I once commented on Cryptography Meta, that the answers there are generally theoretical (and bleeding edge) in nature, so people don't have a basis for voting, which results in 0-scored posts, unlike StackOverflow, where solutions can be easily tested and checked.
I feel that on Software Engineering, people generally vote based on their opinions and experiences over a particular technology. But I don't primarily participate on this site, so I don't have a say on this, so what's your opinion?
From what you wrote, you probably meant "basis for vote on answers", I guess? Because for questions, the voting policy is somewhat different.
My opinion is that this is a pretty opinionated question, since everyone who has voting privileges may probably have a different basis on for their votes. Still, I think most people here vote on answers how "correct" they appear to be, based on their own experiences. So when you wrote
I feel that on Software Engineering, people generally vote based on their opinions and experiences over a particular technology.
... I tend to agree, but I would not say "particular technology". Many of our questions and answers are technology agnostic, or can be transferred from one technology to another, so I would replace that by "based on their opinions and experiences over a particular topic"
Still, that's just part of it. Answers definitely collect more upvotes when they are not just correct, but also
well written
founded
complete
striking
highlighting points which may appear non-obvious or surprising
give references to canonical sources
but I guess that's not different from most other Stackexchange sites.
people don't have a basis for voting
The basis for voting comes down to the intersection of your personal wisdom and lived experiences, along with the experiences of participation on the site.
I feel that on Software Engineering, people generally vote based on their opinions and experiences over a particular technology.
...
I don't primarily participate on this site
So, that would categorize yourself as "people that don't have a basis for voting" no? How then would you rationalize your stated intuition about how people vote here?
There in lies the rub. What value would I personally attribute to my intuition about a Q&A site that I do not actively participate in? The Crypto SE site for instance is a community around cutting edge and academic discussions about cryptography. I would not even remotely categorize myself personally as being knowledgeable and experienced enough in this niche area to effectively judge the content that is posted there.
That is not to say that I have NOTHING of value to add to this community, but I would certainly focus on what I know, what I can learn, and how I can help. Maybe this looks like coming up with some questions that interest me and looking to see if others have already asked these questions, and if not posting new questions. Maybe it means voting on GOOD questions and GOOD answers, but then retaining the humility of my station and abstaining from down voting content on the chance that I could be wrong about the content.
