[theme-reviewers] Pages: date/time stamp should not be displayed?!

[Edward Caissie]

No timestamp means no fixed position means not static ...

Edward Caissie
aka Cais.


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edward Caissie
<edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> A published timestamp fixes the page to a point in time, thus making it
> truly static.
>
> Edward Caissie
> aka Cais.
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> Let's look at this another way: what would be the point/benefit of
>> displaying the *publish* date/time on a Static Page?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Edward Caissie <
>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My bad for not "noticing" it before now ... but that does not change the
>>> point that it should not be in the guidelines; or the point that there are
>>> most likely quite a few themes that should not be in the repository based
>>> solely on that guideline as well.
>>>
>>> The point of something being static requires it to be fixed to a certain
>>> place or time thus having a timestamp is more likely to indicate the page
>>> to be static than to not have a timestamp. Having a guideline that dictates
>>> no fixed location, as in time, seems more counter-intuitive than useful.
>>>
>>> Edward Caissie
>>> aka Cais.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> (this is becoming a bad habit!) My bad -- that wasn't the original
>>>> version, just the oldest revision on the first page of history (D'OH!)
>>>> but my point is that the no timestamps guideline has been around for
>>>> several years now.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Sorry to follow up to my own email, but the first version of the Unit
>>>> > Test codex page at
>>>> >
>>>> http://codex.wordpress.org/index.php?title=Theme_Unit_Test&oldid=91985
>>>> > has "Make sure datestamps or timestamps are not visible." in 2010 --
>>>> > as authored by Cais ;)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> The guideline that Posts should display timestamps but Pages should
>>>> >> not has been around for as long as I've been using the Theme Unit
>>>> Test
>>>> >> -- I completely agree that stale information on posts is always an
>>>> >> issue, but IME the norm for just about all the users I deal with is
>>>> >> that static pages should be seen as static, not time-dependent.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>> I did not have time to check latest version yet, however I do agree
>>>> >>> that timestamp should be displayed and not dictated if that is the
>>>> case.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Edward Caissie <
>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I was just reviewing the latest Theme Unit Test data (mostly
>>>> because I
>>>> >>>> cannot seem to get the entire data set to import into my local test
>>>> >>>> environment) and noticed "date/time stamp should not be displayed"
>>>> ...
>>>> >>>> perhaps I missed some extensive discussion but where did this
>>>> guideline come
>>>> >>>> from?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> This is the single most common complaint about information found on
>>>> >>>> WordPress installations that I hear, the reader generally has no
>>>> idea if the
>>>> >>>> information is current or stale ... and more often than not those
>>>> search
>>>> >>>> results that appear to rank highest tend also to be the ones that
>>>> are
>>>> >>>> outdated.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I can see the category/tag meta data not being displayed (mostly
>>>> due to it
>>>> >>>> not being available in a default installation) but to not show the
>>>> timestamp
>>>> >>>> by reason of it being a guideline, that simply does not make sense.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> By design? Yes. By theme author prerogative? Yes. Dictated by the
>>>> WPTRT?
>>>> >>>> NO.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Edward Caissie
>>>> >>>> aka Cais.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130516/ead16855/attachment-0001.html>