4 ms·

Lot's of love for relative dates, but personally, I agree with the poster. Here's an example from HN: user: run4yourlives created: 2012 days ago Got a

Lot's of love for relative dates, but personally, I agree with the poster. Here's an example from HN: user: run4yourlives created: 2012 days ago Got any idea how long I've had an account for? I sure as hell don't, because 2000 days is a completely irrelevant measurement to me. It would be a lot cleaner just to say that I've been around here since 19 Feb, 2007. I think this is a bigger point than just the dichotomy between dates. If you are trying to make them mean something, make them mean something. 2 hours ago is fine, but 23 days ago is most certainly not. Was that a weekend? A morning? Last Tuesday after work? Who knows. Actual dates work for longer periods of time, relative much better for shorter frames. Stick to this, for the love of God please.

rane 14y ago
I'm afraid HN isn't very notable for good UX in general.
MartinCron 14y ago
The "2012 days ago" is just a sub-optimal implementation of relative dates. It could be expressed as the more comprehensible but less precise "over 5 years ago" with the actual date either nearby or in the title=""
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  Or you could just show me the actual date, since it does everything a person needs it to do already.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
notatoad 14y ago
Okay, but how is Feb 19, 2007 relevant information to you? If you were trying to schedule something based on your HN Join date, then i suppose you want the actual date. In the general case though, the date on your profile is only used by other members (or maybe moderators) to get a rough idea of how long you've been a member for. I can look at your profile, see 2012 days, and understand immediately that you've been an HN member for a long time. I've learned everything i need to know, and i've learned it quicker than i would have by reading a full date and subtracting it from today's date. sometimes you need a relative date. sometimes you need an absolute date. saying one is always bad and the other is always good is stupid, it all depends on the context.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  Why are you worrying about how it's relative to me? That's not your problem to solve. We have a system for understanding time that is universal around the world. Instead of presenting me with information that is in that format, you're making up a new one for no good reason. saying one is always bad and the other is always good is stupid, Well, yes, which is why I didn't say anything like that.
- priestc 14y ago
  If someone tell me "April 3, 2007", I immediately know that was about 4 or 5 years ago by quickly subtracting in my head 2007 from 2012. If someone told me "What were you doing 5 Years, 3 months ago", I'd have to pause, add up the months, then eventually come up with "What were you doing on June 23, 2007". In June of 2007 I had just graduated from college, was living in Central California, etc. I index time in my head by date, not timedelta. On the other hand, "What were you doing 3 hours ago" is much better than "What were you doing on August 23rd, 2012 at 6:05 PM". It would take me a while to realize the question was asking about today. I'm not one of those people who seem to always know what date today is...
nathan_f77 14y ago
2012 days ago is a really bad example. A proper implementation should display something like 'created: 5 years, 6 months ago'.
- self 14y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what my gnus does. An email I just looked at has X-Sent: 4 weeks, 19 hours, 13 minutes, 20 seconds ago (Of course, it being gnus, the time updates while the message is in the article buffer.)

rane 14y ago

I'm afraid HN isn't very notable for good UX in general.

MartinCron 14y ago

The "2012 days ago" is just a sub-optimal implementation of relative dates. It could be expressed as the more comprehensible but less precise "over 5 years ago" with the actual date either nearby or in the title=""

run4yourlives 14y ago
Or you could just show me the actual date, since it does everything a person needs it to do already.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

notatoad 14y ago

Okay, but how is Feb 19, 2007 relevant information to you? If you were trying to schedule something based on your HN Join date, then i suppose you want the actual date. In the general case though, the date on your profile is only used by other members (or maybe moderators) to get a rough idea of how long you've been a member for. I can look at your profile, see 2012 days, and understand immediately that you've been an HN member for a long time. I've learned everything i need to know, and i've learned it quicker than i would have by reading a full date and subtracting it from today's date. sometimes you need a relative date. sometimes you need an absolute date. saying one is always bad and the other is always good is stupid, it all depends on the context.

run4yourlives 14y ago
Why are you worrying about how it's relative to me? That's not your problem to solve. We have a system for understanding time that is universal around the world. Instead of presenting me with information that is in that format, you're making up a new one for no good reason. saying one is always bad and the other is always good is stupid, Well, yes, which is why I didn't say anything like that.
priestc 14y ago
If someone tell me "April 3, 2007", I immediately know that was about 4 or 5 years ago by quickly subtracting in my head 2007 from 2012. If someone told me "What were you doing 5 Years, 3 months ago", I'd have to pause, add up the months, then eventually come up with "What were you doing on June 23, 2007". In June of 2007 I had just graduated from college, was living in Central California, etc. I index time in my head by date, not timedelta. On the other hand, "What were you doing 3 hours ago" is much better than "What were you doing on August 23rd, 2012 at 6:05 PM". It would take me a while to realize the question was asking about today. I'm not one of those people who seem to always know what date today is...

nathan_f77 14y ago

2012 days ago is a really bad example. A proper implementation should display something like 'created: 5 years, 6 months ago'.

self 14y ago
Yes, that's exactly what my gnus does. An email I just looked at has X-Sent: 4 weeks, 19 hours, 13 minutes, 20 seconds ago (Of course, it being gnus, the time updates while the message is in the article buffer.)