pull down to refresh
1 sat \ 13 replies \ @phaedrus 19 Jan 2022 \ on: SN release preview: Web of Trust ranking algorithm meta
I’ve started to notice duplicate posts recently. Often I think it’s non-intentional, but I wonder if deduping would help the ranking/quality?
When users posts they’re alerted that there are duplicates. They seem to be ignoring it.
I’ll try to figure something else out. @nout suggested I charge more when a duplicate is posted.
reply
Charge more based on age too. Not sure if that's possible or not. I wonder if there is some API out there that can tell when a site was last modified somehow or scan the page for a publication date. Maybe a hard problem.
reply
That’s an interesting idea. I found a python library that makes a decent attempt at grabbing a publication date.
reply
If a link was already posted by you or someone else, perhaps suggest boosting that link instead in the UI.
reply
That’s an interesting idea!
reply
"Undesirables" should cost more and sats should go to SN :)
reply
Agree that duplicate posts should cost more. Not because they're undesirable though, just because they should come with a higher burden of proof.
I purposely posted a duplicate the other day, simply because the OP chose a poor title. My post should have definitely cost more to create, but the fact that I earned more from my post (with a better title) should be a signal that my duplicate wasn't necessarily undesirable... one could even argue that the first post was the one that was undesirable.
reply
I agree that your post was desirable in this situation. I mean it more that it's undesirable to have duplicate posts from SN perspective.
reply
Yup, makes sense.
reply
deleted by author
reply
I think you should still be able to post it again, it would just cost you extra sats (e.g. 21 sats) to post it. If the post gains popularity and votes as you are predicting you would still be doing ok.
reply
deleted by author
I think "valuable" re-posts, belong in a wiki somewhere. It's not news. It's reference material. Maybe an entirely new site. "https://stacker.reference" where the voting caters to that.
reply