| User | Post |
|
9:14 am
September 24, 2012
|
The College Investor
| | San Diego, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 1935 | 
|
|
|
MoneyBeagle said:
I personally dislike the practice of removing the dates. I actually get somewhat annoyed if I can't find a date because it makes me suspicious that the author is trying purposefully to hide something. If I land somewhere and see that the date is older, do I automatically leave? Not at all. If the information is relevant I can determine for myself if it's still 'current', I'd rather not have the author try to determine that for me.
I actually received some negative feedback for not having dates and so I added them back – for the reason they couldn't determine if the content was fresh and relavent.
|
|
|
|
|
9:16 am
September 25, 2012
|
TightFistedMiser
| | |
| Member | posts 361 |
|
|
|
I also dislike posts with no date. It doesn't have to be in the title or byline, but I should be able to tell somewhere when the post was published.
|
|
|
|
|
9:19 am
September 25, 2012
|
michael @ financial ramblings
| | |
| Member | posts 196 |
|
|
|
I agree with others. While it's probably good practice to keep dates out of urls, I really, really dislike running across sites that have completely removed dates from their content. Imho, it should say somewhere on the page when the post was published and the comments should also be dated. User friendliness trumps any perceived SEO benefit in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
9:59 am
September 25, 2012
|
Sustainable PF
| | |
| Member
| posts 2759 |
|
|
|
TightFistedMiser said:
I also dislike posts with no date. It doesn't have to be in the title or byline, but I should be able to tell somewhere when the post was published.
I was never able to figure out how to get them out of the comments (Atahualpa can be prickly sometimes). The comment section gives the reader an idea, assuming they read that far.
|
|
|
|
Login
Search 
Home
Print this Topic 
Topic RSS 
