XF 1.2 Post Edit History and Logging

Post edit history and logging has been one of the most requested features and it will be a core feature in XenForo 1.2.

Post Edit Logging
Post edit logging is the simpler of the two features. It adds an indication to the post when it has been edited. We have intentionally kept this feature simple for the average user. They have no reason that they have to enter; if they're inclined, they can always include the reason in the message.

We do track the last person to edit the message, but this is not displayed. It could be easily added with an add-on. In most cases, the last edit will be by the owner and the average user likely doesn't care about who edited it. If a moderator needs to know, the history gives much more detailed information.

The edit log can be set to not be displayed if a post is edited in the first X minutes.

So what does this look like on a post?

Moderators also get a few extra options to control the public log of the edit. Note that these options do not affect the history. This only allows them to suppress the public notice.

Post Edit History
Post edit history actually keeps all previous versions of a message rather than just an indication that it was edited. This can be used for many things, including handling the "rage-delete" situation, where a user edits all of their content, potentially destroying the flow of many threads.

For developers, it's worth noting that the history system has mostly been developed to be content agnostic. Add-ons can make use of the system and automatically get access to the history and comparison interface.

Whenever a post is edited--even with a "silent" moderator edit--the history is logged. You may have noticed it in the screenshot above, but a history link will appear whenever a post has been edited.

When you click that link, you will have an opportunity to pick two versions to compare and see the actual changes made

Note that the UI I'm demonstrating below is still a work in progress and improvements will be made.

You can also view the previous version in its raw form with a button to the right (which I didn't include in the screenshot). Options to automatically revert to a previous version may be included.

History data can be set to only be maintained for a specific number of days.

 

[Hoffi]

If Mike and Kier developed the template difference viewer in vBulletin 4 then this shouldn't come as a surprise.

Oh, it is really a big difference between a Source-Code diff and a Frontent View diff.

In the sourcecode Diff, you can really take a look a each character. In the Frontend not. You must take a look a every visible character, and then take a look, how the character is displayed. Let's explain it at a sample.

In the Sourcecode this is different:

<strong>Hello </strong> <strong>World</strong><strong>!</strong>

to this:

<strong>Hello World!</strong>

But in the Front-End both are the same!

 

[DRE]

Oh, it is really a big difference between a Source-Code diff and a Frontent View diff.

In the sourcecode Diff, you can really take a look a each character. In the Frontend not. You must take a look a every visible character, and then take a look, how the character is displayed. Let's explain it at a sample.

In the Sourcecode this is different:

<strong>Hello </strong> <strong>World</strong><strong>!</strong>

to this:

<strong>Hello World!</strong>

But in the Front-End both are the same!

Oh okay. Have you used vB4?

 

[Hoffi]

Yes. I used vB since version 2 up to 4.

 

[erich37]

does this feature apply to the "inline editor" only ?
or also to the normal editor ?

 

[Geoffrey]

does this feature apply to the "inline editor" only ?
or also to the normal editor ?

I would assume it would be for all edits regardless of the editor used, since nothing was specified.

 

[ForestForTrees]

I'm so glad that you decided to make the edit history optional. I know I never like it when "post edited" pops up under my posts in other scripts, and I'm pretty sure that my users would feel the same.

 

[Alpha1]

I'm so glad that you decided to make the edit history optional. I know I never like it when "post edited" pops up under my posts in other scripts, and I'm pretty sure that my users would feel the same.

What does that message have to do with post edit history? In most systems its possible to disable that message. Plus that message is visible on systems that do not have post edit history. It just means that the post was edited. It does not refer to the history itself.

 

[Jason]

Never really missed the Edit history feature myself but alot of people seem to have wanted it. Nice nonetheless.

Agreed.

Looking at the screenshots, the "last edited" indication seems unnecessary. I'd think the "history" link would be sufficient enough to indicate if a post has been edited. Now, assuming post edit history can be disabled, then perhaps remove the "history" link altogether and just make the "last edited" indicator linkable if history is enabled, like how the post date acts sort of like a canonical link to that particular post.

Edit: that doesn't really take silent edits into account (though I don't see the reason behind those), now that I think about it.

 

[CTXMedia]

AFAIK history is a mod/admin link - "Edited" is a public indicator; the only people seeing both would be mods/admin.

 

[Mike]

AFAIK history is a mod/admin link - "Edited" is a public indicator; the only people seeing both would be mods/admin.

This is correct.

 

[CTXMedia]

Edit: that doesn't really take silent edits into account (though I don't see the reason behind those), now that I think about it.

The most common reason for a small untagged edit window (silent edits) is to allow people to pop back into their post and correct spelling mistakes.

 

[Jason]

AFAIK history is a mod/admin link - "Edited" is a public indicator; the only people seeing both would be mods/admin.

In that case, there doesn't seem much point in the "edited" indicator, it's just noise. If I can't see what was changed, there's little point in telling me something changed.

Chances are if someone is replying to a particular post, they quoted it. In which case, it'll already be obvious if the post was edited; otherwise, that particular post probably didn't have much bearing on all the overall conversation. It just doesn't look "clean" to me, but that's just personal preference -- it'd be pretty easy to remove anyway. Some people like it, and that's cool too I guess.

 

[CTXMedia]

It addresses a potentially annoying problem of people changing what they've said after the fact; not a problem if the original has been quoted, but can be a problem if not. Even Administrators cannot know what the original text of the post was.

If you've ever had someone troll your board this way it can very quickly become a tedious game of cat and mouse. With edit history you remove doubt and can tell for certain that someone has made a change.

Of course all this is moot if there is an option to disable it ...

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Jason]

It addresses a potentially annoying problem of people changing what they've said after the fact; not a problem if the original has been quoted, but can be a problem if not. Even Administrators cannot know what the original text of the post was.

If you've ever had someone troll your board this way it can very quickly become a tedious game of cat and mouse. With edit history you remove doubt and can tell for certain that someone has made a change.

Of course all this is moot if there is an option to disable it ...

Cheers,
Shaun

Oh, definitely. I don't dispute the usefulness of post edit history, just the decision to make that indication visible to the user, unless they could actually see the revisions (a la stackexchange).

 

[CTXMedia]

Oh, definitely. I don't dispute the usefulness of post edit history, just the decision to make that indication visible to the user, unless they could actually see the revisions (a la stackexchange).

Actually, that's an interesting point.

Mike, would it be possible to have an option turn off the public "Edited" indicator completely?

 

[Jeremy]

Actually, that's an interesting point.

Mike, would it be possible to have an option turn off the public "Edited" indicator completely?

Template edit for sure.

 

[Kintaro]

Great!!

Will there be an option or utility to incorporate existing history from third party addons like User Essentials Add-on and Robbo's Edit History?

some ufficial answer about that?

 

[Paul B]

There won't be an importer for third party add-ons.

 

[pegasus]

Yay, a solution for the rage-deleters. I haven't had many in the past, but the ones I have had ended up removing some quite useful information that had been linked from elsewhere. It was a sad day.

 

[Mike Tougeron]

Out of curiosity, will this change require a structure change to xf_post or will it be entirely new tables?