Anyway to see to the exact second a post was submitted? August 19, 2006 8:44 PM   Subscribe

Just Curious Filter: Is there anyway to see to the exact second when a post was submitted? Extopalopaketle and I made similar posts about the San Francisco zombie mob within the same minute.
posted by Brandon Blatcher to Bugs at 8:44 PM (24 comments total)

Oh yeah, didn't mean to post this in bugs. Oops.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:44 PM on August 19, 2006


Not this one. Yawn.
posted by homunculus at 8:58 PM on August 19, 2006


select * from posts where id = 54052
union all
select * from posts where id = 54051

posted by blue_beetle at 9:06 PM on August 19, 2006


Out of tangential curiousity, is there some reason that query is superior to

select * from posts where id = 54052 or id = 54051
posted by gsteff at 9:11 PM on August 19, 2006


I think meeting at dawn, with broadswords, is the only way to settle this.
posted by marxchivist at 9:12 PM on August 19, 2006


christ, i'm really going to start using spellchek
posted by gsteff at 9:14 PM on August 19, 2006


Oh come on! What? The one who was posted a few seconds before the other gets to stay and the other one gets deleted? This is just getting absurd. What's it gonna hurt to leave them both up?
posted by ZachsMind at 9:21 PM on August 19, 2006


gsteff: Out of tangential curiousity, is there some reason that query is superior to..

Nah, I was just pretending they're different, yet the same.
also works:
select * from posts where id in (54052, 54051)
or even
select * from posts where id > 54050 and id < 54053br>

posted by blue_beetle at 9:22 PM on August 19, 2006


Lets see. You have three hyperlinks, two to the same link and one to the Metafilter post about it from a year ago.

You lose.
posted by geekyguy at 9:30 PM on August 19, 2006


You have three hyperlinks, two to the same link

Totally missed that, probably due to a bottle of wine.


You lose.

Not according to the bottle of wine.


So I assume it's not possible to know?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:48 PM on August 19, 2006


According to the RSS feed, Extopalopaketle's was posted at "Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:05:13 -0800", but since the other post has been deleted, I can't get the date of it, and I can't find a site that has a cached copy (eg Feedster, Tehnorati) that'll pass through the date.
posted by cillit bang at 5:21 AM on August 20, 2006


Ah, rss feeds. Thank you!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:03 AM on August 20, 2006


Oh come on!

Calm down, Zach. Splitting the discussion between two threads is supremely stupid. Go back to being outraged over the spooge that ate that monkey.
posted by mediareport at 7:30 AM on August 20, 2006


The one who was posted a few seconds before the other gets to stay and the other one gets deleted?

Getting to stay is not a prize, and getting deleted is not punishment. It's just keeping the site more manageable.

What's it gonna hurt to leave them both up?

The ability to carry on a coherent discussion around the topic.
posted by scottreynen at 7:42 AM on August 20, 2006 [1 favorite]


ZachsMind writes "This is just getting absurd. What's it gonna hurt to leave them both up?"

You're kidding right? This happens a lot with news filter (we've even had three posts in the same minute a couple of times) and Matt always deletes the latecomers. Even when the latecomers have a substanially better post (which isn't the case this time). As mediareport says leaving both up just splits the disscusion. If Brandon Blatcher is really tore up about this he can just post his post as a comment in the first thread.
posted by Mitheral at 7:47 AM on August 20, 2006


ZachsMind is also bitching and moaning about "policing" of doubles in this thread. Dude, find another cause. This one is dumb.
posted by languagehat at 9:40 AM on August 20, 2006


I got no problem with my post being deleted (hell, I doubleposted in my own post), I just wanted to know how close we came in seconds.

What might be useful in this situatioins is for the to the posts to be merged, ie. the first post appears first, while the second post appears under it IF matt and jess thinks there are enough useful links in the second post that weren't in the first post.

While not the case in this instance, it would be disservice to have other similar, but informative and/or useful posts thrown out because they were "late". Yeah, they could post it in the comments of the first post, but why should people have to repost the same material?

What if there's a third or fourth similar post? Still merge if they're useful, but stick'em in a sidebar within the post, say under the tags sidebar. Or maybe all subsequent posts should be stuck in said sidebar.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:47 AM on August 20, 2006


Goddamn it. I can't believe I missed another zombie mob!
posted by brundlefly at 12:06 PM on August 20, 2006


I can just see you chasing it around with your cameras and greeen screens, brundlefly.
posted by scarabic at 3:18 PM on August 20, 2006


My rss cache says:

Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:05:13 -0800
Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:05:50 -0800

..so there you go.
posted by team lowkey at 6:14 PM on August 20, 2006


NEVER stop to look for wine glasses in the middle of posting.

THANK YOU.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:46 PM on August 20, 2006


scarabic writes "I can just see you chasing it around with your cameras and greeen screens, brundlefly."

When you have the real thing on your hands, there's no reason for green screen. I'm surprised that nobody's taken advantage of one of these zombie flash mobs to make an honest to god zombie flick. Who needs extras?

Perhaps I shouldn't post this. I claim first dibs!
posted by brundlefly at 2:44 AM on August 21, 2006


I guess if your flick is set in a San Francisco bar, you're golden :)
posted by scarabic at 10:34 PM on August 22, 2006


Yeah. SF bars and the Apple store.
posted by brundlefly at 2:10 AM on August 23, 2006


« Older I would like to have the option of flagging posts...   |   Congratulations, AskMe. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments