October 30, 2008 at 17:51Relevance of articles
I want to discuss the relevance of published materials.
A new article reads a maximum of 2-3 days. Then it goes very far into the archive and remains there unclaimed forever - in fact, the well-known problem of all blog-type sites.
But the question is not a bit about that. Today I had a problem updating an old article. I took additional photos to my previous material and decided to post them with comments in a separate article, as an update of the old would most likely go unnoticed. After that, I received a comment in the comments that creating a new article is not worth it, but better to update the old one. I deleted the new article, although many updates have approved.
It seems to me that in this case the value of the update is significantly reduced. There is no particular incentive to update materials if no one notices it. Alternatively, one could shine somewhere in the main stream a list of updated articles.
What do you think? Maybe the issue has already been discussed?
A new article reads a maximum of 2-3 days. Then it goes very far into the archive and remains there unclaimed forever - in fact, the well-known problem of all blog-type sites.
But the question is not a bit about that. Today I had a problem updating an old article. I took additional photos to my previous material and decided to post them with comments in a separate article, as an update of the old would most likely go unnoticed. After that, I received a comment in the comments that creating a new article is not worth it, but better to update the old one. I deleted the new article, although many updates have approved.
It seems to me that in this case the value of the update is significantly reduced. There is no particular incentive to update materials if no one notices it. Alternatively, one could shine somewhere in the main stream a list of updated articles.
What do you think? Maybe the issue has already been discussed?