Live data from Hacker News

If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

protocolostomy.com

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#11
post #10
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just make it automatic.

That is of course the correct solution ;-)

I also do this. But, theoretically, it's not entirely legal. In other words, if you have a piece of content which has not been changed, but for which you've "automatically" updated the copyright date, you are basically lying about when the content was created. Not sure how this affects any future standing you may have. It's also not really a concern for a reasonably dynamic site, including things like JTV.

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#13
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is of course the correct solution ;-)

I also do this. But, theoretically, it's not entirely legal. In other words, if you have a piece of content which has not been changed, but for which you've "automatically" updated the copyright date, you are basically lying about when the content was created. Not sure how this affects any future standing you may have. It's also not really a concern for a reasonably dynamic site, including things like JTV.

Untested hypothesis: maybe adding some nearly-trivial randomized content, such as a quote from a public domain quote database, can allow you to claim a new copyright each time the page is served?

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#15
"... What happens when you don’t date your articles? ..."

I read a lot of articles and going through through them is a bit like undertaking an archeology dig for useful bits of information. The best sites include subtle hints that convey context. Useful if you are evaluating, "do I continue reading?"

How?

Authoritative sites are good because they convey more meaning than just an article. They tell you "who" is writing, "when" it was written and most important their viewpoint and intent, the "where". You find this out using subtle hints.

Date is an important clue for understanding context. Writers who don't including perceived affordances such as date, mark themselves as the writer equivalent of a first time ice skater constantly tripping over. A writer newbie, who doesn't grasp the concept of readers who use context to search and evaluate. Some sites where I have found a motherload of stuff:

- http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/

- http://htmlarchive.scripting.com/

- http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/

- http://paulgraham.com/articles.html

- http://www.avc.com/a_vc/archives.html

I read these sites again and again, because the value of the posts are increased by the "perceived affordance" of details such as the date a post was written.

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#16
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also do this. But, theoretically, it's not entirely legal. In other words, if you have a piece of content which has not been changed, but for which you've "automatically" updated the copyright date, you are basically lying about when the content was created. Not sure how this affects any future standing you may have. It's also not really a concern for a reasonably dynamic site, including things like JTV.

Untested hypothesis: maybe adding some nearly-trivial randomized content, such as a quote from a public domain quote database, can allow you to claim a new copyright each time the page is served?

Can you legally do something like 2009-2010 where the year in italics is updated automatically?

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#17
One compelling reason to not date your articles is that age sometimes destroys perceived value even if it doesn't destroy actual value.

For example, I have a bunch of stuff writing about customer service written in 2006/2007. That field has not evolved so much that "Don't curse at your customers" is bad advice in 2009. However, if one of those were posted here, the first comment would likely be "Dude, mark in the title this is from 2006", because the audience here is socialized to assume that the new and shiny is what they want to be exposed to and the old and crusty is largely not valuable with the exception of a few classics.

I have sites where I have no visible dates for exactly that reason: I intend the content to be evergreen, and if it is evergreen you don't need to know what year it was planted. (Edit to add context: elementary school teaching activities. I am not a textbook publisher so I have no incentive for ripping up my multiplication activity every year and coming out with New Shiny Multiplication 2010 Now With Numbers You Totally Couldn't Have Multiplied Last Year!)

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#18
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is of course the correct solution ;-)

I also do this. But, theoretically, it's not entirely legal. In other words, if you have a piece of content which has not been changed, but for which you've "automatically" updated the copyright date, you are basically lying about when the content was created. Not sure how this affects any future standing you may have. It's also not really a concern for a reasonably dynamic site, including things like JTV.

I wonder: if the team of web site caretakers gets together several times a year, looks at the web pages, sometimes decides to change it, sometimes not -- is it legal enough to put the current copyright?

Or, coming from the other side: one could put forward an argument that the contents of a page is regenerated every time anyway (definitely regenerated at the client, and often regenerated on the server as well). I wonder if this argument holds water, I am not a lawyer in any way.

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#19
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Untested hypothesis: maybe adding some nearly-trivial randomized content, such as a quote from a public domain quote database, can allow you to claim a new copyright each time the page is served?

Can you legally do something like 2009- 2010 where the year in italics is updated automatically?

I think this amounts to something like (c) Current. I do not think it is legal! But maybe there is a way?

Re: If You Don't Date Your Work It Sucks (date as in time, not as in romance)

#20
post #17

One compelling reason to not date your articles is that age sometimes destroys perceived value even if it doesn't destroy actual value. For example, I have a bunch of stuff writing about customer service written in 2006/2007. That field has not evolved so much that "Don't curse at your customers" is bad advice in 2009. However, if one of those were posted here, the first comment would likely be "Dude, mark in the tit…

Shouldn't the judge of evergreen-ness be from the reader, and not the author? If it really is timeless, people will come back and link to it again and again. I see the Norvig posts on learning to program in 10 years come up again and again here.

It sounds like if you wrote books instead of blog posts, you'd rip the covers off so readers can't judge it by its cover.

Post reply on HN