Strong votes with large weights have their uses in uncommon situations. But these situations are uncommon, so instead of weakening strong votes, make them rarer.
The guideline says use them only in exceptional cases, but there is no mechanism enforcing it: socially, strong votes are anonymous and look like standard votes; and technically, any number of them could be used. They could make a comment section appear very one-sided, but with rarity, some ideas can be lifted/hidden, and the rest of the section can be more diverse.
I do not think this is a problem now, because current power users are responsible. But this is our fortune and not a fact, and could change in the future. Incidentally, this would also set a bar for what is considered exceptional, like this comment is in the top X this week.
The guideline says use them only in exceptional cases
I’ve never noticed this guideline! If this is the case, I would prefer to make it technically harder to do. I’ve just been doing it if I feel somewhat strongly about the issue...
Do we know what number of votes Forumwide are strong vs standard? If it is fairly low, publishing that might help us all understand how to use them better.
(My take is that I should not be using a looser standard than the norm because that would make my voice count more than it should. So if I saw data suggesting my standard were looser than the norm, it would inform when I strongvote in the future.)
I will sort of admit to not being that responsible. I probably use a couple of strong votes a blog—when I think something is really underrated usually. I guess I might be more sparing now.
One situation I use strong votes for is whenever I do “upvote/disagree” or “downvote/agree”. I do this to offset others who tend not to split their votes.
Cap the number of strong votes per week.
Strong votes with large weights have their uses in uncommon situations. But these situations are uncommon, so instead of weakening strong votes, make them rarer.
The guideline says use them only in exceptional cases, but there is no mechanism enforcing it: socially, strong votes are anonymous and look like standard votes; and technically, any number of them could be used. They could make a comment section appear very one-sided, but with rarity, some ideas can be lifted/hidden, and the rest of the section can be more diverse.
I do not think this is a problem now, because current power users are responsible. But this is our fortune and not a fact, and could change in the future. Incidentally, this would also set a bar for what is considered exceptional, like this comment is in the top X this week.
I’ve never noticed this guideline! If this is the case, I would prefer to make it technically harder to do. I’ve just been doing it if I feel somewhat strongly about the issue...
Do we know what number of votes Forumwide are strong vs standard? If it is fairly low, publishing that might help us all understand how to use them better.
(My take is that I should not be using a looser standard than the norm because that would make my voice count more than it should. So if I saw data suggesting my standard were looser than the norm, it would inform when I strongvote in the future.)
I will sort of admit to not being that responsible. I probably use a couple of strong votes a blog—when I think something is really underrated usually. I guess I might be more sparing now.
I think some kind of “strong vote income”, perhaps just a daily limit as you say, would work.
One situation I use strong votes for is whenever I do “upvote/disagree” or “downvote/agree”. I do this to offset others who tend not to split their votes.