Upload Dates Removed?
- Thread starter ClubStripes
- Start date
Added a little bit of Javascript to make it possible to change the date format on the fly.
By default, fuzzy dates will be shown though, until the option is added to the user's CP. I intend to keep this dynamic date format change, unless there are reasonable objections to it.
By default, fuzzy dates will be shown though, until the option is added to the user's CP. I intend to keep this dynamic date format change, unless there are reasonable objections to it.
Since there seems to be more than a few complaints about the change, and so far the stated reason for the change was solely your personal preference, perhaps it would be best if we put it back to the way it was until the option is available to switch between the two.
When "I prefer it this way" is all that is given as a reasonable justification for a change, then "I prefer it the way it already was" does amount to a reasonable objection, and there are several people who have voiced such already.
When "I prefer it this way" is all that is given as a reasonable justification for a change, then "I prefer it the way it already was" does amount to a reasonable objection, and there are several people who have voiced such already.
Well, out of all 120k FA's users, this thread bears the voices of quite a few who actually disagree. I realize this change will not suit everyone's needs and expectations, and i respect that.
But i really don't see a problem that would merit a need for things to change back when it was said a setting will be offered as soon as possible, along with ann implementation of a suggestion for a timezone field making FA's dates relative to each user's geographical locations.
Besides, it already is as simple as a single mouse click to get the full dates showing. All that's missing now is the default time format, which will be "fuzzy" for the time being.
As for personal preferences, not really.
I had to merge all the code and and bugfixes from the alpha sandbox in the production code before i could start transferring FA to the new www box, as not to make that task thrice as complex later.
But i really don't see a problem that would merit a need for things to change back when it was said a setting will be offered as soon as possible, along with ann implementation of a suggestion for a timezone field making FA's dates relative to each user's geographical locations.
Besides, it already is as simple as a single mouse click to get the full dates showing. All that's missing now is the default time format, which will be "fuzzy" for the time being.
As for personal preferences, not really.
I had to merge all the code and and bugfixes from the alpha sandbox in the production code before i could start transferring FA to the new www box, as not to make that task thrice as complex later.
That's more of a matter of preference as I find that having it set at EST works rather well, and I often use the time frame for my regular Sunday updates on my journal. I'd rather have it at one universal set time-frame rather than people setting it to their own times, despite the fact I live in Cali which is in a three hour apart time zone from the site's time-frame.Arshes Nei said:
As for the main topic most of it is preference, but I find it easier to detect and report art theft when you have clear indicators of when a piece was submitted.
Arshes Nei
Masticates in Public
I don't see how there is much difference between saying "3 hours ago" or "12-31-1969 @ 20:15 PST/DST" makes any difference by your logic then?
T
TakeWalker
Guest
TheGru said:
The new submissions area, then? I honestly don't recall seeing date-like things anywhere. :| I'm stumped; I guess it doesn't make a difference to me, in that case.
I'm gonna be blunt.
I don't like it.
It makes the profile pages look messy and somewhat disorganized. Having the exact dates (and who cares if they're four hours off?) added a sense of professionalism to the pages. The broad generalization of "2 weeks," "a month," or whatever makes it incredibly vague. "2 weeks" can have a margin of up to four days from today either way. With "a month," it's even bigger. "A year." You guessed it.
It looks totally unorganized, tool tip or no. When an artist does a drawing, they'll date it. Not write something vague.
What's next? The "some," "a few," and "a whole bunch" numbering system used over on Y!gallery?
Also, why are Fender's announcements on the front page still in date/time format, yet the rest of the site in the days/weeks/months format?
I don't like it.
It makes the profile pages look messy and somewhat disorganized. Having the exact dates (and who cares if they're four hours off?) added a sense of professionalism to the pages. The broad generalization of "2 weeks," "a month," or whatever makes it incredibly vague. "2 weeks" can have a margin of up to four days from today either way. With "a month," it's even bigger. "A year." You guessed it.
It looks totally unorganized, tool tip or no. When an artist does a drawing, they'll date it. Not write something vague.
What's next? The "some," "a few," and "a whole bunch" numbering system used over on Y!gallery?
Also, why are Fender's announcements on the front page still in date/time format, yet the rest of the site in the days/weeks/months format?
Sigh. The idea is (presumably) that for viewers, dates are (a) almost entirely useless and (b) harder to parse. I don't care what millisecond this file was uploaded; I care, relatively, how old it is.
October 26, 2007
"Okay, October. It's October. 26. Is it the 26th? Clock says it's the 27th. Oh, but it's past midnight. Okay, that was today."
October 18, 2007
"It's October. 18. What day is it? 27th? 9 days ago, about a week." (What day, exactly? Who cares?)
October 23, 2006
"It's October. 23.. um.. few days ago. Wait, 2006, fuck."
Dates require parsing to turn into something conceptually useful. The exact date is of absolutely no use to me in most cases; I just want to know artist's last activity, time between uploads X and Y, etc. I usually can't even tell you the date because I have no use for it. I care about when things happen relative to now, and the further away they are the more I just care about scale rather than precision.
You may not like it, but that doesn't make it useless or stupid.
October 26, 2007
"Okay, October. It's October. 26. Is it the 26th? Clock says it's the 27th. Oh, but it's past midnight. Okay, that was today."
October 18, 2007
"It's October. 18. What day is it? 27th? 9 days ago, about a week." (What day, exactly? Who cares?)
October 23, 2006
"It's October. 23.. um.. few days ago. Wait, 2006, fuck."
Dates require parsing to turn into something conceptually useful. The exact date is of absolutely no use to me in most cases; I just want to know artist's last activity, time between uploads X and Y, etc. I usually can't even tell you the date because I have no use for it. I care about when things happen relative to now, and the further away they are the more I just care about scale rather than precision.
You may not like it, but that doesn't make it useless or stupid.
Eevee said:
You may not like the whole date being spelled out, but obviously several users do. This is, as far as the impression you and yak have given so far, entirely a matter of personal preference. Your preference is not useless or stupid, but neither is the preference of our users, which you and yak are dismissing as if they are.
All that people seem to have said here, either way, is that they prefer one way or the other.
An option is coming so both opinions can have their own preference.
The question asked was what need there was for the change before having it as a selectable option. If a change or new feature is to be implemented; and giving people the option of choosing whether they prefer what had been the standard as opposed to whatever the new option may be is something that can be done without causing problems; then the option should really be made available at the time the change/new feature is implemented.
Neither method is stupid or useless, so there's no need for anyone to be so dismissive here.
Oh, sorry. I was meaning to imply that it is more readable for me to fend off the complaints that seem to imply it's not more readable at all.
Hm. The irony is striking.
The need is, from what I can glean, that it was already written sans preference and tangled with some bug fixes, so it was much easier for yak to update the site code with everything than try to pry one mostly-finished feature off from the rest.
Hm. The irony is striking.
The need is, from what I can glean, that it was already written sans preference and tangled with some bug fixes, so it was much easier for yak to update the site code with everything than try to pry one mostly-finished feature off from the rest.
T
TakeWalker
Guest
Rhainor said:
Now I get it.
Thank you.FWIW, I think I don't care at all.
imnohbody
Member
Brooklyn said:CyberFoxx said:
We'll all be dead by then so it won't really matter.
Speak for yourself. I intend to live forever, or die trying.
As for the main thread topic, I honestly never noticed, and can't say I personally see why it's necessary to see the exact date. YMMV (and obviously does, in some cases, as shown by this thread).
A lot has been said in defense for both sides -- although granted, many who haven't noticed simply do not care. And sure! You can still see the actual date in a mouseover, but honestly how many people actually know this? Don't you think it would be best to, I dunno, post it in a little message in the news section? I mean really, it would take like, ten seconds to do so and it would clear up any confusion for those who do not actively view the forums. I liked the old method for viewing as much as anyone else, but until there's an option, don't you think it would be best to let the people in general know?
Eevee said:
I have to admit, I find this explanation somewhat... Condescending. You're basically saying 'this is the option for people too dim to figure out relative dates'. Speaking for myself, I have no problem parsing that 'October 23, 2006' was a bit over a year ago. I'd much rather have that specific date listed and have to do some inconsequential mental arithmetic to get the relative temporal position than have the laughably fuzzy 'a year' notation, which covers a period of several months, and still have to do the click-over to get the actual date and an accurate relative temporal position.
Regardless, you have a fair enough reason for implementing the change as suddenly as you did. It strikes me as a silly thing to have tied into more vital updates, particularly with no user option switch written, but I can understand how it'd happen. I'm no coder, but I'm familiar enough with the subject to understand how haphazard it can be. At the same time, have you guys ever considered having some sort of a changelog on the front page that'd cover this sort of thing? Not the rarely updated and seldom useful newsbox, but a seperate section specifically for the coders to notify people that they're changing this thing for this reason, or that the site'll be going down at X time for a server change, etc.? As has been noted before, most of the site's userbase doesn't pay attention to the forums until after something's changed/gone wrong, so it'd save you from having to explain/justify things in here all the time.
Eevee said:Too dim to figure out relative dates? I was explaining relative dates
But your explanation basically reads as "Math is hard! Tee hee!" It presumes that people need someone else to do some pretty basic parsing for them, which, unless they're completely uneducated and/or live in some sort of isolation bubble and have no concept of the current date, really shouldn't be the case. And yes, I'd agree that the date is generally useless, and that the complaint against the current system is largely an aesthetic one. In terms of the recent change, however, it does hinder the one use I ever actually had for it: seeing exactly how often a particular artist is active, by skimming over the dates in their recent submissions panel and the submissions themselves and establishing as much of a pattern as possible. 'Okay, these were all posted X months ago. That's nice. Were they posted all on the same day or over a longer period? How year old is that year old one? Exactly one year, or eighteen months?' I end up clicking over all the dates anyway. Particularly the older the submissions get, and the fuzzier the 'pre-parsed' dates get. Much easier, from my point of view, to just have the actual dates listed. Much the same reasoning as why I've always had the 'full size image' option checked on sites like this one. Why go through the intermediary step when I know I'm going to want to see the full version?
Eevee said:
Fair enough, but you're (presumably) closer to the ears of those who are. It'd certainly add a bit more of a professional and/or caring feel to the site, and deflect the 'inflicted from on-high' feeling some of these sudden and apparently random (for all the regular users know, anyway) changes bring.
My apologies for the delay with the user CP option.
http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/ (link at the left side, below "Account Settings")
This page is new, and will be updated from time to time with option that change the way you browse the site, e.g your browse preferences. These settings will be stored in your browser cookies, at least for the time being. Well, to be honest i intend to keep them stored in cookies unless there are reasonable objections to this method.
http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/ (link at the left side, below "Account Settings")
This page is new, and will be updated from time to time with option that change the way you browse the site, e.g your browse preferences. These settings will be stored in your browser cookies, at least for the time being. Well, to be honest i intend to keep them stored in cookies unless there are reasonable objections to this method.