Why Eliminate The Year From The Logs?

[+Team Saprod]

I've noticed that starting with year 2005, the year has been eliminated from the automatic date that shows up with the log on a cache. Why? I think the year is important, especially for more remote caches that might only get visited once a year. Any answers? Team Saprod

[+Touchstone]

I think the year gets appended on when the new year rolls in. At least that's how it's seemed to work for the past couple of years.

[+Moose Mob]

Yes, like touchstone said.

 

In 2006, the online logs will show the 2005 of the date.

[+welch]

I think the year gets appended on when the new year rolls in. At least that's how it's seemed to work for the past couple of years.

exactly. When it gets to Jan 1, 2006 all the 2005 logs get the year added automatically.

[+dogbreathcanada]

I've noticed that starting with year 2005, the year has been eliminated from the automatic date that shows up with the log on a cache. Why? I think the year is important, especially for more remote caches that might only get visited once a year. Any answers? Team Saprod

LOL.

 

This bit of critical thinking has made my morning.

[+sept1c_tank]

...I think the year is important, especially for more remote caches that might only get visited once a year...

I think the OP's point is that the year should be included in the online log. I agree. More than once, researching logs of older caches, I have had to stop to calculate which year is correct for a log with only a month/day date. How confusing will this become by the year 2010?

[+sept1c_tank]

Nevermind.

[+TotemLake]

But that assumes the date provided was not a current year date. When looking over older caches, you will see that the year is appended. I would say it is safe to assume the year 2005 will be appended at the appropriate time. As it will happen at the end of 2006, etc.

 

This is what I observed last year as 2004 ended.

[+sept1c_tank]

Am I mistaken, or did the year not used to appear on older logs?

[+sTeamTraen]

Leaving the year off seems to be part of the general attempt to make dates "friendly", in the same way that today's appears as "today", then "yesterday", then "2 days ago" through "6 days ago", then the day and month, then the full date with the year.

 

I quite like this in the 20-per-page cache listings, but it doesn't seem to gain much when all that's left out is the year, as with logs. And for those of us who occasionally try to post-process logs for whatever reason, it's one less bit of structure to depend on.

 

So my vote would be to have the year always displayed for logs.

[+Team Saprod]

Thanks for the input and information. I keep learning new things about this obsession we call geocaching everyday.

[+The Leprechauns]

Am I mistaken, or did the year not used to appear on older logs?

It's always been the way it is now, I think. I recall this same forum thread coming up in late 2002 or early 2003 (sorry, too lazy to search, and not sure which term to use). As best I can recall, the year has always been left out for logs during the current year, and has always been included in logs from prior years.

[+Ambrosia]

Am I mistaken, or did the year not used to appear on older logs?   

It's always been the way it is now, I think. I recall this same forum thread coming up in late 2002 or early 2003 (sorry, too lazy to search, and not sure which term to use). As best I can recall, the year has always been left out for logs during the current year, and has always been included in logs from prior years.

You are absolutely correct, Lep. The years have always shown up, except for the current year.

[+Quiggle]

It's always been the way it is now, I think. I recall this same forum thread coming up in late 2002 or early 2003 (sorry, too lazy to search, and not sure which term to use). As best I can recall, the year has always been left out for logs during the current year, and has always been included in logs from prior years.

Short, but shows it was this way in the early days, too.

[+Prime Suspect]

Am I mistaken, or did the year not used to appear on older logs?

You're correct, but only sort-of. They didn't appear during the first year, but only because all the logs were from the current year.

 

Leaving off the year if it's the same as the current year has always stuck me as rather pointless. Why create an ambiguous date, when it's so simple to just display the year?

[+The Leprechauns]

It's always been the way it is now, I think.  I recall this same forum thread coming up in late 2002 or early 2003 (sorry, too lazy to search, and not sure which term to use).  As best I can recall, the year has always been left out for logs during the current year, and has always been included in logs from prior years.

Short, but shows it was this way in the early days, too.

It is really scary that I remembered that thread. I couldn't find my car keys yesterday when we were trying to get out the door to go hide a geocache, but I can recall a short forum thread from three years ago. Idiot Savant syndrome, prolly light on the Savant stuff since absolute total recall of forum threads ain't exactly something to brag about on the level of particle physics research.

[+sTeamTraen]

Leaving off the year if it's the same as the current year has always stuck me as rather pointless. Why create an ambiguous date, when it's so simple to just display the year?

Probably the programmer was inspired by Unix utilities, eg "ls -l" which typically does this

[vagabond]

[

It is really scary that I remembered that thread. I couldn't find my car keys yesterday when we were trying to get out the door to go hide a geocache, but I can recall a short forum thread from three years ago. Idiot Savant syndrome, prolly light on the Savant stuff since absolute total recall of forum threads ain't exactly something to brag about on the level of particle physics research.

LOL Lep its called a senior moment

[+briansnat]

I've noticed that starting with year 2005, the year has been eliminated from the automatic date that shows up with the log on a cache. Why? I think the year is important, especially for more remote caches that might only get visited once a year. Any answers? Team Saprod

I agree. Some changes are not for the best. The year should not have been removed.

[+Moose Mob]

I've noticed that starting with year 2005, the year has been eliminated from the automatic date that shows up with the log on a cache.  Why?  I think the year is important, especially for more remote caches that might only get visited once a year.    Any answers?    Team Saprod   

I agree. Some changes are not for the best. The year should not have been removed.

As far as opinions go, I think the current method is a lot more friendly. When I talk to folks in the office about stuff from two moths ago, we don't say "remember back in September of 2005?"

 

I vote for leave it as it is.

[+TotemLake]

I have to agree with this sentiment. I don't need to be reminded what the current year is. This isn't AOL where I need to be spoonfed every piece of information.

 

And this...

 

I think the year is important, especially for more remote caches that might only get visited once a year.

 

...is just pure misinformation as the year does get tagged on once the current year changes.

[+Prime Suspect]

I have to agree with this sentiment. I don't need to be reminded what the current year is. This isn't AOL where I need to be spoonfed every piece of information.

You're forgetting about new cachers, who may not have caught on to this rather odd date scheme. They'll see a log date of June 23 and have no idea of what year it refers to. Listing the year, along with the month and day, is hardly spoonfeeding information, especially when the entries will span several years.

 

There's simply no reason to leave out information like this. When you look at a date, you should be able to immediately know what it means. You shouldn't have to figure out any "trick". It's just flat-out a bad idea, without a single real upside.

 

Or maybe, if the log is for the current month, we should just leave out the month too. We don't want to spoonfeed the month to anyone, do we? The log would simply have, say, 9 as the date. Makes about as much sense.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Prime Suspect

[+Markwell]

Wait, I seem to remember about a year ago, someone complaining that the 2004 logs had no year.

 

 

 

 

J/K

 

It's always been like this, and I remember Jeremy indicating that this is some "standard" in databasing.

[CoyoteRed]

Or maybe, if the log is for the current month, we should just leave out the month too. We don't want to spoonfeed the month to anyone, do we? The log would simply have, say, 9 as the date. Makes about as much sense.

Well, in the lists if the last log is a week or less away it says X days ago.

 

Jeremy for a short time changed it to something that I liked but darned if I can remember right now. Anyway, it was more helpful to know how long the cache had been unfound than just a date. Folks complained it was changed back.

 

I'm in the "why do we need this year on it" crowd.

 

As for your suggestion, I think it excellent. I'd say, "Back on the 9th" though--more friendly.

[+Prime Suspect]

Wait, I seem to remember about a year ago, someone complaining that the 2004 logs had no year.

 

 

 

 

J/K

 

It's always been like this, and I remember Jeremy indicating that this is some "standard" in databasing.

And 2 years ago, and 3 years ago...

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Am I mistaken, or did the year not used to appear on older logs?   

You're correct, but only sort-of. They didn't appear during the first year, but only because all the logs were from the current year.

 

Leaving off the year if it's the same as the current year has always stuck me as rather pointless. Why create an ambiguous date, when it's so simple to just display the year?

How many bytes of data are saved by displaying current-year dates without the year listed? It takes Plucker long enough to crunch the data, I don't need it to slow down even more.

Beginning

 

Complete darkness looms everywhere; surrounding all those who step foot into this strange world of parody. All of a sudden, as if out of nowhere, a sound comes out of this blackness. And as a bodiless voice clears its throat and pipes up, you can't help but be drawn in to what is said.

 

"The place, is Westchester. The year? Is 787," the mysterious voice says.

 

"A.D.?" another voice asks curiously.

 

"Of course it's A.D. You don't have to say A.D. It's 787!"

 

"An airplane?"

 

"No, the year. The year is 787."

 

"B.C.?"

 

"No. No, nothing happened in 787 B.C. Well, not in Westchester anyway…"

 

"Stuff happened in other places in 787," the second voice counters back.

 

"Well, yes, but that doesn't pertain to this story, now does it? Now shut up already and let's get on with the rest of the tale, shall we?" The first voice says with an agitated sigh.

 

"Oh. All right. On with the story," the second voice says.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Team GPSaxophone

[+briansnat]

Wait, I seem to remember about a year ago, someone complaining that the 2004 logs had no year.

 

See what I mean? They should stop changing things. Its good the way it was.

Edited November 22, 2005 by briansnat

[Jeremy]

Why change it? It has been that way since September 2nd.

 

Moving this to the appropriate forum (mine).

[+Sagefox]

(Jedi hand gesture)

 

The year is not necessary...

 

(Jedi hand gesture)

 

It is just fine the way it is...

 

(Jedi hand gesture)

 

Move along...

[+Markwell]

I'm reminded of when I tech-support some newbie end-users. I tell them to click a menu item. They instinctively ask "Right Click or Left Click?" The assumption in the computing world is a left click unless otherwise specified.

 

How hard is it to assume it's the current year unless otherwise specified?

[+sept1c_tank]

Why change it? It has been that way since September 2nd.

[+TotemLake]

I have to agree with this sentiment. I don't need to be reminded what the current year is. This isn't AOL where I need to be spoonfed every piece of information.

You're forgetting about new cachers, who may not have caught on to this rather odd date scheme. They'll see a log date of June 23 and have no idea of what year it refers to. Listing the year, along with the month and day, is hardly spoonfeeding information, especially when the entries will span several years.

 

There's simply no reason to leave out information like this. When you look at a date, you should be able to immediately know what it means. You shouldn't have to figure out any "trick". It's just flat-out a bad idea, without a single real upside.

 

Or maybe, if the log is for the current month, we should just leave out the month too. We don't want to spoonfeed the month to anyone, do we? The log would simply have, say, 9 as the date. Makes about as much sense.

I don't know about you, but if I see June 23 with no year specified, I'm going to assume current year. If the newbie can't figure that out, they need to pack their PC's back up and send it back to customer support with the usual excuse.