Official announcements and happiness!
Old posts can no longer be re-scheduled - pretty please, seriously consider some sort of recycle feature :)
I just discovered that I can no longer edit old posts in my community and re-schedule them for a future date. This re-iterates the need for a feature to recycle an old posting.
The way such a feature would work is that after a given amount of time (say 4 months), the leader of a community is allowed to recycle an old community posting. Recycling a post would in effect make it appear as wholly new throughout the Imzy ecosystem, while keeping any comments made. (one could consider tagging the posts as recycled, or not show them at all to people who already had clicked those postings earlier).
This way we would accomplish the following:
- avoid duplicate postings and keep the communities tidy
- save time for the moderators
- easily re-introduce "new" content to new users in their feeds, e-mails, and communities
- re-ignite debate on old threads and discussions
- make it appear that more content is being generated than is really the case (this may sound a bit speculative, but this is not a news-website and why would stuff have to be freshly made all the time? It doesn't have to be, it is the discussions and the quality of the information that is important)
As it is now I am digging for great reference materials and articles and spending alot of time while Imzy is still in beta, and when the day comes that it's not in beta I have no way of re-igniting those important subjects apart from copy-pasting and re-creating each post individually.




I think this would be a cool feature. Benefits of reblogging without spawning new threads.
Testing something.
Maybe Pin the topic as that puts it on the top of your community. It won't show up in everyone main feed again, but for those that actually visit your community, they will see it every time.
The problem is that it feels like the momentum for a specific article or posting is forever lost within a couple of weeks after posting it (Especially while we are in beta this holds true as the user base is very limited)
Hm that "old post rescheduling via editing" was actually a bug.
Can you explain a bit more the benefit of being able to bump an old thread in that way, rather than making a new post and linking to the old one?
Eww. Linking spawns new windows. In this instance spawning a new window isn't what you want.
And what if all you want to do is bump an Image post so people can enjoy the pretty again? The presentation of Image posts I've been pushing for would be ridiculous to bump as a link, since the whole point is quick impression on the feed.
Why would you make a pointer to content rather than just show the content?
Hm, I'm used to people just reposting an image if they want to repost an image.
I believe we are working on having internal linking feel better. I could see having it spawn a new tab feel weird.
Honestly I'm not sure. In recent years, I'm far more used to hanging out in places without the ability to bump threads, so I'm very used to working in that context.
I'm not saying I dislike this idea, I'm just trying to work through it a bit more.
But isn't that what we're saying? Bump the post back to the top?
I mean, there's no good repost method currently. I shouldn't be reposting someone else's image post (copy their image, save it, make a new post). Cause then all the comments, etc. get to me, not to them. That's way bad etiquette.
Making us link to an old post makes it two layers deep, right? Feed -> New Post -> Old Post -> content instead of Feed -> Old Post -> content
You're adding a layer for no benefit.
Good point about it being someone else's image. I was assuming this conversation was referring to actions that could be taken by community leaders specifically for some reason, and also assumed that if they were bumping an image it would be something they created themselves.
Are you wanting the ability to bump threads be something that anyone can do, or only the leader of a community?
That's a bigger question. A leader for sure.
I'm not sure what the abuse possibilities are if anyone can do it. I don't want someone spam bumping their fic post because no one has read it and just annoying everyone. The time limit will help with that.
Certainly if ONLY a leader can do it, the community will be more curated than if anyone can.
The idea of bumping has me kind of :| about it. I don't see a utility for it that isn't served by pinning posts, and I see a lot of potential disasters of the social kind if everyone can do it, and double that many if only the mod can do it.
Besides, once people leave a post, it's very unusual to see it revived. Since your comments are automatically the least visible, it's not usually worth it (though I don't know how that'll bear out on Imzy).
Pinned implies something entirely different, though. That's "Hey! This is important!"
Recycled is more like "Remember this? Good times."
So does the share feature, though, and it also gives you a chance to put a little commentary on it, and a fresh slate of comments. Recycle would prevent having to click through to stuff, but I don't know. Seems like share is like this:
And recycle is more this:
Pinned implies something entirely different, though. That's "Hey! This is important!"
The first is more interesting because it's designed to add commentary to the original words. The second is like handing someone last year's birthday card with no context.
No one's suggesting taking away Share. If you still feel the need to start a new thread about an old thread, you can. (Although why aren't you adding to the original post if you have something to say?)
But if I just want everyone to enjoy that really lovely gifset someone made, I wouldn't Share a link to it. I just want it to appear in their feed again. If I have any comments to add, it should go into the original post. Handing someone last year's birthday card is totally the point.
Hmmm. I think it's just a difference in opinion of how we'd like to use the site.
My argument is not that this would replace share, but that share is better. Also that I don't like bumped content without some kind of reason behind it being bumped, particularly not on communities. It feels like a solid gold wank generator to me--if you bump one person's content, if you don't bump someone else's, if you bump your own--it sounds like a BNF party.
Agree to disagree on this? I'm pretty sure that this is a matter of personal preference for both of us.
I think the problem is one of context. A lot of users are coming from different hubs of online interaction: on tumblr, you would never even consider a repost, since you could just click a button and reblog the old post, with commentary intact: the problem is just that the commentary is hard to follow, un-threaded, and usually non-centralized.
On reddit, on Livejournal, whatever, that functionality doesn't really exist so you have a different approach to things: I'm not really much of a dev guy, but I think that having both options exist make a certain sort of sense. You want to original content and context to be "recyclable" so that new discussions can happen on existent posts, but you ALSO want to be able to share interesting links without dragging along all the baggage of the past.
Think of it not like last years birthday card, but like a paperback book you love to reread. For yourself, the same dogeared copy makes the most sense, you already have the book, and there's no need to re-purchase it. For someone else though, giving them a new copy makes more sense because they don't have the same associations with it as you do.
Does that make any kind of sense?
I was suggesting this as a feature for community leaders only.
I almost never click on links. I do look at reblogs.
@greenie for me I might use this for a weekly post. I have had to copy and paste the weekly post for /esports many times just to save having to add all the links and tables again. I would edit the information in the tables for that week and then post it again.
This at least one example of this if I read it right.