I'm not sure, I keep flip-flopping on it. On the one hand, I can see how it'd be useful to new readers to resurface good old content, but it's also irksome to

I'm not sure, I keep flip-flopping on it. On the one hand, I can see how it'd be useful to new readers to resurface good old content, but it's also irksome to old readers. It's annoying to pick up a new magazine and have read the articles before, or a new book by a favorite author and discover that it's just the first half of an older, larger novel, or a short story collection and find that the stories have all been published before. You've wasted your time, money, and now you have nothing to do on your six hour flight. I suspect the largest problem is that I've spent too much time around SEO people, so whenever I see anything slightly unexpected with how content is surface, I can just hear them in my head, saying things like, "And then three weeks from now, we'll 403 redirect the old URL to the new URL, doubling our google link-juice." There's nothing necessarily wrong with republishing old content, it just strikes me as ... skeevy.