Background

Stack Overflow has a five-minute edit interval where you can continue editing the current revision before a new revision is logged.

While editing, one of the bigger internal quandaries I typically have is "Should I edit this post??" (see below). The issue is whether I have 10 seconds or 59 seconds before a new revision is logged.

4-minute timer problem


Feature Request

Support two edit countdown timers:

  1. One timer should be at the bottom of the question or answer that has been edited within the last 5 minutes
  2. One timer at the bottom of the edit window (see text below in red)

Both timers should provide second-granularity visibility to when the current revision edit window will expire. After the countdown timer expires, the text should read "Saving a new edit will result a new revision".

Edit timer

share|improve this question
    
I can kinda see the desire for this, but - why wouldn't you edit posts that require it? Does it really matter if an edit shows up in history? –  Michael Petrotta Jul 22 '12 at 0:46
1  
it's about prioritizing edits. I put the important changes first, and batch cosmetic changes if I don't have time for them in the current edit. I am a perfectionist and it's not uncommon for my posts to go well into 7 or 8 edits (close to the 10-edit community-wiki limit) –  Mike Pennington Jul 22 '12 at 0:47
    
And so, your intent is to get the meat in the first edit? Again - how important is it to have a pristine first edit? –  Michael Petrotta Jul 22 '12 at 0:48
1  
Again, community wiki after 10 edits. Status quo often leaves me at 7 to 8 edits –  Mike Pennington Jul 22 '12 at 0:50
1  
Ah. That community wiki thing is pretty weird, when it's a single person making those edits. Bit of a vestigial feature. I'd prefer to see that go away, along with the five-minute edit window, which is pretty broken. –  Michael Petrotta Jul 22 '12 at 1:04
    
@MichaelPetrotta: As far as I know, that rule is in place to prevent users from constantly bumping their posts. –  Dennis Jul 22 '12 at 4:27
    
How so, @Dennis? –  Michael Petrotta Jul 22 '12 at 7:17
    
@MichaelPetrotta: Making many consecutive minor edits to a post bumps the question to the front page every time, thus increasing the posts view count. As it is, if you do so more than 10 times, you won't gain reputation from subsequent upvotes. –  Dennis Jul 22 '12 at 15:25
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

While I admit to being somewhat obsessed with this as well, if you really need to not create excessive revisions just edit in your favorite text editor (or StackEdit) and paste it all in when you're happy with the results. Infinite edits with one revision...

share|improve this answer
    
This is fine for you, but markdownpad has no Stack Overflow features such as syntax highlighting or imgur.com links –  Mike Pennington Jul 22 '12 at 1:02
    
Won't necessarily help you with imgur, but Stack Edit is built on SE's PageDown editor and does do syntax highlighting. It's rather nice... –  Shog9 Oct 21 '13 at 15:24
    
if you could somehow bump an edit into your answer, I can remove my down vote. Sadly, my attempt at doing this without interrupting your day got rejected –  Mike Pennington Oct 21 '13 at 17:37
    
That edit rejection sucked. Added manually, @Mike! –  Shog9 Feb 10 at 1:46
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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