←back to thread

Web page annoyances that I don't inflict on you

(rachelbythebay.com)
569 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 05 Jan 25 01:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
frogulis ◴[05 Jan 25 05:24 UTC] No.42599968[source]▶
> I don't pretend that posts are evergreen by hiding their dates.

I didn't realise that hiding dates for the illusion of evergreen-ness was a desirable thing!

On my personal site I added dates to existing pages long after they were uploaded for the very reason I wanted it to be plenty clear that they were thoughts from a specific time.

For example, a bloggish post I wrote where, while I still think it's right, it now sounds like linkedin wank. I'm very happy for that one to be obviously several years old.

replies(1): >>42600764 #
arrowsmith ◴[05 Jan 25 09:52 UTC] No.42600764[source]▶
Supposedly it’s an SEO thing. The theory is that Google is biased towards novelty and so penalises older articles (although I’m not sure how removing the date would help because surely Google would still know how long the article has been online for.)

I have no idea how true that is but I remember hearing SEO folks talk about it a few years back.

replies(2): >>42601748 #>>42601894 #
1. AHTERIX5000 ◴[05 Jan 25 14:22 UTC] No.42601894[source]▶
Some content mills seem to display a date but automatically update it periodically. Sometimes you can outright see it can't be correct since the information is woefully out of date or you can check from Internet Archive that the content is the same as before but with a bumped date.