Vanguard.com uses a different calendar than the rest of the world. Why?

[livesoft]

This is a stupid question, but when I go to vanguard.com today to look up a few prices and performance numbers in preparation for an act of rebalancing, the web site clearly gives 06/21 prices and performance numbers, but states "As of 06/20/22" This is a fundamental Fail.



Or did I do something wrong?

[CorradoJr]

The fail is their “new” website interface. The first thing I do is find the link to their “old” interface and then try to accomplish what I was looking for.

The market was also closed 6/20, so perhaps that’s impacting things.

[nisiprius]

I don't propose to spend much time digging into this, but my quick impression is that you are right and Vanguard is wrong. Because Fidelity is showing...



But there are certainly some puzzles here. For example, if I have my head on straight, the daily cumulative year-to-date performance "as of 6/21/2022" would include returns from 6/20/2022, or do I mean 6/17/2022, but not from 6/21/2022. There ought to be well-known rules on how to handle these things, though, and both Fidelity and Vanguard should be following the same rules.

Don't tell me, let me guess. It's because COBOL handled this stuff right and Solidity On Clouds does not?

[arcticpineapplecorp.]

168 of the world's countries use the Gregorian calendar as their sole civil calendar as of 2021.[2] Most non-Christian countries have adopted it as a result of colonization, with some cases of voluntary adoption.

Four countries have not adopted the Gregorian calendar: Afghanistan and Iran (which use the Solar Hijri calendar), Ethiopia (the Ethiopian calendar), and Nepal (Vikram Samvat and Nepal Sambat).[2]

Four countries use a modified version of the Gregorian calendar (with eras different from Anno Domini): Japan (Japanese calendar), North Korea (North Korean Calendar), Taiwan (Minguo calendar), and Thailand (Thai solar calendar). In the former two countries, the Anno Domini era is also in use.

Eighteen countries use another calendar alongside the Gregorian calendar: Algeria (Lunar Hijri calendar), Bangladesh (Bengali calendar), Egypt (Lunar Hijri calendar and Coptic calendar), India (Indian national calendar), Iraq (Lunar Hijri calendar), Israel (Hebrew calendar), Jordan, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco (Lunar Hijri calendar), Myanmar (Burmese calendar), Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen (Lunar Hijri calendar).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_calendar

just sayin.

[livesoft]

[...]
just sayin.

Thank you. I knew someone would come along and give us the info you presented.

[exodusNH]

I don't propose to spend much time digging into this, but my quick impression is that you are right and Vanguard is wrong. Because Fidelity is showing...



But there are certainly some puzzles here. For example, if I have my head on straight, the daily cumulative year-to-date performance "as of 6/21/2022" would include returns from 6/20/2022, or do I mean 6/17/2022, but not from 6/21/2022. There ought to be well-known rules on how to handle these things, though, and both Fidelity and Vanguard should be following the same rules.

Don't tell me, let me guess. It's because COBOL handled this stuff right and Solidity On Clouds does not?

Probably written by the same people that gave us the fantastic sell-by-SpecID interface.

[nisiprius]

The interesting question is: what way of reporting this to Vanguard would have the highest chance of getting action? Just for laughs, you could try vanguard_media_relations@vanguard.com , what's the worst that could happen?

I guess you're not supposed to use it unless you're a member of "the media," but they either won't care, or they might accept that the Bogleheads' Forum is "media."

[MindBogler]

The interesting question is: what way of reporting this to Vanguard would have the highest chance of getting action? Just for laughs, you could try vanguard_media_relations@vanguard.com , what's the worst that could happen?

I guess you're not supposed to use it unless you're a member of "the media," but they either won't care, or they might accept that the Bogleheads' Forum is "media."

There is more accurate financial information here than via the media, so perhaps we are the media now?

[cas]

I guess you're not supposed to use it unless you're a member of "the media," but they either won't care, or they might accept that the Bogleheads' Forum is "media."

When I bring up the page that livesoft shows, the date is showing as "06/21/22" (in the same spots where he circled "06/20/2022".

So maybe bogleheads has a more direct link than even being considered "media".

Nah ... too fast a fix. Must be some other reason it fixed itself so fast.

[ruud]

On the new fund information page, the distributions table for VEA (probably other funds as well) is also off by a day:

Code: Select all

Type     $/Share  Payable date Record date Ex-dividend date
Dividend $0.53000 06/23/2022   06/21/2022  06/20/2022

On 6/20 the stock market was closed, so it couldn't have been the ex-div date. The legacy page appears to have the correct dates:

Code: Select all

Distribution type Per share distribution Record date Ex-dividend date Payable date
Dividend          $0.53000               06/22/2022  06/21/2022       06/24/2022

[PizzaEater]

The interesting question is: what way of reporting this to Vanguard would have the highest chance of getting action? Just for laughs, you could try vanguard_media_relations@vanguard.com , what's the worst that could happen?

I guess you're not supposed to use it unless you're a member of "the media," but they either won't care, or they might accept that the Bogleheads' Forum is "media."

I sent them a message while logged in via:
My Accounts -> Messages -> Compose
about this exact issue within the last week (along with 2 other issues I found wrong with the new website...).

This is the response I got from them in the Message Center:

Dear <name>:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about your

I appreciate the time you've taken to share your concerns about our
redesigned website, and apologize for the inconvenience you’ve experienced.


Your comments regarding this are important to us, and I have forwarded your
feedback to our Online Development Team for review. I've also shared your
concerns with our management team. Our website design and features are
based on recommendations from our clients, so comments such as yours are
important as we work on enhancements.

If you have any additional questions or concerns please do not hesitate to
reach out!

May you have a great rest of your week.

Please rate your satisfaction regarding the service you received today, by
copying and pasting this web address into your browser:
https://cloud.e-vanguard.com/rmc_secure-message-survey

If you have additional questions, we can be reached at:
https://support.vanguard.com/

Sincerely,

<name>
Registered Representative NL
Vanguard Retail Investor Group

**For more information about Vanguard funds, Vanguard ETFs, or non-Vanguard
funds offered through Vanguard Brokerage Services, visit vanguard.com, or
call us, to obtain a prospectus or, if available, a summary prospectus.
Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important
information are contained in the prospectus; read and consider it carefully
before investing.**

(c) 2022 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Vanguard Marketing
Corporation, Distributor of the Vanguard Funds. Vanguard funds not held in
a brokerage account are held by The Vanguard Group, Inc., and are not
protected by SIPC. Brokerage assets are held by Vanguard Brokerage
Services, a division of Vanguard Marketing Corporation, member FINRA and
SIPC.



Posted on 06/14/2022 3:07 p.m.

So I think this is the way to go. I encourage everyone to send them a message when they find something wrong on the new website. On the other hand I hate being free QA for them, as the problems are really really basic things that shouldn't have even it made it TO their QA team, let alone PAST them.

[alex_686]

So I don't know how relevant this is, but when I left mutual fund accounting there was a push for daily pricing for funds. Just because the markets are closed does not mean the NAV is static. Most of the issues surrounded accruing bond interest because bonds do accrue interest over the weekend.

[an_asker]

[...]
just sayin.

Thank you. I knew someone would come along and give us the info you presented.

And he/she is not completely correct either (or, to be precise, the attached link isn't correct). India doesn't have one "national calendar" that I am aware of which is different from the Gregorian. India has multiple calendars ... just like India has over 20 nationally recognized languages

[cas]

On the new fund information page, the distributions table for VEA (probably other funds as well) is also off by a day:

Code: Select all

Type     $/Share  Payable date Record date Ex-dividend date
Dividend $0.53000 06/23/2022   06/21/2022  06/20/2022

Is it still showing wrong for you?

Because it is showing the correct dates (on the new website version) for me.

If it is still showing wrong for you, then the bug is something more subtle than a bad general bug. If it is fixed for you now, then I guess it is fixed generally.

[PizzaEater]

On the new fund information page, the distributions table for VEA (probably other funds as well) is also off by a day:

Code: Select all

Type     $/Share  Payable date Record date Ex-dividend date
Dividend $0.53000 06/23/2022   06/21/2022  06/20/2022

Is it still showing wrong for you?

Because it is showing the correct dates (on the new website version) for me.

If it is still showing wrong for you, then the bug is something more subtle than a bad general bug. If it is fixed for you now, then I guess it is fixed generally.

Yes, it's still incorrect for me, as of 6/22/2022 2:00 PM Eastern:

[ruud]

On the new fund information page, the distributions table for VEA (probably other funds as well) is also off by a day:

Code: Select all

Type     $/Share  Payable date Record date Ex-dividend date
Dividend $0.53000 06/23/2022   06/21/2022  06/20/2022

Is it still showing wrong for you?

Because it is showing the correct dates (on the new website version) for me.

If it is still showing wrong for you, then the bug is something more subtle than a bad general bug. If it is fixed for you now, then I guess it is fixed generally.

It’s still wrong for me. Checked a few other international ETFs that have the same distribution schedule (VXUS, VWO, VEU), they all show 6/20 as the ex-div date as well.

[MindBogler]

Maybe it has something to do with the user's time zone?

Edit - I'm in Mountain time and show 6/20.

[jebmke]

When I stand back far enough so I can read the ticker and fund name, I can't even see the dates. Problem solved.

[ruud]

Maybe it has something to do with the user's time zone?

Edit - I'm in Mountain time and show 6/20.

That's my guess as well. I dug a bit deeper and the distribution information comes from a JSON API call that has this:

Code: Select all

"reinvestmentDate":"2022-06-21T00:00:00-04:00"

Maybe that timestamp (6/21 midnight) is localized into the user's timezone by the page Javascript, so for anyone west of EDT, it would show 6/20 instead of 6/21.

If that's the case, I have a hard time characterizing this as anything other than a rookie-level mistake.

[livesoft]

When I stand back far enough so I can read the ticker and fund name, I can't even see the dates. Problem solved.

I'm laughing because the have become so LARGE except for the date that it is s sick joke.

[jebmke]

When I stand back far enough so I can read the ticker and fund name, I can't even see the dates. Problem solved.

I'm laughing because the have become so LARGE except for the date that it is s sick joke.

Ransom note?

[PizzaEater]

Maybe it has something to do with the user's time zone?

Edit - I'm in Mountain time and show 6/20.

That's my guess as well. I dug a bit deeper and the distribution information comes from a JSON API call that has this:

Code: Select all

"reinvestmentDate":"2022-06-21T00:00:00-04:00"

Maybe that timestamp (6/21 midnight) is localized into the user's timezone by the page Javascript, so for anyone west of EDT, it would show 6/20 instead of 6/21.

If that's the case, I have a hard time characterizing this as anything other than a rookie-level mistake.

This seems to be the most likely explanation. I'm in the Central time zone.

[MindBogler]

Maybe it has something to do with the user's time zone?

Edit - I'm in Mountain time and show 6/20.

That's my guess as well. I dug a bit deeper and the distribution information comes from a JSON API call that has this:

Code: Select all

"reinvestmentDate":"2022-06-21T00:00:00-04:00"

Maybe that timestamp (6/21 midnight) is localized into the user's timezone by the page Javascript, so for anyone west of EDT, it would show 6/20 instead of 6/21.

If that's the case, I have a hard time characterizing this as anything other than a rookie-level mistake.

Good on you for doing the detective work and if that is the root cause, I agree it is a rookie-level mistake.

[Tom_T]

I'm more confused about the performance numbers for VTSAX on that page.

Near the top, where livesoft showed the "as of" date, it says the YTD return as -21.87%.

Further down, where it compares VTSAX to the benchmark, it says the YTD return is -14.21%.

I don't know what they're measuring, but I'm pretty confident that one shouldn't call something "YTD return" and have two wildly different values.

Postscript: the -14.21% is not the YTD return, it's the 12-month return labeled as YTD! Embarassing for Vanguard.

[PizzaEater]

Postscript: the -14.21% is not the YTD return, it's the 12-month return labeled as YTD! Embarassing for Vanguard.

Yeah it's pretty obvious to me that whoever worked on the website redesign has zero understanding of the content of these webpages, due to numerous small issues like this. I'm not saying you need to be a financial expert to create Vanguard's webpage, but you'd think you'd want to have a minimal understanding of what the content is so that the new design is relevant to the consumers of said webpage. Or at least have someone on the team who IS financially literate to OK the design.

[MindBogler]

Postscript: the -14.21% is not the YTD return, it's the 12-month return labeled as YTD! Embarassing for Vanguard.

Yeah it's pretty obvious to me that whoever worked on the website redesign has zero understanding of the content of these webpages, due to numerous small issues like this. I'm not saying you need to be a financial expert to create Vanguard's webpage, but you'd think you'd want to have a minimal understanding of what the content is so that the new design is relevant to the consumers of said webpage. Or at least have someone on the team who IS financially literate to OK the design.

Hopefully there is a little more expertise engaged with the back end systems or I might need to transfer all my accounts elsewhere soon.

[pasadena]

I'm more confused about the performance numbers for VTSAX on that page.

Near the top, where livesoft showed the "as of" date, it says the YTD return as -21.87%.

Further down, where it compares VTSAX to the benchmark, it says the YTD return is -14.21%.

I don't know what they're measuring, but I'm pretty confident that one shouldn't call something "YTD return" and have two wildly different values.

Postscript: the -14.21% is not the YTD return, it's the 12-month return labeled as YTD! Embarassing for Vanguard.

No it's the YTD return as of 05/31/2022... but they say 05/30/2022 (!)



What's funny is, the old page shows more accurate info



Vanguard's dodgy calendar and refresh rates were one of the reason I moved to Fidelity. I grew tired of never knowing what I was looking at or wondering if I could trust what they show me. Very amateurish.

(Also, this is unrelated to this specific issue, but their "new" 401(k) website is a lesson in misery).

[Tom_T]

I'm more confused about the performance numbers for VTSAX on that page.

Near the top, where livesoft showed the "as of" date, it says the YTD return as -21.87%.

Further down, where it compares VTSAX to the benchmark, it says the YTD return is -14.21%.

I don't know what they're measuring, but I'm pretty confident that one shouldn't call something "YTD return" and have two wildly different values.

Postscript: the -14.21% is not the YTD return, it's the 12-month return labeled as YTD! Embarassing for Vanguard.

No it's the YTD return as of 05/31/2022... but they say 05/30/2022 (!)

!!!

My mistake, the 12-month return is similar -- but wow, they can't show a YTD return as of prior close?? Especially since they are showing the most current return at the top of the page? Ugh.

[ClevrChico]

When I stand back far enough so I can read the ticker and fund name, I can't even see the dates. Problem solved.

I'm laughing because the have become so LARGE except for the date that it is s sick joke.

Is there anyway to use the "old website" for everything? The new giant font experience is terrible.

[rob]

Our website design and features are based on recommendations from our clients, so comments such as yours are
important as we work on enhancements.

Thanks... I needed a good laugh today.... To be fair - that might be true, so maybe we should ask who they think their "clients" are...

While this crowd is far from the average casual user... You would think that someone here at some time during this rolling "upgrade" planning (been generous with that word) process would have been roped into some real usability study by Vanguard, so V could understand what this profile slice of users wants, needs and preferences are about. Has anyone been in something like that... or heard of anyone here been in something like that.....

[luffy]

Vanguard is incredibly slow to update data on their website. Typically I look at iShares-equivalent ETF to find up-to-date information.

However, the information on advisors.vanguard.com (instead of investor.vanguard.com) is generally refreshed faster and accurate. For example, the payable dividend date for VT is correct on advisors but not on investor:

https://advisors.vanguard.com/investmen ... tributions
https://investor.vanguard.com/investmen ... tributions

[brawlrats]

No it's the YTD return as of 05/31/2022... but they say 05/30/2022 (!)



What's funny is, the old page shows more accurate info



Vanguard's dodgy calendar and refresh rates were one of the reason I moved to Fidelity. I grew tired of never knowing what I was looking at or wondering if I could trust what they show me. Very amateurish.

(Also, this is unrelated to this specific issue, but their "new" 401(k) website is a lesson in misery).

The "5/30/2022" issue you note is the same. Mine says 5/31/2022. I sense a little east coast bias in their programming.

[pasadena]

The "5/30/2022" issue you note is the same. Mine says 5/31/2022. I sense a little east coast bias in their programming.

Yes, that's also what I was thinking. As I said, amateurish. Doesn't build trust, does it?

[PizzaEater]

Vanguard is incredibly slow to update data on their website. Typically I look at iShares-equivalent ETF to find up-to-date information.

However, the information on advisors.vanguard.com (instead of investor.vanguard.com) is generally refreshed faster and accurate. For example, the payable dividend date for VT is correct on advisors but not on investor:

https://advisors.vanguard.com/investmen ... tributions
https://investor.vanguard.com/investmen ... tributions

Wow, it's so bad it's actually funny. The design of the 2 different sites is very similar, so you would think they would share a lot of code. But no. As of June 23rd, the "investor" site already has the June dividend listed for VTI, whereas the "advisors" site does not. And for us non-Eastern time folks, the dates are correct for the "advisors" site but incorrect for the "investor" site. And the "advisors" site omits the fiscal year end information present on the "investor" site.

[exodusNH]

The "5/30/2022" issue you note is the same. Mine says 5/31/2022. I sense a little east coast bias in their programming.

Yes, that's also what I was thinking. As I said, amateurish. Doesn't build trust, does it?

My guess is that it's actually far east bias, i.e. an outsourced project managed by Accenture or the like. The people doing the work get limited information and often have a limited understanding of how people will use what they're building. Even if they're highly-skilled, the lack of familiarity with how it is used leads to odd design decisions. Then you add in staff turnover -- everyone is constantly relearning. The client interacts with a US-based contact, but all the work (and money) flows out.

A friend of mine worked for Accenture, on a large Google marketing project. He eventually left because the burden of managing the outsourced work (and fixing the problems / apologizing to the customer) became too much.

JavaScript also has terrible date/time-handling capabilities.

[pasadena]

The "5/30/2022" issue you note is the same. Mine says 5/31/2022. I sense a little east coast bias in their programming.

Yes, that's also what I was thinking. As I said, amateurish. Doesn't build trust, does it?

My guess is that it's actually far east bias, i.e. an outsourced project managed by Accenture or the like. The people doing the work get limited information and often have a limited understanding of how people will use what they're building. Even if they're highly-skilled, the lack of familiarity with how it is used leads to odd design decisions. Then you add in staff turnover -- everyone is constantly relearning. The client interacts with a US-based contact, but all the work (and money) flows out.

A friend of mine worked for Accenture, on a large Google marketing project. He eventually left because the burden of managing the outsourced work (and fixing the problems / apologizing to the customer) became too much.

JavaScript also has terrible date/time-handling capabilities.

It doesn't matter whether it's done in-house or outsourced. The end customer (Vanguard) is still responsible for testing and validating before publication. They're also responsible for the specifications and making sure they're followed. The new website has been up for what, 2 years at least? It's still slow to refresh, inconsistent, and inaccurate, which is NOT acceptable. Especially for a big financial company.

It's also still littered with "old site" pages.

[livesoft]

OK, I found something that is of relatively serious consequence to me. This was alluded to above. The old site and new site have DIFFERENT ex-dividend dates for VTI:



I pity folks who used the new site and bought yesterday with the idea that they avoided the dividend.

Furthermore, the past March dividend dates are wrong as well. Has Vanguard tried to invent a Post-Truth Time Machine?

[H-Town]

OK, I found something that is of relatively serious consequence to me. This was alluded to above. The old site and new site have DIFFERENT ex-dividend dates for VTI:

I pity folks who used the new site and bought yesterday with the idea that they avoided the dividend.

Furthermore, the past March dividend dates are wrong as well. Has Vanguard tried to invent a Post-Truth Time Machine?

I hope they didn't make the buy decision solely based on ex-dividends rate.

But this is no excuse for Vanguard. Stop the changing how the website looks. I don't care the interface. Just please put accurate information on the website.

[PizzaEater]

OK, I found something that is of relatively serious consequence to me. This was alluded to above. The old site and new site have DIFFERENT ex-dividend dates for VTI:

I pity folks who used the new site and bought yesterday with the idea that they avoided the dividend.

Furthermore, the past March dividend dates are wrong as well. Has Vanguard tried to invent a Post-Truth Time Machine?

Like I said earlier, I encourage you to directly contact Vanguard about this. When I did I simply reported it as a bug. But I think you should spell out the tax consequences of someone acting on this incorrect information. Maybe that would make them treat the issue more urgently internally. (I would have spelled it out this way if it had occurred to me.)

You'll note that almost EVERY date listed on the page is off by 1 day. Consensus of this thread is that it's a rookie programming error in the display code.

Edit to add: assuming this issue gets forward to the people who are capable of making this fix at Vanguard, I guarantee you they will not understand the implication you pointed out. The people at Vanguard who do understand the implications of the wrong date being displayed have nothing to do with the website design. So we need to tell them ourselves when reporting the bug.

[livesoft]

[...]Like I said earlier, I encourage you to directly contact Vanguard about this. When I did I simply reported it as a bug. But I think you should spell out the tax consequences of someone acting on this incorrect information. Maybe that would make them treat the issue more urgently internally. (I would have spelled it out this way if it had occurred to me.)

I tried to use the "Feedback" tool on the vanguard.com web site, but when I click "Submit" nothing happened. So I clicked it about ten times in frustration. Nothing.

[PizzaEater]

[...]Like I said earlier, I encourage you to directly contact Vanguard about this. When I did I simply reported it as a bug. But I think you should spell out the tax consequences of someone acting on this incorrect information. Maybe that would make them treat the issue more urgently internally. (I would have spelled it out this way if it had occurred to me.)

I tried to use the "Feedback" tool on the vanguard.com web site, but when I click "Submit" nothing happened. So I clicked it about ten times in frustration. Nothing.

I sent them a message while logged in via:
My Accounts -> Messages -> Compose
about this exact issue within the last week (along with 2 other issues I found wrong with the new website...).

[exodusNH]

[...]Like I said earlier, I encourage you to directly contact Vanguard about this. When I did I simply reported it as a bug. But I think you should spell out the tax consequences of someone acting on this incorrect information. Maybe that would make them treat the issue more urgently internally. (I would have spelled it out this way if it had occurred to me.)

I tried to use the "Feedback" tool on the vanguard.com web site, but when I click "Submit" nothing happened. So I clicked it about ten times in frustration. Nothing.

I sent them a message while logged in via:
My Accounts -> Messages -> Compose
about this exact issue within the last week (along with 2 other issues I found wrong with the new website...).

They removed messaging for the vast majority of people.

[rossington]

OK, I found something that is of relatively serious consequence to me. This was alluded to above. The old site and new site have DIFFERENT ex-dividend dates for VTI:



I pity folks who used the new site and bought yesterday with the idea that they avoided the dividend.

Furthermore, the past March dividend dates are wrong as well. Has Vanguard tried to invent a Post-Truth Time Machine?

FWIW I just checked (before 4:00) and the new site IS showing the correct dates.

[starboi]

Just use Fidelity to get pricing and ex div dates if you’re into that sort of thing. I don’t think they have a minimum so you could buy $1 of VTI just to create an account and do research there.

[PizzaEater]

[...]Like I said earlier, I encourage you to directly contact Vanguard about this. When I did I simply reported it as a bug. But I think you should spell out the tax consequences of someone acting on this incorrect information. Maybe that would make them treat the issue more urgently internally. (I would have spelled it out this way if it had occurred to me.)

I tried to use the "Feedback" tool on the vanguard.com web site, but when I click "Submit" nothing happened. So I clicked it about ten times in frustration. Nothing.

I sent them a message while logged in via:
My Accounts -> Messages -> Compose
about this exact issue within the last week (along with 2 other issues I found wrong with the new website...).

They removed messaging for the vast majority of people.

Oh sorry I didn't realize that!

[exodusNH]

[...]Like I said earlier, I encourage you to directly contact Vanguard about this. When I did I simply reported it as a bug. But I think you should spell out the tax consequences of someone acting on this incorrect information. Maybe that would make them treat the issue more urgently internally. (I would have spelled it out this way if it had occurred to me.)

I tried to use the "Feedback" tool on the vanguard.com web site, but when I click "Submit" nothing happened. So I clicked it about ten times in frustration. Nothing.

I sent them a message while logged in via:
My Accounts -> Messages -> Compose
about this exact issue within the last week (along with 2 other issues I found wrong with the new website...).

They removed messaging for the vast majority of people.

Oh sorry I didn't realize that!

In an "effort to serve us better" they want everyone who's not Flagship to call in... Much better to wait two hours on hold for a non-time critical question than to fire off a message they can respond to at their leisure.

[livesoft]

FWIW I just checked (before 4:00) and the new site IS showing the correct dates.

And I re-checked just now and wrong dates are still shown for me.

[ruud]

FWIW I just checked (before 4:00) and the new site IS showing the correct dates.

And I re-checked just now and wrong dates are still shown for me.

As stated earlier in the thread, for people west of Eastern time zone, all dates are off by 1 day. For people in EDT, the dates are correct.

[rossington]

FWIW I just checked (before 4:00) and the new site IS showing the correct dates.

And I re-checked just now and wrong dates are still shown for me.

As stated earlier in the thread, for people west of Eastern time zone, all dates are off by 1 day. For people in EDT, the dates are correct.

What I still don't get is: The dates are static i.e.: predetermined, how would a time zone change affect this in any way?

[exodusNH]

FWIW I just checked (before 4:00) and the new site IS showing the correct dates.

And I re-checked just now and wrong dates are still shown for me.

As stated earlier in the thread, for people west of Eastern time zone, all dates are off by 1 day. For people in EDT, the dates are correct.

What I still don't get is: The dates are static i.e.: predetermined, how would a time zone change affect this in any way?

Because they're fetching the data via client-side calls and formatting it. JavaScript has weak date/time/timezone handling.

But, ultimately, they are not using skilled enough developers.