I've long been trying to convince people to zap more: #287074. Most of you are just leaving sats on the table with your miserly ways.
This, however, is a second order post about what to zap.
Let a thousand rewards systems bloom
I'm pretty sure @ek made an off-hand remark about how we are each operating our own rewards system on Stacker News. I thought that was a really cool way to think about it.
Most of us are fairly well acquainted with the rewards system, thanks to MSM and the leaderboard. However, I think most of us only think about the first level as the rewards system: i.e. I got paid out rewards for making content people liked and zapping content that people liked.
For each of us, though, the reward for zapping has particular consequences for the site and what content appears here. A cursory glance at the leaderboard reveals that I zap a lot, which I do because it generates a lot of rewards. That means the kind of content I like is subsidized by the Stacker News rewards algorithm and I have fairly idiosyncratic tastes. My preferences are therefor implicitly part of the SN rewards algorithm (as are yours, but I probably zap more).
The Takeaway
If Stacker News doesn't have the right balance of content for you, it might be because people like me are funneling the rewards to the stuff we like.
If you want Stacker News to have more of the content you like, then reward the people who make content you like. There's no reason not to, since @k00b is essentially offering full refunds on zaps via the rewards algorithm he designed.