Generally the correct default, I think. And sometimes the correct non-option too.
I personally prefer to have them in many social media things (it's a hint for "this is popular enough that they won't even notice my contribution" vs "likely ~nobody else has seen this, maybe I should spread it"), and I think I manage to avoid the addictive parts pretty well... but it does still affect behavior (e.g. above, do I boost it or no?) and sometimes that's a net negative for the ecosystem.
(unintended but fittingly: ^ above is just barely under their 500 char limit. though this addition is not. I generally don't like small char limits, but to each their own)
I like the rationale you have behind trying to be anti-addictive with the design. I wish more places around the net had that sort of mentality. Though I am curious, why remove timestamps?
To resurrect old discussions. The hot algorithm makes old engaging posts stay a little bit longer, and with the timestamp it introduced bias that you might not want to answer a very old post. My instinct was right as users are engaging with those old posts more often now.
The irony here is that modern social algorithms actively conceal these for exactly the same reason. Social feeds want to show you a steady stream of content that you are likely to engage with. They are incentivized to frame content as literally timeless and impose a continuous, never-ending present on the user, since they don't want recency to get in the way of engagement. But the time-context in which a piece of media was produced is a fairly important detail in critically evaluating it and situating it in an actual, human conversation.
Did this piece of writing with common AI smells get posted before or after 2021? Did the author write this piece about someone they admire and aspire to before or after the murders became public knowledge? What was the expert concensus on the topic when the author wrote about it? What meaning did this slang have back then?
What technologies were commonplace? He said he needs help with something I'm an expert in -- can I help him, or was it over a decade ago?
What was happening culturally when this was written? What was the weather like? Did this collection of posts with a dour tone get posted during a global pandemic when mostly everyone was self-isolating? Did he write this post about his loved one before or after her death?
I mean hopefully I don't need to sell you on why this information is useful and actually antithetical to addictive, low nuance, engagement-driven social media. We need more media literacy, not less, and de-emphasizing critical details like this seems problematic
I do sympathize with the challenge and know that there aren't really easy answers here, and every possible change is likely to ruffle someone's feathers, but I have a feeling there is another way to achieve what you're after.
A solution here that I’m considering is revealing the historical information after a post has reached past a certain age. This will bring context to the post while also reduce bias on recent posts.
I do feel reluctancy answering to a post even a few hours ago thinking my answer might not be applicable to their context anymore. But not knowing, I believe keeps the conversation going for a while. I see it actually taking place.
So, what is the right thing to do here? More engagement and lack of information, or more information and less engagement? Not an easy answer.
> I do feel reluctancy answering to a post even a few hours ago thinking my answer might not be applicable to their context anymore. But not knowing, I believe keeps the conversation going for a while. I see it actually taking place.
First time I hear about textlog today, seems interesting (and good to remove likes etc). But if there aren't other comments that already address whatever point I would want to make I dont care if it is 10 minutes old or 10 days old (now, 10 years might be different and probably should be different).
Maybe that is due to my background in forums focused on solving technical problems (troubleshooting, programming, etc), but even if the original poster helped by my input any longer, someone else might be even if that is years down the line, so answers are always useful.
Of course context is everything, and if it is someone talking about what they had for lunch, that is irrelevant 10 days later (but I also wouldn't be interested in that content to begin with, even if it was 10 seconds old).
So in conclusion, I think having a timestamp is useful, and definitely for older posts (but for newer posts I think you are overestimating the problems of having them).
Yes, your client is trying to connect using IPv6 and failing. This is odd however because we had this problem and then we’ve configured it properly and it was working. This must be some upstream issue from our hosting provider.
Edit: I’ve opened a ticket and waiting for their answer. Thanks for the report!
The late Cohost also lacked like, reply, and follower counters; it was generally regarded positively. It did have an unread notifications counter though, so you knew you went viral when that read 99+.
I disagree with removing timestamps. It's extremely frustrating to read some technical post somewhere only to finally see that it was written in 2008.
The very first thing I read now on that site when looking for a good example of this was "Which Linux distribution do you like, and why". You know, it REALLY matters if that discussion is from 1995 or 2025.
Nowadays I tend to close articles if they don't have a year listed. Without the context of knowing if it's from last century, it's often less informative than not reading it at all. It could still be relevant, but the context is very important.
To add insult to injury, some unhelpful people write month and day, but not year.
Fully agree - see also Stack Overflow's relative date display for comments. They all just say "Over a year ago". Mouse over and find it's from 2012. You need that context especially for e.g. web dev, where CSS and JS have moved on a great deal in that time.
I always sort of hated social networks. Even the ones I eventually participated in, such as Reddit or HN (although I tend to see those more as forums).
I navigated a bit on textlog, and I found it strangely compelling. I will give it ia shot.
Generally the correct default, I think. And sometimes the correct non-option too.
I personally prefer to have them in many social media things (it's a hint for "this is popular enough that they won't even notice my contribution" vs "likely ~nobody else has seen this, maybe I should spread it"), and I think I manage to avoid the addictive parts pretty well... but it does still affect behavior (e.g. above, do I boost it or no?) and sometimes that's a net negative for the ecosystem.
(unintended but fittingly: ^ above is just barely under their 500 char limit. though this addition is not. I generally don't like small char limits, but to each their own)
I like the rationale you have behind trying to be anti-addictive with the design. I wish more places around the net had that sort of mentality. Though I am curious, why remove timestamps?
To resurrect old discussions. The hot algorithm makes old engaging posts stay a little bit longer, and with the timestamp it introduced bias that you might not want to answer a very old post. My instinct was right as users are engaging with those old posts more often now.
TikTok does this so they can reuse popular content to game engagement.
The irony here is that modern social algorithms actively conceal these for exactly the same reason. Social feeds want to show you a steady stream of content that you are likely to engage with. They are incentivized to frame content as literally timeless and impose a continuous, never-ending present on the user, since they don't want recency to get in the way of engagement. But the time-context in which a piece of media was produced is a fairly important detail in critically evaluating it and situating it in an actual, human conversation.
Did this piece of writing with common AI smells get posted before or after 2021? Did the author write this piece about someone they admire and aspire to before or after the murders became public knowledge? What was the expert concensus on the topic when the author wrote about it? What meaning did this slang have back then?
What technologies were commonplace? He said he needs help with something I'm an expert in -- can I help him, or was it over a decade ago?
What was happening culturally when this was written? What was the weather like? Did this collection of posts with a dour tone get posted during a global pandemic when mostly everyone was self-isolating? Did he write this post about his loved one before or after her death?
I mean hopefully I don't need to sell you on why this information is useful and actually antithetical to addictive, low nuance, engagement-driven social media. We need more media literacy, not less, and de-emphasizing critical details like this seems problematic
I do sympathize with the challenge and know that there aren't really easy answers here, and every possible change is likely to ruffle someone's feathers, but I have a feeling there is another way to achieve what you're after.
A solution here that I’m considering is revealing the historical information after a post has reached past a certain age. This will bring context to the post while also reduce bias on recent posts.
I do feel reluctancy answering to a post even a few hours ago thinking my answer might not be applicable to their context anymore. But not knowing, I believe keeps the conversation going for a while. I see it actually taking place.
So, what is the right thing to do here? More engagement and lack of information, or more information and less engagement? Not an easy answer.
> I do feel reluctancy answering to a post even a few hours ago thinking my answer might not be applicable to their context anymore. But not knowing, I believe keeps the conversation going for a while. I see it actually taking place.
First time I hear about textlog today, seems interesting (and good to remove likes etc). But if there aren't other comments that already address whatever point I would want to make I dont care if it is 10 minutes old or 10 days old (now, 10 years might be different and probably should be different).
Maybe that is due to my background in forums focused on solving technical problems (troubleshooting, programming, etc), but even if the original poster helped by my input any longer, someone else might be even if that is years down the line, so answers are always useful.
Of course context is everything, and if it is someone talking about what they had for lunch, that is irrelevant 10 days later (but I also wouldn't be interested in that content to begin with, even if it was 10 seconds old).
So in conclusion, I think having a timestamp is useful, and definitely for older posts (but for newer posts I think you are overestimating the problems of having them).
Less granularity could be a middle ground.
Show the date but not h/m/s.
Does anyone else see this error, and/or know what it is about?
>Secure Connection Failed
>An error occurred during a connection to textlog.cc. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.
Yes, your client is trying to connect using IPv6 and failing. This is odd however because we had this problem and then we’ve configured it properly and it was working. This must be some upstream issue from our hosting provider.
Edit: I’ve opened a ticket and waiting for their answer. Thanks for the report!
The late Cohost also lacked like, reply, and follower counters; it was generally regarded positively. It did have an unread notifications counter though, so you knew you went viral when that read 99+.
Oh we have it, that counter is still there, obviously that one is necessary. I removed everything that I considered noise and not contributing much.
Just to help with the troubleshooting, I tried a few different browsers on Windows:
Google Chrome, Brave, Waterfox, Waterfox Classic, Firefox: error
qutebrowser: site works fine
Thanks! I think you meant to answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49425349 instead of this thread.
I disagree with removing timestamps. It's extremely frustrating to read some technical post somewhere only to finally see that it was written in 2008.
The very first thing I read now on that site when looking for a good example of this was "Which Linux distribution do you like, and why". You know, it REALLY matters if that discussion is from 1995 or 2025.
Nowadays I tend to close articles if they don't have a year listed. Without the context of knowing if it's from last century, it's often less informative than not reading it at all. It could still be relevant, but the context is very important.
To add insult to injury, some unhelpful people write month and day, but not year.
Might bring them back for historical posts, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49425728
I also find it useful to see someone's progression. Newer posts on a topic from the same person will usually have clearer thinking about it.
Fully agree - see also Stack Overflow's relative date display for comments. They all just say "Over a year ago". Mouse over and find it's from 2012. You need that context especially for e.g. web dev, where CSS and JS have moved on a great deal in that time.
I had never heard of this.
I always sort of hated social networks. Even the ones I eventually participated in, such as Reddit or HN (although I tend to see those more as forums).
I navigated a bit on textlog, and I found it strangely compelling. I will give it ia shot.