Yes, self-plagiarism is not a thing, as I have observed. It applies mainly to academic work. The one for agreements with publications makes total sense. If you have agreed to write for some publication, you have transferred rights of ownership to the publication; they now own it.
Thank you for adding more light to the matter, as I have now learned even more about plagiarism.
But I wonder, is reusing your content, say one you made about 3 years ago and then reposting it now this year, not more like recycling content and pulling from the reward pool twice? I mean, since it is mine, and mine to do whatever I want with it.
It depends on the circumstances.
If I quote myself and incorporate an old post into a new one but add new original content, maybe like a follow up or so, then I create something new.
The problem arises if I just repost something and the hole voting/rewarding process starts over again without actually doing something new. And something new in this case is not
"Oh, look what I thought about 6 months ago: " end of post.
Yes, I added something but it's marginal.
But if I wrote a post about a goal I try to achieve and follow up on it later, it's just normal to quote the original content and then add "got it" or "didn't make it" to it (in a figuratively sense).
Argh, this is a hard and strong topic.
I still consider myself very new to hive and will do so until I reach the one year mark (that definition is set by myself for myself, others might have a different view on that, I'm sure).
But one of the first things I learned (because every newbie guide stronglines it) is that this topic can make or break you (that phrase might even be a quote, I'm not sure where I got it from).
Yes yes, you totally nailed it. You have buttressed the point even further.
Of course, you could build on something you have done before. But it has to be something that adds to it, and not republishing the same content.
Your example totally hits it bullseye.
I really appreciate this contrubution. I just sent some Ecency points your way.
Cross-posting is not pulling content from 3 years ago and reposting. Cross-posting is taking content I've done here and posting it to another platform or my own blog. Or vice versa.
If I did go to a post I did in the past, I would always go through it, revise and update it. That's not recycling content, that's repurposing it is something all good writers do to keep their content fresh and relevant.
It should only happen with evergreen content, which is content that remains true and of value for a long period of time. Since we're always learning; revising, updating and adding to it makes it a new piece. It shares more with the reader than the original. I don't mean a sentence or two, something meaningful.
You'll also find your style of writing will evolve over time. It's a good test of your work to go back to your earlier work and read it through, If you don't find yourself cringing at some of your ways of writing, you might want to take a closer look at what writing habits you're into.
Oh yes, cross-posting is very much different.
The essence of having to repost content should be to add to it. We change every day. And so does our perspective on matters. So it is perfectly normal to have a different view of a situation and have new opinions about it. In this case, it is not "self-plagiarism."
And like you have described, our writing style changes over time. When one goes back to their work in the past, one will find that they have changed drastically. One should change with time, but if one does not find significant change in one's writing, there most certainly is a problem. And that problem would be that one has not grown with the time that has passed.
I really appreciate your contrubution and enlightenment.