The problem is for every good actor, there are dozens of bad ones. These things need strict guidelines to work.

I think people should write down the amount of effort they put into their post and the expected rewards, then they cam argue theybwere under rewarded. However the same thing goes woth being over rewarded, but there is actually a fix to that.

Then we run into the issue of people just timing things poorly. For example posting about a hot topic a week too late.

I guess it is all case by case. 

I also feel that there should be a place for older content that is still relevant, especially when that content earned almost nothing when originally published because I was very new on Steem then.
An example is [this post examining the vulnerabilities of Proof of Work and Proof of Stake blockchains to attack by powerful actors including nation states](https://peakd.com/crypto/@apshamilton/analysis-of-51-attack-by-nation-state-vulnerability-of-pow-vs-pos).

Steem's later experience with Justin Sun proved out this vulnerability.

Thank you, Taraz! The folks at HW are good and they do a thankless job. They are use support from all community members, especially prominent ones like you :)

I love to have a conversation about this. Also love to see how much recycling is going on, and how much of it is spam and how much of it is with good intention. As you correctly pointed out, it is not easy to determine that for a bot (at this point). But I am sure @abh12345 can come up with some data. He always does :)

Having read all the comments up until my response, it would seem as if this is a one sided view issue. That people see it mostly as a content producer issue. in one respect this is true, I would however like people and the hivewatcher type accounts to also try looking at it from a genuine user point of view, by genuine user I mean someone like myself, that seriously enjoys reading and looking at and consuming the content produced. 

I don't need to pay to read a book, I can vote on the book page/chapter part and actually be rewarded for reading the book. I bring the book issue up because that is why I first initially joined the steem block chain. To read for free. Books have gotten expensive for me, new books are $4.95 on up to $12.95 for a paper back version. The number of free books on Amazon Kindle are becoming fewer and fewer, Most other free book sites want all my info so they can track and spam me.

Everyday there are more and more new users on Hive Block Chain. Every time spam is brought up or reward pool rape is brought up, it is ***always*** put on the content creator. The *content creator* is the evil person. Not the person that gives the content creator day after day after day post after post after post, a big reward vote. Spam and piss poor content creators are going to be on Hive block chain until the groups like hivewatchers are able to apply their power to the ***Real*** spam enablers, to the real reward pool rapist. When a down vote system is created that allows for the down vote of the excessive rewarder,(disagreement on reward), against the plagiarist, or against the abuser, there will always be crap spammers on Hive.

An artist reposting a piece of art they created to a new community or a new group of followers is not in my own personal opinion Spam. A writer reposting a published book they still have the full rights to, for a new audience to read, or the old audience to re-read is not Spam. A singer reposting a song they have all rights to for a new audience to listen to is not Spam.

The people (content users like me), we know what spam is, we know when a post is over rewarded, most of all we know what we like. I have no problem not voting on content I don't like. Trying to control spam by only down voting one side is not ever going to work, you need to be able to down vote and have one effect against the person, or group that are up voting/rewarding the spam. The abusive up voters also need to be added to a black list. (and I hate the McCarthyism of black listing). 

I quit the 'three a day travel challenge' because some of them were getting to feel 'reused'.  When I did mine I chose 3 photos from a trip or a place and unless I were really unlucky the photos had probably never been published together before.

I really like the idea of 'recycling' long since really good posts (and this one qualifies).  But I really dislike the abuse that goes with reusing.  I have some really good previously published posts that I'd like to revisit, but I'll only do so with a serious rewrite.  

So the short answer is "I don't know".  I know that I appreciate the pursuit of the 'pro copy paste' people.  I've had stuff I've written copy/pasted which really makes me crazy.  

Making an introduction for that old post, writing why you want to showcase that post again, maybe adding few important quotes from that post, and a link to it, could be a solution.  

One way to look it is just not simple copy paste. If you can use your old content to bring out something new is what can be an option. The good thing about this will be you can rework on the old stuffs and make it better by parenting it in a better way.

I think reposting should only bring in front quality content which did not get proper appreciation at its time. Maybe an under the radar user, maybe something different. I think it would show a terrible lack of inspiration and creativity to repost things from the past only for the sake of having something posted.

You always bring up thought-provoking subjects. :) 

As per Twitter, I can tell you that the reason tweets may be spread throughout the day, is because only a small part of your audience is online at any one time. 

Example: if @theycallmedan sends out a newsworthy tweet,  and it doesn't show up on my timeline when I'm logged in, I won't see it. 

I rarely search for people on Twitter unless I have a question, so posting more than once is the best way to extend your reach.

Repurposing posts might work better when *referencing* an older article to make points on a current one.

The other way is a "Best Of" series, which I would do once or twice a year on Steemit to share informative posts with new people. Such as the one about *The Station* fire which nobody saw for 18 hours when I first published it.

Since its inception I've participated in almost each week of #showcase-sunday and have taken the time to rework the posts adding hundreds of words, making them time-relevant, more interesting, informative and better-written from a punctuation perspective. It's a little embarrassing to find so many errors in my past posts to be completely honest. 

Having said that, the bones of the posts are the same, essentially. 

I believe the concept of the tag is sound, allowing users to show some of their past posts which newer users will probably never see, and also creating more activity on a day where traditionally it would be a little slower, Sunday. It will always be open to abuse, as with everything else here. 

Whilst I like the concept I think it will be doubtful I will participate again as ending up on a blacklist is not something I am keen to do; I think that would be quite damaging to my account, credibility and to my own feeling of enjoyment here. It's a shame that there is not a place where people can demonstrate their work to new people, other than nonames concept.

I also agree with @bashadow in that the voters, the ones abusing the reward pool, need to be addressed; It shouldn't just be on the content creator. 

I recently posted a six-part series on #showcase-sunday about the Tobruk campaign in WW2. Each was originally some 700-900 words and when reposted I had added around 900-1200 words to each on average...That's bad though? That could end up with me on a blacklist? But what about the voter posting a picture of a Bittrex trading graph 10 times a day and self voting each one...They're all good? 

I don't know the answer...All I know is that people will have to scroll back through three years of my posts to find my work...Which we all know won't happen. It's a bit sad as every now and then I actually feel i have presented something interesting to the blockchain.

Thanks @nonameslfttouse for the concept, I have enjoyed it and hope others have found something in my work they missed earlier.

Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

<table><tr><td><img src="https://images.hive.blog/60x60/http://hivebuzz.me/badges/postallweek.png"></td><td>You are a buzzy bee and published a post every day of the week</td></tr>
</table>

<sub>_You can view [your badges on your board](https//hivebuzz.me/@tarazkp) And compare to others on the [Ranking](https://hivebuzz.me/ranking)_</sub>
<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>


To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

I think the problem is that it's hard to differentiate between good and bad use. Hard for those looking for the abuse and those trying not to abuse and knowing where the line is. But how you did here, linking to the previous post, may be the best approach. For a while I had a "greatest hits" list of links at the bottom of my articles. Now that I'm using a template for my posts (whenever I think of it) I should probably add that section back to my template. 

... oh and yes, it does hurt SEO to have search engines find duplicates for an article.

Yes it is necessary but what "@hivewatchers" did was really inhuman... He must change the rules of his "rudeness"! If he will not change that, a lot of professional bloggers will leave and will not use the HIVE blog again. I have a lot of friends leave because of the inhuman decision of "@hivewatchers".

I think if the objective to repost is to increase audience and views thendeclining rewards is the simplest solution. If one feels they were not rewarded with the real value of the content (how do you evaluate that anyway), why not rewrite the post? Then at least they have made an effort. 

As with every thing else in this world, there's always some who abuse the system spoiling it for the genuine users. So unless there is an intelligent bot that can identify genuine repost vs abuse repost, then  the only way is to stop it all together.

Fyi, recently I've seen established users repost content from not long ago and both posts got decent payout. This is exactly the type of scenarios that gives abusers justification to continue doing what they do best. Where do you draw the line? One rule for them and another rule for the rest? 

I think it's a shame too that it would be lost although I don't see how it could be filtered from the spammy repost n run mob. The thing am Amit showcase Sunday is that it is one day and posts (which aren't milking) should be clearly stated that they are reposts of older material with a bit of whizz band reworking. 

It's a tough un!

Easy solution is to not make it a direct copy paste. Add some new material or give context to what it is and when you posted it. Add a different picture etc. 

This will stop your post from triggering the HW bot. I had to tell the members of my art community this because I encourage them reposting older content. I think I have a different view on the relationship between the reward pool and content maybe. I don’t see this as double dipping. 

The reward pool isn’t a singular entity. Each user has a level of influence over the reward pool that they control. If I posted something months ago and users a,b, and c, appreciated it and upvoted it, great. 

Then I repost it and this time new user x, y, and z upvote it, it’s not double dipping, it’s new users appreciating that content. Also if a, b, and c see it again and still like it or they still find it valuable, they can upvote or not upvote it. 

But auto votes!

I see autovotes as our version of Patreon, where users are no longer supporting individual pieces of content and have transitioned into supporting the USER. In these cases I feel like people have proven themselves to be valuable enough that they’ve earned that trust and I think it’s something good, not bad. 

Just my two cents.

My original vision for #showcase-sunday involved **reworking old content into something new.**  I have no clue why folks were simply re-posting but when I wrote that post describing my vision I did also say I'm not here to tell people how to run their blogs.  There's also a lighthearted line in the post describing the vision I had stating "you're doing it wrong if you're just doing it to be lazy."  

One of my approaches was to combine several old posts from a series I had created over time, plus adding commentary.  At least two of those posts had over 10000 words once I was finished with them.  A couple Showcase Sunday posts were ten or eleven posts combined into one, *plus commentary.*

I mentioned how some folks simply post one picture, no words, and call that a post, consistently.  I suggested for showcase sunday something like, "Why not try a different approach?  Take many of your favorite or best photos from the past, add some commentary, and *showcase* your talents?"

It was meant to be a highlight reel of sorts but at the same time I was hoping folks would be creative with their own approach.  

There's also a huge difference between spamming and running a rerun.  As a responsible content creator, you own your content and are allowed to do whatever you want with it.  If you're an irresponsible content creator, you will repost the same nonsense nobody gave a shit about over and over, annoy your following, alienate everyone else, and end up going in reverse instead of advancing.          

This is a big problem here as people presume that we are posting to a stagnant and captured community. This stagnant and captured community voted on the post 3 or 4 years ago and if it is reposted now, it will mean double dipping.

Now please come and reason with me. 
Are we posting to the exact same community that existed 3 or 4 years ago?
How many members of the community saw and voted on the post 3 or 4 years ago?
Can a person's post be seen by 100% of the community?

Here is an example about viewership: Last week a post was sent out to state that the auto-votes had been reset and that members can now only auto-vote 2 times per week.
If they didn't like the new setting, they were welcome to manually restore to their old setting!

Many have not seen that post and did not know that their auto-votes were changed.
The result was a bit catastrophic for worthy entities like charities, as we lost many votes and communications.

I have not yet resurrected an old post, as I thought #Showcase-Sunday was meant for new stuff.
All that I am saying here is that it should not be a crime to redo an old post.