Put the date on a link when it's added, like the annotations have it.-- StarChaser,
Aug 28 2000
<And just for the record, I didn't vote for this. I felt that the idea itself was my positive vote...>-- StarChaser,
Sep 02 2000
<snarky> You did, however, add a pointless annotation to bring it to the top again... </snarky>-- egnor,
Sep 02 2000
No, actually, I modified the name and the description text, because after reading them, the original title of 'Date links' sounded more like 'SWM into dogs, cats, horses and other farm animals wants to meet proctologist. Stock in Preparation H a plus' than what I intended...Did the annotation at the same time.-- StarChaser,
Sep 02 2000
Excellent idea. I'm into dogs, cats, horses and other farm animals. BTW, I'm a proctologist looking to invest some money in a related field. One thumb up.-- thumbwax,
Sep 25 2000
There are already four elements in the links: name, URL, subtitle, owner. Displaying a fifth (and, if you really want to align with the annotations, a sixth -- created and modified dates) makes it even more confusing and will make many links spill from two lines into three, or from three lines into four.
The order of links in time is given by their order on the page. Browsers indicate whether someone has been there by changing the color of the text.
Is it really that useful to know whether something has been sitting there unnoticed by you for a week vs. a month? Useful enough to put the extra noise on every link on every page?-- jutta,
Oct 03 2000
I don't think that so many ideas have so many links that the date would make that much difference <Except when you, our Search Engine Ninja attacks...<grin!>
My browser doesn't keep the link color changes more than a day because that's how I find the newly added or modified things in the Date list. <I read all of the ones on the main page, then switch to date and skip the color changed ones>.
I think it's a good idea, but not so much so that I'm willing to argue seriously...-- StarChaser,
Oct 05 2000
Where? I can't find the feature you describe.-- jutta,
Nov 22 2000
No, that stuff isn't necessary. But just now, I've run across several ideas whose newest annotations are from Feb of 2000, that ended up in the 'recent' list. I assume the reason was that someone put in a link, because Jutta fixed it that creating/deleting an annotation doesn't put an idea back on top, but looking for new stuff in an old idea is a pain.
Jutta, per your Oct 3 annotation, it's more 'why did this show up in 'new'?' than 'How long has this link been here?' Maybe just date the newest link.-- StarChaser,
May 19 2001
Often, this kind of thing is just someone adding an annotation, then thinking better of it and deleting it. You might catch some, just not all of them. But basically I think that's a good direction to go in.-- jutta,
May 19 2001, last modified May 20 2001
Sorry, I thought you'd said you'd rigged it so it wouldn't do that anymore...Wouldn't have added this, then...-- StarChaser,
May 19 2001
There were some people that did this deliberately, and I rigged it so that _they_ couldn't. Solving the general case for this would mean to keep an awful lot of per-user data - if you saw the annotation, you need to be told it's gone, but if you didn't, you shouldn't be told, etc.
What I _did_ change was that deleting and modifying things doesn't pop something back on the top, and that seems to have worked out fine so far.-- jutta,
May 20 2001
Just now went through a couple of ideas where links are dead or the article is not there. Not that I would suggest actually testing the links, but I think this would help+-- theircompetitor,
Feb 29 2004
I was just about to post this idea, but then I felt sure it had been posted before. And yea, varily, it had. It's a shame it isn't implemented. In going through some of the older ideas, I think it would help - - I get a lot of broken links here :-( [+] Then again, the more I think about it, I would still click the link anyway. Sort of like when the milk looks like it's gone off, but you have a sniff anyway - - even though you KNOW milk isn't supposed to be that color . . .-- contracts,
Aug 14 2004