[run4yourlives]

Lot's of love for relative dates, but personally, I agree with the poster. Here's an example from HN:

user: run4yourlives

created: 2012 days ago

Got any idea how long I've had an account for? I sure as hell don't, because 2000 days is a completely irrelevant measurement to me.

It would be a lot cleaner just to say that I've been around here since 19 Feb, 2007.

I think this is a bigger point than just the dichotomy between dates. If you are trying to make them mean something, make them mean something. 2 hours ago is fine, but 23 days ago is most certainly not. Was that a weekend? A morning? Last Tuesday after work? Who knows.

Actual dates work for longer periods of time, relative much better for shorter frames. Stick to this, for the love of God please.

[notatoad]

Okay, but how is Feb 19, 2007 relevant information to you? If you were trying to schedule something based on your HN Join date, then i suppose you want the actual date. In the general case though, the date on your profile is only used by other members (or maybe moderators) to get a rough idea of how long you've been a member for. I can look at your profile, see 2012 days, and understand immediately that you've been an HN member for a long time. I've learned everything i need to know, and i've learned it quicker than i would have by reading a full date and subtracting it from today's date.

sometimes you need a relative date. sometimes you need an absolute date. saying one is always bad and the other is always good is stupid, it all depends on the context.

[run4yourlives]

Why are you worrying about how it's relative to me? That's not your problem to solve.

We have a system for understanding time that is universal around the world. Instead of presenting me with information that is in that format, you're making up a new one for no good reason.

saying one is always bad and the other is always good is stupid,

Well, yes, which is why I didn't say anything like that.

[rane]

I'm afraid HN isn't very notable for good UX in general.

[MartinCron]

The "2012 days ago" is just a sub-optimal implementation of relative dates. It could be expressed as the more comprehensible but less precise "over 5 years ago" with the actual date either nearby or in the title=""

[run4yourlives]

Or you could just show me the actual date, since it does everything a person needs it to do already.

[nathan_f77]

2012 days ago is a really bad example. A proper implementation should display something like 'created: 5 years, 6 months ago'.

[self]

Yes, that's exactly what my gnus does. An email I just looked at has

X-Sent: 4 weeks, 19 hours, 13 minutes, 20 seconds ago

(Of course, it being gnus, the time updates while the message is in the article buffer.)