# 11 Hours Ago



## jmucchiello (Jan 28, 2005)

I absolutely hate, hate, hate the times of posts and stuff saying 11 Hours ago or 15 minutes ago or any other relative time. I sometimes walk away from the computer with ENWorld up and if the page was loaded 10 hours ago and it says the post was 15 minutes ago, guess what? The screen is wrong. When it says posted January 27, 2005 8:27 PM, that is actually when it happened.

And when "news" is happening, it can be very important to know when a post was posted. Is this going to be a switch in the accounts or do I just have to gripe about it more?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 28, 2005)

Okay, I will take a stab at this.

Just a small stab, and the Tech Mod can correct me...the way it looks, by the time, a post is being written and finished, the differences between your PC time and the server time is all together not the same.

A page is opened by a said writer of thread, the server clock is still going, while the writer is taking the time for corrections, and so forth...the writing is finished, the server shows how long ago it was formed to open and finished...thats it.

It doesn't effect me...not the least.


----------



## msd (Jan 28, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I absolutely hate, hate, hate the times of posts and stuff saying 11 Hours ago or 15 minutes ago or any other relative time...




Yeah, I agree.  Things seemed a little easier and more straightforward when there was a simple timestamp.

One guy's opinion...   

Matt


----------



## Greylock (Jan 28, 2005)

Agreed. I prefer the plain old time stamp. The new system makes sense to me, but I hate having to "do the math" on same day posts.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 28, 2005)

We welcome more input on this change.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 28, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Just a small stab, and the Tech Mod can correct me...the way it looks, by the time, a post is being written and finished, the differences between your PC time and the server time is all together not the same.



No, I just want to know when the post was posted. That is the time that should display. It is the time when the poster thought to himself. "This is what I wish to say at this time! <click>" (I know. Not that everyone is so exacting in their thinking.)

1 hour ago is imprecise and I have to know when I clicked on the page to know when it is one hour from. If it takes me a hour between the time I load the page and the time I get around to reading the last post on the page, then the timestamp "2 hours ago" is far from accurate. It is in fact WRONG.

Also, I find it easier to see 5:37 PM and know that since the poster is in England (and I'm in New Jersey) that the poster posted at 10:37 PM local time. Sometimes that is important to know too. "3 hours ago" requires two translations to figure out.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 28, 2005)

I find that if I have En world up on one page for a while, hitting refresh resets the time.  With the speedy new servers it works really fast.  I like the X time ago becasue I'm not always aware what time it is, but I do know how long ago a post was made.


----------



## Starman (Jan 28, 2005)

I prefer the timestamp myself.

Starman


----------



## Gez (Jan 28, 2005)

I like the relative time better. Notably because despite me saying in the User CP that I'm in a GMT+1 timezone, the timestamp was off.


----------



## hong (Jan 28, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> I like the relative time better. Notably because despite me saying in the User CP that I'm in a GMT+1 timezone, the timestamp was off.



 Ditto. And besides, I can't imagine why you'd walk away from your browser, come back hours later, and NOT refresh the screen anyway. Accurate time stamps don't help not having any posts made after you left.


----------



## Zappo (Jan 28, 2005)

I prefer it like it is now... with the timestamp, I've got to actually think about how long ago the date was. That's some stuff that a computer can do for me.


----------



## Berandor (Jan 28, 2005)

I love the realtive time (except for Ceramic DM, I guess), because that way, I can come back an hour or two later and quickly find new posts in a thread or in the overview.

When I opened PCat's SH, I always had to think about how long ago my last visit was, where the thread was then, end so on. Now I see "5 days ago" and I know the post is new.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 28, 2005)

Couldn't we have both?  

If that's not an option I prefer the new way.


----------



## DragonSword (Jan 28, 2005)

I like relative time too.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 28, 2005)

As Berandor said, the real problem of relative time is in competitions like Ceramic DM where "3 days ago" just isn't accurate enough. Nevertheless, relative time clearly has its fans. We're still wrestling with the best way to handle this.


----------



## thalmin (Jan 28, 2005)

I also prefer the time stamp. How about starting a poll on this?


----------



## GentleGiant (Jan 28, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Couldn't we have both?




I'd second this... or rather, maybe a combination. Say, go with the new relative time, but as soon as you pass 2 days (or some other set time), it changes to the old date formula.
Is that possible?

As some have pointed out, the new relative time is nifty in some regards, but it becomes wildly inaccurate when past a certain time (a week).

If not, I'd prefer the old time stamp.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 28, 2005)

Hate relative.

Prefer old time stamp.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 28, 2005)

If at all possible, I'd like to see it as an option the user can choose, similar to how he can choose to show avatars/sigs/etc... or not.


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 28, 2005)

I like absolute time stamps rather than relative stamps.  The absolute ones are always "true" where as the relative ones are not if the screen hasn't been refreshed.  Plus you can't see if there is something goofy going on with the clock.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jan 28, 2005)

Prefer old time stamp myself. 

Ideally, it would be optional for the user, but I know nothing about to board's software and whether that is possible.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 28, 2005)

never paid much attention to it. until now.

i guess i could go either way.

diaglo "channeling an AC/DC hong" Ooi


----------



## Morrus (Jan 28, 2005)

Has anyone actually looked at the time stamps before posting about them recently?  They were changed back yesterday...


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 28, 2005)

Weird. I'm not sure it took effect right away -- as of this morning, I was still seeing it measured in minutes!


----------



## JoeBlank (Jan 28, 2005)

I noticed it had changed this morning, but did not think a permanent decision had been made. If it is possible to keep it as an option then that of course makes everyone happy, but keeping the old format time stamp certianly makes me happy.


----------



## GentleGiant (Jan 28, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Has anyone actually looked at the time stamps before posting about them recently?  They were changed back yesterday...



Only saw that they had changed when I opened the site again just now. When I was here two hours ago it was still the new relative time.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 28, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Has anyone actually looked at the time stamps before posting about them recently? They were changed back yesterday...



Yep, and I noticed they were changed back. I just thought I'd add my opinion anyway, for information/polling purposes.


----------



## Gez (Jan 28, 2005)

Well, when *I* posted my reply, they were still relative.

If it's possible to show both ("Two hours ago (Today, 05:32 PM)" for example), and/or to make it an user-controlled option, it would be superextranifty. Just saying. 

PS: What about getting rid of the AM/PM thing? I always forget which is which. I prefer by far seeing 17:32 over 05:32 PM.)


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 28, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> Well, when *I* posted my reply, they were still relative.
> 
> If it's possible to show both ("Two hours ago (Today, 05:32 PM)" for example), and/or to make it an user-controlled option, it would be superextranifty. Just saying.
> 
> PS: What about getting rid of the AM/PM thing? I always forget which is which. I prefer by far seeing 17:32 over 05:32 PM.)




ah , someone loves the 24 hour clock .


----------



## DM_Matt (Jan 28, 2005)

Waaaaaa!!!  Me likee relative time!

The time zone stuff just doesn't work for me.


----------



## GentleGiant (Jan 28, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> ah , someone loves the 24 hour clock .



Yes, it's only the lazy Americans and British (isn't it?) who're still using that old and dated AM and PM stuff. Same with Fahrenheit, Miles, Feet and Inches


----------



## BSF (Jan 28, 2005)

Huh, relative timestamps were still in effect for me until now.  I think an option in the UserCP would be dandy since it would then be up to the user.  

I prefer absolute timestamps.  If we could get an absolute timestamps that used a 24 hour clock, that would be even better!  

In any event, I have been putting off any gripes about it because moving servers is problematic enough without dealing with stuff like that.    But I am happy with the work that has been done on it.  Thanks guys!


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 28, 2005)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Waaaaaa!!! Me likee relative time!
> 
> The time zone stuff just doesn't work for me.




Hey!! who let this toddler in here?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 28, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> Yes, it's only the lazy Americans and British (isn't it?) who're still using that old and dated AM and PM stuff. Same with Fahrenheit, Miles, Feet and Inches




Uhm, I still like inches, feet, and yards....


----------



## Greylock (Jan 28, 2005)

Yeah, as late as 8am CST 'Merican the time was still relative. 

But, yay for the return of the timestamp. Much, much better...


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 28, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Hate relative.
> 
> Prefer old time stamp.




Same here.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jan 28, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Has anyone actually looked at the time stamps before posting about them recently?  They were changed back yesterday...



 I prefer the timestamp, so, *thanks!*, Morrus!


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jan 29, 2005)

I also prefer the timestamp and am glad it has returned. However, I can see many people like the relative label and, since the experiment proved that it works, I would really like it being offered as an option in the user CP.

There are, of course, items of a more immediate nature to fix, and I don't want MM working his fingers to the bone, so I don't mind waiting until things have calmed down for this one.

Love the super-fast new server! Great work everyone!

-Dave


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Uhm, I still like inches, feet, and yards....



And furlongs and fortnights, as well.

Glad the timestamps are back. Have no opinion on the 12/24 hour time issue.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 1, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> And furlongs and fortnights, as well.




Don't forget rods, stones and leagues, either! 

I prefer the timestamp as well, and am grateful that it's back, but I do agree that making it user controlled somehow would be ideal.  I have no idea if that's possible, though.. 

The 24-hour clock is ok, but am/pm is ok too.  I can use either as needed or desired.  Shrug.


----------

