Years on Popular Favorites March 29, 2012 5:03 AM Subscribe
Tiny pony: I noticed that the classic What single book is the best introduction to your field AskMe from 2007 has been rediscovered and is showing up in the Popular Favorites list, but without a year associated with its date. Can threads older than a year in that list show a full date so it's easier to see when posts are redescovered?
I would feed this pony a nice shiny apple.
posted by arcticseal at 5:33 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by arcticseal at 5:33 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
Or just show the full date everywhere. I hate it when sites omit the year.
posted by ryanrs at 5:24 AM on March 29, 2012
Seconded.
posted by unliteral at 5:35 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 5:24 AM on March 29, 2012
Seconded.
posted by unliteral at 5:35 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
Wouldn't it be easier to just delete everything more than a year old?
posted by Meatbomb at 5:37 AM on March 29, 2012
posted by Meatbomb at 5:37 AM on March 29, 2012
Thirded. Motion carries.
Meatbomb: Accounts too? 'Cause then we could go annual suscription and everyone could be a $5 n00b.
posted by zarq at 5:51 AM on March 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
Meatbomb: Accounts too? 'Cause then we could go annual suscription and everyone could be a $5 n00b.
posted by zarq at 5:51 AM on March 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
Accounts too? 'Cause then we could go annual subscription.
posted by zarq at 5:51 AM on March 29, 2012
Seconded.
posted by unliteral at 6:21 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 5:51 AM on March 29, 2012
Seconded.
posted by unliteral at 6:21 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
(anti-eponysterical?)
posted by crunchland at 6:22 AM on March 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by crunchland at 6:22 AM on March 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
Thirded, motion carries, all accounts over one year old will be closed on completion of this meeting. Any other business?
posted by Meatbomb at 6:43 AM on March 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 6:43 AM on March 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
I too have often wished that all timestamps showed the full date.
posted by Scientist at 6:48 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Scientist at 6:48 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
(Maybe it could be an option?)
posted by Scientist at 7:17 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Scientist at 7:17 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
(Maybe it could be an option?)
posted by Scientist at 7:17 AM on March 29, 2012 or thereabouts
Seconded.
posted by unliteral at 7:22 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Scientist at 7:17 AM on March 29, 2012 or thereabouts
Seconded.
posted by unliteral at 7:22 AM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
ok, this is all set on the Popular page. The date will show the year if it's not the current year. We already do this just about everywhere else. If you visit an old thread for example, you'll see the year listed if it's not the current year.
Yeah, we can consider adding the year everywhere. Space is always an issue—especially with people's newfangled small screen gadgetry, and most posts only accept comments for a limited time. So with a conversation that is active the year is going to be implicit information. We don't necessarily need to spell it out. In places where that's not necessarily the case—such as Music where threads stay open forever—we show the year if the comment wasn't made in the current year just like we do with older threads.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:11 AM on March 29, 2012 [3 favorites]
Yeah, we can consider adding the year everywhere. Space is always an issue—especially with people's newfangled small screen gadgetry, and most posts only accept comments for a limited time. So with a conversation that is active the year is going to be implicit information. We don't necessarily need to spell it out. In places where that's not necessarily the case—such as Music where threads stay open forever—we show the year if the comment wasn't made in the current year just like we do with older threads.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:11 AM on March 29, 2012 [3 favorites]
Good enough for me. I still think it would be extra great if there were an "Always Show Year" option in the preferences, maybe tucked in near the time offset and time format options. The current behavior could remain the default. But I realize that this is probably just my OCD talking and that it might not be worth the bother of implementing that feature. Still, I'm not sure if I see a long-term downside to having that option.
posted by Scientist at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2012
posted by Scientist at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2012
Still, I'm not sure if I see a long-term downside to having that option.
We're always very hesitant to add things to preferences that aren't absolutely necessary. Making every possible thing a preference is also a kind of hostility to users. That's often the easiest solution to problems and conflicts, but we don't want Preferences to turn into a flight control board that requires a manual to use. In order to keep that from happening we need to be able to make some reasonable decisions about how certain site features will function for everyone.
In some cases Greasemonkey scripts can work around those types of decisions if it's a few people who are inconvenienced. In other cases, MetaTalk conversations can lead to changing them. And sometimes a profile preference is the result. But we don't automatically go to a Profile preference as an option whenever there's a disagreement.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2012
We're always very hesitant to add things to preferences that aren't absolutely necessary. Making every possible thing a preference is also a kind of hostility to users. That's often the easiest solution to problems and conflicts, but we don't want Preferences to turn into a flight control board that requires a manual to use. In order to keep that from happening we need to be able to make some reasonable decisions about how certain site features will function for everyone.
In some cases Greasemonkey scripts can work around those types of decisions if it's a few people who are inconvenienced. In other cases, MetaTalk conversations can lead to changing them. And sometimes a profile preference is the result. But we don't automatically go to a Profile preference as an option whenever there's a disagreement.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2012
Dammit, I said meeting adjourned!
*bangs gavel*
*realizes gavel has been replaced with a banana*
*sulks off*
posted by gwint at 9:16 AM on March 29, 2012 [4 favorites]
*bangs gavel*
*realizes gavel has been replaced with a banana*
*sulks off*
posted by gwint at 9:16 AM on March 29, 2012 [4 favorites]
I'm not really disagreeing, I feel like in the grand scheme of things it's a pretty trivial issue and "disagreement" would be too strong a word for the situation. I'm just kind of tossing out my thoughts on the matter -- in no way will I be put out if my idea doesn't come to fruition, as it looks like it won't. I think it would be nice if it did, but I realize that "Scientist thinks it would be nice" is not really a significant factor in the decision-making process over in Modland and I'm OK with that.
Your explanation makes total sense as well and I was actually already musing along those lines except that I was couching it in terms of evolutionary biology and conceptualizing the new feature as a small mutation of unknown fitness value which, while doing something ostensibly useful, may in fact have a small net fitness cost in terms of slightly increasing the degree of user confusion on the site. In such a situation, it is expected for the mutation to eventually be lost from the population -- or, in a designed system like Metafilter, to not be implemented in the first place.
I'm not sure this would actually be the case in reality, but when I think about how the next step would be to implement the feature provisionally and then do an assessment in a month's time to see if any change in overall site fitness (so-to-speak) could be detected, it quickly becomes obvious why you'd want to give this one a pass.
Anyway, carry on. MetaFilter is not my personal social experiment, and I will go back to writing up that lab report I'm supposed to be working on.
posted by Scientist at 10:07 AM on March 29, 2012
Your explanation makes total sense as well and I was actually already musing along those lines except that I was couching it in terms of evolutionary biology and conceptualizing the new feature as a small mutation of unknown fitness value which, while doing something ostensibly useful, may in fact have a small net fitness cost in terms of slightly increasing the degree of user confusion on the site. In such a situation, it is expected for the mutation to eventually be lost from the population -- or, in a designed system like Metafilter, to not be implemented in the first place.
I'm not sure this would actually be the case in reality, but when I think about how the next step would be to implement the feature provisionally and then do an assessment in a month's time to see if any change in overall site fitness (so-to-speak) could be detected, it quickly becomes obvious why you'd want to give this one a pass.
Anyway, carry on. MetaFilter is not my personal social experiment, and I will go back to writing up that lab report I'm supposed to be working on.
posted by Scientist at 10:07 AM on March 29, 2012
MetaFilter is not my personal social experiment,
You're noy going to raise a lot of grant money with an attitude like that.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:08 AM on March 29, 2012
You're noy going to raise a lot of grant money with an attitude like that.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:08 AM on March 29, 2012
Hey, who squished my banana?
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:48 PM on March 29, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:48 PM on March 29, 2012 [3 favorites]
You know, time flies like an arrow... ah nevermind.
posted by gwint at 1:05 PM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by gwint at 1:05 PM on March 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
You don't need no stinking banana. Ponies like apples.
posted by mightshould at 2:34 PM on March 29, 2012
posted by mightshould at 2:34 PM on March 29, 2012
mightshould: "Ponies like apples."
Oh boy, DO THEY! (NSFW)
posted by radwolf76 at 2:51 PM on March 29, 2012
Oh boy, DO THEY! (NSFW)
posted by radwolf76 at 2:51 PM on March 29, 2012
If every timestamp isn't displayed in UNIX format, I swear I'll cry until all of you are so embarrassed that you brought me to this Denny's tonight that you'll want to leave, Eggs Over My Hammy be damned.
posted by koeselitz at 9:50 PM on March 30, 2012
posted by koeselitz at 9:50 PM on March 30, 2012
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by ryanrs at 5:24 AM on March 29, 2012 [3 favorites]