I tried really hard to phrase that as a question and failed. Anyway.

This is an occurrence I have observed multiple times recently. It happens like this:

Two people will be editing a question/answer at the same time. That is to say, they are both working off the same source material for their edit.

One of them will change paragraph A of the post and submit their edit.

The slower editor will change paragraph B of the post, having not noticed the error in paragraph A, and will submit their edit.

The result is that paragraph B is correctly edited, but paragraph A is reverted to its original unedited state, as it appears in the second person's edit.

I'm proposing that if two edits are going on simultaneously, and one changes something that the other does not touch, the second edit should not override the first edit in that segment of the post. Or there should be some system in place to notify the second editor of what has just happened and allow them to adjust accordingly.

  • 5
    Do you propose a sort of merge queue perhaps where the last person to click "Save" ends up seeing a side by side version of the edits so they can perform the final merge? – jmort253 Jul 28 '12 at 8:49
  • 3
    AKA automatic merge conflict resolution. Not a trivial thing. – Oded Jul 28 '12 at 8:49
  • 1
    Doesn't have to be automatic, as that would be very much not trivial. jmort253's idea is very good. – temporary_user_name Jul 28 '12 at 8:50
  • Would be a really nice feature, though I gess it is hard to implement. I have no idea how wikimedia solve this problem. That's why I turned to review old stuff – Shegit Brahm Jul 28 '12 at 9:01
  • I would not like an automatic feature, but since your request is kind of open ended, I won't downvote for that... On the other hand: the warning once existed but was lost with the inline editing, following some rules. – Arjan Jul 28 '12 at 10:18
  • I'm for the manual merging GUI. Automatic merging would be too difficult, however. – John Dvorak Jun 26 '13 at 3:48

Line comparing would work here, but I like how MediaWiki does this.

If A is editing and B makes a new edit and finished before A, A gets another page with B's edit before another submission confirmation. The problem is that A's edit gets nulled and B is taken over, meaning that if A did not copy-paste his edit, it is lost forever until he moves back.

TV Tropes uses the page lockdown via IP address on editing pages, but the problem is that when I want to go on a different device, I have to wait 20 minutes because it doesn't have a cancel button. Thankfully, SO doesn't have the "No Cancel" problem, so this should be easy.

What would be nice is to have both edits side by side like how history is done on Wikipedia. If A and B makes edits, and B submits edit, another page pops up with B's edit and A's gets taken to a separate text box. A's submission on right, B's final edit on left, with B's having the "Submit Edit" button. Cut. Paste. Done. Now I'm wondering how hard is that to program.

  • Unfortunately, any lockdown is unacceptable. You can't be sure the editor will not keep the edit window open indefinitely, and block other edits. – John Dvorak Jun 26 '13 at 7:41
  • What do I have to do for this to get some attention from SO? It seems even the bounty isn't really doing anything. – temporary_user_name Jul 2 '13 at 3:54

You must log in to answer this question.

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