It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Datestamp on Edit

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
It isn't a lifethreatening problem, or anything near that at all, but I was just editing a post of mine and for the first time probably actually thought about the edit thing:

edit on 13-8-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)


It gives a datestamp, which, while I admit that there'd be a 1 in 12 chance that you posted in a timeframe that would place part of the two hours you have to edit, surely it'd be more useful to have a timestamp instead, or at least both the time AND the date?
The top of your post gives the time and date you posted, so perhaps the edit thing would give the same, and then it'd be useful, comparable information!

If there is an issue with people knowing how much after you posted you edited, why have a datestamp even at all?




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I am not sure if there are technical reasons or not - but in my experience dates on older posts come in very handy for being able to research the context that might have influenced the thread. It allows for cross checking posts or trends with the news stories that were active at the time.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Nonono...I have nothing against the datestamps and timestamps on the posts themselves, obviously, those are very useful and necessary.

I mean the datestamps that come when you edit something. If the post already has a timestamp AND datestamp, what purpose would the datestamp on the edit serve?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



If the post already has a timestamp AND datestamp, what purpose would the datestamp on the edit serve?


For the average member, you can assume one to many edits in the two-hour window.

In the case of moderators, admins, etc... The date stamp can be days, months, or even years after the original post, and they typically fill in the "reason" for their edit.

In these cases, the date stamp is helpful.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
just my opinion - but timestamp should be used - not date

not to accuse anyone - but I have seen posts edited in response to replies - too often for the wrong reasons



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
From what I've seen and read, the edit is supposed to have a reason on the edit. Once you edit the post, you need a reason why.

From what others posted, a mod, or even you after the fact, can edit the post.

Date is all ones need to convey the reason of their edit. The terms of use doesn't have a time stamp requirment.

You can make up a reason after your 2nd edit from the current HTML tags...not currently against any terms of agreement verbiage.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by babloyi
 

In the case of moderators, admins, etc... The date stamp can be days, months, or even years after the original post, and they typically fill in the "reason" for their edit.

In these cases, the date stamp is helpful.

I had forgotten about that case. I suppose in this situation, a datestamp would be useful, but then again, it'd only be a small fraction of the time (i.e. IF something is wrong with a post that it needs to be edited, and IF that was only noticed at least a day later).



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join