I’m not sure it makes sense to upvote all the articles you comment on, though maybe it does if you like the post and you’re doing a direct comment to it. Comments to comments are as likely to be a discussion between the commenters as directly abut the post.
I recommend downvoting things which are malicious and/or incoherent. I can see a case for downvoting things which add little information (except jokes—it seems to be part of the culture to upvote things which are funny), especially if they’re taking a lot of words to not add information.
I think people acquire a belief that a post or comment of a certain felt quality deserves a rough number of upvotes or downvotes, so they don’t add or subtract karma when the post or comment hits that level. I might just be extrapolating from myself on this, but I think posts and comments, especially comments, tend to hit stable karma levels fairly quickly. However, I wouldn’t put off giving/deleting karma until you’ve got that sort of felt sense of typical karma.
If someone mentions in a comment that they’ve updated a belief, they get some upvoted. This is something I like a lot about LW culture. It’s also a handy thing to tell people if you want to explain something likable about rationalism.
I think people acquire a belief that a post or comment of a certain felt quality deserves a rough number of upvotes or downvotes, so they don’t add or subtract karma when the post or comment hits that level.
Sounds familiar and could indeed explain why some posts do not continue to accumulate votes after some time.
Let’s check:
I think a post deserves a certain number of votes/karma and up/downvote accordingly[pollid:939]
I generally don’t care what level a post is at if I’m going to upvote it, but when I see something has a negative core that I think is unfair, I’ll bump it up by one.
I’m not sure it makes sense to upvote all the articles you comment on, though maybe it does if you like the post and you’re doing a direct comment to it. Comments to comments are as likely to be a discussion between the commenters as directly abut the post.
I recommend downvoting things which are malicious and/or incoherent. I can see a case for downvoting things which add little information (except jokes—it seems to be part of the culture to upvote things which are funny), especially if they’re taking a lot of words to not add information.
I think people acquire a belief that a post or comment of a certain felt quality deserves a rough number of upvotes or downvotes, so they don’t add or subtract karma when the post or comment hits that level. I might just be extrapolating from myself on this, but I think posts and comments, especially comments, tend to hit stable karma levels fairly quickly. However, I wouldn’t put off giving/deleting karma until you’ve got that sort of felt sense of typical karma.
If someone mentions in a comment that they’ve updated a belief, they get some upvoted. This is something I like a lot about LW culture. It’s also a handy thing to tell people if you want to explain something likable about rationalism.
Sounds familiar and could indeed explain why some posts do not continue to accumulate votes after some time.
Let’s check:
I think a post deserves a certain number of votes/karma and up/downvote accordingly[pollid:939]
I generally don’t care what level a post is at if I’m going to upvote it, but when I see something has a negative core that I think is unfair, I’ll bump it up by one.