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.
Is there really a tradeoff? Once you’ve read a post/comment and thought about what its karma should be, it takes hardly any time to click the button! I agree it might be altruistic of you to read low-karma posts sometimes and upvote them if they’re good, but I don’t think “selecting what to read” is what’s being described here
Once you’ve read a post/comment and thought about what its karma should be, it takes hardly any time to click the button!
I did not mean to suggest the time to vote was an important factor.
I don’t think “selecting what to read” is what’s being described here
I agree. My comment above was not clear, but with “if I see 2 posts” I did not mean “if I see 2 posts on the frontpage, and I am deciding on which to click”. I meant that if I happen to read 2 recent posts at roughly the same time (often I am checking the posts from the EA Forum Digest), and they feel similarly good to me, I would be more likely to upvote the one with less karma.
For tags, I give more weight to the 3rd method. For example, if I only know a little about a topic, I will not strongly upvote/downvote the tag on a given post, because I do not feel confident about its value relative to other posts with the same tag.
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.
Is there really a tradeoff? Once you’ve read a post/comment and thought about what its karma should be, it takes hardly any time to click the button! I agree it might be altruistic of you to read low-karma posts sometimes and upvote them if they’re good, but I don’t think “selecting what to read” is what’s being described here
I did not mean to suggest the time to vote was an important factor.
I agree. My comment above was not clear, but with “if I see 2 posts” I did not mean “if I see 2 posts on the frontpage, and I am deciding on which to click”. I meant that if I happen to read 2 recent posts at roughly the same time (often I am checking the posts from the EA Forum Digest), and they feel similarly good to me, I would be more likely to upvote the one with less karma.
For tags, I give more weight to the 3rd method. For example, if I only know a little about a topic, I will not strongly upvote/downvote the tag on a given post, because I do not feel confident about its value relative to other posts with the same tag.
I’m the same way with tags, I like posts to be accurately placed within the tag