They sound lovely coastalchick. Cats look happier when they live with another cat, don't they?

One of my cats started to say MUV! (in one quick syllable) recently. I don't understand what it means, but it makes me laugh each time.

aliby, I think what you say makes sense. I have so many websites from 2005 that were saved with access date 2005 and the copyright date whatever it showed at the time. I think I'll change all of them to date. It's a bit silly but, won't it make me look like I've done all my research in the last minute?

In most cases you can get the date of the website by right clicking on the page, and get the page info (in mozilla) or preferences (in most browsers). I understand that the "last modified" date can replace the "copyright" date, if the copyright date is not available (considering "those" Harvard guides are correct.) But that brings me to my first question... these dates get updated regularly. Therefore copyright date must be more reliable.

Thanks H. The reason I get confused is, I looked at several Harvard style guides, and they say year should be the copyright year. For the date of access, some just say "access date" and others "date of first access". So my dilemma is that it would be silly to put the year 2007 and put an earlier access date; this doesn't sound logical (as you suggested). But the copyright dates always change.

But if copyright dates don't matter, how else do you find out the date of a website information?

I'm sooooooo confused... I am beginning to hate references.

Hi H. Will you be generally describing your PhD, or will you present results as well?

I usually approach (usually?? I've only done 2 posters so far) posters as if they were literally information posters. The kind you see in public places, libraries, supermarkets etc.

-Divide it into sections without being too obvious, and create some sort of narrative. So people can have the option to either follow it left to right - top to bottom etc, but also have a look at random sections but still pick up the idea.

-Key thing is to provide large enough and legible type, and clean space around it. So the information won't be too jammed. The information is no good, if people can't read it.

and just one last thing (I promise I will shut up after this one)

sometimes people don't understand the depth of your ideas, and they assume it's already been done. I suggest to take that with a pinch of salt, and try to find out whether it has really been done. It might be slightly different than yours, your idea can be miles away from theirs in one way or another. Jojo's answer on my thread yesterday was quite helpful. Good luck.

continuing...

I think what you can do would be is to use this fact (that your research idea is already being done) to your advantage. See it as an answer to your hypothesis, whether it is found by you or someone else, and move on to the next question. Create an even better hypothesis. You don't have to change your topic, and your work so far won't be for nothing.

Dear rick. First of all, sorry to hear that. But it is very common (and the normal process) of PhDs. I came to my 3rd year by changing my questions and ideas over and over. Every time I thought something was my idea first, I found out that it was either being done at another institute, or someone was proposing the idea. The good thing is, all these findings that other people do is actually good for your research's development. Not only they become the part of the literature review, but also show how you can go one step ahead and still contribute something original to the academy.

My post the other day was about a similar thing. But because I am sure the approach and the practical experience of it was not done before until I've gone public with it, it's a bit different than what I came across with before. I am now paranoid to find out that someone will hurry up and properly publish my idea as theirs.

I am happy to share the world. Anyone wants a piece?

Most websites I searched and added to my bibliography long time ago, now(naturally) changed their copyright year. At the time of my first access, date let's say was 11 December 2005, but the website now shows copyright date as 2007. So would this be ok:

Author Name (2007). "This is the title" [online] Available at: , [Accessed 11 December 2005]

no it can't be.. You have to follow your institution's regulations.

that's very nice jojo

I haven't really asked this to my supervisor, evol_gal. I didn't really want to. But I am very concerned about this issue, especially now. The idea and approach of the project is unique at the moment, but very easy to copy and apply. I feel like if someone does that, it will leave me in a very complex situation, as this "approach" is quite important to my thesis. I only have 5 months left to complete (at least that's when my funding runs out and my supervisor thinks completion can be achieved by then).

I started doing that too

... since you started your PhD research.

Mine is, watching Neighbours. I feel so embarrassed about it.

What's your confession?

I forgot to mention, that this project is what my thesis will focus on mainly. Without it, 3 years would go down the drain. And I keep getting emails / suggestions from people that I should protect the idea. I am so confused.