Indefinite Dates in Topic Titles

[#1]

From time to time topics are created titled in the style "(some problem) tonight". Whilst when posted "tonight" is meaningful, within a few hours that meaning is lost and the title becomes misleading. Nevertheless generally posts continue to be made, sometimes days later, and (even worse) a topic which has rightly become dormant is resurrected.
In my opinion this causes confusion, can result in incorrect or misleading responses, and potentially wastes respondent's time. I suggest it would benefit everyone if an additional forum rule was introduced requiring dates in titles to be specific, eg 10/05/12, rather than indefinite, eg tonight.
David

[#2]

Since the date of the original post is shown I don't see the need

[#3]

Unfortunately one has to waste time opening the post to find that out Jim, uses up my usage allowance as well 

[#4]

I usually make a judgement based on the thought applied to the thread title. If it doesn't reach a reasonable standard I assume that the thread probably won't be worth the trouble of reading it.
I may have missed some vital information over the years, but I also try to have a life ...
I suspect that anyone who hasn't worked out the problem of indefinite dates for themselves is also unlikely to have studied the forum rules in much detail.
I've got a stinking cold & feel thoroughly miserable. You can blame my unusually(?) cynical mood on that.

[#5]

Quote from: Oldjim

Since the date of the original post is shown I don't see the need

So how can you tell that the topic shown in the attached was started in the middle of April?
spraxyt's suggestion is an excellent one as it means you can tell without having to open the topic.

[#6]

This is a personal opinion - not as a moderator
Let us suppose for a minute that such a rule is introduced.
Many of the posters who start such a thread are new posters who haven't read the rules and, indeed many of the more regular one who haven't either.
This would mean that the moderators would have to edit all such posts to make the title clearer.
I do love it when people think of ideas which land extra work on others just to make things a bit easier for themselves.
You will appreciate from the above that I am personally not really in favour.

[#7]

It would actually be a very simple mod to the forum to include the "Started Date" below the "Started By" name.

[#8]

You mean like they don't have in the Usergroup Forums 
Actually this isn't something the moderators can do as we don't have the necessary permissions

[#9]

While I support the OP in principle, for fairly obvious reasons I take Jim's point about the Mod's workload.
However a rule in place doesn't necessarily mean a rule imposed in every case but simply provides the opportunity to remove ambiguity.
After all we have the 'Quotes' rule but many slip through the net.
Just my personal thoughts on the subject.

[#10]

If those posters 'in the know' start adopting this policy when appropriate, I'm sure the idea will catch on.

[#11]

Mod workload can't be that bad otherwise you'd have done something about recruiting more moderators following the resignations!

[#12]

What does that have to do with it.
Whether we could cope with the extra work is irrelevant.
The fact is that the suggestion would land extra work on the moderators just to save a few minutes for other posters checking the date of the first post on the odd occasion they need to.

[#13]

Quote from: Strat

However a rule in place doesn't necessarily mean a rule imposed in every case but simply provides the opportunity to remove ambiguity. After all we have the 'Quotes' rule but many slip through the net.

Excellent point. The real issue is when a topic is 'woken up' three weeks later for no good reason. Having the rule would allow the moderators to change the topic title and split off the additions to a new (dated if appropriate) topic; locking the topic would be a matter of the mods discretion.
If a rule was added it should not be mandatory - just a strong recommendation to take account of the above.