#indieweb 2020-09-18

2020-09-18 UTC
[tantek], [chrisaldrich], KartikPrabhu, KempfCreative, jonnybarnes, cleanshirt, greywolver, wolftune, thelounge24478, [tw2113], toupain, nickodd, jeremycherfas, treora, awolf, skippednote, cweiske, markopasha, supercoven, rknLA, emilbayes, genehack, willnorris, shakeel, jmac, jimpick, jbove, themaxdavitt, ecobos, peterrother, robla, j4yav, mattl, danyao, dietricha, zootella, bigbluehat, [James_Gallaghe], [Chaitanya], joshghent, justache, crowdhailer, samwilson, Salt[m], freekurt, Matthew[m], jfkimmes[m], perflyst[m], pauho[m], benpa-matrix[m], jamietanna[m], jalcine[m], smacko[m], pierre[m], nekr0z, hirusi[m], kolaente, pioneer[m], JK_na, bachoseven[m], souramoo[m], Rixon, mayakate[m], glenn[m], fredcy_, Jeena1, ciudadanob[m], khimaros[m], zack[m], sp[m], benpa[m], dckc, swentel, ndegruchy, [pfefferle] and [jgmac1106] joined the channel; Rixon left the channel
#
[jgmac1106] https://www.neowin.net/news/mozillas-new-browser-extension-will-help-fix-terrible-youtube-recommendations/
#
Loqi Usman Khan Lodhi
jonnybarnes, [tonz] and KempfCreative joined the channel
#
petermolnar partially philosophical question: my websites first appearance is roughly 1999 - not in this form though. However, I recently found some photos of mine that well pre-dates 99. If I was to put them up with the correct date, should the 1999- be changed as well?
jeremycherfas joined the channel
#
petermolnar or should I just use 1985- (birth), like many people do?
deathrow1, dckc, jonnybarnes, [Chaitanya], [James_Gallaghe], nickodd, toupain, greywolver and [jgmac1106] joined the channel
#
[jgmac1106] publish an dt-published and than an originally published date in plain text?
#
petermolnar that's not the point
#
sknebel thats got nothin to do with markup
#
sknebel I'd probably stick with the dates for the site - older content added later doesn't make the site older. but totally see the alternatives as valid too
jonnybarnes joined the channel
#
petermolnar I'm leaning towards that as well. I see [jgmac1106]'s point though, but the markup part is a different problem.
#
petermolnar *that => keep it 1999
qa5 and deltab joined the channel
#
GWG I like backdating some things
#
petermolnar I just deleted my thoughts because this is simple to answer: it needs to stay the birth of the site :)
#
petermolnar Museum websites, while it would be fun, can't/won't use 4000BC - 2020 either.
[tw2113] joined the channel
#
[tw2113] knowing me, iā€™d do that just to amuse myself
awolf, [schmarty], toupain, toupain1, anotheryou, jonnybarnes, JackWellborn, KartikPrabhu, swentel and [jgmac1106] joined the channel; bachoseven[m] left the channel
#
[jgmac1106] sknebel I misunderstood, I didn't realize he was saying a chronological order. I thought hwe was asking best to publish the date the photo was uploaded or the date it was taken
#
GWG [jgmac1106]: I do published when it is recent and taken when I am doing a historic series, and then often publish a collection type post.
wolftune, jonnybarnes, a_chou, vilhalmer and KartikPrabhu joined the channel
#
petermolnar [jgmac1106]: this is still not about that; it has nothing to do with the date of a post itself. It's was question around what should be the copyright(ish) date for a site: the one it first showed up, or the date of first content I produced and put up on the site.
[Jack_Wellborn] joined the channel
#
[jgmac1106] aaah okay now I understand, sorry....I sometimes do different licenses and copyrights for different photos on my website...
#
petermolnar [jgmac1106]: leave it. Still not that.
#
[jgmac1106] why I kinda mark up each one in a collection as an entry....but a lot of times my photos contain derivative work and I need to attribute
#
[jgmac1106] ...it was I am saying I would keep the footer copyright in my case as I try to do each copyright of media on its own
#
[jgmac1106] what you do in yoru case is up to you
#
[jgmac1106] .....but it is so hard to do what I want...I just never put any photos up
#
[jgmac1106] photos and routing, are the two things that might force me back into a robust CMS
#
petermolnar it's not hard at all. Licencing the photos are fine by adding the create date, that was never related. The question wasn't even technical; it was about the notion that I could show content on my site that was made by me, yet predates my site, so then which date is "stronger", in a human sense.
[chrisaldrich] joined the channel
#
aaronpk if it wasn't your site, it's less confusing. the site would have one copyright date, the image would clearly have a different copyright date
#
aaronpk so i guess the question is how to communicate that to a viewer
#
petermolnar > if it wasn't your site, it's less confusing - after writing 3 paragraphs I realized what you wrote. Yes.
#
petermolnar my own closure for now: I decided to take the first publication date into account, given those photos were all up on an ancient version of my site, which is obviously post the creation date of the website itself.
[tw2113] and Decobus joined the channel
#
petermolnar I added the actual date into the description, especially because I'm not absolutely certain about them.
Decobus, KempfCreative, swentel, jonnybarnes, qa5, wolftune, [tw2113], toupain1 and [kimberlyhirsh] joined the channel; ndegruchy and nickodd left the channel