Add Years to Posting Info

June 6, 2006 7:27 AM

Pony: Year included in the posted by line. With the year a posting was made appearing only once at the top of the page browsing the archives can be confusing. [MI]

For example how about changing the posted by line to:
posted by Mitheral at 7:38 PM MST on 2006/06/04 [+fave] [!]
or:
posted by Mitheral at 2006/06/04 7:38 PM MST [+fave] [!]

Neither of those is longer than the worst case of :
posted by Mitheral at 5:58 AM MST on September 30 [+fave] [!]
posted by Mitheral to Feature Requests at 7:27 AM (48 comments total)

*immediately proposes greasemonkey script*

Actually, I sympathize a great deal—but this would, so far as I can tell, only affect reading certain portions of the archives where folks showed up long after the thread had been posted. That ended when Matt started letting threads close automatically, and I haven't so far come across a years-long conversation that needed year-stamps to make sense.

And I rather like the look of "Septemeber 30" &c.

Someone could seriously write up a greasemonkey script, however, that would give you a year based on the commentid, which would aid archive divers. Someone gets to spend a half hour figuring out where the "year breaks" are for mefi, meta, and ask, and the job is pretty much done.
posted by cortex at 7:34 AM on June 6, 2006

I hadn't thought about the comments from several years thing. I was thinking about when you follow a link to a comment 3/4s of the way down some thread and you don't have any indication whether the comment is from 2002 or last week.
posted by Mitheral at 7:37 AM on June 6, 2006

I'm with Mitheral on this one. I've been frustrated in the archives several times for the lack of a year on posts.
posted by frykitty at 7:45 AM on June 6, 2006

I was thinking about when you follow a link to a comment 3/4s of the way down some thread and you don't have any indication whether the comment is from 2002 or last week.

Ah so. That angle didn't occur to me—I'm one of those zip-to-the-top-and-back people.

(Which, btw: if you click the browser's scrollbar, pull it hard to the top, read the date, and then while still holding the mouse button down pull the mouse well to the side of the scrollbar area, the browser will snap back down to where you started. Kluge!)
posted by cortex at 7:52 AM on June 6, 2006

That is the most visually confusing Meta post ever.
posted by smackfu at 8:23 AM on June 6, 2006

Also note, the full month should probably be kept in the date format (I am always getting confused between d/m/y and m/d/y - for the first 12 days of the month it is always ambiguous).
posted by antifuse at 8:23 AM on June 6, 2006

I think that the year should be shown ONLY if it's not the current one. eg: May 26 for something posted last month, and 11 April 2005 for something last year.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:25 AM on June 6, 2006

I find the lack of years in comments a bit confusing too at times, but don't think it is necessary for Matt to make a change.

What I do find bothersome is the frequent "write a greasemonkey script" replies that come from pony requests. And kluges that are Firefox-specifc ;)
posted by terrapin at 8:28 AM on June 6, 2006

I agree with the idea. That has bugged me as well.
posted by delmoi at 8:29 AM on June 6, 2006

Also note, the full month should probably be kept in the date format.

Agreed. Any other solution ends up confusing half the people half the time.
posted by smackfu at 8:44 AM on June 6, 2006

(Short months work OK though. Jan/Feb/Mar etc.)
posted by smackfu at 8:44 AM on June 6, 2006

smackfu writes "That is the most visually confusing Meta post ever"

Yes my more inside, wasn't.
posted by Mitheral at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2006

To eliminate all ambiguity, timestamps should really be provided in seconds from the Unix epoch.
posted by Galvatron at 8:54 AM on June 6, 2006

And kluges that are Firefox-specifc

Works in IE, beeotch!

*performs kungfu*
posted by cortex at 8:55 AM on June 6, 2006

The year is at the top of every thread. There's no problem to be solved, here.

On the other hand, after the past couple of days in MeTa, I'm coming around to Matt's proposal to require admin approval of new threads. People are waaaaaaaay too quick on the trigger, lately.
posted by cribcage at 9:03 AM on June 6, 2006

I agree too.

What I do find bothersome is the frequent "write a greasemonkey script" replies that come from pony requests.

Me too.

The year is at the top of every thread. There's no problem to be solved, here.

You have no idea what we're talking about, do you?
posted by languagehat at 9:15 AM on June 6, 2006

IE? No IE on my mac, dude.

(oh, and update meficomp.com, beeotch! ;))
posted by terrapin at 9:16 AM on June 6, 2006

cribcage writes "On the other hand, after the past couple of days in MeTa, I'm coming around to Matt's proposal to require admin approval of new threads. People are waaaaaaaay too quick on the trigger, lately."

I've been waiting on this post for a week. Where did Matt propose to premoderate Meta threads?
posted by Mitheral at 9:30 AM on June 6, 2006

I'm with you Mitheral - it's only a tiny problem, but presumably would be quite simple to fix?
posted by jack_mo at 9:40 AM on June 6, 2006

I can add the year on posts >30 days old. So basically every archived thread will get a year.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:58 AM on June 6, 2006

Sounds good.
posted by Mitheral at 10:12 AM on June 6, 2006

You have no idea what we're talking about, do you?

This isn't the mushroom thread?

I'll repeat: The year is at the top of every thread.

Where did Matt propose to premoderate Meta threads?

I don't bookmark his comments. But he did.
posted by cribcage at 10:58 AM on June 6, 2006

Just make it "2006.06.04.19.38 MST." Anything else is weakness.
posted by Eideteker at 11:01 AM on June 6, 2006

cortex, that kludge is awesome
posted by exogenous at 11:34 AM on June 6, 2006

My first choice was 2006-06-05T13:40:38 UTC but I thought the UTC part might throw people.
posted by Mitheral at 11:42 AM on June 6, 2006

posted by Mitheral at 2006/06/04 7:38 PM MST

The problem is that in part of the world 06/04 means June 4th, and in another part it means April 6th.

I find the lack of years in comments a bit confusing too at times, but don't think it is necessary for Matt to make a change.

I mostly agree with terrapin here. On the other hand, presumably MeFi will go on forever, and the annoyance will get worse and worse.

Perhaps we should start thinking about MeFi's potential Y3K catastrophe.
posted by LeLiLo at 11:58 AM on June 6, 2006

Couldn't we just add this into the preferences page? We already have different time zones, so adding in a date format should be fairly straight forward, no? This way the whole dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy thing doesn't get confusing.
posted by TheDonF at 4:09 PM on June 6, 2006

2006/06/04 always means 4 June 2006. 04/06/2006 can be read either way.

I too have fallen foul of this while mining the archives and, while I am innordinately pleased to find out about the scrollbar trick, this seems like a simple solution for a problem that affects more than a couple of people.
posted by dg at 5:12 PM on June 6, 2006

this seems like a simple solution for a problem that affects more than a couple of people

On the contrary. It seems like an unnecessary solution for a problem that affects retards. The date is stamped in large font at the top of every page. But that's apparently too difficult to find, and y'all need the year littered redundantly on each and every comment...because...why?

Threads close after what, 30 days? Here's a comment posted in January. "But...the top of the thread says December!! I'M CONFUSED!!!!" Yeah. Detective skills required.
posted by cribcage at 11:30 AM on June 7, 2006

You're sure in a bad mood today.
posted by smackfu at 11:38 AM on June 7, 2006

Y'know, first languagehat fired his pissy little reply, and now smackfu comments on my mood. Did either of you actually have a rebuttal, some explanation as to why you think I'm wrong?
posted by cribcage at 11:53 AM on June 7, 2006

cribcage, while I agree with you that finding the date is a simple matter in most cases, I also see merit in the argument that a person should not have to jump to the top of a (potentially very long) page to figure it out.

So, while it's not a dire issue, and it can be kluged around quickly and easily in most cases, it's not the sort of request that merits declaring people retards. That's what you're wrong about, and you're being a jerk.
posted by cortex at 12:02 PM on June 7, 2006

Plus you went into the Spreadsheets invite thread just to bitch.
posted by smackfu at 12:27 PM on June 7, 2006

I also see merit in the argument that a person should not have to jump to the top of a (potentially very long) page to figure it out.

If we were talking about discussion forums which break threads across a variety of pages, and the problem was having to click from Page 5 over to Page 1 (and waiting for each page to load) in order to read the date, then yes, I would agree. But the information you're talking about is already on the page you're looking at.

Alternatively, if we were talking about information you needed repeatedly, I'd also agree. For instance, if you had to scroll to the top of the page after reading each comment, that would be worth fixing. But doesn't once suffice, here? Do you really find yourself forgetting which year you're reading, in the middle of a thread? Do you need it plastered onto every comment?

You're asking for a software solution to solve a nonexistent problem, a problem that is entirely attributable to laziness. Yeah, that's absolutely retarded. And in the process, you're fucking up the page by adding absurdly redundant information to it. Did you happen to notice the recent thread where people were raving about MetaFilter's look? That's because MetaFilter looks clean, because it isn't littered with random text.

smackfu: So your answer is, No. You don't have a rebuttal. You don't have anything substantive to argue. You just wanted to..."bitch." How ironic.
posted by cribcage at 12:32 PM on June 7, 2006

But the information you're talking about is already on the page you're looking at.

Yes, but it's not at the point in the page where that information should, logically, actually be.

We agree on the subject of druthers—I'm not asking for any such solution, I'm not really in favor of it, and I'm conservative about featurecreep in general—but there's no legitimate UI beef with having the year in the datestamp. There's liking it or not liking. Expecting a year to appear in a date is not "absolutely retarded" or "laziness", and adding four digits to the datestamp is hardly the sort of change that will render MetaFilter's otherwise clean look as being "littered with random text".

You are being a jerk.
posted by cortex at 12:45 PM on June 7, 2006

adding four digits to the datestamp is hardly the sort of change that will render MetaFilter's otherwise clean look as being "littered with random text".

First it was [!].

Next came [+fave].

Now you (people) want to add a comma and four digits.

None of these things, individually, create the appearance of "littering the page with random text." But collectively? Yeah. Enough already. What's next, avatars?

You are being a jerk.

Agreed. Although I'd add that, while you can argue about whether it's warranted to call someone a jerk once, posting it repeatedly kinda makes you a hypocrite.
posted by cribcage at 1:00 PM on June 7, 2006

We're a far cry from avatars, sigs, etc. If you feel otherwise, and particularly that the year thing would be a camelback-breaker, that's the dividing line between our respective tastes, which, again, seem otherwise in line on the subject. So be it.

I mentioned again that you were being a jerk because you seemed to be persisting at it, without acknowledging it, in a way that was central to your argument. I didn't once say you are a jerk; I have no idea if that's true or not, and I'm giving you the the benefit of the doubt there.

So I don't see the hypocrisy. If you want to call me a hypocrite for being consistent, knock yourself out.
posted by cortex at 1:07 PM on June 7, 2006

Well, Matt can always drop the timestamp to make it less cluttered. Since it's your local time zone, it's a bit redundant to show it 40 times on the page. It could just say "all times are in EST" at the top.
posted by smackfu at 1:09 PM on June 7, 2006

Drop the timezone not the timestamp. oops.
posted by smackfu at 1:09 PM on June 7, 2006

If you feel...that the year thing would be a camelback-breaker, that's the dividing line between our respective tastes...

Apparently so. We'll agree to disagree, et cetera.
posted by cribcage at 1:13 PM on June 7, 2006

Apparently so. We'll agree to disagree, et cetera.

Righto. *highfive*
posted by cortex at 1:22 PM on June 7, 2006

You should get that stick out of your ass, cribcage; I'm sure it hurts.

This is a small change I've always wanted. Granted, there are other ways to know the year that one particular comment was written in, but having it in the timestamp would not render it unreadable or make it too cluttered and it would help many of us who follow links to old comments without knowing if they're from a month or five years ago, especially Metatalk comments from Matt.

So far I haven't seen a good reason not to implement this, and i particularly like Matt's idea to have it only on archived threads, so people who do not read the archives do not have to see it.
posted by Penks at 2:57 PM on June 7, 2006

Sorry cribcage, I did not intend to post the first sentence of my previous comment. It was overly aggressive and I apologize for posting it.
posted by Penks at 2:58 PM on June 7, 2006

cribcage writes "Do you really find yourself forgetting which year you're reading, in the middle of a thread? Do you need it plastered onto every comment?"

cribcage I think you are missing the point of this feature request, either on purpose or because it is zooming over your head.

Let's say in 2008 in a metafilter thread I link to Ryvar's comment on editable comments. Quick what year was that comment posted in? Have fun scrolling.

But even that isn't the reason for this feature request which Matt has promised to grant. The real reason is that sometimes I find I don't realise a followed comment link is three or four years old. A concern that will only become more likely as the archives grow. I think Matt's solution is perfect, no year in open threads, year in closed threads. It's still a bit disconcerning to realise you've posted in a seven month old AskMe thread that you though was still current.

cribcage writes "Now you (people) want to add a comma and four digits."

My proposed formating takes up less space than the worst case used currently.
posted by Mitheral at 12:19 PM on June 8, 2006

Quick what year was that comment posted in? Have fun scrolling.

I didn't have to scroll. That page took at least 20 seconds to load — and since the browser doesn't jump to #comment until the page has finished loading, I spent 20 seconds looking at "November 12, 2005." No problem to be solved.

The real reason is that sometimes I find I don't realise a followed comment link is three or four years old.

Part of your objection is with whoever posted the link. If you want to complain about people trying to be clever with hyperlinks instead of being clear, I'm with you. But you don't solve that by helping them to be chuckleheads. You solve it by saying, "Hey, chuckleheads. Knock it off."

My proposed formating takes up less space than the worst case used currently.

Your proposed formats substitute digits for words. This is less clear, both because it's less intuitive and because, as others have pointed out, there's no dominant convention to determine whether 04/04 refers to Month/Day or Day/Month. The only way to implement your suggestion without sacrificing clarity is to switch from "November 12" to "November 12, 2005." (Hence, a comma and four digits.)
posted by cribcage at 11:38 PM on June 8, 2006

This is less clear, both because it's less intuitive and because, as others have pointed out, there's no dominant convention to determine whether 04/04 refers to Month/Day or Day/Month

Technically, it's the same either way for that example. :)
posted by antifuse at 3:21 AM on June 9, 2006

cribcage writes "That page took at least 20 seconds to load"

What, you don't have the mushroom thread in your cache?

cribcage writes "Part of your objection is with whoever posted the link. If you want to complain about people trying to be clever with hyperlinks instead of being clear, I'm with you."

People aren't trying to be clever, they are just referencing things that happened previously on MetaFilter.

cribcage writes "there's no dominant convention to determine whether 04/04 refers to Month/Day or Day/Month."

By themselves yes, when proceeded by a year the middle 04 is the month and the end 04 is the day. Even Microsoft the great regional ass kisser doesn't give YYYY/DD/MM as a valid date display option (at least not on English language systems). YYYY-MM-DD is also the ISO standard.
posted by Mitheral at 7:37 AM on June 9, 2006

This bookmarklet should show you the date of the current thread when you click on it. It doesn't work in MetaTalk because I'm lazy.

javascript:void(spans=document.getElementsByTagName('span'));for(i=0;i<spans.length;i++){ if(spans[i].class='smallcopy') { alert(spans[i].innerHTML); break; } };
posted by smackfu at 8:00 AM on June 9, 2006