Rule suggestion

[K9Buck]

When posting a link to a news story, the poster should cite the month and year the story was published IF the story was published more than 30 days prior. It's annoying to read a link and to have the impression that it is "breaking" news only to discover that the story came out 4 years prior. Take the third post of the following thread as an example. The poster SHOULD have prefaced the link with "From April, 2015". Don't induce the reader to click on the link only to discover that the article is ancient news. Thanks for your consideration.

Here is a list of people arrested for the college scam.

 

[Blackrook]

A better idea is not to post OLD NEWS. There's plenty of stuff happening TODAY, why dig up the PAST?

 

[Blackrook]

^ Suck it the fuck up, snowflakes

^ That's just pointless hostility mixed in with stupidity.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some of the worst tyrannies against our civil liberties occur over time. Gradually.

It's how they get away with saying "well, we did it the last time and nobody complained."

 

[K9Buck]

A better idea is not to post OLD NEWS. There's plenty of stuff happening TODAY, why dig up the PAST?

There are times when it's appropriate to post an old link. It's reader-friendly to state the date of its publishing IF it's old news.

 

[K9Buck]

Some of the worst tyrannies against our civil liberties occur over time. Gradually.

It's how they get away with saying "well, we did it the last time and nobody complained."

I'm curious. What does that have to do with my rule suggestion?

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm curious. What does that have to do with my rule suggestion?

History lends to future and current events. If a feller ends up in a boiling pot I think it's important to know how one ended up in it so as to avoid it.

 

[Picaro]

If it's not a 'Current Event', then yes; if it is an ongoing toipic, its age doesn't matter in the least when the link was written; if you've never read Aesop's Fables, then it is a brand new book to you, no matter how old it is, and many of these 'millennials' and immigrants and younger people have zero knowledge of much of history, except as spun to them by deranged mentally ill 'academics' with personal agendas and assorted sick sex fetishes they want to 'normalize', so nearly anything will be new news to them.

 

[flacaltenn]

When posting a link to a news story, the poster should cite the month and year the story was published IF the story was published more than 30 days prior. It's annoying to read a link and to have the impression that it is "breaking" news only to discover that the story came out 4 years prior. Take the third post of the following thread as an example. The poster SHOULD have prefaced the link with "From April, 2015". Don't induce the reader to click on the link only to discover that the article is ancient news. Thanks for your consideration.

Here is a list of people arrested for the college scam.

In the case of THIS particular story, the media is largely ignoring that these practices are NOT NEW.. Hiring test takers and sports scholarship shams have been a thing for decades.. So going back in time to illustrate that is "a good thing"...

You''re right.. The dates on links are usually important. Sometimes, even major media removes the dates from some odd reason. Only way you might tell is if it's embedded in the link text..

This is more of a "mod discretion" thing because of where it occurs and how misleading it might be.. A large fraction would just honest mistakes from Binging too fast..

I love the times it happens to an OP and they don't REALIZE that article is 4 years old and it ruins their whole outrage... LOL...

Nothing refuted or moldy EVER gets removed from the I-Net.. It's like rummaging thru a hoarder's house to find a bottle opener..

 

[Natural Citizen]

Sometimes, even major media removes the dates from some odd reason.

They're beginning to do it more frequently and broadly now across different outlets. I don't like it. I think it's strategic most of the time.