[richardwigley]

Evergreen, now there's a euphemism. :-)

I appreciate, in the end you have to do what gets you the most views, however, from my perspective missing out the date means you prefer to waste my time as I have to scan the article until I get a feel for how old it is.

I would read anything written within 6 months and would consider up to 12 months if the information was high quality. It's not like we're overburdened with quality, independent, information.

If your going to be business minded, why not have the date on for the first few months and remove it when the first flush of green has gone. ;-)

[ternaryoperator]

>Evergreen, now there's a euphemism. :-)

It's not a euphemism. It's a standard term in web content for articles that are not time-sensitive. An article on how Quicksort works is an evergreen article. One on predictions for tomorrow's stock market moves is not.

[sukilot]

Note to the point, it shows that Backblaze cares more about content marketing SEO than HDD reliability.

[atYevP]

Yev from Backblaze here -> We've actually done a lot of experimenting and content/SEO marketing has helped us grow and expand quite a bit over the last year. As for the HDD reliability...our software works around HDD failures, so they don't affect is too much, but we do like reporting what we've seen in our environment. Hopefully other companies will do it too.

[michaelt]

It'd be better if they put the date on, but I don't see Amazon or Facebook or Google sharing their reliability data. As long as backblaze is more open than the industry standard, I think that's as a good thing regardless of their motives.