The recent post on timestamps has created a lot of comments.  And it's interesting when you look at them, as to what categories people fall in to.  The people who advocate dates and times, and those who'd rather do without them.  But behind it, I think there's something more fundamental going on here, and that's what I'm going to try to address.  You see, I think the real issue here isn't whether permanently fixing posts in set places in time is a good idea or not, I think it's something else:

Is there a difference between content that needs to be referenced by time, and content that isn't?  And how do we ascertain which types are which?

To answer this, we need to break it down a little further.  There are many kinds of content; written, audio and video being the main ones. And these break down further.  We can have news, which is breaking and up to the minute.  We can have news which is old.  Remembrance day.  Nothing new about that.  But it's still news.  There are guides, some of which are for things that are changing on a daily basis, such as stock trading.  And there are those that don't change, like cookbooks.  So I think we can all agree, that there's a whole lot of content out there.

And this presents us with a problem.  Vast amounts of content.  Huge numbers of ways to break it down.  Different styles, different authors...  A never-ending stream of ways to analyze it.  So what do we do?

So far, we've seen people saying that things should be timestamped (most of the commentators), and people who say it shouldn't (including myself, but more on that in a minute).  However, to my mind, there is a third option, that  we haven't really touched on yet, and it's this:

Not all content is created equal.

The reason, I think, why this difference of opinion has come up is simple - we are each relating it to different types of content in our minds.  To me, someone who tends to blog on things that are fairly unchanging, I see little need for times and dates.  The information will be just as valid in five years as it is now.  That is its nature.

However, others will be thinking of content like news, or guides and practices for transitory applications.  In this case, a time stamp is most definitely required.  Because whilst that guide, that news may be relevant now, in five years, it may be as dead as the dinosaur.

So here we see a difference.  A line we can draw.  That line, however, is sadly fuzzy.  The question becomes what content is what.  Where do we decide to place the cutoff point?

To me, the answer is simple.  How long is the place where the content is held going to be there?  If it's a place where the content will expire before it's relevancy to that period in time passes, then it doesn't need to be time stamped.  For instance, if your blog were to purge once a week, it wouldn't need time-stamped news so much.  It'd be relevant, to a certain extent, by virtue of it's life cycle.

If however, you're keeping those same news stories for 10 years, they most definitely need to be referential.

So you see, the argument then falls not on to a set of criteria; a fulcrum rule upon which we may form judgments and pass verdict, but it falls to us, as creators, as the people who generate this content, to use our own judgment.  We must decide and apply both models as and where required.

Take Away Points

• Sometimes there's no right answer, just a host of good ones.
• You don't always have to choose.  Occasionally, you can do both.
• Don't worry too much about content.  Use your own judgment, then put it up and let others decide.  If needs be, work it like a wiki.  If people think something needs changing, let them change it. 

Apologies for the old-style language - blame my tv habits...  I've been watching Sharpe.  It brings out the Shakespeare in me...