So KB linked in a comment to an old post of his. I clicked on it, really liked the post, and went to click the Hubwheel...
... and paused.
The post was 1260 days old. Do I want to bring it up to the surface again?
Why?
Why not?
Personally, I like the idea of old content getting revisited later on, and old conversations being resurrected with new info.
But what do other people feel? Is only new content, good content? Or is old content good, too?
What is the hubski etiquette here?
Something he does very well. It's often that his steel trap memory brings something back, either of his, or of some one else's - and it's usually spot on. I'm with you - posts of any age can be relevant, interesting, entertaining, etc. I don't think there's any harm in re-sharing a post that you like. Go for it. I will say, that I don't think the hubski algorithm will ever bring it to the front page, but why not share it?So KB linked in a comment to an old post of his. I clicked on it, really liked the post
The post was 1260 days old. Do I want to bring it up to the surface again?
What is the hubski etiquette here?
Etiquetteski If you use a tag on a new post, your previous posts using that tag come up. I'm not sure exactly when that feature started - but the founders' idea clearly was to show interested viewers previous discussions on similar topics. 1260 Days Old? Only? Some people have been around for 2340 days: would you believe 6.41 years? Some things have been said in the last six years that are brilliant and priceless. I love seeing them again (especially if I said them). Aging might not make you less creative, but it can make you less generative. Newskies (rhymes with brewski) There's newskies all the time. For example, jaydon20 joined 36 minutes ago. J20 might have been lurking for 2000 days, but we don't know. Also, many of us don't check regularly enough and miss stuff. So bring out the dead, undead, half-dead -- because unlike the old food in our fridges, food for thought doesn't always go bad.Orson Welles's said, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance–you know there’s no confidence to equal it.” He said this when he was 45. “It’s only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you’re timid or careful.”
And some of us around here are older than we once were.
I am constantly visiting conversations 60 days or 600 days 1600 days ago. If I see an old conversation seeing daylight on my newsfeed, I'll scan the thread for comments from the last few days. I have unpredictable luck starting a new conversation on a topic. Sometimes hubski bites, sometimes it doesn't. That's why I tend to resume an already existing conversation. I certainly don't think it's bad etiquette. It's maybe a tad inefficient--what with people having to find where in the old post the new conversation is--but at least there are more eyeballs on it.
2) Follower counts make you cool. The problem is we're largely social beings and that by definition involves interaction with other people.. When you post a link or comment on something, what clues or evidence do you receive that someone else is affected by your action? Literally nothing but another comment or that ubiquitous 'Like' button; no nuance just a binary or at best 3-state notification good/bad/nothing. It doesn't matter whether it's Like, upvote/downvote or share - it's one of only two feedback mechanisms and we have millennia of behavioral and social conditioning that control our response. We have masses of non verbal cues that we pick up on when we meet people physically but online there is virtually nothing. It doesn't matter whether you consciously eschew it or not, there's plenty going on under that mental veneer that you don't consciously control. Of course... we're above all that crass vulgarity - I'm just talking about those other poor pavlovian schmucks. ;) goobster share it and then leave a comment. Let others know you're interested and what you think - otherwise what's the fucking point? 1) The share button is an upvote.