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)

  • 2
    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, 2014 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, 2014 at 19:08
  • 4
    @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. Jan 8, 2014 at 19:16
  • @Servy Yup, I agree. That's what I meant by my original wording, but I've adjusted it to be clearer. Jan 8, 2014 at 19:22
  • 2
    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, 2014 at 22:21
  • 5
    @Servy i've been assured that these revisions are stored in the DB already.
    – swasheck
    Jan 8, 2014 at 22:23
  • @swasheck By whom? Do you have a link to cite? Jan 9, 2014 at 8:15


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .