I just listened to a podcast that I thought was great, and wanted to draw people's attention to it. I found that a link to it had already been shared a couple days ago, however, the post contained nothing aside from the link itself, and had garnered no comments.
I figured making a comment on the existing post wouldn't elevate it enough to be seen or discussed. So I made my own post that included context I thought was germane. I don't feel bad about this exactly, but I do feel ... something.
So I'm curious: did I commit a SN faux pass?
Yes13.0%
No87.0%
23 votes \ poll ended
I committed a crime here. I wanted to tap no but somehow it's pressed at yes. So, feeling sorry for it and want to make it clear that you can definitely post your thoughts on anything whether posted before with context or not.
reply
Of course not. You took the same link and made it your own by adding the same thoughts 💭. I see it as you using the article as a springboard to share some of your ideas
reply
Sorry, fat fingers.
I meant some of your own thoughts
reply
I said "no", but I've felt that same "something".
I'd like to have an option that elevates the original post, while adding that context, that costs less than zapping it to the Moon.
One option, that may not apply in your case, is to cross-post the original into another territory. I've done that before.
reply
For me is okay.
reply
My highest zapranked post is a repeat link where the original was just a bare link. So yeah, I definitely have no problem with this.
Frankly, I almost never click on links if there's no context beyond the title. Context is adding value.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Mmk 15 Jun
If you thought it was in poor taste and did it anyway, yes.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taft 15 Jun
Since you add more value to the link, of course not.
reply
I did the same today with the open AI post. Didn’t realize @Rsync25 had already posted it so I just replied in his post and let him know I didn’t notice his before I posted mine and that I would share some of the sats from my post with him.
reply
Not, obiously
reply