6 ms·
I disagree with removing timestamps. It's extremely frustrating to read some technical post somewhere only to finally see that it was written in 2008. The very
by knorker 23d ago
I disagree with removing timestamps. It's extremely frustrating to read some technical post somewhere only to finally see that it was written in 2008.
The very first thing I read now on that site when looking for a good example of this was "Which Linux distribution do you like, and why". You know, it REALLY matters if that discussion is from 1995 or 2025.
Nowadays I tend to close articles if they don't have a year listed. Without the context of knowing if it's from last century, it's often less informative than not reading it at all. It could still be relevant, but the context is very important.
To add insult to injury, some unhelpful people write month and day, but not year.
- stagas 23d agoMight bring them back for historical posts, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49425728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49425728
- knorker 23d agoI also find it useful to see someone's progression. Newer posts on a topic from the same person will usually have clearer thinking about it.
- abanana 23d agoFully agree - see also Stack Overflow's relative date display for comments. They all just say "Over a year ago". Mouse over and find it's from 2012. You need that context especially for e.g. web dev, where CSS and JS have moved on a great deal in that time.