3 ms·

This reply misses the point, because my reply was to rahimnathwani who said: > The year is useful in the title when the article provides out of date informatio

by lapcat 1y ago

This reply misses the point, because my reply was to rahimnathwani who said: > The year is useful in the title when the article provides out of date information. In other words, rahimnathwani was suggesting, incorrectly, that appending the year is necessary only when the article submitter knows that the article provides out of date information. In that context, when I asked rhetorically, "Why would someone even submit an article with out of date information?" I meant why would someone knowingly submit an article with out of date information? Thus, your examples are not applicable to the debate about when an article submitter should append the year to the article title, because in your examples, the out of date information is submitted unknowingly: > Obviously because people don't check or don't know or don't understand assume it's still valid. Of course people unknowingly submit out of date information. If you thought I was suggesting otherwise, that's a misunderstanding of the argument.

coldtea 1y ago
Fun fact: it's not only submitters that append a date to an article, it's also HNers who either update directly or suggest to submitters to add it themselves _after it has been posted_. So that's the case my comment was about (which was precisely the case of TFA, since people were discussing adding the date after it was posted).
- lapcat 1y ago
  I'm truly baffled by this reply. rahimnathwani submitted the article. I personally replied to rahimnathwani, the submitter, suggesting that the year (2021) be appended after it was posted. So, your so-called "fun fact" describes the very situation that I already participated in. You're explaining something that is not only totally obvious to me already but in fact should be totally obvious to everyone, including yourself, since it occurred just a few comments earlier in this discussion thread! Again, though, the publication date has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the information is out of date.
  - coldtea 1y ago
    Oops, didn't notice it was you who posted the suggestion. What I was getting at, in any case, is that it sometimes the need to add the date after-the-post-is-up can arise. To that, the objection that "but who would post outdated information knowingly" is moot. In the general case, I stand by what rahimnathwani said, that "the year is useful in the title when the article provides out of date information". You might think "that's not the reason for the HN convention". It might not even be the canonical reason PG or whoever established the convention. Nonetheless, it's a solid idea, and it probably should have been the reason for the HN convention to begin with. I don't care nor have a use for a date stamp on evergreen or still relevant content. Even if it's older article or post someone posts here. I do have a use for a date stamp of a post with information that's potentially out of date, whether the OP includes one, or someone here adds it.
    - lapcat 1y ago
      > What I was getting at, in any case, is that it sometimes the need to add the date after-the-post-is-up can arise. To that, the objection that "but who would post outdated information knowingly" is moot. I am the person who asked rhetorically, why would someone even submit an article with out of date information, in the same comment where I suggested adding the date after the post is up. Thus, it was not an objection to adding the date after the post is up, and again, you've unfortunately misinterpreted the context. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45324088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45324088 > I don't care nor have a use for a date stamp on evergreen or still relevant content. Even if it's older article or post someone posts here. You're free to disagree with the HN convention. However, this is not the place to argue with it. I would recommend creating your own HN submission for that. The only reason I'm still here is to clarify my previous comments in this thread, which I believe I've done now.

by lapcat 1y ago

coldtea 1y ago

Fun fact: it's not only submitters that append a date to an article, it's also HNers who either update directly or suggest to submitters to add it themselves _after it has been posted_. So that's the case my comment was about (which was precisely the case of TFA, since people were discussing adding the date after it was posted).

lapcat 1y ago
I'm truly baffled by this reply. rahimnathwani submitted the article. I personally replied to rahimnathwani, the submitter, suggesting that the year (2021) be appended after it was posted. So, your so-called "fun fact" describes the very situation that I already participated in. You're explaining something that is not only totally obvious to me already but in fact should be totally obvious to everyone, including yourself, since it occurred just a few comments earlier in this discussion thread! Again, though, the publication date has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the information is out of date.
- coldtea 1y ago
  Oops, didn't notice it was you who posted the suggestion. What I was getting at, in any case, is that it sometimes the need to add the date after-the-post-is-up can arise. To that, the objection that "but who would post outdated information knowingly" is moot. In the general case, I stand by what rahimnathwani said, that "the year is useful in the title when the article provides out of date information". You might think "that's not the reason for the HN convention". It might not even be the canonical reason PG or whoever established the convention. Nonetheless, it's a solid idea, and it probably should have been the reason for the HN convention to begin with. I don't care nor have a use for a date stamp on evergreen or still relevant content. Even if it's older article or post someone posts here. I do have a use for a date stamp of a post with information that's potentially out of date, whether the OP includes one, or someone here adds it.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > What I was getting at, in any case, is that it sometimes the need to add the date after-the-post-is-up can arise. To that, the objection that "but who would post outdated information knowingly" is moot. I am the person who asked rhetorically, why would someone even submit an article with out of date information, in the same comment where I suggested adding the date after the post is up. Thus, it was not an objection to adding the date after the post is up, and again, you've unfortunately misinterpreted the context. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45324088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45324088 > I don't care nor have a use for a date stamp on evergreen or still relevant content. Even if it's older article or post someone posts here. You're free to disagree with the HN convention. However, this is not the place to argue with it. I would recommend creating your own HN submission for that. The only reason I'm still here is to clarify my previous comments in this thread, which I believe I've done now.