Use review creation date for display and sorting

[salty-horse]

Fixes #565, and addresses #1117.

For reviews where the edit date is a different day than the creation date, there's an "(edited: Mon, DD, YYYY)" addition. It's long, so if you have better ideas on how to display it, please share.

The personal page didn't display the date, so I removed it from the query.

Not shown, but I also checked that the RSS of game reviews is correct.

Game page:

Game page &ratings view:

User page:

[dfabulich]

There as many as three dates for each review: its creation date, its embargo date, and the edit date (if any). #947

In newitems.php we order by greatest(reviews.createdate, ifnull(reviews.embargodate, '0000-00-00')) as d which feels like the right thing to do.

For reviews where the edit date is a different day than the creation date, there's an "(edited: Mon, DD, YYYY)" addition. It's long, so if you have better ideas on how to display it, please share.

I like the suggestion in #565 to add a note in a smaller font to the bottom of the review, giving us room to make the note as long/complicated as needed, and to display the computed sorting date at the top of the review.

This review was originally created on XXX, and was embargoed until YYY. It was last edited on ZZZ.

This review was originally created on XXX, and was last edited on YYY.

[salty-horse]

Your suggestion includes creation date twice, at the top and bottom. Isn't that redundant?

I still think there should be an indication something was edited. Maybe an asterisk next to the top date?

Should the embargo date be public knowledge?

[dfabulich]

I still think there should be an indication something was edited. Maybe an asterisk next to the top date?

Sure, an asterisk would be fine.

Should the embargo date be public knowledge?

I don't see why not. It's certainly publicly available in the IF Archive export.

Your suggestion includes creation date twice, at the top and bottom. Isn't that redundant?

Kinda? I think the explanation would be confusing unless it juxtaposes the dates, which inherently requires repeating whichever date happens to be at the top.

For example, suppose we have three reviews:

1. Created Jan 1, embargoed until Jan 2, edited Jan 3
   • At the top: "Jan 2*"
   • At the bottom: "* This review was originally created on Jan 1, and it was embargoed until Jan 2. It was last edited on Jan 3."
2. Created Feb 1, embargoed until Feb 2
   • At the top: "Feb 2*"
   • At the bottom: "* This review was originally created on Feb 1, and it was embargoed until Feb 2."
3. Created Mar 1, edited Mar 3
   • At the top: "Mar 1*"
   • At the bottom: "* This review was originally created on Mar 1. It was last edited on Mar 3."

[dfabulich]

OK, I think the consensus from the forum thread is to handle it like this:

• The main date at the top should be the "publication date," which is the greater of either the creation date or the embargo date. We should use the publication date for sorting, as well.
• If the review was edited, show the date with an asterisk, and then, at the end, show "* This review was last edited on [DATE]." (We don't need to repeat the publication date, or separately specify the creation date or the embargo date.)

[salty-horse]

What about "rating only" reviews, that are just a rating, username, and date? (Shown in a screenshot in the first post)

[salty-horse]

Pushed a new commit.

The query now takes the embargo date into account with

greatest(createdate, ifnull(embargodate, cast(0 as datetime))) as createdate

For big reviews, I used a footnote (with <small> element rather than <div class="details">), and added a title to the asterisk with the same text.

For ratings-only reviews, I left it on the same line as the creation date.