This user apparently was last seen on Stack Overflow in December 2010, but that doesn't explain all the activity on this question from September 2011, for example.

Something's up, methinks!

Jeff's response to a previous and similar question seems not relevant, as an "interval check" shouldn't take almost three years.

  • 1
    Wild guess: merged accounts?
    – Bart
    Nov 27 '13 at 21:38
  • @Bart: If so, that's a field broken by the merge. It shouldn't take much to pick the newest of the two dates! Nov 27 '13 at 21:42
  • 1
    @Lightness It takes a lot of caring, of which I'm sure none exists.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Nov 27 '13 at 21:43
  • 4
    @animuson: "A lot"? Really? You have two dates, you need to choose one, so you pick the oldest or the newest. That's two seconds of caring. I suppose if you're not merging that field at all then you're a way behind, but is the merge system really that non-robust? Nov 27 '13 at 21:44
  • @Lightness You're assuming the second date actually gets looked at. My understanding of merges is that it just takes all their posts and comments and changes the user ID associated with them to the other account, and everything else is simply discarded. Simple and effective.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Nov 27 '13 at 21:47
  • @animuson: Okay but then we'd have to call it "half-merging" accounts, wouldn't we? I see what you're saying, but when you present information on the user profile that is patently incorrect, because a "merge" didn't merge the whole profile, that's lazy programming! :P Nov 27 '13 at 22:04
  • 6
    I want to vote for you, but 9999 reputation looks so cool! Nov 28 '13 at 0:54
  • @AndrewBarber too late, 6 upvotes from ignorant users! :-) (oops, 7 now) Nov 28 '13 at 7:58
  • 2
    I want to vote for you, but 10,034 reputation looks so cool! /cc @sha Nov 28 '13 at 8:01

This wasn't a field that was specifically addressed in a merge - it will be next build. It was blindly taking the master before...can't believe no one noticed until now :)


The system now automatically detects and suggests likely merge candidates for folks that inadvertently created two accounts, usually after being disenfranchised from one of them. That appears to be the culprit here, as the 'last seen' field remains untouched, and can be inconsistent with the activity of the merged account.

That seems kind of weird now that I've said it out loud, so I'm going to see if this is in fact by design for some reason or some sort of oversight.

  • 1
    I think that having some "sanity check" and update the last seen to the latest activity if it's lower would make sense and prevent this weirdness. Nov 28 '13 at 7:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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