[lucb1e]

> I tend to think the real problem is the overly strict conception of duplicate.

I see where you're coming from, but having identical questions exist alongside each other just because their dates are different does not help those who follow a link to the older question. A new mechanism to indicate different versions would have to be added for this not to be confusing, if this is the solution we want to go with.

[jrumbut]

The idea is that soft obsolete/duplicate is used to make one side of the link more visible and the other side less visible. It definitely requires the addition of a new mechanism, or at least an adaptation of existing mechanisms.

When you search how to solve the hypothetical JavaScript problem I mentioned, the classic highly upvoted jQuery version of the question is up top, but if you can't see how that addresses your issue you can keep digging (or keep asking) for a version that makes sense to you.

Spammy, low effort, almost character for character duplicates can still be removed. I certainly acknowledge that the line is not always easy to define, but I think giving the reader what they probably want fast and then letting them sort through the long tail if needed is the approach better suited to programmer Q&A where the ability/background range is huge and database searching skills are above average.