Timestamps

Do you like the new timestamps?


  • Total voters
    23

awkwardamanda

Well-known member
Re: No Timestamps

While I answered "They aren't "timestamps" if they don't give a date and time" to appease need for technicality I would like to also note that it also sucks. It is way, way to vague for me. I like to know when things happened in relation to one another and if it was at night or in the day, where I was when it happened maybe. I just like my numbers and stats and knowing things, this is hindering things :bat:

Yeah, this. I like numbers too. An entire thread could be labelled "3 weeks ago," but we won't know much more than the order posts were made in.
 

1BlackSheep

Well-known member
What do you think is the purpose of this change? Anonymity? But why should it be better? Most users don´t want it anyway.. Besides even like this, it will not be really annonymous, only it´s more annoying.
My sentiments exactly! :thumbdown:
 

mikebird

Banned
It's rubbish!
I wanna know who made contributions, and how many, by user. How long ago means nothing. Aggregate on popularity per thread by count as before, but add a breakdown by user.

I do like the extended icon range :thumbup:
 

awkwardamanda

Well-known member
Okay, I've noticed an improvement in the timestamps. I don't know if the webmaster listened to our complaints, or if it was in a transition phase for a while.

Posts that are more than a few weeks old (maybe four) have an exact date, although no time. This is good. Otherwise, "2 years ago" can mean 21 months ago or 29 months ago, and there's no way of telling the difference.

:thumbup:
 
Top