[aleyan]

Outside of the parent's bad attitude, he does have a good point. No timestamp on the article makes it hard for me to place the story in context.

It is one of my pet peeves when I come across some morsel of information online but I can't evaluate if it is still applicable because there is no timestamp anywhere.

[cynwoody]

That's a pet peeve of mine, also. There's usually a date, but often not near the top and/or not in a standard format. Then there are these sites that use relative times, e.g., 0 minutes ago, or 865 days ago ...

In the current case, there is a timestamp of sorts at the bottom of the page: "Updated December 27, 2012 Copyright 2012 Cockeyed.com".

Here is blog owner's About page, last updated January 27, 2012: http://www.cockeyed.com/personal/about.html.

[cockerham]

Is there some form of timestamp which is better than the full date at the bottom of the page?

[lostlogin]

Personally I find it useful when it says it was an hour ago, or a day ago, or 3 days ago etc up to a week. Then the date is what I want.

[cynwoody]

Yes. And it also helps if it's near the top of the post, as opposed to being buried in a signature or something.

Bottom of the page would be OK, too, if people always put it there. But they don't.

Consistent date placement promotes efficient search engine result scanning (Google's date constraints are highly imperfect).