What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

There seems to be a short time frame around midnight that does not belong to either day. This comment, according to the tooltip, was made at 23:59:59 last night (server time). In my responses, it appears in "this week," but neither in "today" nor in "yesterday."

alt text

share|improve this question
    
The Master is not a vampire. But your cork board looks delicious. –  random Feb 6 '10 at 9:22
3  
That graphic is great! And it adds a whole new dimension to freehand circles. –  Pëkka Feb 6 '10 at 10:48
3  
I don't even understand what your post is about... but +1 for the cork board. –  user27414 Feb 6 '10 at 11:39
    
What's with the obsession over the cork board? This is a simple -- albeit [for Chacha102] well-documented -- bug report :) –  balpha Feb 6 '10 at 11:48
    
@koper: No repro. Takes about a second for me. –  balpha Feb 6 '10 at 12:41
    
So what'd you use for the corkboard? It's great - even has shadows for the pins –  bobobobo Jan 26 '11 at 12:30
    
@bobobobo: all put together by hand in the Gimp –  balpha Jan 26 '11 at 18:41

3 Answers 3

On the next data dump, you'll be able to confirm the timestamp on that comment (it's not included in the most recent dump). The data dump contains the timestamps of posts and comments to millisecond resolution.

Update: From the April data dump, here's the comment record in question:

<row Id="84684" PostId="23661" Score="1" Text="..." CreationDate="2010-02-05T23:59:59.907" UserId="4228" />

Sure enough, the comment was posted less than one second before the midnight rollover.

Here's some comments (up to February) that might cause similar trouble:

$ psql sof -c "select id, postid, creationdate from comment"|grep 23:59:59
  172364 |  335820 | 2008-12-02 23:59:59.037
  183993 |  350874 | 2008-12-08 23:59:59.50
  282123 |  463524 | 2009-01-20 23:59:59.073
  520148 |    7794 | 2009-04-01 23:59:59.187
  561158 |  749724 | 2009-04-14 23:59:59.137
  574475 |  758349 | 2009-04-17 23:59:59.50
  631688 |  822589 | 2009-05-04 23:59:59.797
  681025 |  870810 | 2009-05-16 23:59:59.077
  834963 | 1024997 | 2009-06-21 23:59:59.39
 1076834 | 1250113 | 2009-08-08 23:59:59.27
 1197074 | 1359962 | 2009-08-31 23:59:59.85
 1238060 | 1396654 | 2009-09-08 23:59:59.79
 1551372 | 1676327 | 2009-11-04 23:59:59.557
 1659243 | 1773927 | 2009-11-20 23:59:59.93
 1700045 |  274711 | 2009-11-27 23:59:59.687
 1737379 | 1843691 | 2009-12-03 23:59:59
 1816251 | 1911340 | 2009-12-15 23:59:59.593
 1853936 | 1943315 | 2009-12-21 23:59:59.953
 1886720 | 1895949 | 2009-12-28 23:59:59.09
 2010286 | 2077742 | 2010-01-16 23:59:59.403

One would expect* this kind of timestamp to appear with a probability of 1 in 86400 (there are 86400 seconds in a day). The data dump contains 1759400 comments, and:

1759400 / 86400 = 20.363426

There are 20 such comments in the above list.

* disregarding the nonuniform distribution of activity on SO throughout the day

share|improve this answer
2  
+1 for remembering to follow up =) –  Andreas Bonini Apr 4 '10 at 13:17

Were you up all night making that graphic, hence able to post at 1 second before midnight??

Looks like the sql is doing a > 00:00:00 and < 23:59:59

share|improve this answer
8  
Perhaps you mean >= 00:00:00 and <= 23:59:59, where a timestamp with fractional seconds after 23:59:59 wouldn't be matched. –  Greg Hewgill Feb 6 '10 at 21:45
5  
Looks like a good topic for a Coding Horror blog entry. "How not to filter on ranges" –  lavinio May 14 '10 at 14:38

OK, I'm specifying

23:59:59.999

instead of

23:59:59

in the SQL queries for this now

share|improve this answer
7  
Why not specify < endDate and use the following day at 0:00 as input, instead of `<= endDate'? –  Jon Seigel May 30 '10 at 16:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .