# Upload Dates Removed?



## ClubStripes (Oct 25, 2007)

This is kind of a weird question, but I noticed that the dates on the uploads are gone, even in the listing on our account's main page (it now just says "a week, 9 days, 12 days, a month") which is entirely unhelpful. I used to be able to tell what day something was posted by looking at the first comment on the image, but now even those dates are removed. 

I really hope this isn't a permanent feature, but I can't find any way to change this in my own settings. Is this just some kind of weird glitch?

--Midori


----------



## robomilk (Oct 25, 2007)

I guess it's a new "feature."

To be honest I preferred the old way of writing the whole date.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 25, 2007)

They all have tooltips with the original date.


----------



## robomilk (Oct 25, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> They all have tooltips with the original date.



I know. But that's still too slow.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 25, 2007)

Er.  What is your use case for needing to know exact dates for mass numbers of submissions in a row?


----------



## ClubStripes (Oct 25, 2007)

I don't know about anyone else, but we don't upload very often (1-2 times a week at max), and I do sometimes refer to a specific date of upload. Without the info on our uploads, all I get is a vague "well, so what exactly was "a month ago"? 30 days? 28 days? 26 days? Anything over 21 days?

What is the reason for removing a valid function in the first place? That was one of many features I really greatly preferred over DA. 

--Midori


----------



## Eevee (Oct 25, 2007)

Readability?

And besides:


			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> They all have tooltips with the original date.


----------



## robomilk (Oct 25, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Readability?
> 
> And besides:
> 
> ...



Which then makes searching for images of a specific date incredibly tedious...


----------



## AndyFox (Oct 25, 2007)

I agree. I prefer seeing the exact dates.


----------



## yak (Oct 25, 2007)

The setting to switch between normal and fuzzy dates will be added to the users CP a  bit later.


----------



## ClubStripes (Oct 25, 2007)

So...why was it changed, though? I don't understand this vague claim of "readability." I find that I can read the date "October 25, 2007" just as easily as "Today," but eight days from now, I will still understand when "October 25, 2007" was, vs. "A week ago."

If changing it back was going to be offered as an option anyhow, why remove it in the first place when it was already there? Why not just implement all of it and then announce the switch feature when it's accessible on the user end?  

--Midori


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 25, 2007)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it 

While I prefer a date at the same time, the date itself I wouldn't call accurate, since you don't know whose time it's running from. Unlike the forums, there isn't a place to set the time for users in different time zones, nor is there a correction for those that use DST.


----------



## TheGru (Oct 25, 2007)

ClubStripes said:
			
		

> I don't know about anyone else, but we don't upload very often (1-2 times a week at max), and I do sometimes refer to a specific date of upload. Without the info on our uploads, all I get is a vague "well, so what exactly was "a month ago"? 30 days? 28 days? 26 days? Anything over 21 days?
> 
> What is the reason for removing a valid function in the first place? That was one of many features I really greatly preferred over DA.
> 
> --Midori


I'm a writer, we *never* upload often.

However I loved the exact date feature, though there is the subscript, having the main works better.



			
				AndyFox said:
			
		

> I agree. I prefer seeing the exact dates.





			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it


Exactly


----------



## yak (Oct 25, 2007)

/me starts a long, boring and irrelevant explanation about branch merging and revisions, etc.

Well, let's just say it was just done, and the possibility to switch between date formats considered from the start. The only thing missing is the option in the user CP, which will be added as soon as time permits.

OT: I can say this only for myself. 
At the end of the hard working day it's hard to add 2 and 2 together, much less to calculate date offsets from the current date, which BTW i don't keep track of. All i know that it's Thursday, 2007, and it's October i think. To me, the fuzzy date format is a much easier way see the time an image was uploaded/comment posted; datestamps are a visual noise i un-conscientiously skip.


----------



## MewMew (Oct 26, 2007)

How about just adding it now instead of "as soon as time permits"?  Or, changing it back until the option can be added?  I'm with the majority here, I much prefered knowing the exact date vs. a vague "6 months ago".  I really do not like having such vague details given to me like this, especially with no obvious warning that things would change.

I've never understood why the "a few minutes" and "a month ago" type stuff was used when you're viewing a submission and seeing details like the species, gender, etc. of a submission.  Now I'm going to be stuck seeing it everywhere "until time permits" that I can make the choice?


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 26, 2007)

I prefer seeing the exact dates too.  Strawpoll?

I only do a new drawing every 1-2 weeks (if even that), and seeing them all castrated off at the nearest month bugs me.  Mouseovers or not.


----------



## yak (Oct 26, 2007)

> How about just adding it now instead of "as soon as time permits"?


Because there are thing like current DNS updates, which have a higher priority then this option. And they're causing more problems too.
As soon as time permits does not mean it will be done in a month.


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Oct 26, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it



Truer words were never spoken. _Way_ too often it seems like people make changes to sites (and other things) _just for the sake of changing something_. When a change _is_ made, there ought to be a reason for it, and it ought to make sense. Can someone-- anyone-- tell me what the advantage is to having a vague upload date listed instead of a specific one?



			
				yak said:
			
		

> As soon as time permits does not mean it will be done in a month.



Yeah, we kinda figured that out when we passed the one-year mark of the "search" function being down lol.


----------



## dave hyena (Oct 26, 2007)

I quite like this new way of doing things, I find it more immediate and intuitive. I don't really feel for myself, that I need to know the exact dates, to within a month or a few days is fine for me.


----------



## TakeWalker (Oct 26, 2007)

Am I the only one who doesn't recall ever seeing exact upload dates? As far as I know, ever since I started coming here, submissions had the "for a day"/"a week"/"for X months" relative tags. I'm wondering where this complaint came from all of a sudden.


----------



## ClubStripes (Oct 26, 2007)

Kiffa_kitmouse said:
			
		

> Can someone-- anyone-- tell me what the advantage is to having a vague upload date listed instead of a specific one?



I asked this before. Nobody answered. I really don't think we're going to get one, outside of unexplained "readability" and personal preference (which, as others have also stated, should have been held off on implementing until people could make that choice on their own accounts, if it was going to be solely an issue of personal preference). If I had to hypothesize, I'd guess someone did this with the idea that DA does it, so FA should so it can be more like DA. 

I hate that about DA, though. There are many things that FA does WAY better than DA. But, at least DA does revert your posting date back to the exact date after it passes the "a week/a month" nonsense. Recently when Dustmeat discovered her tiger picture being unlawfully used in someone's clothing design, at least the submission page's comments indicated exactly when people first saw it and commented on it. 

Upload dates used to be posted on the main page of your user account. Also, the comments on gallery posts used to have dates. And looking at this thread, at least, many more people used or otherwise liked the exact date format, enough so to actually come to this forum and add their input about it. Not like I'd ever come here before with some sort of problem. The fact that my forum post count is so low should be indication enough that I usually NEVER have a problem with FA. 

Weirdly, looking around, the dates on journals and their comments seem to be preserved. Don't know why even the comments in the gallery and the shouts have been made into vague-format. If there's reason enough to have exact dates on journal comments, why remove the rest?

--Midori


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 26, 2007)

Clubstripes. 

DA has BOTH because as I mentioned in an earlier post, the server clock is NOT the same as actual time for people across the world. DA in their wisdom actually put how many hours ago a post was posted AND what time it was posted according to your preferences. I think that's extremely reasonable in case you actually have the wrong time set in your preferences. I was also annoyed that the date and time were removed, but I'm also annoyed that I can't SET the date and time to reflect MY time zone.

I know of an art site I believe http://www.gfxartist.com/ doesn't even have REAL time. XD


----------



## ClubStripes (Oct 26, 2007)

Well, that's good to know. I'm a little fed up with DA for various reasons, if you can tell. ;p


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 26, 2007)

ClubStripes said:
			
		

> Well, that's good to know. I'm a little fed up with DA for various reasons, if you can tell. ;p



I can understand being fed up with a lot of galleries. Right now DA is too large for me to keep up with, it has its own set of problems as does FA. FA has a small enough community for now for me to keep up with, but as the site grows, it will also run into the same problems plaguing DA or they would magnify.

The fact that FA still has a "personal" feel to it, where you can contact people if problems occur is one of the reasons I put up with FA, along with the fact there are some rather interesting folks around on the site.


----------



## yak (Oct 26, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> preferences. I was also annoyed that the date and time were removed, but I'm also annoyed that I can't SET the date and time to reflect MY time zone.


You know the response to the first complaint, and i'll bundle the implementation of second with the first.


----------



## TheGru (Oct 26, 2007)

TakeWalker said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who doesn't recall ever seeing exact upload dates? As far as I know, ever since I started coming here, submissions had the "for a day"/"a week"/"for X months" relative tags. I'm wondering where this complaint came from all of a sudden.



Actually were talking about how on the user's *submission list* on their page got changed form exact date to the vague "On FA for X time" that you see when viewing submissions.


----------



## yak (Oct 26, 2007)

Added a little bit of Javascript to make it possible to change the date format on the fly.
By default, fuzzy dates will be shown though, until the option is added to the user's CP. I intend to keep this dynamic  date format change, unless there are reasonable objections to it.


----------



## Wolfblade (Oct 26, 2007)

Since there seems to be more than a few complaints about the change, and so far the stated reason for the change was solely your personal preference, perhaps it would be best if we put it back to the way it was until the option is available to switch between the two.

When "I prefer it this way" is all that is given as a reasonable justification for a change, then "I prefer it the way it already was" does amount to a reasonable objection, and there are several people who have voiced such already.


----------



## yak (Oct 26, 2007)

Well, out of all  120k FA's users, this thread bears the voices of quite a few who actually disagree. I realize this change will not suit everyone's needs and expectations, and i respect that. 

But i really don't see a problem that would merit a need for things to change back when it was said a setting will be offered as soon as possible, along with ann implementation of a  suggestion for a timezone field making FA's dates relative to each user's geographical locations.

Besides, it already is as simple as a single mouse click to get the full dates showing. All that's missing now is the default time format, which will be "fuzzy" for the time being.

As for personal preferences, not really.
I had to merge all the code and and bugfixes from the alpha sandbox in the production code before i could start transferring FA to the new www box, as not to make that task thrice as complex later.


----------



## TheGru (Oct 26, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I was also annoyed that the date and time were removed, but I'm also annoyed that I can't SET the date and time to reflect MY time zone.


That's more of a matter of preference as I find that having it set at EST works rather well, and I often use the time frame for my regular Sunday updates on my journal. I'd rather have it at one universal set time-frame rather than people setting it to their own times, despite the fact I live in Cali which is in a three hour apart time zone from the site's time-frame.

As for the main topic most of it is preference, but I find it easier to detect and report art theft when you have clear indicators of when a piece was submitted.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 26, 2007)

I don't see how there is much difference between saying "3 hours ago" or "12-31-1969 @ 20:15 PST/DST" makes any difference by your logic then?


----------



## CyberFoxx (Oct 26, 2007)

Bah, just change the dates to Unix time. Er, wait, that won't work when we hit 2038.


----------



## Brooklyn (Oct 26, 2007)

CyberFoxx said:
			
		

> Bah, just change the dates to Unix time. Er, wait, that won't work when we hit 2038.



We'll all be dead by then so it won't really matter.


----------



## TakeWalker (Oct 26, 2007)

TheGru said:
			
		

> TakeWalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The new submissions area, then? I honestly don't recall seeing date-like things anywhere. :| I'm stumped; I guess it doesn't make a difference to me, in that case.


----------



## Dickie (Oct 27, 2007)

I'm gonna be blunt.

I don't like it.

It makes the profile pages look messy and somewhat disorganized. Having the exact dates (and who cares if they're four hours off?) added a sense of professionalism to the pages. The broad generalization of "2 weeks," "a month," or whatever makes it incredibly vague. "2 weeks" can have a margin of up to four days from today either way. With "a month," it's even bigger. "A year." You guessed it.

It looks totally unorganized, tool tip or no. When an artist does a drawing, they'll date it. Not write something vague.

What's next? The "some," "a few," and "a whole bunch" numbering system used over on Y!gallery?


Also, why are Fender's announcements on the front page still in date/time format, yet the rest of the site in the days/weeks/months format?


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 27, 2007)

TakeWalker said:
			
		

> The new submissions area, then? I honestly don't recall seeing date-like things anywhere. :| I'm stumped; I guess it doesn't make a difference to me, in that case.



On someone's userpage, in the "Latest Submissions" section.


----------



## DARKWOLFE (Oct 27, 2007)

in all honesty i never noticed the change


----------



## Eevee (Oct 27, 2007)

Sigh.  The idea is (presumably) that for _viewers_, dates are (a) almost entirely useless and (b) harder to parse.  I don't care what millisecond this file was uploaded; I care, relatively, _how old it is_.

October 26, 2007
"Okay, October.  It's October.  26.  Is it the 26th?  Clock says it's the 27th.  Oh, but it's past midnight.  Okay, that was today."

October 18, 2007
"It's October.  18.  What day is it?  27th?  9 days ago, about a week."  (What day, exactly?  Who cares?)

October 23, 2006
"It's October.  23..  um..  few days ago.  Wait, 2006, fuck."

Dates require parsing to turn into something conceptually useful.  The exact date is of absolutely no use to me in most cases; I just want to know artist's last activity, time between uploads X and Y, etc.  I usually can't even tell you the date because I have no use for it.  I care about when things happen relative to now, and the further away they are the more I just care about scale rather than precision.

You may not like it, but that doesn't make it useless or stupid.


----------



## Wolfblade (Oct 27, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> *I don't care* what millisecond this file was uploaded; *I care*, relatively, _how old it is_.
> 
> October 18, 2007
> "It's October.  18.  What day is it?  27th?  9 days ago, about a week."  (What day, exactly?  *Who cares*?)
> ...



You may not like the whole date being spelled out, but obviously several users do. This is, as far as the impression you and yak have given so far, entirely a matter of personal preference. Your preference is not useless or stupid, but neither is the preference of our users, which you and yak are dismissing as if they are.

All that people seem to have said here, either way, is that they prefer one way or the other.

An option is coming so both opinions can have their own preference.

The question asked was what _need_ there was for the change _before_ having it as a selectable option. If a change or new feature is to be implemented; and giving people the option of choosing whether they prefer what had been the standard as opposed to whatever the new option may be is something that can be done without causing problems; then the option should really be made available at the time the change/new feature is implemented.

Neither method is stupid or useless, so there's no need for anyone to be so dismissive here.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 27, 2007)

Oh, sorry.  I was meaning to imply that it is more readable _for me_ to fend off the complaints that seem to imply it's not more readable _at all_.

Hm.  The irony is striking.

The _need_ is, from what I can glean, that it was already written sans preference and tangled with some bug fixes, so it was much easier for yak to update the site code with everything than try to pry one mostly-finished feature off from the rest.


----------



## Wolfblade (Oct 27, 2007)

Ok, cool, that's a much better explanation then, thanks. ^_^


----------



## TakeWalker (Oct 27, 2007)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> TakeWalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now I get it.  Thank you.

FWIW, I think I don't care at all.


----------



## imnohbody (Oct 27, 2007)

Brooklyn said:
			
		

> CyberFoxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Speak for yourself. I intend to live forever, or die trying. 

As for the main thread topic, I honestly never noticed, and can't say I personally see why it's necessary to see the exact date. YMMV (and obviously does, in some cases, as shown by this thread).


----------



## Mewwie (Oct 28, 2007)

A lot has been said in defense for both sides -- although granted, many who haven't noticed simply do not care. And sure! You can still see the actual date in a mouseover, but honestly how many people actually know this? Don't you think it would be best to, I dunno, post it in a little message in the news section? I mean really, it would take like, ten seconds to do so and it would clear up any confusion for those who do not actively view the forums. I liked the old method for viewing as much as anyone else, but until there's an option, don't you think it would be best to let the people in general know?


----------



## TheGru (Oct 28, 2007)

Well I just recently figured out that all you have to do is click on the info once and it converts between the two modes, so I'm sated.

/my involvement in this thread.


----------



## Dickie (Oct 28, 2007)

Gru: I'm not sure about you, but I have to click every time I load a new page.


----------



## Archet (Oct 29, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Sigh.  The idea is (presumably) that for _viewers_, dates are (a) almost entirely useless and (b) harder to parse.  I don't care what millisecond this file was uploaded; I care, relatively, _how old it is_.



I have to admit, I find this explanation somewhat... Condescending. You're basically saying 'this is the option for people too dim to figure out relative dates'. Speaking for myself, I have no problem parsing that 'October 23, 2006' was a bit over a year ago. I'd much rather have that specific date listed and have to do some inconsequential mental arithmetic to get the relative temporal position than have the laughably fuzzy 'a year' notation, which covers a period of several months, and _still_ have to do the click-over to get the actual date and an _accurate_ relative temporal position.

Regardless, you have a fair enough reason for implementing the change as suddenly as you did. It strikes me as a silly thing to have tied into more vital updates, particularly with no user option switch written, but I can understand how it'd happen. I'm no coder, but I'm familiar enough with the subject to understand how haphazard it can be. At the same time, _have_ you guys ever considered having some sort of a changelog on the front page that'd cover this sort of thing? Not the rarely updated and seldom useful newsbox, but a seperate section specifically for the coders to notify people that they're changing this thing for this reason, or that the site'll be going down at X time for a server change, etc.? As has been noted before, most of the site's userbase doesn't pay attention to the forums until _after_ something's changed/gone wrong, so it'd save you from having to explain/justify things in here all the time.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 29, 2007)

Too dim to figure out relative dates?  I was _explaining_ relative dates    And the point was rather that an accurate date is generally useless.

And I'd love a changelog, but since I'm not the one touching the current code it's not really up to me.


----------



## Archet (Oct 30, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Too dim to figure out relative dates?  I was _explaining_ relative dates    And the point was rather that an accurate date is generally useless.



But your explanation basically reads as "Math is hard! Tee hee!" It presumes that people need someone else to do some pretty basic parsing for them, which, unless they're completely uneducated and/or live in some sort of isolation bubble and have no concept of the current date, really shouldn't be the case. And yes, I'd agree that the date is generally useless, and that the complaint against the current system is largely an aesthetic one. In terms of the recent change, however, it does hinder the one use I ever actually had for it: seeing exactly how often a particular artist is active, by skimming over the dates in their recent submissions panel and the submissions themselves and establishing as much of a pattern as possible. 'Okay, these were all posted X months ago. That's nice. Were they posted all on the same day or over a longer period? How year old is that year old one? Exactly one year, or eighteen months?' I end up clicking over all the dates _anyway_. Particularly the older the submissions get, and the fuzzier the 'pre-parsed' dates get. Much easier, from my point of view, to just have the actual dates listed. Much the same reasoning as why I've always had the 'full size image' option checked on sites like this one. Why go through the intermediary step when I know I'm going to want to see the full version?



			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> And I'd love a changelog, but since I'm not the one touching the current code it's not really up to me.



Fair enough, but you're (presumably) closer to the ears of those who are. It'd certainly add a bit more of a professional and/or caring feel to the site, and deflect the 'inflicted from on-high' feeling some of these sudden and apparently random (for all the regular users know, anyway) changes bring.


----------



## yak (Oct 30, 2007)

My apologies for the delay with the user CP option.

http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/  (link at the left side, below "Account Settings")

This page is new, and will be updated from time to time with option that change the way you browse the site, e.g your browse preferences. These settings will be stored in your browser cookies, at least for the time being. Well, to be honest i intend to keep them stored in cookies unless there are reasonable objections to this method.


----------



## imnohbody (Nov 2, 2007)

Pardon a potentially stupid question, but I'm not quite sure what that page means by "default avatar". Do you mean the generic painter's palette thingy for those who haven't uploaded their own avatar, or something else? I checked the wiki, and there was no mention of anything about "default avatars", just "avatars".


----------



## codewolf (Nov 2, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> Pardon a potentially stupid question, but I'm not quite sure what that page means by "default avatar". Do you mean the generic painter's palette thingy for those who haven't uploaded their own avatar, or something else? I checked the wiki, and there was no mention of anything about "default avatars", just "avatars".



by the default avatar yes they mean the generic painters pallette


----------



## imnohbody (Nov 2, 2007)

Ah, okay. I understand now. Gracias.



[size=xx-small](And, no, I don't speak Spanish. I just know a few words. Trying to start up a conversation with me in that language would waste everyone's time.  )[/size]


----------



## blade (Nov 2, 2007)

I like the options between fuzzy and not so fuzzy thanks for doing this ^_^


----------



## AndyFox (Nov 5, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> My apologies for the delay with the user CP option.



Thank you, Yak, for getting this done.


----------



## wut (Nov 10, 2007)

So why are my "full" timestamps no longer actually full? I have no time given on any message I've seen so far. At best I get the stupid 'fuzzy' "time since posted" on a mouseover. Being required to mouse over the date to get the time is cumbersome. Not giving me the actual time when I do so defeats the purpose of wanting full timestamps in the first place. I'm more than capable of the mental arithmetic needed to approximate how many days/hours/minutes it has been since posting.


----------



## yak (Nov 10, 2007)

Attitude much?

Those dates are being displayed according to a date format, specified in the config files and left untouched for over a year, as far as i know it. It must have been always so, and the recent changes did not affect it in any way.

There's no problem in adding " h:i" to "F jS, Y" in that date format, and it's already done. All you had to do is just say it, sheesh.


----------

