Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Site and Forum Feedback > Mac Guides

View Poll Results: Ordering of articles in the Mac Guide
Chronological (oldest at top) 1 9.09%
Reverse Chronological (newest at top) 7 63.64%
Don't care, but there should be a standard. 2 18.18%
Don't want a standard 1 9.09%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 27, 2007, 01:19 PM   #1
BlizzardBomb
macrumors 68030
 
BlizzardBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Chronological vs. Reverse Chronological

Just been looking at some of the hardware pages and noticed an inconsistency with the order the hardware is put in. So is chronological order or reverse chronological order preferred?

I've always done it by reverse chronological order (so the most recent (and most important?) release is nearest to the top).

Examples:
iMac - Reverse Chronological
Mac mini - Chronological
__________________
Mid '09 13" MBP, Rev. B iMac G5
Retired: 4th Gen iPod 20 GB, 1st Gen iPod nano 2 GB, iPod classic 80 GB

Last edited by BlizzardBomb; Aug 5, 2007 at 08:38 AM.
BlizzardBomb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2007, 09:21 PM   #2
HexMonkey
Administrator
 
HexMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: New Zealand
Good point. There's not currently any policy on ordering (nor is there one on Wikipedia, from what I can tell, although most of the articles I looked at there are ordered chronologically). I have no strong preference either way but wouldn't object to having a guideline for consistency purposes.
HexMonkey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 08:37 AM   #3
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
I think that reverse chronological order is probably more useful, as most people want to know about the newest model, and it hides the generally less complete older versions of the hardware at the bottom of the page.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 05:22 AM   #4
Mechcozmo
macrumors 603
 
Mechcozmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I think that reverse chronological order is probably more useful, as most people want to know about the newest model, and it hides the generally less complete older versions of the hardware at the bottom of the page.
No, I disagree.

Chronological order is the more orderly of the two. While reverse may seem like a good idea because the newest is at the top, we must remember that more often than not people will not be looking for the newest but instead what they own-- and that happens to be a few revisions out of date. (Besides, when have the Guides ever had the newest information in them? Hardly ever.)
By starting with the oldest, we give a history. What the rest of the page will be like. What to expect. It makes it easier to give a product history and description, as a sort of lead-in to the oldest of the line. We then progress onto newer versions, until the product line ends or there are no newer products at the time. People will open the page, see the older version, and click the quick-nav link (in the boxy thingy) to jump to the model they are looking for versus trying to figure out why the model on the top is on the top if it isn't _the_ newest one.

I really don't like reverse chronological order... at least, I dislike it enough to reply to a two-month-old thread in order to voice my opinion on it.
__________________
This is not the signature you're looking for.
This is not the signature we're looking for.
You can scroll down now.
You can scroll down now.
Mechcozmo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2007, 05:55 PM   #5
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechcozmo View Post
I really don't like reverse chronological order... at least, I dislike it enough to reply to a two-month-old thread in order to voice my opinion on it.
You have a good point, I think Hexmonkey is right though, there should be a policy on it.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2007, 04:20 AM   #6
Mechcozmo
macrumors 603
 
Mechcozmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
You have a good point, I think Hexmonkey is right though, there should be a policy on it.
If I may be so bold as to suggest it... chronological-order as policy?

Is there some sort of official channel to make it policy? Perhaps some sort of ritualistic dance? I suppose it would be good to find out if there are any continuing objections before chronological-ordering is put into effect.
__________________
This is not the signature you're looking for.
This is not the signature we're looking for.
You can scroll down now.
You can scroll down now.
Mechcozmo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2007, 01:08 PM   #7
BlizzardBomb
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
BlizzardBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechcozmo View Post
If I may be so bold as to suggest it... chronological-order as policy?

Is there some sort of official channel to make it policy? Perhaps some sort of ritualistic dance? I suppose it would be good to find out if there are any continuing objections before chronological-ordering is put into effect.
I guess you hate me for making lots of articles reverse chronological order then

Maybe a poll would work if enough people would take part in it.
__________________
Mid '09 13" MBP, Rev. B iMac G5
Retired: 4th Gen iPod 20 GB, 1st Gen iPod nano 2 GB, iPod classic 80 GB
BlizzardBomb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 11:39 AM   #8
xUKHCx
Administrator emeritus
 
xUKHCx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Kop
Reverse, means that if you want to find out about an old product then you can search but if you want to just quickly find out the specs etc of the latest it is just a quick glance. Much better than the other way around i think.
xUKHCx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 02:23 PM   #9
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by xUKHCx View Post
Reverse, means that if you want to find out about an old product then you can search but if you want to just quickly find out the specs etc of the latest it is just a quick glance. Much better than the other way around i think.
FWIW I agree with you, but I am curious on what other people think.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 03:25 PM   #10
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
I think "reverse chronological" isn't even proper english because chronological is an adjective meaning oldest to newest.The better term would be "the opposite of chronological".
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 04:30 PM   #11
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
I think "reverse chronological" isn't even proper english because chronological is an adjective meaning oldest to newest.The better term would be "the opposite of chronological".
Well I'd love to edit it, but the mods have made it BlizzardBomb's poll now they merged the threads .

Last edited by Eraserhead; Jul 14, 2007 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Clarity
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2007, 03:12 PM   #12
CalBoy
macrumors 601
 
CalBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
I think "reverse chronological" isn't even proper english because chronological is an adjective meaning oldest to newest.The better term would be "the opposite of chronological".
There's nothing wrong with reverse chronological, but the best term would have been "chronologically regressive" no confusion there

Seriously though, I voted for reverse chronological because the people who need more help are typically new to OS X and Macs, and they are far more likely to have newer hardware.
CalBoy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2007, 11:31 AM   #13
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
OK so so far Reverse Chronological is in the lead. Only another week of voting.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2007, 12:36 AM   #14
CalBoy
macrumors 601
 
CalBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
OK so so far Reverse Chronological is in the lead. Only another week of voting.
Well, we don't exactly have a massive number of votes. But I guess it's all good, because I wanted reverse chronological!
CalBoy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2007, 09:44 AM   #15
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBoy View Post
Well, we don't exactly have a massive number of votes. But I guess it's all good, because I wanted reverse chronological!
I suspect most people don't really mind .
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2007, 12:40 PM   #16
CalBoy
macrumors 601
 
CalBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I suspect most people don't really mind .
Or they're just the types who flock to the "macbook/macbook pro" threads and never explore any other part of the site But you're right, most people don't care, that is until they can't find what they need

Last edited by CalBoy; Aug 5, 2007 at 03:34 PM.
CalBoy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 08:18 AM   #17
snipper
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechcozmo View Post
[...]Chronological order is the more orderly of the two. While reverse may seem like a good idea because the newest is at the top, we must remember that more often than not people will not be looking for the newest but instead what they own-- and that happens to be a few revisions out of date.
It all depends on what people are looking for, but even if they are looking up their own hardware, it's most likely the will find it in the more recent half of the page these days. I think that's why most poll'ers are voting for reverse chronological.

The Guides not being up to date is a pity, but not a valid argument in this case.
Quote:
By starting with the oldest, we give a history. What the rest of the page will be like. What to expect. It makes it easier to give a product history and description, as a sort of lead-in to the oldest of the line. We then progress onto newer versions, until the product line ends or there are no newer products at the time.
I agree on the fact that it's a 'history', but for these pages it can be a plus to have them in reversed historical order. A history can be told in reverse and still make sense.

If it were about pages that really tell a story - like for example a biography, with characters and such - then chronological would be much more practical, also to write and maintain.

People interested in product updates are not interested in the complete history but only in one or two products. Usually what they own and what they are thinking of buying.
snipper is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 08:36 AM   #18
BlizzardBomb
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
BlizzardBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipper View Post
The Guides not being up to date is a pity, but not a valid argument in this case.
Well usually, either me, HexMonkey, or a few other people, update pages of major pieces of hardware on the day they're announced, so in terms of popular pieces of Apple Hardware (iPhone, iMac, MB, MBP, etc.), they are actually pretty up-to-date IMO.
__________________
Mid '09 13" MBP, Rev. B iMac G5
Retired: 4th Gen iPod 20 GB, 1st Gen iPod nano 2 GB, iPod classic 80 GB
BlizzardBomb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 09:14 AM   #19
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb View Post
Well usually, either me, HexMonkey, or a few other people, update pages of major pieces of hardware on the day they're announced, so in terms of popular pieces of Apple Hardware (iPhone, iMac, MB, MBP, etc.), they are actually pretty up-to-date IMO.
I do remember updating the buyer's guides in October or something for the autumn releases so it doesn't always happen. I think it depends if they slip through the net or not to an extent.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 10:04 AM   #20
BlizzardBomb
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
BlizzardBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I do remember updating the buyer's guides in October or something for the autumn releases so it doesn't always happen. I think it depends if they slip through the net or not to an extent.
I was referring to the actual hardware pages, but I do agree that the Buyer's Guides sometimes aren't as up-to-date as they should be (maybe MR needs to make it more obvious somehow that anyone can edit these pages and even the simplest of changes like typos, grammar are welcome).
__________________
Mid '09 13" MBP, Rev. B iMac G5
Retired: 4th Gen iPod 20 GB, 1st Gen iPod nano 2 GB, iPod classic 80 GB
BlizzardBomb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 10:45 AM   #21
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb View Post
(maybe MR needs to make it more obvious somehow that anyone can edit these pages and even the simplest of changes like typos, grammar are welcome).
You edit the template to do it . Though it would be nice to know how to find the required codes for the buyers guide.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 12:55 PM   #22
BlizzardBomb
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
BlizzardBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
You edit the template to do it . Though it would be nice to know how to find the required codes for the buyers guide.
Yeah I know, but I'm sure there are lots of regular forum users who have a few minutes spare a week to look over a few articles don't edit, because they might not understand how to etc.
__________________
Mid '09 13" MBP, Rev. B iMac G5
Retired: 4th Gen iPod 20 GB, 1st Gen iPod nano 2 GB, iPod classic 80 GB
BlizzardBomb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 03:31 PM   #23
HexMonkey
Administrator
 
HexMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Though it would be nice to know how to find the required codes for the buyers guide.
For now at least, you can find them on the very last line of each article page (in brackets next to "web1").
HexMonkey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 07:38 PM   #24
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexMonkey View Post
For now at least, you can find them on the very last line of each article page (in brackets next to "web1").
Thanks, they used to be in the URL, maybe its worth adding it to the style guide.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 05:00 PM   #25
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
OK so less than 24 hours to go.

EDIT: Given the lead of reverse chronological while updating the Mac Mini article with the rev C update I have switched it to reverse chronological, if chronological ordering does win I'll switch it back tomorrow.

Last edited by Eraserhead; Aug 7, 2007 at 05:07 PM.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Site and Forum Feedback > Mac Guides

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Memento in chronological order spuggyleeds Apple TV and Home Theater 4 Jan 20, 2014 05:18 PM
Maintaining chronological order in exporting photos Criscokid Mac Applications and Mac App Store 0 Oct 30, 2013 10:51 PM
Chronological Photo Browsing byardparks Digital Photography 4 May 14, 2013 10:51 AM
iPad: iPad not displaying synced events in chronological order hooky1742 iPad 0 Nov 30, 2012 02:48 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC