Subject:
|
Re: Posting Dates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:27:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1882 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Gerber writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Rob Doucette wrote:
> > > > I thought this NNTP date posted/approved thing was corrected.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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 messages lag a month behind the intended date...think of
> > it as a customer service issue.
> >
> > This is a very rare occurance, but it is a known problem. Is there a solution?
>
> 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 e-mail/news reader.
?? Wouldn't it show up in their mail on the day it actually got posted
rather than the day it was sent, queued up and was intended to be posted?
A mail interface person who didn't closely check the date on the mail, or a
newsreader person reading "new" messages who didn't closely check the date
on the mail for that matter, would be theoretically as likely to be confused
by this as a web interface person would.
Were I proposing an elaborate technical solution I would suggest that some
sort of sanity check be carried out... if LUGNET determined that "some time"
had went by between the date on the message and the day that it was at the
time that it would be posted, it could mail it back to the originator and
ask if it was truly still desired that it be posted
But I'm not proposing such a solution as I suspect it raises more problems
than it solves.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) I'd much rather have unauthorized posts expire after a week or so, perhaps with a reminder a couple of days before they do. That's the way I'm leaning twards right now - not saying that it'll be implemented anytime soon, of course :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
83 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
