A near-simultaneous dup does divide discussion. It would be better if only one was allowed. Quite often, breaking news is divided among two or three posts.
Dups that are distant in time are more complex. One aspect is that
people might not have seen the previous stroy - so it would be good to show it again. Another aspect is that the previous discussion is lost, leading to the same points being repeated, instead of (possibly) being built upon - so it would be better to resurrect the previous submission and therefore discussion.
One solution is to detect and combine dups, but enable them to launch the story fresh, if sufficient time has passed.
There is in fact already a discrete implementation of this: stories over a year old (I think that's the period) can be resubmitted as a new story. So I'm suggesting a continuous version of this idea, where the "newness" of a story gradually increases, til it becomes completely new after a year. "Newness" could be implemented with a factor on the story-score. This would enable old stories (and their discussions) to return to the front-page.
Dups that are distant in time are more complex. One aspect is that people might not have seen the previous stroy - so it would be good to show it again. Another aspect is that the previous discussion is lost, leading to the same points being repeated, instead of (possibly) being built upon - so it would be better to resurrect the previous submission and therefore discussion.
One solution is to detect and combine dups, but enable them to launch the story fresh, if sufficient time has passed.
There is in fact already a discrete implementation of this: stories over a year old (I think that's the period) can be resubmitted as a new story. So I'm suggesting a continuous version of this idea, where the "newness" of a story gradually increases, til it becomes completely new after a year. "Newness" could be implemented with a factor on the story-score. This would enable old stories (and their discussions) to return to the front-page.