monkdiscuss
kudra
I know that this has been mentioned in the chatterbox, and was also
[id://68326|addressed by neophyte] under a different subject, but
I want to mention it again because the message seems forgotten.
<p>
I, for one, would really appreciate it if people would take a little more
time when considering duplicates to name or link to the node that is
being duplicated. I see several advantages to doing this:
<p>
Each voter can verify that the node is in fact a duplicate according
to her or his definitions of duplication. For example, one of my
nodes was considered as a duplicate because someone else posted an
answer while I was composing mine. It's also possible for the word
duplicate to mean 'someone asked this question just yesterday.'
Neither of these are what I consider duplicates (to me a duplicate
is when the same person posts the same thing), and I would vote to
keep both of these nodes.
<p>
In verifying that the node is a duplicate, each voter can also vote
responsibly. Right now it would probably be possible for me to consider
a perfectly fine node, say it is a duplicate, and have it deleted
(although it would be reinstated later). It wouldn't have to be
malice, it could be a simple accident. There are also people who,
when they feel they have insufficient information, vote to keep
or edit the node. In the case of a real duplicate, these votes
could prevent reaping.
<!--
(I know these scenarios contradict--at least one might be true!
;)
-->
<p>
At times both the original node and the duplicate are considered as
duplicates. It should be clear that they are considered in relation
to each other--so that people know one consideration was accidental--rather
than in relation to a third post which doesn't actually exist.