This issue doesn’t affect me in anyway, but after reading Oistein’s Hunterview the other day I went and looked at some of the Bergen artworks. I noticed that the first few records have Created Dates in the future, most are just a month or so future-dated, but the first record is for 7,700 years in the future.
How is the Created Date set, I assumed it would be from system clock or something?
Good point. Mentioned that already before.
Often when you edit an artwork, the date of creation changes. Shouldn’t be like that.
When entering the tag : date of creation has in fact no value like this.
There are 2 different dates:
So it seems that the order of the “Recently added artworks” list that appears for a selected city, is different to the order of the “Recently added artworks” list that appears for all cities on the main screen. Is that intentional?
Today I added a new artwork, without updating the Painted Date in Advanced. And of course it appeared at the head of the list for Melbourne’s Recently Added Artworks, and on the Recently Added Artworks screen on main home screen, and started moving down the list as other users added more for other cities. Then I updated the “Date Painted” to the date it was painted in June, and it fell off the Recently Added Artworks list for Melbourne, but maintained it’s place on the All Cities Recently Added Artworks list.
So I’m assuming that the system must maintain both the “Date the record was added” and the “Painted Date” and the two lists use the two different fields for sorting. Is that correct?
To my opinion yes. Maybe our tech guys have some more info about this?
Yes indeed!
In most places, we have the following logic:
@Noa_Heutz would you mind creating a ticket for that bug in the screenshot above? Looks like we’re sometimes interpreting a UNIX timestamp in milliseconds as if it’s in seconds (*1000) maybe? Not sure why this is happening in some places and not in others, though!
