Topic on Talk:Structured Discussions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Timestamps (or lack thereof)

9
Jokes Free4Me (talkcontribs)

Please could you stop using these silly pseudo-timestamps?! Let me exemplify with Media:Flow timestamps.png : They lack a LOT of information available in the usual talk-page conversations, like:

  • when was the original comment made? (not the edit)
  • was Sanger's reply before or after Quiddity's tangent?
  • how long did it take for Quiddity to post the links for the two tasks?

Are you expecting me to hover over each of those one at a time and *remember* all the hours and minutes?!?

He7d3r (talkcontribs)
Christian75 (talkcontribs)

Just me, or is the timestamp in that non-readable pm/am format?I have tried to change preference/apperance/date format to "17:32, April 6, 2015" but it doesnt seem to change anything here...

Ancheta Wis (talkcontribs)

@Christian75: when I hover over the timestamp it says "April 6, 2016 10:37AM", so there must be a user-defined preference intervening.

Sorry for the Green bar to the left. I think I caused that by clicking on "permalink" in the "..." menu.

Jokes Free4Me (talkcontribs)

That's actually the problem... We DON'T really accept your silly date format as a valid choice, and would wish to change it. Preferably to whatever we have set up in our "Preferences", but any non-AM/PM format (like what Christian75 suggested, "HH:mm, MMMM d, yyyy") would be a good start.

About the green bar, don't worry about that. As long as we don't use the same permalink you've accessed, complete with the anchor it provides (e.g., &topic_showPostId=sfa6qcy7pdtiuvpn#flow-post-sfa6qcy7pdtiuvpn ) we won't see it. And if we do use it, then the green bar is the expected result.

PS Now that i'm looking at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, the format you use ("MMMM d, yyyy h:mm am") is not even available... So, actually, my saying that is it not a valid choice was really more correct than i expected. :-)

He7d3r (talkcontribs)

Yep! It doesn't seems to respect our preferences. See also phab:T61919.

Jokes Free4Me (talkcontribs)

Heh, apparently the behaviour changed after September 2014: back then, [quote]note that the "exact" timestamp is the only one available, after 1 month. I.e. There is no more hover behaviour, after 1 month.[/quote] -- not anymore. This definitely doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction. :-<

DannyH (WMF) (talkcontribs)

When you hover over the "4 hours ago", the timestamp is a link to the history page. That might be the easier way to see the chronological order of the conversation.

I don't really see the difference between the memory load required when hovering, and the memory load required when you're not hovering. Either way, you need to look back and forth between the two timestamps that you're comparing. It's just a question of keeping your mouse hovering where your eyes go.

Jokes Free4Me (talkcontribs)

Well, that history page doesn't include what was saidchanged and where in the thread... Don't get me started on that whole "edited a comment in the current thread"!

Maybe for you it's no sweat, but ADHD is a real thing... Not trying to say that it's affecting me, but i'm not too focused either. Let me describe my current attempt: "Ok, first reply... Hovering... at 6:44 PM. Next one... Hovering... 8:37 PM. Now let's subtract. Wait, was that 6:44 or 6:34? Should i hover over the earlier stuff, or should i give up instead, since at that point in the future i won't remember this other one?". And also, "keeping your mouse hovering where your eyes go" doesn't involve only memory. But do keep threads full of dozens of replies all at "4 days ago" or "4 months ago". Actually, why bother with the number? Just have it say "some days/weeks/months ago", it's just as informative.

Reply to "Timestamps (or lack thereof)"