i upvote lame comments because i find them relatable. its nice to be represented.
No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
It's a pretty common and wildly successful marketing strategy to put something on social media with one or more intentional errors to force everyone's inner Reply Guy to fight the urge to do the thing.
But it also works with unintentional errors. My less well-thought-out replies attract responses like flies. ๐
Whether it indicates the success of your thesis or not depends on how you measure it, I suppose.
Well, sometimes, you'll get votes just for being on topic, no matter what the content of the comment is.
Thousands seems out of line for that kind of thing though.
But shit, my highest upvoted post on reddit ever was a one line quip. It was funny, but not that good. I'd make detailed, sourced mini essays and get negative votes.
Lemmy is a bit better about voting up for both topicality and effort to be sure. But we're also all human, so not everyone fact checks everything they come across before voting. They'll often vote based on "truthiness" as much as anything else. I say they, but I catch myself doing it too. I'll run across someone that put good effort in, was on topic, and at least tried to be useful, and that's worth the up vote. Could be wrong as hell, and I'd still think that. But I don't have the inclination to fact check everything. And I don't always have the stamina to respond even when I know there's something off or outright wrong, but I'm not going to down vote unless I suspect they were wrong with ill intent.
So, I think you may have run across something that, while fallacious, is not egregiously so, and/or still nestles into the community's specific bias even if they're aware it's fallacious.
Which, btw, sometimes something can have logical fallacies and not be bad. Doesn't even have to be wrong, though it's like math class where if you did the work wrong, if shouldn't matter if you got the right answer. But on a multiple choice test, you can end up acing a test by accident as long as you're making the same mistakes the right way.
I dunno, forums with voting out vote like functions are weird. As soon as you think you've figured things out, you'll run into things that make no sense again.
Timing plays a big role.
You really want to bake your noodle?
Make the same post twice only add one small typo the 2nd time.
Watch which one gets more up otes.
You dropped a v... Oh. You little shirt
Zilch!
Make a technical mistake like saying windmill, people will come correct you with wind turbine.
- Short attention span.
- Outrage farming.
So something controversial sparking outrage should get upvotes instead of down votes? Statistically? Because when I disagree or dislike something I downvote, dislike etc. Is the opposite more common?
Outrage breeds engagement
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00550-7
Also stupid questions are useful in all fields of study/research.
I agree with the first part, but the second while I also agree, my comment wasn't a "stupid question" that would apply to this benefit. It was simply an observation with a false premise and an opinion expressed as a lame joke I made. I expected it to go south but it went well.
What I was asking was not why this phenomenon can be a good thing but why it would get nearly an exponentially larger amount of likes/upvotes than other posts and not downvotes instead. If they disagreed or were correcting/criticizing me, wouldn't it follow for the comment to be down voted? I know some people view down ones as agree/disagree or like/dislike, or whether it fits the community, but logically it would seem since they expressed they didn't like why I said in the comments, they or other readers would have downvoted me.
Unless people just wanted to bring it to everyone else's attention, idk . The entire comment in question was a faux pas that I left unchecked and then somehow a success. Don't really care about the "points" but it just sparked my curiosity why all of a sudden, compared to other countless times that I make similar comments, that this one was an outlier.
there's a person who always comments half correct stuff with some error in it about linux or programming and i got somehow blocked from seeing their comments, because someone probably thought i downvoted them out of a feud or something.
i imagine, if that also happened to others, that person will only ever get upvotes and agreement on their partially wrong comments.
Ragebait.
People are more likely to correct someone else on incorrect information or call them out on low effort content because it satisfies an innate human need for validation.
In this case validating one's own intelligence. People like to feel smart and the easiest way to achieve that feeling is to make someone else look less smart.
There is a very fine, very subjective line, between lame and funny.