4 ms·
> It's bad if you're a search engine. It's not as bad if you're a human who is capable of parsing natural language semantics. I am a human capable of parsing n
by tivert 2y ago
> It's bad if you're a search engine. It's not as bad if you're a human who is capable of parsing natural language semantics.
I am a human capable of parsing natural language semantics, and "use by" is terrible. It's one of those completely unexplained commands you often find in instructions. Why should I use it by that date? If you're not a mindless drone who just unquestioningly follows instructions, the total lack of reason creates a lot of space to decide to do something else. For instance: without consulting California food labeling legislation (which, I admit, Californians all carry around the statute book those regulations several times a day), it's reasonable to interpret "use by" as "best if used by," for instance.
They should use clearer language because they can and have no excuse not to.
- thomastjeffery 2y agoI suppose that "use this before" and "this is best if used before" would be preferable. The compromise here is to keep printing as short as possible. I think the greater issue is that these statements don't point to any trivially available authoritative definition.
- tivert 2y ago"expires on", "not safe after", or "unsafe by" are not meaningfully longer. These aren't telegrams, they're not paying a penny a character. If they're willing to mandate the phrase "best if used by," they can mandate something clear than "use by" for safety issues. They have no excuse.