Best thing to do about it, I think, would be to point out that putting effort into your comment will get you paperclips.
Probably. But suppose you want to increase your paperclips per unit of effort. Then that point won't really help.
If someone wants to up their account karma per unit of effort, there are ways.
Rather than writing one long comment, splitting it into two gives you the chance to garner two upvotes per fan instead of one. If your comment is a mix of good and bad points, dividing it may separate the gold in your comment from the lead.
Putting a lot of effort into your comments can backfire, because hard to write can mean hard to read. If your long comment isn't read, it probably won't be upvoted.
Repetition works. If you notice that one of your comments got a lot of karma, repeating the performance can multiply your profit.
So: does effort pay off? I'm sure it does on average, but from what I've seen, the variation is very high.
My impression is that critiques of lesswrong mainstream positions and arguments for contrary positions are received well and achieve high karma scores when they are of very high quality. Similarly posts and comments that take lesswrong mainstream positions will still be voted down if they are of very low quality. But in between there seems to be a gulf: Moderately low quality mainstream comments will stay at 0 to -1 karma while contra-mainstream comments of (apparently) similar quality score solidly negative karma, moderately high quality mainstream comments achieve good positive karma while similar quality contra-mainstream comments stay at 0 to 2.
Do you share my impression? And if this is the case, should we try to do something about it?