There is no justice when it comes to the number of recs. Sharp elbows tend to get recs. Deep philosophical insights that other have missed are often met by the sound of crickets.

Post with recs get read, which means they get even more recs. Mundane posts by popular posters get more recs because more people read their posts in the first place. Great posts by lessor known posters don't get as many recs because people don't read them. And different factions seem to evolve. Post A has a viewpoint that people rec, and Poster B has different viewpoint whose supporters automatically rec. These little rec-battles can last years across various topics.

So, no justice. Don't look for it, it doesn't exist. But over time the cream does tend to rise to the top. Posters who consistently get a lot of recs usually have stuff worth reading. That said, you can't spend recs and they don't pay dividends. There is no prize for having lots of recs. So don't worry about the rec count too much. It doesn't matter.

One thing I've been debating about saying, and despite my better judgement I'll just toss it in: Jim gets a lot of recs. Easily number one on the non-political boards, and that's been true for probably two decades. It is not a conspiracy. His posts are interesting, so people read them. And you have to read them in order to rec them. It is a self-reinforcing cycle. But over the years a few people have gotten absolutely bent that they don't get as many recs as he does.

I feel like we've watched at least two psychotic breaks happening in real time as posters can't make their rec count match Jim's. It is wild. They are just recs. No one is actually counting. Not worth losing your marbles over.