Re: DIS: timestamps
On 6/13/2020 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/13/2020 4:50 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-13 17:42, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: I am the dirty fool who removed the timestamps from the report, I tend to do that with all my offices because it doesn't seem useful and I don't have an automated way of collecting that information or anything. The Treasuror Reports that I copied once I got into office all had timestamps, so I have continued the trend. I have noticed, though, that the timestamps in Thunderbird and on the archives don't always line up 100%. I do think that having timestamps for transactions like the ones the Treasuror tracks can be valuable, but that perfect accuracy isn't really that important, and including them isn't that much harder anyway, so I just do it. Reasons to include time: - For reports like Tresuoror it's good to order transactions - exact time doesn't matter but sometimes you want to replay a set of transactions while assuming one of them didn't happen. Adding a timestamp as you go makes them easier to keep in order but I wouldn't go back and add them. - I know people check reports for errors (again, mostly reports with quantities that change alot like coin balances) and if there's a possible error it comes down to looking and seeing "is there an entry in the report's table of transactions that matches this message in my sent mail". Timestamp can be the best way to match that stuff up otherwise tracking down errors can be a bear. Again I wouldn't go back and add but useful going forward. Alright. I think I will just keep them as is for the first report, but have them for all actions taken after the first report. -- ATMunn future notary here :)
Re: DIS: timestamps
On 6/13/2020 4:50 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-13 17:42, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: >> I am the dirty fool who removed the timestamps from the report, I tend to >> do that with all my offices because it doesn't seem useful and I don't have >> an automated way of collecting that information or anything. > > The Treasuror Reports that I copied once I got into office all had > timestamps, so I have continued the trend. I have noticed, though, that > the timestamps in Thunderbird and on the archives don't always line up > 100%. I do think that having timestamps for transactions like the ones > the Treasuror tracks can be valuable, but that perfect accuracy isn't > really that important, and including them isn't that much harder anyway, > so I just do it. Reasons to include time: - For reports like Tresuoror it's good to order transactions - exact time doesn't matter but sometimes you want to replay a set of transactions while assuming one of them didn't happen. Adding a timestamp as you go makes them easier to keep in order but I wouldn't go back and add them. - I know people check reports for errors (again, mostly reports with quantities that change alot like coin balances) and if there's a possible error it comes down to looking and seeing "is there an entry in the report's table of transactions that matches this message in my sent mail". Timestamp can be the best way to match that stuff up otherwise tracking down errors can be a bear. Again I wouldn't go back and add but useful going forward.
Re: DIS: timestamps
On 6/13/2020 7:52 PM, ATMunn wrote: -- -- ATMunn future notary here :) aahh i was trying to add a fancy signature like y'all have but i screwed it up -- ATMunn future notary here :)
Re: DIS: timestamps
On 6/13/2020 7:50 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-13 17:42, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: I am the dirty fool who removed the timestamps from the report, I tend to do that with all my offices because it doesn't seem useful and I don't have an automated way of collecting that information or anything. The Treasuror Reports that I copied once I got into office all had timestamps, so I have continued the trend. I have noticed, though, that the timestamps in Thunderbird and on the archives don't always line up 100%. I do think that having timestamps for transactions like the ones the Treasuror tracks can be valuable, but that perfect accuracy isn't really that important, and including them isn't that much harder anyway, so I just do it. I always just go with the ones on the archives. I have no problem with adding them in the future, but I just don't want to go back and redo every single timestamp on the report up to this point if I don't have to. Though I might get bored and do it anyway. -- -- ATMunn future notary here :)
Re: DIS: timestamps
On 2020-06-13 17:42, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: I am the dirty fool who removed the timestamps from the report, I tend to do that with all my offices because it doesn't seem useful and I don't have an automated way of collecting that information or anything. The Treasuror Reports that I copied once I got into office all had timestamps, so I have continued the trend. I have noticed, though, that the timestamps in Thunderbird and on the archives don't always line up 100%. I do think that having timestamps for transactions like the ones the Treasuror tracks can be valuable, but that perfect accuracy isn't really that important, and including them isn't that much harder anyway, so I just do it. -- Trigon Speaker and Treasuror of Agora; Former Rulekeepor (12 months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and Proposal; Badge of the Salted Earth; Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic.
Re: DIS: timestamps
I am the dirty fool who removed the timestamps from the report, I tend to do that with all my offices because it doesn't seem useful and I don't have an automated way of collecting that information or anything. On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 6:23 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I don't see much immediate use to the exact timestamps, personally. > > El sáb., 13 jun. 2020 a las 22:21, Alex Smith via agora-discussion (< > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>) escribió: > > > On Saturday, 13 June 2020, 19:06:17 GMT+1, ATMunn via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > hi, future notary here > > > > > > in the upcoming Notary reports, would it be useful to have exact > > > timestamps (instead of just dates) for contract history? because of all > > > the craziness with contracts that you guys have been doing, i would > have > > > to go back and find the exact timestamps for 36 different messages, but > > > I would be willing to do that if a lot of people would find it useful. > > > if not, though, I won't bother. > > > > Former Notary here. The information is slightly useful, but not very > > useful. As such, I recommend recording it only when it's easy to record. > > > > Perhaps this implies that it's worth recording for future actions, but > > there's insufficient evidence in trawling the archives for timestamps on > > past actions. > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: timestamps
I don't see much immediate use to the exact timestamps, personally. El sáb., 13 jun. 2020 a las 22:21, Alex Smith via agora-discussion (< agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>) escribió: > On Saturday, 13 June 2020, 19:06:17 GMT+1, ATMunn via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > hi, future notary here > > > > in the upcoming Notary reports, would it be useful to have exact > > timestamps (instead of just dates) for contract history? because of all > > the craziness with contracts that you guys have been doing, i would have > > to go back and find the exact timestamps for 36 different messages, but > > I would be willing to do that if a lot of people would find it useful. > > if not, though, I won't bother. > > Former Notary here. The information is slightly useful, but not very > useful. As such, I recommend recording it only when it's easy to record. > > Perhaps this implies that it's worth recording for future actions, but > there's insufficient evidence in trawling the archives for timestamps on > past actions. > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: timestamps
On Saturday, 13 June 2020, 19:06:17 GMT+1, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > hi, future notary here > > in the upcoming Notary reports, would it be useful to have exact > timestamps (instead of just dates) for contract history? because of all > the craziness with contracts that you guys have been doing, i would have > to go back and find the exact timestamps for 36 different messages, but > I would be willing to do that if a lot of people would find it useful. > if not, though, I won't bother. Former Notary here. The information is slightly useful, but not very useful. As such, I recommend recording it only when it's easy to record. Perhaps this implies that it's worth recording for future actions, but there's insufficient evidence in trawling the archives for timestamps on past actions. -- ais523
DIS: timestamps
hi, future notary here in the upcoming Notary reports, would it be useful to have exact timestamps (instead of just dates) for contract history? because of all the craziness with contracts that you guys have been doing, i would have to go back and find the exact timestamps for 36 different messages, but I would be willing to do that if a lot of people would find it useful. if not, though, I won't bother.
