200 sats \ 6 replies \ @davidw 10 Nov 2023 freebie \ on: Stacker Saloon
Howdy all. How do people feel about duplicate content & links on SN? Are any changes needed?
Currently, a warning shows to the new author indicating a ‘dupe’ link that been posted previously.
Some thoughts:
- Should new link shares cost 10x more?
- Should the newer version have inside a link it, linking to the original post?
- Dupe checks may need to remove https & www from urls, to better aggregate & validate
- Are there merits in seeing duplicates? Revisiting prominent sites and getting more eyeballs on them?
- How to better show a timeline of progress / updates?
- More importantly, how can we help resurface old content on SN?
Reason I ask, is it’s probably one of the only remaining points of friction I have with this site. I wouldn’t want to stop people posting or sharing something valuable, but I think it’s an area that could be improved..
On the 6th point, I haven’t suggested this before, because I’m not sure it works for all SN posts but it could be relatively simple to implement.
On the ‘hot’ feed some older articles could be elevated with “1 month ago”, “1 year ago”… mentioned above each post. Limited to a maximum of 1 anniversary link appearing per 30 results each day, for now.
Might be a nice test to play around with. Easier to accommodate than a ‘revisited’ feed. Simple because there isn’t enough space up there in the menu anymore, as the site grows.
reply
Duplicate links shouldn't be tolerated if a user doesn't add any additional value. Most of those users doesn't even read the articles when sharing on SN. It's evident in their lack of response when someone comment on their link posts.
reply
deleted by author
reply
reply
100%. Sometimes if it’s dated content, there’s value in resurfacing it. But usually it’s pretty obvious.
In an ideal world they’d be linked, with the original poster being able to claim a % of the rewards.
I guess it’s natural for the ‘recent’ feed of any platform to get more and more congested over time.
reply
100x
This one ^
reply