EA Forum readers should arguably vote such that the comments/posts/tags which have more karma, thus being more visible, are also the ones which deserve more attention. I wonder what this implies in terms of voting norms. Should one vote based on:
- Value?
- Do not vote if the comment/post/tag is roughly neutral.
- Upvote (downvote) if the comment/post/tag is good (bad).
- Strongly upvote (downvote) if the comment/post/tag is very good (bad).
- Difference between current and desired karma?
- Do not vote if the comment/post/tag has roughly as much karma as desired.
- Upvote (downvote) if the comment/post/tag has less (more) karma than desired.
- Strongly upvote (downvote) if the comment/post/tag has much less (more) karma than desired.
- Confidence about the sign of the difference between current and desired karma?
- Do not vote if not confident the comment/post/tag should have more or less karma.
- Upvote (downvote) if confident the comment/post/tag should have more (less) karma.
- Strongly upvote (downvote) if very confident the comment/post/tag should have more (less) karma.
- Other?
- A combination of the above?
My question is about voting under the current voting system. However, there is also the option of changing it, as discussed here by Nathan Young.
Thanks for commenting, Michael!
I share your concerns, and historically I have been voting based solely on the 1st approach. However, I have recently started to think about the 2nd and 3rd, as I think neglectedness considerations should have some weight. If I see 2 posts which (to me) are roughly equally valuable, one has 20 karma, and the other has 200, it seems that upvoting the former is more pressing than upvoting the latter.
It is true that votes are fungible in the 2nd and 3rd approaches. However, that also applies to donations to different charities.