Squirrel of Justice (snarkbite) wrote in suggestions,
Squirrel of Justice

Change 'Entry is backdated' option's title

Change 'Entry is backdated' option's title

Short, concise description of the idea
Change title of the 'Entry is backdated' option on the Update form to 'Entry is non-chronological'.

Full description of the idea
The current title of the 'Entry is backdated' option causes a lot of confusion for people due to its name. The name makes people assume that it's only used to post entries in the past. (Gee, how would the term 'backdated' cause people to think that, eh? LOL...)

The real issue with the current title is that the option is actually more often used to set an entry that is *future*-dated, rather than one in the past. The "This gerbil iz Fiends Only!" entries are almost always a far-future dated entry, but such entries need to actually be 'backdated' for people to continue posting normally afterwards. So, trying to explain to someone that "you need to backdate your future entry" gets a little dicey, both to explain correctly and for the user to understand.

The true point of the checkbox is to simply tell LiveJournal "I'm posting this entry in such a way that it is out of chronological order with the current entries in my journal -- it's either in the past, or it's in the future but I'd then like to continue posting 'current' entries after that."

So, I'd like to suggest changing it to "Entry is non-chronological" to make it more generic, so that it fits in with both directions on the timeline. At least give a clue that it doesn't *have* to be a past date, which is what its current title mandates (until you're told otherwise).

I have no actual preference on the wording -- if someone can come up with a better phrase that's short but still gets the idea across, that's fine.

An ordered list of benefits
  • A title that is more accurately reflective of the setting's actual functionality.
  • Less user confusion right out of the gate.
  • Easier for Support to explain what the feature does.
  • More likelihood the user will actually 'get' such an explanation.

An ordered list of problems/issues involved
  • It's just a field name change -- no actual functionality/coding/programming would be touched. Therefore, I don't think there would be anything that qualifies as a real "problem" that would be created by making the change.

An organized list, or a few short paragraphs detailing suggestions for implementation
  • Title would need to be changed.
  • Site error messages (such as 'incorrect time value') that reference the 'Entry is backdated' option by name or that use 'backdating/backdated' in a general sense would need to be updated accordingly.
  • Site FAQs that reference this option in any way would need to be changed accordingly.
Tags: date out of order / backdate, site copy, § implemented differently
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded