A disturbing large percentage of citations of some of my best work say "Written in 2012 but still relevant", which a) is a direct artifact of the blogging form factor, b) is an unforced error, and c) I should just fix forever when I achieve activation energy.
-
-
As a public service to other people who write for a living, here are five representative examples. I've removed identifying information because this is not about shaming people who share a common heuristic about valuing professional output, it is about adapting to that:
Show this thread -
-
-
Notice: The social purpose of mentioning the age is *to apologize to one's own audience* that you are telling them Old News. These users are explicitly not not trusting the article, they model people dear to them as not trusting the article solely based on the age.
Show this thread -
Also notice: These folks often state that they are *surprised* that something as old as ten years old (with exclamation points!) could still be relevant.
Show this thread -
I only had to go back 2 weeks to dig up these examples. How many more thousands of people said it! How many more tens of thousands merely thought it, and either read the advice but didn't share, read the advice but didn't apply to their lives, or stopped reading at date!
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
written around 30-40 BC but still kinda relevantpic.twitter.com/ijeltb6IRg
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's an artifact of the web dev world, where you have to triple-check that anything more than six weeks old isn't dangerously out of date.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.