Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I'd like to propose that all edits performed on a question are visible in the review history. Specifically, I'm asking that the five minute grace period goes away from the perspective of the revision history.

I still think a five minute window needs to exist in terms of the community-wiki edit count. I don't want people shying away from small corrections and typos in their own questions, for fear of turning their question into a CW.

This has several benefits:

  • It can help reduce confusion when answers/comments are rendered obsolete by changes to the question within the first five minutes.

  • It can provide valuable insight into the history of the question; it can be helpful to see how the OP is responding to comments.

  • It may help users understand badly worded questions – often these are caused by multiple edits without much thought to the overall structure.

  • It can make it easier to see when a 2k+ user is mid-way through an edit spree. This might help avoid mid-air edit collisions.

There are potentially some down-sides, of course:

  • Noisy revision histories. Personally I think the benefits outweigh this down-side. It's not that bad to see some additional revisions.

  • Embarrassment. You can't hide your spelling/grammar mistakes. Oh well!

  • Performance - storing additional revision data in the database will impact performance. Is this significant and can this be managed?

I think complete transparency is a good thing on this site and matches well to the values of openness and ownership of content.

(Inspired, in part, by Make first draft of a new answer part of the permanent revision history)

share|improve this question
The other issue is performance. Lots of extra revisions means storing all of that data in the DB. My guess is this would be pretty significant. – Servy Jan 8 '14 at 17:49
@Duncan You're putting the performance there as a question. It's not a question. It will have a negative performance impact (more in space than in time, I'd guess). It's merely a question of degree; whether or not it's a prohibitive problem or a manageable one. – Servy Jan 8 '14 at 19:08
@Geobits I'm not sure how seeing the edit history of questions will affect FGITW justice. I think Shog9's argument applies only to answers. – Duncan Jan 8 '14 at 19:16
@Servy Yup, I agree. That's what I meant by my original wording, but I've adjusted it to be clearer. – Duncan Jan 8 '14 at 19:22
the vigilante justice statement is a strawman rooted in fear, antipathy, and/or lethargy. it's a misrepresentation of both intent and proposed utility of the original request in the linked post. – swasheck Jan 8 '14 at 22:21
@Servy i've been assured that these revisions are stored in the DB already. – swasheck Jan 8 '14 at 22:23
@swasheck By whom? Do you have a link to cite? – Duncan Jan 9 '14 at 8:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .