Before the adoption of the new design of the site, I'd like to suggest another field to the database entries: Release Date.
With this information (that sometimes is not easy to find) users would "measure" (more accurately) the activity/inactivity of the developments.
It would be also useful to better clasify the categories using the "Most recent first" option.
Opinions are welcome (specially from Mr. Lee and Checker).

Good idea. I think the release date is much more useful information than the date when the entry was last updated. In addition, as you said, it would make the "Most recent first" feature more useful.

_________________
My YouTube channel | Release date of my fourth playlist: April 11, 2013

As in last release date?

@SYSTEM:
Thanks!

@Midas:
Well, the release date of the version of the entry.

Of course, some modifications should be made.
Instead of two lists ("Most recent first", "Most popular first"), there should be three: "Recent Updates" (or something like that) (equivalent to the actual "Most recent first"), listed by the date of the update; "Most recent first", listed by the release date of the program; and "Most popular first".

@Midas:
Between, are your tags discarded?

OK, I just wanted to make sure. Add me (to the supporters list...)
I don't get this...

Sorry. These tags.
Thanks for your support!

You mean, as in the actual release date of the app vs the date at which it was added/updated?

For a significant minority of apps, this info is simply not available because the author did not provide it. What do we do about this?

Also, trying to locate this info is extra, non-trivial work. Would this provide further disincentives to add an app to the database?

If we make this info optional, then it comes back to the question of what we do about apps that do not have this info?

Exactly.


My idea is a flexible system. In the case that we can't find the exact date of the release, the month and the year should be enough, or only the year if it's not possible to detemine the month.
This way the task is much easier, even if the author didn't provide the information.
With the most recent versions, is easier to know the exact date. With older versions is not so easy, but the requirement of accuracy is much lower.


Of course, it's an extra work. That's why I requested Checker's opinion, because he's the most experienced "updater".
In my point of view the hard work should be the recent updates. If we don't know the exact day of the release, in the urgency of update the entry, is it ok if we post an approximate date?
Respect to the old entries, it's a work that can be done little by little.



I don't think so. The Release Date field should be optional.
Right now, there are bigger disincentives (and the biggest one is "Stealth:").


As I've said, it's virtually impossible that we were unable to find, at least, the year of the release.

A couple of days ago I found an interesting app in the database that was in the middle of the list of the "Most recent first".
I was interested to know if the program (labeled as "New") could work properly in my Vista 64. The website was offline, the download link pointed to Softpedia, so I looked for information and it wasn't difficult to find that it was released in 2003.
If there was a "Release Date" field, the program should occupy the last position in its category.

Other case: If I look Off By One Web Browser's entry I can suspect that it's an active project to properly use as a second or third browser, expecting further development, because the entry was updated on 27 Dec 2011. But the fact is that it's a dead project, and the version listed was released on January 2, 2006.
And the are a lot of similar cases.

To make things more clear.
The front page of the site would follow the most recent updates.
There would be a second option to list the entries ordered by release date (and update date when there is no release date in the entry).
And the third option, ordered by popularity.

Well, it's in your (and Checker's) hands, Mr. Lee.
Perhaps we need more users helping with the database and it's not the right moment to add extra work, as you've said.