3 ms·
What I don't understand (coming from communities where duplicate posts are simply killed) is why this manner of handling is favored. I do understand that the c
by mquander 17y ago
What I don't understand (coming from communities where duplicate posts are simply killed) is why this manner of handling is favored. I do understand that the community cycles in more people who haven't seen all the older links, and so it's nice to present them again for their sake every once in a while. However, if that's the goal, why start with a fresh discussion thread every time? Why not just put the old one on the front page again, together with the discussion attached to it? Presumably the comments haven't rotted.
- raganwald 17y agoWith new times come new perspectives. The downside is that new people don't know that the same-old, same-old points have already been made argued to death already. But what if they have a new insight, or times have changed and the old ideas are no longer relevant? If they see pages of discussion, they might be suckered into thinking their new thoughts are irrelevant, when the opposite may be true. In general, I like starting over with a blank page if enough time has passed that we will have new faces and changed circumstances. Two weeks is not enough, but a blog post from two years ago might be interesting to re-examine with fresh eyes.