b, though sometimes I read the article only in a superficial way.

I think it lacks an option, sometimes I upvote a submission not by the article but for the discussion evolved from it.

Generally b, unless the title itself is upvoteable (i.e. "Arc's Out").

I've been wondering, since lately, I see about half of the articles on the front page I don't read or if I read, didn't upvote--which leads to me wondering how it made it on the front page. I wondered if it was a difference in taste, or people just upvote based on title.

It seems like people are judicious with their votes.

Since the upvote also saves, I use it to save articles for future reading. Does this add too much noise?

Before reading if I've already read the article, if it's from a trusted source, if it's a start-up asking for feedback, if it's news that might lead to an interesting discussion or if it's a AskYC discussion that interests me.

I upvote (and post) items I think are worthy of the attention of the "Hacker News" users. If something has already made it to the front page then it does no need an upvote (even if it was posted by Joel Spolsky ;)

f) The article is something that belongs on hn & i like it

add "to save an article for future reading."

Option b). Where's the value, otherwise? Sometimes I forget to vote even when I intend to.

i often wonder why there isn't a "articles i've clicked on" section on the front page of so i can vote when i return

d) I am the Scrooge of upvoting articles.

I'm a bit more generous with upvoting comments, but I leave determining the front page to others.

e) The article is deserving of an upvote AND I'd like it committed to my list saved articles.

i upvote articles after i comment on them and want people to see my comments