 | | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I view the dates differently. In the authentication scenario, the authorize date is the date when the poster made a conscious decision to share their message with the community, the message's birthday. The date they wrote and submitted the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) That point is the first purely market oriented post. Even if it's a direct reply or followup to a post... Bram's followup to his original post was market related, pure and simple, and nothing else. (...) I'm not. I saw a lot of whinging by you (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) Maybe that's the penalty you mention below? Someone who doesn't authorize a message right away runs the risk of having their message being not read as it gets inserted in it's proper place in line-perhaps after a week or so? Is that even (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) nod, interesting... or send a reminder, saying "if you don't authorize this post in the next 2 days, it will be deleted"... (...) it can, but should it? I think the date the message was written is the date that should appear on it. the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I like this suggestion. If the message isn't dispositioned within 5 days (I like 3 better) send the entire text of the message back to the sender via e-mail and remove it from the server. The message could easily be reposted via newsreader if (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) so you think if it inserted itself with all the read messages, it'd be less confusing? I know I'd never see it, now will anyone who reads through the web interface... (...) naw - it's not the server's fault that whoever it is sat on the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) Oops...ought to clarify for readers that this is a web interface problem. Obviously those having the messages delivered via newsgroup or e-mail would not see this as a new message...it would just show up by date where it belongs in their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) That would only be true if the message somehow just showed up where it belonged in line. If it posts as a new message 28 days later, it is highly confusing. This instance has proven that. Besides, it is a disservice to the users to have their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I don't see it as broken. The date of a message is the date it was composed. The date it was posted is unimportant, imo. :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Nope, that's not what anyone is saying. There would have been a point reached where, had the replies continued, it should have been moved to wherever else if it had nothing to do with trains. It's like, hypothetically, RCX newsgroup, "Hey I'm (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
