Some earlier research on this topic: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3365 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3367
wrong thread?
LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#12Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#13Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#14Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#15(2009)
Really? Why?
EDIT: I see this terse comment (or rather, a comment with the form of) often, but since the articles are often javascript framework related, I just assume it's because that world keeps shifting. But, here, not so much. I don't see any guidance in the guidelines to denote the age of "timeless" publications. On the other hand, I saw somebody demand/request/suggest "(1912)" after an Edgar Rice Burroughs work some time back. I guess I'm missing something?
Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#16(2009)
Really? Why? EDIT: I see this terse comment (or rather, a comment with the form of) often, but since the articles are often javascript framework related, I just assume it's because that world keeps shifting. But, here, not so much. I don't see any guidance in the guidelines to denote the age of "timeless" publications. On the other hand, I saw somebody demand/request/suggest "(1912)" after an Edgar Rice Burroughs wor…
It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata. Edit to add: This short, terse comment serves two purposes: lets mods or the submitter know that they may want to update the title, and lets viewers know the year in the meantime. While it's not in the guidelines, it's customary. Currently six of the submissions on the front page feature years. The "[pdf]" and "[video]" "tags" are similar.
Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Why? EDIT: I see this terse comment (or rather, a comment with the form of) often, but since the articles are often javascript framework related, I just assume it's because that world keeps shifting. But, here, not so much. I don't see any guidance in the guidelines to denote the age of "timeless" publications. On the other hand, I saw somebody demand/request/suggest "(1912)" after an Edgar Rice Burroughs wor…
It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata. Edit to add: This short, terse comment serves two purposes: lets mods or the submitter know that they may want to update the title, and lets viewers know the year in the meantime. While it's not in the guidelines, it's customary. Currently six of the submissions on the front page feature years. The "[pdf]" and "[video]" "t…
Gotcha. That makes sense. Thank you.
> It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata.
I haven't seen that elsewhere (on other sites), except in posting bibliographies, and where it is common, I've seen title-author-publication-date as a bundle. It's not in the HN Guidelines; has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful?
Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata. Edit to add: This short, terse comment serves two purposes: lets mods or the submitter know that they may want to update the title, and lets viewers know the year in the meantime. While it's not in the guidelines, it's customary. Currently six of the submissions on the front page feature years. The "[pdf]" and "[video]" "t…
Gotcha. That makes sense. Thank you. > It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata. I haven't seen that elsewhere (on other sites), except in posting bibliographies, and where it is common, I've seen title-author-publication-date as a bundle. It's not in the HN Guidelines; has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful?
has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful?
Yes to both. If it weren't, I doubt members would continue the practice. I find it useful to know that it may be something I've come across in the past. It also puts it in some context.
Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#19Some earlier research on this topic: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3365 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3367
any idea as the to the purpose?
are the stains preprint(o) identifiers?
or just good humored researchers?
or troll(i) identifiers like bad grammar often is?
or some undiscussed other?
(o) http://www.astrobetter.com/blog/2011/12/12/to-post-or-not-to...
Re: LaTeX Coffee Stains (2009)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotcha. That makes sense. Thank you. > It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata. I haven't seen that elsewhere (on other sites), except in posting bibliographies, and where it is common, I've seen title-author-publication-date as a bundle. It's not in the HN Guidelines; has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful?
has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful? Yes to both. If it weren't, I doubt members would continue the practice. I find it useful to know that it may be something I've come across in the past. It also puts it in some context.
Have you considered this may be a form of cargo-cult?
This editorializing of the titles is similar to communities that have higher-ups that are equal-but-more-so (mods) that suddenly because of their status decide that their view must be the right one.
Mods adding the (publication year) is exactly like saying "hey, I've kind of read this, it's kind of old and you may (not) be interested in it because it's . I have no idea of the real value of the text but the year may give you a clue". Please don't.
I don't have any issues with original submitter doing this.