Timeline for Undone edits disappear from revision history
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 21, 2013 at 4:19 | vote | accept | Dennis | ||
| May 20, 2013 at 11:18 | history | edited | OdedStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| May 16, 2013 at 22:57 | answer | added | Ben CollinsMod | timeline score: 29 | |
| Jun 11, 2012 at 0:34 | vote | accept | Dennis | ||
| May 21, 2013 at 4:19 | |||||
| May 22, 2012 at 18:28 | history | edited | Shog9Mod |
edited tags
|
|
| May 22, 2012 at 17:47 | comment | added | Kevin Vermeer |
@Arjan - I was experimenting with closing/reopening this question within the grace period, there is a valid 'revision' created by the closure with a link provided ('show revision' text has onclick="showRevision('rev-8332012-05-22-05-40', 833, '06ed5085-a02e-481d-a3b6-406ce04922e1_fb532cf0-5f87-4681-af1e-04cf57d4229a', false, null)" but clicking it doesn't show anything.
|
|
| May 22, 2012 at 17:25 | comment | added | Arjan | When doing this to temporarily vandalize for a strategical reason, I'd say that someone editing after you (within the grace period) would lock-in your abusive edit after all? Sounds quite dangerous to me. (And as an aside: the edits might be stored, just not visible. But I don't know for sure.) | |
| May 22, 2012 at 17:17 | answer | added | Shog9Mod | timeline score: 25 | |
| May 22, 2012 at 16:52 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | Why don't we just keylog everything? | |
| May 22, 2012 at 16:37 | comment | added | Tim Stone |
If we're really concerned about the potential for those oddities though, @Shog9, then there should be a full audit trail of edits available on some moderator route (or /timeline, or whatever). Adding a blank entry to prove that something plausibly happened just seems like an odd solution to me, especially since I feel like this is much more often used to undo a mistaken edit than to commit short-lived vandalism. As a side note, I take screenshots of things I find to be odd, but I admit there's no reason to expect that everyone else would.
|
|
| May 22, 2012 at 16:26 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Any entry in the revision history implies at most a 5-minute window where the content of the post was being altered, @Tim. It offers at least a plausible explanation for any oddities observed in that time. Now show me a post that's two years since the last modification, and tell me you saw it on the front page with something weird on it. I check the revision history and tell you you're crazy... Except, you might not be. It might have been edited. Heck, it might have been edited dozens of times. As long as those edits were carefully retracted within that window, there's no trace. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 16:21 | comment | added | Tim Stone | @Shog9 Why is that helpful, though? If you actually saw the edited content in the first place, you also saw who edited the post (or weren't bothered by the edit enough to pay attention). If you didn't see the edit, knowing that someone undid their edit only tells you that someone undid their edit, not if the edit had any relation to either of the concerns in this post. Plus, knowing a retracted edit would be on the record, you could just undo it with a minor, valid edit instead, which wouldn't be suspicious. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 16:14 | comment | added | Lorem Ipsum | Not just the unnecessary bump, but it also avoids taking the post a step closer to CW (which is meaningless these days) | |
| May 22, 2012 at 16:02 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | I actually do this all the time. Not do it to reverse votes, but do it to undo dud edits (like what @lunboks said). | |
| May 22, 2012 at 16:01 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @Tim: since revisions that change nothing are never actually applied, you know that someone edited the post and then retracted their edit. "This post was nothing but Zalgo when I first saw it, I swear!" - oh, it was edited and then retracted, that explains it. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:58 | comment | added | Tim Stone | @Shog9 Would indicating that someone changed nothing really make any difference, though? Unless we do away with the edit grace period entirely, showing a new revision would just show that the user didn't change anything. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:51 | comment | added | a cat | @Shog9 Reducing clutter, maybe. If someone notices their edit was wrong immediately after the fact, they can just undo it and it's gone. Plus the unnecessary bump is undone as well. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:47 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Waiting for a response from the person who implemented this as to what it was intended to accomplish. Frankly, I can't see a feature that allows you to completely erase your tracks in this way as anything other than a bug. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:44 | comment | added | a cat | Also, I've reported the inconsistent behavior with rollbacks vs. manual undos. Jeff Atwood acknowledged (or at least read) it, so again, I doubt this is a bug. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:40 | comment | added | a cat | ... that's a bug? Sounds kinda like a feature to me. If someone reverts themselves within the grace period, there's no real point in keeping an empty revision around. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:39 | comment | added | Jeremy | This isn't by-design? I thought this was well-known. Using it to undo votes never occurred to me. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:23 | comment | added | Matt | ... I just had to try it. and succeeded. Muahahahah. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 15:07 | history | asked | Dennis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |