Time stamp again

I'm wondering if we could revisit the time stamp issue, now that we've experienced it both ways? I know I voted for the "ago" option when UT originally polled about this, but I've since come to hate it. Anyone else?

Time/date vs. ago - which do you prefer?

i hated the ago right away. still do. it sucks.

cock.

Although ago don't annoy me, I liked the time and date better.

capnhowdy wrote:

Although ago don't annoy me, I liked the time and date better.

ditto

Ago is all right, but I admit to being nostalgic about the actual dating.

It's been a day of polling, but I'd like the Monday folks to weigh in.

I prefer the date & time system to the ago system simply because it's more convenient for establishing, by date association, the time lapse between when someone posts a message and any dated material (e.g. newspaper, magazine, and web page articles ... etc.) that may be quoted from or linked to in the message. It's more convenient and more accurate for determining the dates of posts and time intervals between posts that are 1-4 weeks old should precisely dating those posts (i.e. information therein) become important for any reason. Otherwise, there isn't much difference between the two systems; unless, I forget to take my Ginkgo and the ago system gets me all confuzzled ... (oops, missed another dose). :blush:

I like the date and time system better, too. If I was on at 4 a.m. on Monday morning, dammit, I want people to know!

I dunno.
What is ago?

I like to scroll through and look for "minutes ago" threads.

I've always hated the "ago" stamp. Date and time are so much more helpful.

fwiw, the time and date are still viewable in the advanced editor window.

btw, ago should go, and please reinstate time and date.

Thanks in advance.

This may be a "grass is greener" situation, but I've changed the timestamp back.

Obviously the masses have spoken, but I personally find it suddenly impossible to navigate the site. Now I'll need to take notes and keep a calculator handy in order to simply determine if a thread has moved or not.

yay!

shut up, flint.

Undertoad wrote:

This may be a "grass is greener" situation, but I've changed the timestamp back.

Thank you!

I assume it isnt, but I figure I'll ask... is it possible to make it so users can set which they prefer in their settings? Cause I personally can't stand these timestamps. I liked the ago better because if i havent checked the cellar in, say, two hours, i can scroll down till i see numbers less than 2 hours.

I'm totally with Flint on this one.

Nope, this is a site-wide setting.

Again, the numbers don't lie, people obviously prefer the timestamp. But, I can't imagine why. To me, it is incredibly inconvenient and it doesn't add anything. It makes the site harder to navigate, less enjoyable.

Hip hip Hooray! Timestamps are back!!

Long live the Timestamps!!

Curious: what do they do "better" ???

Ibram wrote:

I assume it isnt, but I figure I'll ask... is it possible to make it so users can set which they prefer in their settings? Cause I personally can't stand these timestamps. I liked the ago better because if i havent checked the cellar in, say, two hours, i can scroll down till i see numbers less than 2 hours.

I'm totally with Flint on this one.

buy a watch. : poke :

Thanks for the timestamps, UT!!!

BigV wrote:

Thanks for the timestamps, UT!!!

:::raises hand::: Why? "Thanks" why?

Flint wrote:

Obviously the masses have spoken, but I personally find it suddenly impossible to navigate the site. Now I'll need to take notes and keep a calculator handy in order to simply determine if a thread has moved or not.

That's what the "new posts" button is for.

:::stamps feet::: but I don't wanna use the "new posts" button!

But seriously, what exactly do the timestamps "do" other than make the home page of the site harder to read? Is it that you want to compare posts versus known dates when newspapers were published? Do they, in some way, add substantive data to the post that the reader utilizes in order to . . . in order to do what? I don't get it.

I mean, I'm sorry, but this isn't the only website I frequent. I want your home page to make the status of things clear to me, without "investigation."

It is only "investigation" if you are not oriented to time.

You want things your way? Go back to AG.

Good one.

"Is this the right room for an argument?"

:::ahem::: Substantive discussion...anybody?

Woohoo!
I'd like to thank the acade... I mean UT.
:D

Thanks, UT.

It is what I have become accustomed to over the years.

Flint, if you're adamant about not using the New Posts button, the icons on the left hand side of each thread title will tell you if a thread has unread posts or not. The colorful icon indicates new posts.

Flint, Ibram;

If the name under "last Post" at the right of the thread ain't yours, someone has posted since you did.

If the envelope is open to the left of the thread and the thread title is in bold type, then someone has posted since your last log in.

Wolf mentioned the magic button.

What's the problem? :confused:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
[COLOR="Red"]07-31-2006 11:53 PM[/COLOR]
... What's the problem? :confused:

You know how that goes xoB. They're concerned that if they let us do the soft stuff, like your date/time stamp, it will lead us to doing harder stuff like International Date/Time Groups [[COLOR="red"]312353RJUL06[/COLOR]] and Julian Dates [[COLOR="red"]2453948.49514[/COLOR]]. They just know that they'll have to watch us hit rock bottom (when we start using Star Dates and all become Trekkies) before they will be able to save us through some 12 step recovery program that leads us back to the AGO system.

Squares. :crazy:

the problem I have is once I go into the thread that I can easily tell has new posts... before the swich, I just scrolled down till the numbers were sooner than the last time i checked... now I actually have to look at my clock, figure out what time I was last on, and scan the end of the timestamp, instead of looking at the very first number on the stamp.

Ah, I see how you were operating. The "view first unread" button will put in in the right place.

Griff nailed it.
If the envelope is open to the left of the thread and the thread title is in bold type, there will be a check mark to the left of the thread title.
Clicking that check mark will take you to the first comment in the thread you haven't read yet.

How do it know!?!
vBulletin Version 3.5.4, knows all, so always wear clean underwear..... Bwahahahahaha..... :ninja:
.....Uh...you're shoe's untied.



NoBoxes....:thumbsup:

@All: Thanks for your suggestions.

Now, just humor me: Why do you prefer the timestamp? What does it do?

Thank you in advance for your answers. I'm not asking a rhetorical question here.

It's simply more precise, and it really comes into play after a day or so. The "hours ago" feature would simply say "one day ago." It wouldn't tell you what time of day.

If there were two similar threads with common themes, and some crossover, you could compare times that posts were made. With the "ago" feature you would only know they were made the same day. That happens not infrequently.

In the association thread, days after the fact, you might see a post griping that they had to change their answer because two people responded to a post at the same time. With the time date stamp, you can see if they really were close in time instead of just occuring on the same day.

It's more information.

I'm SO confused!

Once I figured out what "ago" was, I thought perhaps I would prefer it. So far, I still do (count me in the 17%) but that may be because it's what I'm used to. But, for example, Brianna posted after me but I had forgotten my post because hers was timed at 8 something AM and it is already 9 something AM here...I guess if you don't post a lot you don't have to keep track so much. I think I need to learn more of the features!

This is difficult for those of us who have a certain tendency towards what I call "time/space/direction dyslexia!":D

glatt wrote:

It's more information.

So, the timestamp adds meta-data to the post. For dispute resolution and to prevent the reader from getting confused between different posts made within a 24 hour period. Fair enough, thank you for your answer.

But, conversely, you do have to keep cross-referencing against your clock in order to calculate that information. Not to mention your calendar, as I noticed today: "What is the date today, is this post from five minutes ago or 24 hours ago?" I know this sounds lazy, but I'm not here to work, this is supposed to be light entertainment.

As I've said, people obviously prefer the timestamp. But, I will say that, in my opinion, ease of use of the site outweighs the additional level of information provided by the timestamp.

Flint wrote:

... ease of use of the site...

Sure. I agree that ease of use is key. But I find the "new posts" button is the easiest thing in the world. The time stamp is for information, not navigation.

glatt wrote:

the "new posts" button is the easiest thing in the world

If you're logged in.

That's your problem.

And you still get a 'today's posts' button when you are not logged in, sissyboy.

In confunction with this, I've set the system up so that it gets accurate time from the net constantly.

It had been getting the accurate time every night at 4am, but the system time was fast, and timestamps could be off by as much as 20 seconds.

Now the time is set constantly, using the Network Time Protocol via a set of rotating public servers that Redhat provides. It should be more accurate.

@UT: Well, when you put it that way, it sounds so cool.

NoBoxes wrote:

You know how that goes xoB. They're concerned that if they let us do the soft stuff, like your date/time stamp, it will lead us to doing harder stuff like International Date/Time Groups [[COLOR=red]312353RJUL06[/COLOR]] and Julian Dates [[COLOR=red]2453948.49514[/COLOR]]. They just know that they'll have to watch us hit rock bottom (when we start using Star Dates and all become Trekkies) before they will be able to save us through some 12 step recovery program that leads us back to the AGO system.

Squares. :crazy:

Noboxes cracked me up :lol2:


ok but I like the ago too just because I can say, "oh look, so and so was here two days ago" or something like that. "Wonder how they are" The time stamp is visually annoying but I'll be able to tune it out and learn the new post function soon enough so that I no longer even notice.

Another "ago" vote - a vote for "ease of use". I wonder how many of the "timestamp" votes were really a vote for "I'm just used to seeing it that way" or "I don't like it when things change".

Well, since we've been using "ago" for quite some time now, voting for "date and time" would be a change. So I would say the answer to your question is zero.

:dedhorse:

The ones who get what they want are the ones who always say a dead horse is being beaten?

I mean, seriously, I conceded that I am probably not used to the time stamp thing. The thing that gets me is that Capn is annoyed because we are still discussing it.

Isn't that what you DO on a discussion board? Discuss?

Sheesh, you're happy with the outcome. If you don't want to hear the other points of view don't look at this thread.

glatt wrote:

Well, since we've been using "ago" for quite some time now, voting for "date and time" would be a change. So I would say the answer to your question is zero.

Sorry, glatt, but have you read the comments in this thread like "i hated the ago right away" or "I admit to being nostalgic about the actual dating" or "It is what I have become accustomed to over the years" ??? (Hint: they totally contradict what you just said.)

I prefer timestamps because I can see with greater precision the space between the various posts. This is true for consecutive posts in a given thread, as well as posts across threads. It helps me track the conversations. By the way, I am an almost *exclusive* user of the "New Posts" button. I try to read all the current threads.

I noticed that before I logged in the time was an hour off the time here. Once I logged in it was my local time.

When it doesn't know who you are, it's set to Philadelphia time.

Shawnee123 wrote:

I noticed that before I logged in the time was an hour off the time here. Once I logged in it was my local time.

That, coupled with the fact that you have to log in to view New Posts, means that visitors or lurkers will be discouraged from using the site because it will be confusing for them to navigate. :2cents:

I'm going to log out and test the navigation confusion factor.

See you in a bit.

Shawnee123 wrote:

The ones who get what they want are the ones who always say a dead horse is being beaten?

I mean, seriously, I conceded that I am probably not used to the time stamp thing. The thing that gets me is that Capn is annoyed because we are still discussing it.

Isn't that what you DO on a discussion board? Discuss?

Sheesh, you're happy with the outcome. If you don't want to hear the other points of view don't look at this thread.

I am not annoyed at the continual disscusion. I am not even annoyed at the redundant recurrance of the same point post after post. The dead horse smilie was not aimed directly at this thread, nor a single member.

What annoys me is when someone is shallow enough to take a smilie and form an ultimate view of someone other than themselves. I'll use the goddam smilie as I wish.

And finally... if you don't like my comments on the disscusion, why don't YOU stop reading this thread?

Have a nice day. ;)

And what was your comment on the discussion ???

Flint wrote:

And what was your comment on the discussion ???

His comment was harsh. I feel so much better now.



redeemed even , let the devil be the devil. I am a good girl. :angel:

capnhowdy wrote:

I am not annoyed at the continual disscusion. I am not even annoyed at the redundant recurrance of the same point post after post. The dead horse smilie was not aimed directly at this thread, nor a single member.

What annoys me is when someone is shallow enough to take a smilie and form an ultimate view of someone other than themselves. I'll use the goddam smilie as I wish.

And finally... if you don't like my comments on the disscusion, why don't YOU stop reading this thread?

Have a nice day. ;)

So my point of discussion right now is that you yourself, who abhors judging, is judging me.

So, stick the dead horse up your "goddam" ass. Shallow=can't you find a better word? Don't they have better words in the sewer from whence you came.

Piss off, pissy piss piss! :-) Now I feel better!

Flint wrote:

And what was your comment on the discussion ???

Good point!

meh.

login and participate. lurk and observer. I choose to participate.

Flint wrote:

That, coupled with the fact that you have to log in to view New Posts, means that visitors or lurkers will be discouraged from using the site because it will be confusing for them to navigate. :2cents:

You didn't listen to anything that I said about the "Today's Posts" button or the new post flag on each and every thread, did you.

Maybe he's here for "abuse."

wolf wrote:

You didn't listen to anything that I said about the "Today's Posts" button or the new post flag on each and every thread, did you.

I did.





and omg @ Shawnee. :eek:wow, why all the anger? I am sure he didn't mean to make you so upset. He's really a nice demon. Capn Howdy is. :)

wolf wrote:

You didn't listen to anything that I said about the "Today's Posts" button or the new post flag on each and every thread, did you.

I read your comments, and took those factors into consideration, but they do not solve the problem of confusing navigation for visitors, lurkers, or new members. In the interest of inclusiveness and ease of use, I feel that the "ago" method is superior to the "timestamp" method. That is my opinion, and I have backed it up with specific reasoning.

skysidhe wrote:

I did.





and omg @ Shawnee. :eek:wow, why all the anger? I am sure he didn't mean to make you so upset. He's really a nice demon. Capn Howdy is. :)

Well, I was expressing an opinion that it wasn't fair to say those of us still discussing it that we were beating a dead horse (using a smilie or saying it in so many words is irrelevant; the point was made) I did not resort to name calling until I was called "shallow." I assure you I am anything but that. Heck, I'd rather be called a smelly slut (which I also am not) than shallow. :)

So there's the anger. I am human too. I stay out of the verbal bash posts unless I am drawn in. I'm really a nice demon too.

I only log in when I post so I don't undertsand what you're finding to be so difficult Flint.

jinx wrote:

I don't undertsand what you're finding to be so difficult Flint.

I've explained it, at length...but I will answer any specific questions you have. In a nutshell: finding new posts.

One click finds new posts, logged in or not. If you choose not to use that button, well then I guess it is more difficult for you.

You have to log in to get the New Posts button. Next?

Flint wrote:

I read your comments, and took those factors into consideration, but they do not solve the problem of confusing navigation for visitors, lurkers, or new members. In the interest of inclusiveness and ease of use, I feel that the "ago" method is superior to the "timestamp" method. That is my opinion, and I have backed it up with specific reasoning.

yeah, but you're all fucked up.

if it says 17 minutes ago, and i want to know what time that post was made, i have to look at my watch, determine the time, and then DO MATH! talk about work! guh.

When you're not logged in, the "Today's Posts" button applies. Its in the same place and everything...

@LJ: Please explain: why would you ever need to know the specific time that a post was made?

Flint wrote:

You have to log in to get the New Posts button. Next?

when you're not logged in, that button says 'today's posts'. verrrrry confusing.

@jinx: Today's Posts are not New Posts.

@LJ: Today's Posts are not New Posts.

What are they?

Today's Posts.

Oh, ok, I see where you're confused. The new ones are at the top. Problem solved.

Wrong.

What if you havent checked in a week? Then there are new posts that aren't today's.

Ibram wrote:

What if you havent checked in a week? Then there are new posts that aren't today's.

And: What if you've read some of today's posts already? They aren't new.

Flint wrote:

Wrong.

really? are you sure?

lumberjim wrote:

really? are you sure?

See the above two examples.

may have something to do with your cookie settings. once i look at a post, it drops off when i hit that again. also, the bold ones are unread.

i know....you must have forgotten to eat a dick.

lumberjim wrote:

i know....you must have forgotten to eat a dick.

ha ha ha

No, I didn't forget. I had your mom do it for me.

;) yeah, she told me. it's still stuck between her teeth. hows the stitches?

Unlike Zappa, I never have to wonder "why does it hurt when I pee?"

Shawnee123 wrote:

So my point of discussion right now is that you yourself, who abhors judging, is judging me.

So, stick the dead horse up your "goddam" ass. Shallow=can't you find a better word? Don't they have better words in the sewer from whence you came.

Piss off, pissy piss piss! :-) Now I feel better!

Thank you. Now moving right along...........

As you were. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Flint wrote:

Today's Posts.

Today's Posts with the New(est) posts at the top of the list. It even updates when you hit the refresh button.

No, Today's Posts are not the same as New Posts.

(What does your New Posts list do differently? That is the difference.)

My apologies to Capn for my outburst. It did feel like you were telling us to shut up about the thread we were discussing on the thread about the subject, but I overreacted. I think this heat makes me grumpy!

Anyhoo, I really am trying to learn about the features and am willing to go with the majority thinks is the best way to display those features; my opinion is not so useless as to be discounted, however.

Truce? :p

So the old "you can't disagree with what I said, or meant, because I didn't say, or mean, anything" ploy still works? Otherwise known as the "you aren't allowed to disagree with my position because I don't have a position, I just accidentally hit the post button" ruse.

:sniff: (pssst, Flint, do you mean me?)

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Gray"]:::whispers::: no, not you, the other guy[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[COLOR="Silver"](Oh, OK)[/COLOR]

Shawnee123 wrote:

Heck, I'd rather be called a smelly slut (which I also am not) than shallow. :)

I don't want to be called anything 'cept on time for dinner.:p

Shawnee123 wrote:

I'm really a nice demon too.

me too:)

Truce?

Sure.

...You KNOW I love you.... :)

:cheese:

:yum:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

:cheese:

I feel like we should break into a round of Kumbaya! :lol:

Flint wrote:

Why do you prefer the timestamp? What does it do?

Pisses you off...

:lol:




[SIZE="1"]*just came back from vacation. Sorry to drag this up, but I couldn't resist an obvious 'duh'
J/K Haven't seen you around here for awhile Flint. -at least where I hang out[/SIZE]

[SIZE="1"]:::7 pages later:::[/SIZE] Oh, I meant to say I prefer the timestamp.

Flint wrote:

I read your comments, and took those factors into consideration, but they do not solve the problem of confusing navigation for visitors, lurkers, or new members. In the interest of inclusiveness and ease of use, I feel that the "ago" method is superior to the "timestamp" method. That is my opinion, and I have backed it up with specific reasoning.

Well, I came in really late... but I just have to put my :2cents: in. ;)

I prefer the timestamp. And I prefer it because it is easier for me to navigate, and it was easier when I was a lurker and wasn't logged in most of the time. I almost always know what time and day it is so there is no figuring or using calculators with me. If today is the 9th, and there is a post that is from the 5th, then I know it was 4 days ago. I don't even have to think much about it. It also makes it easier for me to see when people post if I haven't been to a thread in a week. All of the posts say one week ago, and so I don't know if they were the same day or not. Posts over several days are all lumped into one catagory, and I don't like that. I want to know if the drunken post was at 2am in the morning, not just if it was today.

I guess I am just more aware of things like that and I like numbers. After all, I work at a bank. All I see day in and day out are numbers. :worried:

I think part of the reason people like the timestamp is because since it was around for so long, they are used to it and prefer that extra information. And like I said, just because it confuses you and discourages you, doesn't mean that every lurker feels the same way. I know I didn't.

And what is wrong with just prefering something? I don't see why it is such a problem for you to log in anyway... and if you check the "remember me" box when you log in you will stayed logged in. Jeez. :D

edit: Oh, and thanks UT for the change. I like this way much better!

Flint wrote:

@LJ: Please explain: why would you ever need to know the specific time that a post was made?

I'll give a specific example. I might have still poked fun at LJ, but I probably wouldn't have assumed he was high.