interesting or helpful is entirely subjective, it’s personal opinion. What is considered misinformation is entirely subjective. That makes me believe the voting count on a post means nothing for indicating the quality.
Considering how any majority of people typically react emotionally rather than have humility and respond with consistant logic, it seems personal opinion on a mass scale is an unreliable gage for quality of material.
Yep. That’s why you sometimes see people downvoted into oblivion, simply for stating something which is true, within a community that is deluded about that given thing. Whether the votes accurately represent the value of the content, depends entirely on who sees it.
But at the same time, saying it is truly pointless, would mean you also consider the very concept of democracy, pointless. Yes, there will be a percentage of people who are unable to form a level opinion, and how many such users there are can vary wildly depending on who sees a given post/comment in the first place.
But results speak for themselves. Reddit’s voting system does work. Especially because when you go to a specific subreddit, its about a specific subject. Meaning the users who are there, likely align in what they are interested in, meaning the voting is now a much more accurate representation of what the subscribers of a given sub want to see. Your subjective opinion is likely to match that of the users looking at the same subreddit. And this continues working even as you subscribe to multiple subs. Each post only gets shown to users who subbed (unless on r/all), even though each user has a mixed feed of the stuff they subbed to.
The people downvoting you are proving your point a bit… Come on people, don’t downvote something just because you don’t agree. You can just not upvote it if you really want, but it’s adding to the discussion in a polite way which is what you want. Don’t discourage discussion and responses by downvoting them… Upvote the good stuff, downvote hate/spam, leave the rest alone.
That makes me believe the voting count on a post means nothing for indicating the quality.
Let me introduce to the empirical principle of the wisdom of the crowd
Voting creates a signal about the quality of a post so other users can rank posts based on the collective perspective. You don’t vote for yourself, you vote to help other users.
I found this on Wikipedia:
Using a system of upvotes and downvotes users can influence what content appears at the top of the main feeds and of each community.
So if you find a post interesting, you can upvote it. And if someone posts cat pictures in asklemmy, you can downvote it, because it’s off-topic and maybe you want to discourage such behaviour.
I’m not sure if Lemmy has upvote counters for users, but either way if you upvote a post or comment you say that it’s useful/interesting, and it’s a bit like a “thank you” in real life.
A lot of interesting perceptions on the upvote system here.
It’s another form of user moderation. Is the content relevant to the community you’re in? Upvote it. Did it help you? Was it a thought-provoking comment chain? Upvote it, it might help others!
Is is irrelevant, such as a dog photo in a cat community for example? Downvote it! Rude comment or flamewar? Downvote it! If you still want to see it, now it’s easily sorted at the bottom. :)
A lot of areas of this site, such as the comment section here, can be organized by these votes for your convenience and sanity. You can also identify potentially malicious links/suggestions based off the like/dislike ratio on a comment. A helpful tip is to hover over the number beside a comments time-stamp near the top of a comment. It’ll display the full ratio!
I always found digg’s naming here to make the most sense. Is this something you “dig” and want to “dig up” or do you want to “bury”? Up/down, dig bury, the general principle is that burying bad content and raising up good content means everyone ultimately gets to see the best-of-the-best.
The idea is to gauge community interest/relevance and facilitate content discovery. I feel it is becoming a bit dated method of accomplishing this and easily gamed.
Yeah, there’s a sweet spot where it works, but once you get a large usercount, it becomes a bit snowbally. Get a few early upvotes, and you’re off! Don’t get those upvotes early? It’s gone, drowned away in the flood, even if the post was good. There’s an element of luck that I’m not sure can, or should be, elminated.
What the modern big sites do with algo’s that read your interests, has a more cons, still. As far as a lesser of two evils, I like the vote system as a content curation system the best.
Definitely the easiest to implement, and huge concerns with black boxes making recommendations. But I think we are going to see some serious problems with it here given how accepting most instances are to federating anyone combined with the lack of tools to differentiate legit users and a bot brigade.
Dated, but has anyone come up with a better way? Outside of having another human carefully curate your shit, or some kind of Zuckerbot doing it, you need some way to filter out bullshit or any community will be overwhelmed with spam and trolls
You’re right, there is only up/down vote systems with a user base that is in no way verified or otherwise restricted to a single vote/real person, or corporate algos.
There are plenty of different models. Do I fault the Lemmy devs for using it? No. Is it ideal for content discovery? Not really.
No need for sarcasm – I was ASKING if there were other ways outside of up/downvotes, AI moderation, manual/human curation, or no moderation. Hence question mark.
You’re right. Apologies.
There are many other models, some discussed in this post. All come with their own set of upsides and downsides.
For a small community, which Lemmy original was, straight up votes work great. Unfortunately it doesn’t scale. Reddit is a perfect example.
For me, the main part of receiving upvotes is the “knowing” that someone agreed with or appreciated my comment. Encourages me to continue commenting. Like the opposite of being ignored during group conversations.
I’ve always liked Saidit’s “two upvotes” system. It’s so simple and creative, encouraging discussion rather than the mindless brigading that becomes so common with the vote wars for visibility.
What is the purpose of voting up or down on? I’m not clear what voting is suposed to achieve?
I suspect content voting systems were a way to attenuate the proliferation of “me too”, “this^” or similar posts on forums.
One way that I have used up/down votes, particularly on comments, is to surface the most valuable information. For example, if a post has valuable content, that is patently useful but it isn’t the top comment I will down-vote the top comment(s) and upvote the valuable one.
For example, if someone posts a question and the top 3 comments are low-effort jokes, and the fourth comment is the answer, I would down-vote the top three and upvote the 4th. In an effort to surface the best information.
Now, I try not to do this unless I’m certain of post 4s quality. And usually not unless there are enough votes that a joke-commenters would feel personally picked on, or like their joke wasn’t good.
Other examples of good comments (by my reckoning) are: transcriptions, useful links or context, proof, other examples of the same thing. Or somewhat verifiable reasons why the post is unhelpful or misleading.
The crowd isn’t always right. But it can provide useful context and I try to be a part of that.
Its a way to prioritize which posts you are going to read. if there are only 10 posts you can read all of them, if there are 1000 maybe not, depends on how much time you have, but when people can vote on which posts they find interesting there is a good chance you will find the most voted interesting as well.
For emphasis, they’re something done for the collective community for the most part. By the time you are considering voting, you’ve already read the post. Voting is largely so later viewers can see just the best content. In this sense, it’s like a social contract.
People who browse new posts get to shape the community. Their votes are most influential. But they also don’t get to see as much quality content.
In some rare cases, you will actually come back to the thread, in which case voting just helps ensure that it’s more likely there’ll be more discussion when you check back.
And finally, it can just feel good to vote for stuff you like (it’s like giving a very tiny reward). Inversely, downvoting is a low effort way to communicate to a poster that their post was bad and show others in the community that their post is not acceptable. That’s very important for bigoted posts. Downvoting those posts makes it very clear to everyone that bigotry isn’t accepted here.
i can’t believe you’ve asked this! user voting is everything! without it there’s no way to meaningfully rank the content. i prefer to browser top-day posts because i only want to see what the majority of people have decided is worth seeing. surely you can imagine that browsing a randomly sorted list would be full of boring and uninteresting posts!
The intent is to rank whether something is a useful/meaningful/worthwhile contribution or not.
