@justbecuz
The plugin has a setting that if enabled, will collapse identical footnotes. But that does not work because the referrers of all repeated footnotes have dead links, as the algorithm falls short of generating individual footnote numbers. It just appends the figures but does not add the related fragment identifiers nor the backlinks.
That said, I don’t advise to repeat footnotes without added value. Publishing on the web is somewhat different from publishing for print, because it has no space constraints, and it needs interactivity. If footnotes don’t keep incrementing, we end up with a system were we can see that the footnote is the same, but if the referrers are not disambiguated by a small letter, we have little clues as of what small letter to click in the footnotes list to get back exactly where we left off.
On the web, to re-use exactly identical footnotes or named footnotes makes for a suboptimal user experience. In academic papers, after a full citation, next instances resort to author-date shorthands and add precise page numbers, since the cited papers are often rather long, so we welcome to not have to read the whole paper when lacking time.
Your visitors will thank you for adding an interesting detail to each instance, such as a precise page number or a small quotation.
When supposed to actually look up the cited source, readers are valued, even when lacking time to proceed.
Please take it just as a piece of advice. Independently of the bug, when using the Footnotes plugin, I always carefully avoided to turn combined footnotes on, because we know from elsewhere that for the web, combined footnotes are basically a non-starter.
However, given there is a demand, we are committed to meet it. Unfortunately I cannot tell if there will be a fix. Sorry for that.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by
pewgeuges.