What are your thoughts on the idea of adding an edit history feature to posts, and comments in Lemmy?

Kalcifer@lemm.ee to Lemmy@lemmy.ml – 56 points –

I believe that the addition of an edit history would be a massive boon to the usefulness of Lemmy on the whole. A common problem with forums is the relatively low level of trust that users can have in another's content. When one has the ability to edit their posts, and comments this invites the possibility of misleading the reader -- for example, one can create a comment, then, after gaining likes, and comments, reword the comment to either destroy the usefulness of the thread on the whole, or mislead a future reader. The addition of an edit history would solve this issue.

Lemmy already tracks that a post was edited (I point your attention to the little pencil icon that you see in a posts header in the browser version of the lemmy-ui). What I am describing is the expansion of this feature. The format that I have envisioned is something very similar to what Element does. For example:

What this image is depicting is a visual of what parts of the post were changed at the time that it was edited, and a complete history of every edit made to the post -- sort of like a "git diff".

I would love to hear the feedback of all Lemmings on this idea for a feature -- concerns, suggestions, praise, criticisms, or anything else!


This post is the result of the current (2023-10-03T07:37Z) status of this GitHub post. It was closed by a maintainer/dev of the Lemmy repo. I personally don't think that the issue got enough attention, or input, so I am posting it here in an attempt to open it up to a potentially wider audience.

63

Editing a post may be to remove the password or email address you accidentally copy pasted in, or removing some potentially doxxing information, or one of many reasons you want that content gone. Github has edit history, but it also allows users to delete revisions so it seems your main concern would not be resolved by this implementation.

And as you point out, there is already a message that says the post was edited and what time.

Overall I don't see that the benefits outweigh the new issues caused.

You could make it so there is a checkbox for deleting the edit history, so only the fact that it has been edited remains.

To draw attention to an edit, for example to correct an erroneous statement, use a combination of strikethrough and bold (or italic if more appropriate):

Joe Hill, who wrote songs about union organizing, was framed and hung executed by firing squad by the state of Utah in 1915.

Joe Hill, who wrote songs about union organizing, was framed and ~~hung~~ **executed by firing squad** by the state of Utah in 1915.

OP's argument is that people can hide that they have edited. While I'm not against the suggestion, it wouldn't solve the original problem.

This one actually isn't so bad. If a person opts out of their edit history being shown, at least this would be a sort of red flag for the reader that should trigger skepticism in the content's trustworthiness. That being said, it would still be inferior to having a mandatory edit history.

Editing a post may be to remove the password or email address you accidentally copy pasted in, or removing some potentially doxxing information, or one of many reasons you want that content gone.

Why not just delete the post, and then make a new one with the correct information?

Github has edit history, but it also allows users to delete revisions so it seems your main concern would not be resolved by this implementation.

If this were to be allowed, the edit history would then be pointless.

And as you point out, there is already a message that says the post was edited and what time.

That is the only information that is provided. One is unable to find out what was changed.

Why not just delete the post, and then make a new one with the correct information?

Sure, but then your comment chain doesn't make sense, or if it's a post them you lose all the comments.

If this were to be allowed, the edit history would then be pointless.

I disagree, but I do think it invalidates your reason for having an edit history.

Sure, but then your comment chain doesn’t make sense, or if it’s a post them you lose all the comments.

I would assume that if there was information that is being redacted, then it would happen very early on in the posts creation -- presumably before any comments are even made.

I disagree

How come? If you can censor the edit history, then you can't trust the edit history. Perhaps something that could help was if the edit that was redacted should be replaced with an entry that states something like "This edit was redacted.". In my opinion, this is inferior to having a persistent edit history, but perhaps it's a potentially functional compromise.

I would assume that if there was information that is being redacted, then it would happen very early on in the posts creation – presumably before any comments are even made.

It could be as simple as updating a post with an outcome. You paste in a link and don't realise until too late that you actually pasted in your personal email address. Do you then have to delete the whole thread and all it's 1000 comments?

How come?

An edit history is helpful for more than just an audit history. Most histories won't be removed, and you can see what has changed. Not to see if someone is gaslighting you, but just to see changes that no one is trying to hide.

It could be as simple as updating a post with an outcome. You paste in a link and don’t realise until too late that you actually pasted in your personal email address. Do you then have to delete the whole thread and all it’s 1000 comments?

Hm, that's actually a very good counterexample. I hadn't considered that.

8 more...

Nah, never liked the feature, wouldn't appreciate it here.

Side note, external images can be embedded in markdown like this:

![alt description](https://example.com/cool-image.png)

Nah, never liked the feature, wouldn’t appreciate it here.

Would you mind elaborating on why you feel that way?

Side note, external images can be embedded in markdown like this:

![alt description](https://example.com/cool-image.png)

Thank you for that info! I'll update my post.

It adds nothing to the discussion. Use cases where it would have been useful I can count with my fingers. I made many more edits due to typos and brain-farts (that made the sentence look like I just learned English yesterday) than that.

Edit: Also, I'm hosting my own instance (for others as well) and the (unoptimized) storage use is already huge. No need to pay for something I don't really care about.

also some people did learn english (or whatever language is being used) yesterday and they might notice something confusing about their post after creating it... why let it persist

It adds nothing to the discussion.

It wouldn't technically add content (unless you count the peristant old versions as added content), it provides passive improvement to quality.

Also, I’m hosting my own instance (for others as well) and the (unoptimized) storage use is already huge.

What portion of that is text, and what portion of that is media?

No need to pay for something I don’t really care about.

Do note that, presumably, were this feature to be implemented, it would likely be able to be disabled on the side of the instance -- meaning that your instance wouldn't store any of the edits itself.

What portion of that is text, and what portion of that is media?

All of what I had in mind is database, media I have in a separate and cheaper storage.

Would you mind also defining what you meant by "huge"?

~28 GB.

Over what period of time? What's the current rate of increase?

3 months and a bit. No idea about increase rate, I just have a watcher for free space and don't particularly care.

So that's about 100GB/year of text? If so, then that is, indeed, a very large amount of text being generated.

2 more...
2 more...

It's not something I would care about or ever use. It comes with significant unresolved problems already pointed out, and it mostly just seems like you want it for reasons of idle curiosity or paranoia.

Most importantly, if a lemmy dev already said no, and you aren't willing to do the work, then it's dead, and opening a thread about it isn't a helpful way of fixing that.

It’s not something I would care about or ever use.

I think it's better to look at this not from the perspective of one's own personal gain, but the benefit that it provides to the site on the whole.

It comes with significant unresolved problems already pointed out

Would you mind stating the exact "unresolved problems" that you are referring to?

it mostly just seems like you want it for reasons of idle curiosity or paranoia.

I believe that the feature's existence provides the passive benefit of increasing the average quality of posted content.

Most importantly, if a lemmy dev already said no, and you aren’t willing to do the work, then it’s dead

What's bothersome about that is that the dev didn't just say that they didn't want to work on it, they closed it. I completely understand if the dev doesn't want to work on it personally, but closing it gives one the feeling that future discussion on the topic is not wanted -- not to mention that it also greatly reduces its visibility.

opening a thread about it isn’t a helpful way of fixing that.

No, but I wanted to have more discussion that what was had on GitHub. I figured that posting about it here would yield a much larger audience, and, perhaps, less biased opinions.

What's bothersome about that is that the dev didn't just say that they didn't want to work on it, they closed it. I completely understand if the dev doesn't want to work on it personally, but closing it gives one the feeling that future discussion on the topic is not wanted -- not to mention that it also greatly reduces its visibility.

This is the part where you should recognize that its not a feature they want on lemmy. It doesn't need "more visability", it's their project, and they get to choose what they want to do with it. We just use it as a byproduct of it being free and open.

From what I understood of their comment on GitHub, it didn't seem to be that they fundamentally disliked the idea of the feature, but more that they didn't think that the community would find enough use from it to make its implementation worth it.

I actually don't think it is required to trust people on a forum in the way you suggest.

If I was in what I perceived to be a really high stakes discussion (read: flamewar) where I was worried about this, I would take my own measures to ensure I could "trust" the other parties. I would save my own copies locally. Reddit RES had a button you could add client side for just this kind of petty bullshit. If you really want the feature, implement it in your browser/device.

Really though friend, try to have a bit of a sense of humor and distance from your online posting and interactions with unknown people. If someone is going to such lengths as to edit their post so it looks like you are responding to something else to make you look bad, it is either: a) a boring joke, or b) they are really pathetic and sad trying to sabotage you. Either way, it's not the end of the world. If it sticks in your craw, you can just go edit your comment to say "edit: the comment to which I am replied was substantially edited after I posted so what I said no longer applies". You can either delete what you said, or correct it, or leave it as-is with a caveat.

I actually don’t think it is required to trust people on a forum in the way you suggest.

Why not try to improve it though?

If I was in what I perceived to be a really high stakes discussion (read: flamewar) where I was worried about this, I would take my own measures to ensure I could “trust” the other parties. I would save my own copies locally. Reddit RES had a button you could add client side for just this kind of petty bullshit. If you really want the feature, implement it in your browser/device.

I don't really understand the argument hat you are trying to make. You are admitting that this concern is justified, and that there are scenarious where one could be expected to want to take such measures, but you don't want a feature for this built in. Instead, you'd want a 3rd party plug-in...? I must ask: Why? Also, TIL about Reddit RES. Neat.

If someone is going to such lengths as to edit their post so it looks like you are responding to something else to make you look bad, it is either: a) a boring joke, or b) they are really pathetic and sad trying to sabotage you. Either way, it’s not the end of the world. If it sticks in your craw, you can just go edit your comment to say “edit: the comment to which I am replied was substantially edited after I posted so what I said no longer applies”. You can either delete what you said, or correct it, or leave it as-is with a caveat.

The point that I am trying to make isn't that this is for my own benefit, it is that this sort of behaviour detracts from the quality, and usefulness of the information on this site on the whole. Information shouldn't be purely ephemeral. The reliable exchange of information on forums is invaluable in the modern age. I couldn't even hope to count the number of times that I have gone through old forum posts reading people's opinions, and conversations when conducting research on a topic, or troubleshooting an issue.

I have been on lots of old forums too. That is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about the ability to investigate the typos on the old forum posts. How often are you on some phpBB site thinking "this would be so much better if I could see what incorrect information was edited out in 2009."? Nobody fucking cares.

I don't have any comment on phpBB specifically, but I do frequently encounter the issue on old Reddit posts; however, it should be noted that the majority of the types of changes to comments that reduce the usefuleness of a post thread is their deletion, which is out of the scope of this post.

Your post made me realize that I haven't heard the word "flamewar" in a long while.

Personally I like the idea of that history simply because I have seen people go back and edit their posts, as a form of trolling by getting into an argument with someone, and then changing their posts to completely obfuscate what the argument was about

I really appreciated reddit's ninja-edit window, where you had about three minutes to fix typos and grammatical errors without getting the this-was-edited indicator.

The root shortcoming is that changing one letter gets the same flag as replacing the whole comment or adding a wall of text.

The root shortcoming is that changing one letter gets the same flag as replacing the whole comment or adding a wall of text.

Fair point.

Considering that, especially with federation, editing or deleting stuff doesn't really make the old version go away, I personally think the better move would be to pull a Slashdot and just not have the ability to edit or delete at all to begin with. That way, it makes it clearer what is inherently true: that once you post something, it's out there for good.

I disagree, I like editing comments to fix typos, add links, or lift up responses I've made to popular posts so I don't have to repeat myself in a half dozen sub-threads.

We should just make edits create a new post links to the previous one and clients can offer a diff feature.

disagree because for example

  • reading sequentially posted items when the original author wishes to correct themselves is really annoying

  • there are reasons other than personal embarrassment someone would want to correct something they'd said. like if you give advice but later realize the advice could be dangerous for a group of people you hadn't considered