comment on

Worst Nodes of last 365 days

I don't think so...

This is the kind of usability problem that drives non-computer people crazy. Yes, of course the nodes in question are from the last 365 days, that doesn't mean you have to say so. I think "in the past month, "within the last year" or "up to a year ago" are quite sufficient to allow people to understand, without sounding like a dork.

I also wish to register my dislike for the idea of best/worst nodes of the year starting from the beginning of the year/month. I'm not so fussed about what this means for Worst nodes, but for Best nodes, a brilliant node that scores on the Best nodes of the year in December will get wiped out at the end of month, when it could have been showcased for eleven more months. That would suck.

- another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl

In reply to Re: Best and Worst Nodes of The last month / year by grinder
in thread Best and Worst Nodes of The last month / year by Arunbear

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks