[Solmu]

Just wanted to say that when I noticed you had changed the datestamp back to this format I exlaimed "Ooh, awesome!"

I had been trying to decide whether the new format ("September 19th at 1:20pm") was better or worse - I had got used to it a little, but I think the X hours format is easier to find the new posts in a thread since your last visit.

Good to trial both, but personally I prefer this one.

 

[Rodney]

Hey Lewis, thanks for the feedback

It was definitely worth a test, but I think the forum seems more active when the last post was "minutes ago" or "hours ago" instead of a cold, unfeeling "date stamp"

I thought the datestamp with make things more "accurate" to see when people are posting (like when people post very close together or at the same exact time), but the "detailed" x hours since format won out!

 

[Solmu]

Yep, I definitely agree with all of that 100%. The exact time has its advantages, it's just not my preference overall.

I hadn't really considered the "warmth" of it, but you're right.

 

[Solmu]

So... we're trying the exact time thing again? I know it's slightly different with the "Today", "Yesterday" addition, but it doesn't really help much.

If it's a trial run my vote would be no - it takes me four times as long (and twenty times as much effort) to find the first unread post in a thread (instead of glancing for the magic "Ten hours ago" I now have to read every time and think "Is this before or after my last visited time?"), which means it ultimately takes a lot longer to read the forums.

This may be something to do with the way my mind works and might be different to other people, but personally my vote is no.

 

[Solmu]

In addition to being hard to read it's also frequently broken. Near as I can tell while most posts are being displayed in my local time, some posts are being displayed in US time. Sometimes it goes back and forth in one thread.

 

[Rodney]

Yep, it was another trial thing.

I do like the idea of an accurate time stamp, and the yesterday/today was better that just the timestamp, but so far, the feedback has been all negative (including my own).

I was trying to test it out for a few days to see if it would grow on me (since most forums have timestamps on the posts), but I'll probably just go back to what we're used to.

 

[Solmu]

Well, as per last time trial is good, but I'm relieved the trial was brief

I agree that it would be nice to have an exact timestamp visible on the posts (at least you can get it by hitting reply and looking at the list), but only if we could have both I guess (which no doubt can't be done).

For example, it was nice to see when Jasonda, you and I all posted the same answer at the same time that it was in fact 5:03 exactly, and not just "1 minute ago." But ultimately finding the post you're looking for is more important: I think for me the timestamp is probably mostly just a matter of curiousity rather than especially useful.

 

[Rodney]

I think I'm going to do a bit of reading to see if I can have the "one minute ago" AND a timestamp. Seems like it should be possible.

 

[Solmu]

Looks like you might be working on this now, if things like "1 Minute Ago, 1168798449" are any indication (if not... consider this a bug report ).

I thought that it might look a little crowded, but ultimately was a good "best of both worlds" idea. Obviously it's not working yet, but even the number string does give some idea of proof of concept and it's not even looking that crowded really. Looks very promising if it ends up working.

 

[Solmu]

Cool, you got it working. I like it off to the side there. It basically means people can read to the left of the screen or the right of the screen depending on which timestamp style they prefer, and not get distracted by the other one either way.

At the moment the timestamp shows server time rather than local time. Personally I don't mind that since 1) My main two uses of timestamps would be checking post order when merging threads and similar mod uses, and seeing how close two posts in a thread were posted together (so it doesn't matter what the times say, because it's relative time that matters), and 2) It's actually interesting to know what time things were posted in the US where most of the members are.

Other people in different timezones may prefer it to tie into their user preferences on timezone though, I don't know.

Anyway, glad to see it worked out that you could have both.

 

[Rodney]

Yep, I think I found a nice compromise moving the timestamp to the right side.

I really like it over there (it was way too crowded on the left).

I didn't notice it was server time and not local time. I'll check on how to get that changed (if possible)

 

[Solmu]

Yep, I think I found a nice compromise moving the timestamp to the right side.

I really like it over there (it was way too crowded on the left).

Yeah, I like it there too.

I didn't notice it was server time and not local time. I'll check on how to get that changed (if possible)

It would probably be preferable for most users in different timezones (although like I said I don't mind personally), but if it can't be done it can't be done.

 

[Rodney]

Woo Hoo! It's working now with the local time.

 

[Solmu]

Woo Hoo! It's working now with the local time.

Yup, works for me with my whacky +11 without having to do anything.

Congratulations, you implemented yet another feature, and managed to make it look like something that was just built in there all along

 

[Rodney]

Looks like I squeezed my post in 1 second before your post in this thread:
http://www.t-shirtforums.com/member-introductions/t11231.html

Hooray for the timestamp

 

[Solmu]

I noticed that actually

I am liking the timestamp for that kind of thing. I'm really glad you managed to come up with a way of doing both that works well for both.