Lack of software version used in Tutorials and guides?

Not sure if just me, however just found a bunch of top search results on tech guides, which lack which version of the software the guide applies to.

case in point: search “guide bootstrap”
yes - you get titles like with “Bootstrap 3” in them, which is good.
but in the top ten:
Ultimate Guide to Bootstrap -
Bootstrap tutorial for beginners -
[Twitter Bootstrap tutorial][3]

These three lack to mention if Version 2 or 3.
Also include link to download code from, which in future might not be the version they have provided the guide for.
That last one, is from sitepoint it self. When searching the page, someone did mention in the comments section if could be updated for Bootstrap 3, which is best indication I could find that this guide is possible the wrong one for my needs.

This is not just a Bootstrap guide issue. Many guides on the internet seem to lack this basic introductory point.
Or maybe it is just me being the “inexpericed” one of not noticing that when Jim talks about using function LockHead(), he must be talking about version 2.4.Y.Alpha and not 2.6.X.Chimp.

The guide that made me take notice was [Top 10 Mistakes That Knockout Devs make][4]. Not only is the lack of Version missing, but not even Date of publish is listed, which makes it even more difficult to figure if the points are still relevant or not.

Look at some books lying around, they tend to be “SQL 2012”, “HTML 5”,
Or lacking in title, publication date is most likely to exist.

So is this something just bugging me or a growing issue over the last couple years with so many people making guides and references (many great) and quicker revisions of software?

I find it as well when looking a tutorials; it would help if that at least put the date on the page.

It is not just software but is the same for hardware.

It’s why I filter the search results to look for those done in the last month. Doesn’t solve them all, but helps to filter out some of the older stuff.

I do the same but sometimes you have to go back further and further to find a relevant result.

1 Like

With so many dependencies I can understand the choice to not provide version numbers.
Remember, things were different back when older stuff was written.

I can do fairly well in determining recent stuff vs older (and more likely out-of-date) stuff.
And if it is older content then I accept the proportional likelihood that what I am reading has more Historical than Factual value.

But yes, if not version numbers, dates at least please!

Not that a concerted effort could be utilized to retro-fit the interwebs, but it should be something that is considered doing going forward. .

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.