Hey PJ, What's With The "Start Date?"

[carney2]

I just noticed that my indicator to the side of my posts lists me as a member since February of 2004 when, in fact, I have been an incoherent contributor since maybe the second or third year of the site's existence. Where did this come from?

[Liz]

The new gallery times are off......I think. By quite a few hours???

Liz

I just noticed that my indicator to the side of my posts lists me as a member since February of 2004 when, in fact, I have been an incoherent contributor since maybe the second or third year of the site's existence. Where did this come from?

[carney2]

The new gallery times are off......I think. By quite a few hours???

Liz

Yes indeed, Liz. I remember one of your first posts when you were going to NY to purchase your first - or first "real" - camera. That was a year or two after my first stupid question (answered by Charles Hess, no doubt). If the dates shown are that useless - and they are - why have them at all?!!

[Asylum Steve]

...how your user name and password were transferred from the old format site to the new one. If you had to re-register or resubmit your info, you may have been labeled a new member regardless of the real date you joined the site.

A lot of the "old vets" from way back got stuck with newer "member since" dates on their profile, including me...

I'm pretty sure PJ can edit and change it back for you if you feel strongly about it. I thought about asking him myself, but the longer we go, the less difference it makes to me...

I just noticed that my indicator to the side of my posts lists me as a member since February of 2004 when, in fact, I have been an incoherent contributor since maybe the second or third year of the site's existence. Where did this come from?

[Photo-John]

When we copied over the registration data, there wasn't a join date to copy. So everyone who's been around for a while has about the same start date. I can change them, but it wouldn't be pratical or even possible for me to change them for everyone. As Steve said, if it's really important to you, let me know.

[Asylum Steve]

I've noticed some have "join dates" from a year or even more ago. It seems like it is the actual date they joined the site. If no dates were copied over to the new format, how do you explain that?

When we copied over the registration data, there wasn't a join date to copy. So everyone who's been around for a while has about the same start date. I can change them, but it wouldn't be pratical or even possible for me to change them for everyone. As Steve said, if it's really important to you, let me know.

[carney2]

Like you, it doesn't affect my sunrise, sunset, or the position of my tripod. It's like one of those little gnats in the summer - as long as it doesn't enter your field of vision it's not a factor. When it does however, it's a minor annoyance.

I point to my earlier post - and I paraphrase - If it's useless information - and it is! - why bother?

[Peter_AUS]

I don't think the Join Date is a bit of useless information, I think it is important to see that there are people that have been members for several years, because that gives some credence to their abilities with Photography, etc.

It is interesting to watch the different threads and read replies seeing the instances where different information is given by memebers and knowing who has been around since Dot and those that are new. Often I think posts are given as they don't realise the expertise of some of the members whos dates may read like yours Feb 2004 and Steve's Jan 2004. Mine has the right date so I think the information is contained somewhere correctly and should reflect correctly especially to those long term active members.

Some small things are very important and I for one think this issue is one of those.

[Photo-John]

I've noticed some have "join dates" from a year or even more ago. It seems like it is the actual date they joined the site. If no dates were copied over to the new format, how do you explain that?

I can't explain it. But maybe the engineer who handles the backend can. I'll ask him. We're on our third (and hopefully final) registration system. It may be that people who've been here a really long time don't have dates. I'll see if I can find out. I'm not sure if it matters though, as it won't really change anything to know.

[carney2]

I keep telling myself that it doesn't matter, but here I am with "pen in hand" yet again. Anyway, in response to Flashram_Peter_AUS, if the date shows a system conversion date and not a "join date" as it pretends to, then it is - IT TRULY IS - useless - and misleading - information. Don't know the extent of this "problem," but I do know that I'm not the only one in this boat.

Here's wishing that I hadn't started this thread.

[Asylum Steve]

Here's wishing that I hadn't started this thread.

Carney, I think this is a good topic to talk about. I think that's the only way to see if this matters much to anyone else.

Like you and Peter, I think the join date has a significance. Sure, life goes on regardless, but I too was a bit dissapointed to see my "join" date changed to the date of the new format.

It's not an ego thing; I just believe it's human nature to take pride in the legnth of time you've belonged to an organization. It's also interesting to note where various members fall in this site's "timeline"...

[Photo-John]

I keep telling myself that it doesn't matter, but here I am with "pen in hand" yet again. Anyway, in response to Flashram_Peter_AUS, if the date shows a system conversion date and not a "join date" as it pretends to, then it is - IT TRULY IS - useless - and misleading - information. Don't know the extent of this "problem," but I do know that I'm not the only one in this boat.

It's not completely misleading and useless. It's only a problem for those of us who've been around for a long time. For anyone who joins now, the date will be completely accurate. The real problem is that I have to manually change those dates. That's not really practical when there are thousands of people. However, as someone suggested, I could do it for anyone who really feels like they need it done. I don't want, and can't afford to open the floodgates on this issue. But if you really want that date changed, please e-mail me. I won't respond unless you e-mail me, though. I have to be pretty tight about this.

Thanks for letting me know how important this is. I do understand. It's just that it's so much work. I'm bummed, but I want to make it right for anyone who thinks it's really important.

[carney2]

As I said earlier, wish I hadn't started this. Anyway, the issue has been aired and my original question has been answered - at least to my satisfaction. No need to spend anymore time on this, make any changes, or set any precedents on my account. Let's get back to the things that really matter such as a discussion of how my "state of the art" film equipment is destined for the Smithsonian sooner rather than later.