3 ms·

I like seeing the date. I get confused and frustrated when I see an article like "Simplify your web apps with JQuery" and there's no date of publication. Was

I like seeing the date. I get confused and frustrated when I see an article like "Simplify your web apps with JQuery" and there's no date of publication. Was it the first edition of JQuery circa 2005, or was it a recent version? At least when talking about a rapidly evolving software ecology, I think the date of publication is a critical piece of information to provide up front. If an author fears the "bit rot" effect, then why not update the piece and provide an "updated" date, e.g.: "Solving World Hunger with JQuery" by Blister Peanuts, October, 2010 Updated May, 2014 That magic "2014" cues the reader that there may be very recent, relevant information, and they are less likely to skip past it.

ssharp 12y ago
But by excluding the date, you eliminate the reverse: people being more likely to skip past it because it's not 2014. For some things, like your example, the date is very important. What solved world hunger in jQuery in 2010 may not work in the latest 2014 version. But in Patio11's example on salary negotiation, the date isn't nearly as important. Some information is relatively timeless. I saw a comment on HN today advocating that people read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "The Prince". These books are still very popular today and were written in 1936 and 1532, respectively. It really comes down to relevancy. If the date is relevant to readers, you should make sure it's easily found. If the date isn't relevant, why does it matter if it's posted anywhere?