10

There are quite a few cases where you may want to view the markdown source behind a question.

The easiest way to do this is via the [edit] link below the post.

Unfortunately, the [edit] link is sometimes missing-on locked posts, on posts with pending edits, and when the queue is full.

I'd think this use-case was inconsequential, but it happened to me twice yesterday and the third time this week, so I thought I'd propose this:

Replace [edit] with [view source] when a post cannot be edited

This will solve the issue of people getting confused about it as well Missing edit link?

Maybe we can add a reason for the post's uneditableness in the view source view.

9
  • 1
    Nice idea - of course, it would need to show a read-only view of the markdown.
    – Oded
    Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:20
  • "This will solve the issue of people getting confused about it as well Missing edit link?" Bold assertion! Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:20
  • I think it would. It is the same strategy that Wikipedia has and it is I dare say effective.
    – user184036
    Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:22
  • 1
    @Oded that's rather obvious :) <textarea readonly> does the trick. Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:22
  • And removing the [Save Edits] button...
    – Oded
    Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:23
  • @Oded yep! And the markdown editor. Just a nba rebones readonly textarea with possibly a reason floating by. Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:25
  • 6
    No, I say leave the fields all editable and submissible, except failing silently. Commented May 5, 2012 at 18:27
  • A better way of solving the disappearing edit link would be to leave it there, and simply show an error message. (I'm still missing the part of your feature request where you explain why you needed to see the source.) Commented May 6, 2012 at 8:43
  • @TheE once to check out how something was done in markdown, and twice to copy-paste a metapost. Commented May 6, 2012 at 13:58

1 Answer 1

7

We already have a "view source" link.

I think a better solution to your "view source" dilemma is just always providing a link to the revision history, even when there have been no revisions to the post yet. The revision history already has a "view source" link for each edit which changes the body, including the original post.

view raw text of this revision

The only real problem is it isn't easily accessible for posts which haven't had any revisions, and thus the "edited x time ago" link doesn't appear to get there. Sure, you can manually create the link to get into the history, but that's an excessive amount of effort just to get the source.


For questions: "All you have to do" is edit the URL and you're set. Change the questions part to posts and everything after the ID number to revisions.

question revision history

For answers: You actually have to find the post ID first. Fortunately, this isn't too difficult. You can find the post's ID in the link popup box, it's the first number (the second is your user ID). Past that, the URL is exactly the same as a question's revision history, except you need to change out the ID number as well.

finding the post id


As for "relieving confusion," I think when there is a suggested edit pending, it should display the same for everyone. Even if they can't approve/reject it, why not show it to them? Just add a notice at the top "This edit is pending approval. You cannot make edits to this post until it has been peer reviewed."

4
  • 1
    I know we have a view source feature but I find it annoying and nonintuitive(especially for newbies--and these are the guys who need view source more) to get to it via URL manipulation. Commented May 6, 2012 at 2:40
  • As for an always-revhistory link and 'always showing the edit button', isn't that more complicated? Commented May 6, 2012 at 2:44
  • How is it any more complicated than what you're proposing? I honestly think that showing them an edit-like screen to"view the source" when they can't actually edit would be even more confusing.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented May 6, 2012 at 3:12
  • Oh yeah, actually they're both at the same level of complicatedness :) . showing them an edit-like screen to"view the source" when they can't actually edit would be even more confusing . Try editing Wikipedia's Main Page. You'll see what I mean by Maybe we can add a reason for the post's uneditableness in the view source view.. It's not confusing at all. Commented May 6, 2012 at 3:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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