[596] in IS Home Pages
Re Date/Time stamp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Fizz)
Thu May 27 11:53:22 1999
Message-Id: <v03020900b3731a106fda@[18.152.1.56]>
In-Reply-To: <v03020900b373118a76a2@[18.152.1.50]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:53:19 -0400
To: is-home@mit.edu
From: Robyn Fizz <fizz@MIT.EDU>
Sounds reasonable. I'm wondering if we need the date/time stamp at all, but
maybe it's useful if and when someone wants to print a page for their
records.
Robyn
>At 10:16 PM -0400 5/19/99, anonymous@MIT.EDU wrote:
>>Please provide as much information as you can. Thank you.
>>
>>** Incorrect information:
>>Last modified date is actually current date.
>>It's misleading
>>
>>** Location (URL):
>>IS Staff Directory
>>
>>** Do you have a special interest in this information (i.e. owner,
>>frequent reader, etc.)?
>>It's useful to know when the directory was last modified.
>
>
>I have revised the Staff Directory pages to say "This page generated
>[today's date/time]" rather than "Last modified [today's date/time]". This
>is more accurate, and may help avoid the mistaken inference that the date
>refers to when the DATA was last updated.
>
>This of course does not address the anonymous user's real interest, but at
>least resets the expectations for the pages.
>
>As far as meeting the user's desire is concerned, I'm not clear what if
>anything we ought to do. If we put a mod date on the bottom of the page,
>what date should it be? If it is the time the database was last modified,
>it may lead to the false idea that all the records listed were updated at
>that point. Same thing if we put the mod time for the
>most-recently-modified record in the found set -- people would think that
>one mod time applied to all the records listed. If we put up mod dates for
>*each* record shown, it would clutter the screen and mislead the user into
>thinking we have a far more precise process for tracking these entries
>than we actually do.
>
>I think it's best to provide people/team *content*, but to set low
>expectations about how often the data is verified. We do not in fact yet
>have a precise and fail-safe process for maintaining it, and it would
>create a false impression to put precise update statistics on them. If you
>see what I mean...
>
>--Kevin
