You are NOT supposed to downvote things that “aren’t really interesting”, you are actively ruining other people’s user experience on here by doing that as downvoted posts get less visibility.
Well yes, the visibility thing would be the point. Interesting and relevant content is upvoted, becoming more visible to more people, and uninteresting and irrelevant content is downvoted, becoming less visible and shown to fewer people.
Some people might think it’s not interesting because it’s not appropriate content for that community, and that by downvoting they are improving the quality for everyone. I don’t think every instance/community has a unified consensus on how exactly to use voting, and some people are always going to do their own thing regardless.
This is one of the reasons why I’d love to see a more expanded method of reacting to content rather than simply upvoting or dowvoting; something like, say, user-side thread or post tagging, with things like “verified”, “clickbait”, and mood reacts like “happy” vs “sad”, and usefulness reacts like “solved, thanks” vs “closed as duplicate”, etc. We need more and better axes.
Some people only browse global feeds and downvote stuff as if they’re trying to train the Netflix recommendation algorithm, completely ignoring the rules of the community it originates from
I remember that being a problem back on Reddit (though I always found people upvoting low-effort stuff that wasn’t community/sub-appropriate to be more of a problem). It’s kind of a site-wide UX issue though really, if a new casual user is just presented with a list of posts then they might genuinely be unaware of (or perhaps just uninterested in) where they came from and what their votes mean.
You are NOT supposed to downvote things that “aren’t really interesting”, you are actively ruining other people’s user experience on here by doing that as downvoted posts get less visibility.
Well yes, the visibility thing would be the point. Interesting and relevant content is upvoted, becoming more visible to more people, and uninteresting and irrelevant content is downvoted, becoming less visible and shown to fewer people.
Your interests are not identical with interests of other people.
Some people might think it’s not interesting because it’s not appropriate content for that community, and that by downvoting they are improving the quality for everyone. I don’t think every instance/community has a unified consensus on how exactly to use voting, and some people are always going to do their own thing regardless.
This is one of the reasons why I’d love to see a more expanded method of reacting to content rather than simply upvoting or dowvoting; something like, say, user-side thread or post tagging, with things like “verified”, “clickbait”, and mood reacts like “happy” vs “sad”, and usefulness reacts like “solved, thanks” vs “closed as duplicate”, etc. We need more and better axes.
(Axises? Axeses?
Asses?)Interesting idea, but how do you decide on what the universally-agreed on reactions are? Have too many and they may as well just be comments!
Some people only browse global feeds and downvote stuff as if they’re trying to train the Netflix recommendation algorithm, completely ignoring the rules of the community it originates from
I remember that being a problem back on Reddit (though I always found people upvoting low-effort stuff that wasn’t community/sub-appropriate to be more of a problem). It’s kind of a site-wide UX issue though really, if a new casual user is just presented with a list of posts then they might genuinely be unaware of (or perhaps just uninterested in) where they came from and what their votes mean.