Since the
SiteUpdates page will inevitably get too long, it should be archived at particular intervals. This was
discussed at length some time ago, and last month I went ahead and changed the format to quarterly, as everybody seemed happy with that. But now I'm going to put it to a vote, since apparently some people have a different preference (unknown to me previously). Please choose the option that you prefer, and post your comments below.
----------
(Stuff below here is my opinion about the situation.)
There were eight updates in March, nine in April, and sixteen in May, which makes a very rough average of eleven updates per month.
Going by this, I'd say it's pretty clear that years are too long, averaging 132 updates per page. If you're looking for a particular item, it would be rather difficult to scan the page.
Months are too short. Eleven updates per page does not make for useful pages. Say you're trying to remember when a partciular update was made. If you know that it was in the last 4 months, you'll visit at most five archive pages before you find it. Also, listing all of the archive pages would get ugly. If you look at BigKnife's example, you'll see that the Wiki code for keeping it organized is a mess (this isn't BigKnife's fault at all, just a reality of the Wiki).
My vote is for quarterly archives, as described in the link above. They would average 33 updates per page, which is just right, in my opinion. Long enough for the page to be useful, but short enough to find stuff easily. There's also a maintenance advantage -- instead of having to create a new archive page and move stuff around every month in little four-week increments, we only have to do so every three months.
Well, anyway, that's how I feel. Vote away!
_________________
StrongCanada wrote:
Jordan, you are THE SUCK at kissing! YAY! Just thought you should know! Rainbows! Sunshine!