Respectfully, I disagree to some extent. There is some ratism, but not nearly enough to account for all of the correlation between rating and votes.
If we're talking about shitposts, you're partially right. An LGM like Um_nik can post whatever they want and probably get a few hundred upvotes. But also I've seen some shitposts by lower-rated members get a decent amount of upvotes; I mean, this one has +391, for example. Anyways, a lot of shitposts by grays are just stupid and not very funny, so they get rightfully downvoted.
If we're talking about educational posts, objectively speaking, most educational posts by low-rated members are just outright bad. I'm not saying all of them are, but the vast majority are AI slop that isn't even helpful in the first place. As for higher-rated members, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, but at least usually they aren't some trash GPT "five tips about two pointers that you need to hit pupil!" nonsense. The grays are getting downvoted for writing bad content, not for being gray.
If we're talking about questions, usually if the question is reasonable, the person will get either zero or slight upvotes. There's not really much reason to upvote a question massively, unless it's a really really good question (rare). But more often than not, they're low-effort "please do the work for me" blog from grays, with either unreadable grammar or more GPT slop. Again, perfectly reasonable to downvote.
If we're talking about posts advertising some tool for CF, usually if the tool is good, the blog will get upvoted. This is quite common across all rating ranges.
I will make the following conjecture without proof but somebody else is free to do an analysis if they want: cheaters get downvoted much more than legitimate participants of the same rating. Indeed, this would make sense if votes are correlated with level rather than rating, because people of a stronger level are more likely to post higher quality content.
(Just to reiterate, I don't completely disagree with you. There is some ratism, for sure. But at the same time, people shouldn't just post a bunch of garbage, then blame ratism for all of their downvotes. More often than not, if you're getting -50, you probably posted something bad.)
If you strongly disagree with me, link a few blogs where you think the person received much more downvotes than they deserved. Your claims would be more founded with examples, after all.
Respectfully, I disagree to some extent. There is some ratism, but not nearly enough to account for all of the correlation between rating and votes.
I will make the following conjecture without proof but somebody else is free to do an analysis if they want: cheaters get downvoted much more than legitimate participants of the same rating. Indeed, this would make sense if votes are correlated with level rather than rating, because people of a stronger level are more likely to post higher quality content.
(Just to reiterate, I don't completely disagree with you. There is some ratism, for sure. But at the same time, people shouldn't just post a bunch of garbage, then blame ratism for all of their downvotes. More often than not, if you're getting -50, you probably posted something bad.)
If you strongly disagree with me, link a few blogs where you think the person received much more downvotes than they deserved. Your claims would be more founded with examples, after all.