Skip Navigation

Curious about future date publishing of blog?

Travel Forums System Talk Curious about future date publishing of blog?

Page
  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

11. Posted by TLWH (Travel Guru 516 posts) 8y

Thanks for looking into this Peter.

At least it makes sense as to why it's happening now.

I also fully understand how some people would constantly republish to have it on the front page. Spammers being a prime example, so not a good thing.

I guess my choices are to save a queue of drafts and then manually post them. Or to just have them pop up in the past with a current date, which really doesn't matter as it's just a few hours on TP front page. The main thing is that it does post, and it shows up in latest entries on the blog too. ERm... I think. I'd better check on that. ....... ok just checked and it does.

Hmmm, So if TP actually registers a future date post from the date you hit the button how come it appears as a latest entry on the blog?

Ok I am over thinking this, apologies. And, thank you for taking the time to have a look!

12. Posted by GregW (Travel Guru 2635 posts) 8y

Quoting outcast

Hmmm, So if TP actually registers a future date post from the date you hit the button how come it appears as a latest entry on the blog?

I believe this is what Peter was referencing when he said:

Quoting Peter

On the blogs, sorting is done by the entry date that the user can edit.

So on your blog it appears by the date you enter, but on the TP blog page, it shows up by the date that is the internal publish date.

That is also probably why when I print out into a PDF my earlier entries, they didn't appear in the order on the publish date. I had a thread about that a long time ago, but I can't find it now.

Greg

13. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 8y

Yep, Greg is right there. And yes, it probably was why that previous issue happened. It's something that can obviously also cause confusion for those of us trying to program new features - knowing which date is which and when they should be used :)

14. Posted by TLWH (Travel Guru 516 posts) 8y

Ok thanks for putting me straight guys.

15. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 8y

Hey guys,

Bit slow to the table on this one, but was looking at this code based on something else and figured out there's a way to have future published blogs show on the date they are being published on on the main blogs page on Travellerspoint (will just discuss that in this post as the blog does it correct as far as we're all concerned, right?). As Peter mentioned, the main concern is spam, but that can be avoided it seems based on differences between times that the user can't control.

Whilst planning to put this live I did a test run to see what kind of difference this would really make. Mostly it was small stuff where maybe a user had first set something as a draft before publishing, meaning a blog post might end up one or two spots off compared to the current system. I'm pretty sure that's acceptable, since the current system isn't 100% perfect.

The problem with the fix is back dated entries. Currently these will show on the list as outcast mentioned, because that list is based on the moment you hit the publish button, not the date you give it. If it was based on the date you set and you set a date 6 days/months/years ago, then it's obviously never going to make it onto that list as there will already be other entries that are more recent.

So, the question is "is it more correct to have future blog entries not show under recently updated -current solution- or more correct not to show past blog entries under recently updated -possible solution- "?

Thoughts/ideas/suggestions?! Or are you as confused as I am?

16. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4809 posts) 8y

I believe that in the past (before we had the "describes travel from [] to []" boxes), the current solution (show backdated entries when they're published, accept not showing future dated entries) was the correct one.
Since the addition of that feature, there should be no common reason left anymore to backdate an entry, and future dating - rare though it is - should thus be the more common event, which means that making certain those will show right should get priority, and we can accept that backdated entries won't show anymore.

However, I only believe this is the case if you can guarantee this for purposefully backdated entries. E.g. if someone starts a draft (with current date automatically assigned) and works on it for three days before publishing, that entry should show up at the point of publication, despite the date which is now three days in the past. (Working on an entry for a couple of days before publishing is IMO a much more common scenario for most travellers (especially those on the road, with limited internet time) than purposefully back- or future dating, and that should be the prime scenario to keep in mind.

17. Posted by TLWH (Travel Guru 516 posts) 8y

Quoting Sam I Am

So, the question is "is it more correct to have future blog entries not show under recently updated -current solution- or more correct not to show past blog entries under recently updated -possible solution- "?

From a travelers perspective I think it's better to have past entries show up on TP. Reason being is the 'travelers time' problem. e.g. not having enough time in a cyber to send an update. So you save it and try to some back to it later. Everything depending and going well you do. But then sometimes you don't. And you only get a chance when you stop in a place for a while. Or when you get home.

From a bloggers perspective, future dates rule. It means you can write ahead of time and keep a constant weekly update going. Which is a great time saver. Here's an example. Let's say I travel Cambodia. I try to blog but I don't have time or access to write good stuff. Maybe I send one off after a few weeks just to say I am fine. But the bloging. I leave it.

I then head into Thailand and have time. I write up all my entries for Cambodia. But, I don't want to launch them all off at once. And cause some information overload to the folks reading. So I set the 'travel to/from' dates, and then set a weekly future publication date for let's say 6 blogs. So every week over the 6 weeks a blog is posted automatically on future dates.

I think from a regular readership the latter one is better. For example I read GregW's blog knowing that about once a week he publishes something. I enjoying reading his single article and all is fine. And, I look forward to reading another one in about a week. However if Greg were to suddenly publish 10 articles I would soon drift off, and not return for a while (no offense to Greg! I am sure his prose is capable of holding ones attention span for more than 10 articles ).

I noticed with my backdated posting a few months back that I was spewing stuff out on a daily, biweekly, basis. As soon as it was written I would publish the backdated stuff. That was then, and this is now. If the option to set them up to future date publish with travel to/from dates showed up, I should have done that.

So in one way that also helps out the traveller too. Future blogs done in this Cambodia example work very well for me. How many people actually do it is another thing. I plan to write more future published articles on a new country soon, that I've been travelling slowly. To have them come out on a weekly basis without having to think about it is a huge plus. Something that makes me enjoy TP. I don't know if it's offered on other blog sites?

The other thing is, while we all enjoy I day or so on the front page of TP. I believe that's the TP editors choice? While the just published blog appears, and then depending on the amount of blogs posted just then, slowly creeps away over the course of a few hours. Do the statistics justify a a change?

I would say that if either backdated or future publications effect the 'editors' featured blog. Then yes, a change in either way. If both past dated, and future publication blogs somehow pass through an editors feature blog list, then it should be addressed. If not, then is there a need?

Well that's just my perspective on things

18. Posted by GregW (Travel Guru 2635 posts) 8y

Given that I probably caused most of the grief with the back-dating, I will chime in.

I agree with Sander. There should really be no reason for back-dating an entry any more. The only reason I originally did it was because there was no "travel from and to" date box. If that had been available, I wouldn't have bothered changing the publish date, even though that would have meant something like April 05 (61 entries) showing up.

Therefore, if it is an option, I think all entries should appear in the list as per the date that the entry appears live for others to see, regardless of what is in the "publish date" at time of creation of the blog (either due to a user entering a value, or a blog taking multiple days to write).

If not an option, then I would put the focus on future dated entries rather than back-dated.

Greg

19. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 8y

Sorry for the delay in replying to this. It was triggered a bit by this comment of Sanders:

Quoting Sander

However, I only believe this is the case if you can guarantee this for purposefully backdated entries. E.g. if someone starts a draft (with current date automatically assigned) and works on it for three days before publishing, that entry should show up at the point of publication, despite the date which is now three days in the past. (Working on an entry for a couple of days before publishing is IMO a much more common scenario for most travellers (especially those on the road, with limited internet time) than purposefully back- or future dating, and that should be the prime scenario to keep in mind.

That was a scenario I hadn't really thought through, but one that explained some of the results I was seeing. So I played with some testing of that and got a bit side tracked

The problem is that this basically would be the case and like Sander says, I think this scenario is going to be a lot more likely than any purposefully re-dated entries.

Quoting outcast

I think from a regular readership the latter one is better. For example I read GregW's blog knowing that about once a week he publishes something. I enjoying reading his single article and all is fine. And, I look forward to reading another one in about a week.

For tracking an individual blogger, one of the subscribe options is really a better option, but I know what you mean :)

Quoting outcast

The other thing is, while we all enjoy I day or so on the front page of TP. I believe that's the TP editors choice? While the just published blog appears, and then depending on the amount of blogs posted just then, slowly creeps away over the course of a few hours. Do the statistics justify a a change?

I would say that if either backdated or future publications effect the 'editors' featured blog. Then yes, a change in either way. If both past dated, and future publication blogs somehow pass through an editors feature blog list, then it should be addressed. If not, then is there a need?

Another good point that I hadn't thought entirely through. The editor uses the feed on the main blogs page primarily, so would already be missing posts (the future published ones) unless they also are subscribed to individual blogs (which is probably the case for some of the blogs they have enjoyed in the past-going to double check this). If we change the way the blog posts show, then that feed will also change, meaning rather than missing future dated blog entries the editor will miss all the back dated ones, including ones where the blogger has just taken a few days to publish it. As this is more likely of a scenario, changing the status quo seems like a worse solution, unless it's done to include these past entries as well.

Quoting GregW

Therefore, if it is an option, I think all entries should appear in the list as per the date that the entry appears live for others to see, regardless of what is in the "publish date" at time of creation of the blog (either due to a user entering a value, or a blog taking multiple days to write).

This would indeed be the ideal solution, but unfortunately it requires quite a different approach to the current one. Something needs to be done with regards to all these dates anyway, so when that happens we can take this into consideration. For now I think the status quo is the only real way to go (as there are so few actually using 'future publishing'). Definitely not ideal though, so filing this as a bug report.

Page
  • 1
  • 2