this has kind of bugged me for some time, and i probably wouldn't of noticed this if i wasn't on 56k but on a lot of the older posts say 10 months +, it seems that the time since posted isn't right. more specifically, there a few posts that say 12 months, then just above it will be one that says 1 year. maybe i'm seeing things but i could of swore i even saw a couple that said 13 months.
this thread here is a good example:
https://www.thinktankforums.com/thread.php?thread_id=1646
i know it's small but it kind of bugs me that 12 and 13 months aren't being displayed as 1 year.
this thread here is a good example:
https://www.thinktankforums.com/thread.php?thread_id=1646
i know it's small but it kind of bugs me that 12 and 13 months aren't being displayed as 1 year.
r410 should fix it. previously, a month was defined as four weeks. now a month is defined as $year/12.
i hate the measurements "month" and "year." a good measurement should not be time dependent (i.e., if hours were 65 minutes on saturdays).
i hate the measurements "month" and "year." a good measurement should not be time dependent (i.e., if hours were 65 minutes on saturdays).
I have a problem with dates as well: I never know when a date is. Nature of something that isn't limited to one location you know.
I find "one year ago" disgusting but "23 hours ago" is nice. Maybe a nice solution can be made with a lot of if-elsing.
What is a must is the following:
<span title="2009-10-08 16:49">23 hours ago</span>
Thought: It's all about taste.
So what should be done is allowing the user to use php date ( http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.date.php ) to set the date date (visible per default) and the date title date (for mouse hover). And [x] checkboxes for "difference" to have "time ago"
uh. this won't be trivial because of the "when to use mins/hours/days/months/weeks?/years?
I find "one year ago" disgusting but "23 hours ago" is nice. Maybe a nice solution can be made with a lot of if-elsing.
What is a must is the following:
<span title="2009-10-08 16:49">23 hours ago</span>
Thought: It's all about taste.
So what should be done is allowing the user to use php date ( http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.date.php ) to set the date date (visible per default) and the date title date (for mouse hover). And [x] checkboxes for "difference" to have "time ago"
uh. this won't be trivial because of the "when to use mins/hours/days/months/weeks?/years?
> I never know when a date is. Nature of something that isn't limited to one location you know.
what do you mean?
> I find "one year ago" disgusting but "23 hours ago" is nice. Maybe a nice solution can be made with a lot of if-elsing.
so what exactly do you propose that we change?
> What is a must is the following
we already do that. or do you mean changing the format of the absolute timestamp?
> It's all about taste
yeah, that might be cool. it's a bit complex, though.
what do you mean?
> I find "one year ago" disgusting but "23 hours ago" is nice. Maybe a nice solution can be made with a lot of if-elsing.
so what exactly do you propose that we change?
> What is a must is the following
we already do that. or do you mean changing the format of the absolute timestamp?
> It's all about taste
yeah, that might be cool. it's a bit complex, though.
> what do you mean?
When a forum software says September 13, 2009 08:49, then I don't know what time zone is meant.
> so what exactly do you propose that we change?
Sorry, I'm afraid I have no concrete proposal (yet?) regarding the "x time ago".
> we already do that. or do you mean changing the format of the absolute timestamp?
Oh, sorry, I didn't check. Silly me. Great!
When a forum software says September 13, 2009 08:49, then I don't know what time zone is meant.
> so what exactly do you propose that we change?
Sorry, I'm afraid I have no concrete proposal (yet?) regarding the "x time ago".
> we already do that. or do you mean changing the format of the absolute timestamp?
Oh, sorry, I didn't check. Silly me. Great!
September 29th 2009, 11:36pm (GMT+1)
That would make sense more, or to have the users time zone displayed in the brackets.
That would make sense more, or to have the users time zone displayed in the brackets.
> I don't know what time zone is meant
ok, i suppose the software could be more clear. the timezone used is utc. but if a user is logged-in, then his or her timezone and dst scheme specified in his or her profile is used.
> Oh, sorry, I didn't check. Silly me. Great!
:)
> have the users time zone displayed in the brackets
what brackets?
ok, i suppose the software could be more clear. the timezone used is utc. but if a user is logged-in, then his or her timezone and dst scheme specified in his or her profile is used.
> Oh, sorry, I didn't check. Silly me. Great!
:)
> have the users time zone displayed in the brackets
what brackets?
I guess as long as we're on the subject, I'm also bothered by the "1 year" stamp. I find it surprising that you don't care to differentiate between a post made 13 months ago versus one made 23 months ago..
I've been on ttf for longer than 1 year now, and there have been several times when I've done a search for something in particular and been disappointed when I wasn't able to distinguish the month the post was made in. I don't think an exact breakdown is necessarily the solution, but I do like the idea of getting a somewhat more precise stamp (while hovering or otherwise).
I've been on ttf for longer than 1 year now, and there have been several times when I've done a search for something in particular and been disappointed when I wasn't able to distinguish the month the post was made in. I don't think an exact breakdown is necessarily the solution, but I do like the idea of getting a somewhat more precise stamp (while hovering or otherwise).
> I do like the idea of getting a somewhat more precise stamp (while hovering or otherwise)
as i said five posts up, we already do that. :)
the relative timestamps are just a way for you to get a sense of when it was posted at a glance. i feel that very simple statements like "1 year ago" are the quickest to read at a glance. for precision, do indeed hover.
i suppose, though, that i could make months the highest granularity. so, for example, 13 months would be represented as "1 year and 1 month ago," and 23 months would be represented as "1 year and 11 months ago." would you prefer this?
as i said five posts up, we already do that. :)
the relative timestamps are just a way for you to get a sense of when it was posted at a glance. i feel that very simple statements like "1 year ago" are the quickest to read at a glance. for precision, do indeed hover.
i suppose, though, that i could make months the highest granularity. so, for example, 13 months would be represented as "1 year and 1 month ago," and 23 months would be represented as "1 year and 11 months ago." would you prefer this?
just roll your mouse over the time that is shown. the title on that span will display the time in tooltip.
woah, didn't know that
> i suppose, though, that i could make months the highest granularity. so, for example, 13 months would be represented as "1 year and 1 month ago," and 23 months would be represented as "1 year and 11 months ago." would you prefer this?
1 year and 1 month ago
2 months and 2 weeks ago
5 days and 4 hours ago
23 hours and 4 minutes ago
1 year ago
2 months ago
5 days ago
23 hours ago
I don't know what I prefer.
1 year and 1 month ago
2 months and 2 weeks ago
5 days and 4 hours ago
23 hours and 4 minutes ago
1 year ago
2 months ago
5 days ago
23 hours ago
I don't know what I prefer.
i was thinking that "2 months ago," "5 days ago," and "23 hours ago" would stay the same. just that anything longer than months is too vague and must be granular to the month.
> i was thinking that "2 months ago," "5 days ago," and "23 hours ago" would stay the same. just that anything longer than months is too vague and must be granular to the month.
sounds fair
sounds fair
yep