When you see postings or comments with a timestamp, would you prefer to see xx seconds/minutes/days/weeks/etc ago or the exact time stamp? Why?
Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#2Is it hard to implement showing both? I like seeing both.
Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#3Is it hard to implement showing both? I like seeing both.
Both are not hard to implement. But exact timestamp has a timezone problem, while 'xx ago' is universal.
Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#4Is it hard to implement showing both? I like seeing both.
Both are not hard to implement. But exact timestamp has a timezone problem, while 'xx ago' is universal.
> Both are not hard to implement. But exact timestamp has a timezone problem
Specify a timezone in the timestamp. UTC is probably fine, especially if you are doing both, in which case, the main value of timestamps (AFAICT) is to compare the relative times of other posts that are hard to determine from the prose descriptions.
Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#5It depends on context of information and amount of design space available. There's no one right answer.
Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#6Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#7I prefer an actual date, simply because when looking at a screenshot 'X days ago' becomes meaningless unless you know when the screenshot was taken.
Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#8Re: Ask HN: '2 weeks ago' vs 'July 12, 2013 1:46pm'
#9I prefer an actual date, simply because when looking at a screenshot 'X days ago' becomes meaningless unless you know when the screenshot was taken.
That's a good point. 'X days ago' becomes meaningless once the page is stale.