A little background:  I do not know what the specifics are, but I've noticed that a quick edit after a post will often times not result in an edit being posted. It's as if there was no edit. Edit: According to Bart this amount of time is five minutes.  The problem:  A user made a really bad post (said that ~ in C# wrt integers was used for deconstruction). I down-voted said post. Post quickly disappeared (I guess poster realized they screwed up and took back the post). Later, I come back and see my down vote but the answer is now correct (that ~ is the bitwise complement operator). I try to get rid of my down vote because it is no longer appropriate. However, it has been about half an hour and there is no edit posted (presumably the poster made an edit within the non-posting edit window) so I can't take my vote back.  Suggested solution:  If post gets edited (even within the non-post edit window) mark all the votes as changeable. I would guess that this would either involve an update on a table of votes or adding a column for last edit time which is not bypassed by the grace period. I realize that this may be an entirely non-trivial change, but unless the non-posting of edits is somehow changed to make sure the edit was trivial it seems this is necessary.
76086
I've looked through a number of the "Vote too old to be changed" questions, but I think this one's different.  I gave a downvote to an answer I thought had a critical defect, and I left a comment describing the defect. The answer was edited to satisfy my criticism, but it was done within the short grace period where edits aren't recorded as such. When I try to cancel my downvote I get the error - "Your vote is now locked in unless this answer is edited" - but it was edited!  In reference to this answer:
5729
Please do not close this as a duplicate unless you can remove the “status-completed” tag from the  (because it’s obviously not been completed).  Steps to reproduce:   Have someone post an answer. Downvote the answer. Have the someone edit the answer within the initial 5 minutes of the answer’s existence. Try to undo the downvote more than 10 minutes later.   You cannot undo the downvote.
50200
Sometimes (eg. ) more than one user will simultaneously attempt to edit a post, particularly to fix poor formatting by the OP. It looks like in that case, I finished 30 seconds sooner than @marcog, but I don't know who might have clicked "edit" first.  Anyway, a useful usability enhancement would be to keep track of who is (or might be) editing a post at any given time. With this enhancement, the second user to click "edit" might see something like:     The following users may currently be editing this post:         marcog (21 seconds ago)      If a message like that were available, I would immediately choose not to edit at that time, and maybe come back later if the formatting still needed fixing. This saves effort, frustration, and duplicate "hey I fixed your formatting" comments.  It is important to note that this feature would not attempt to prevent multiple editors, everything else would work just the same as it does now.  Implementation idea  This feature could be implemented by adding a new table, say "editors", with the columns (post_id, edit_start, user_id). When a user clicks "edit" on a post:   Check the editors table for old entries for this post, say > 5 minutes. Delete them. If there are any current editors, show the list as above. Insert a row for the current post and the current user with the current time.   When a user submits changes to a post:   Delete the user's record from the editors table for that post.   Periodically:   Scrub old entries from this table (if a user clicked "edit" but never submitted a change for that post).   Optionally:   Provide a "Cancel" button on the edit page. Cancelling would remove the current user's record for the current post, but obviously not submit any changes.     Update: After saying in the comments that I've never seen the edit notification, I actually did just get it today editing . However, it showed the orange bar at the top (1 other users edited!) for a brief time just after I pressed "Save". What good is that?
115939
While reviewing late answers, I attempted to edit a poor answer by opening the editor in a new tab, and was faced with a notification that the post had been deleted.   If the post was deleted, the correct action is pretty clearly to do nothing, yet when I selected "No action needed" this message was returned:    Note that I did attempt to edit the post as suggested by this message, but was blocked from doing so while given no credit for trying.  Additionally, there is rogue semicolon at the end of this error message...
27455
The Android app shouldn't offer the "edit" option for comments after the 5 minute window.  Currently, the app will give you the menu, allow you to click through and edit it, only to give you a "write_failed" error after submitting. For non-mods, who have a five-minute edit window, it makes no sense to offer the option in the first place.  Edit: Additionally, if you try to discard the edit, the app crashes.  Update:
23543
Related, but subtly different, proposals (they were created before the edit for the masses changes):       StackOverflow guidelines encourage users to correct typos, and I often do. However a new feature has now sprang up, which allow users who do not have sufficient reputation to edit on their own to propose an edit and have it reviewed. In order not to be spammy (I guess) there is also a restriction: they must at least edit 6 characters in the post.  This, however, prevent the correction of simple typography/spelling errors by those same low-reputation users (which I am on other stack exchange sites)... and the simple way to get around this is to pad the questions with whitespaces.  Now, this work-around is fair and all... but really unsatisfying: if the goal of the 6 characters limit is to prevent minor editions, then it fails utterly because of this "whitespace" bug.  My proposal is therefore:  Creating a new threshold for minor-edits of posts  The current edit treshold is at 2000 points; minor edits (those under that 6 characters count) could be allowed from as low as 500 points.   This would reduce the "noise" in the edits to approve. This would remove this annoying "warning" for users who only wish to improve things   Of course the user whose post has been edited should be notified as for a "regular" edit (unless it's community wiki ?)  I have no strong opinion as to bumping those minorly edited posts.
44520
Currently, the threshold for approving or rejecting a suggested edit is , whichever is reached first.  This means that, when  or just  edits get approved, it's often with a vote count of something like 1 reject / 2 approve (or 2 reject / 3 approve on SO).  Typically, these edits manage to get one or two very quick approve votes from, um, , after which it's very hard for the slower and more careful reviewers to accumulate enough votes to catch up before the edit is approved.  Conversely, when a valid edit gets wrongly rejected, this very rarely happens unanimously either.  More often, you'll see something like 3 votes to reject / 2 to approve, but that single last vote, no matter how well or poorly considered, is enough to tip the scales.  So I'd like to propose a simple change to the approval / rejection threshold:        Suggested edits should be approved when S = (# of approve votes &minus; # or reject votes) &ge; N, where N = 3 on SO and N = 2 on other sites.   Similarly, suggested edits should be rejected when S &le; &minus;N.      No, this change is not going to magically fix all the problems with suggested edit review.  But I believe that it would be a simple and conservative improvement over the current behavior:   For obviously good or bad edits that get approved / rejected unanimously, this suggestion would not change the current behavior in any way. For edits that get one mistaken or careless reject / approve vote (as happens pretty often), an extra approve / reject vote would be required to balance it.  This would slightly slow the review process for such edits, but not excessively so.  Further, I would argue that these are precisely the kind of edits that deserve that little bit of extra attention to make sure the eventual decision will be correct. Edits that are truly controversial, and for which the reviewer community is nearly exactly 50&ndash;50 split between voting to approve and reject, might stay in the review queue significantly longer (maybe twice as long on average) than under the current system.  However, this is a trade-off for the increased likelihood that the eventual decision will actually reflect the majority opinion among reviewers, rather than mere random chance.  In any case, even if reviewers are exactly 50&ndash;50 split, the  under the proposed scheme is only N&sup2;, i.e. 4 votes for other sites and 9 votes for SO.  Even a slight bias in the voting will further reduce this.  Besides, the longer the suggestion remains in the queue, the more likely it gets that someone will short-circuit the process by casting a binding vote (mod / post owner) or by choosing to improve the edit.     Ps. If it is felt that there's an issue with , a simple further chance to address that could be to make each reject vote count as, say, &minus;2 rather than just &minus;1 approval votes (and change the rejection threshold to S &le; &minus;2 &times; N to compensate).  This still wouldn't help with bad edits getting unanimously approved (which isn't really something that can be fixed, except maybe by slugster's cattle prod), but it would mean that each reject vote would now effectively cancel out two approve votes, titlting the balance for disputed edit suggestions in favor of rejection and making it easier for more careful reviewers to counter the "robo-approvers".
62173
I only see this on sites where I don't have edit privileges, and only where there have been multiple revisions:        What exactly is this supposed to do?  Intuitively, I would expect it to change the text in the box to what it was at that revision, but it doesn't. And, if that's it, why only where I need to suggest edits?
40331
To me, a downvote usually indicates a problem with an answer. When I downvote it's to mark the answer as having a problem, not the person. If the answer is fixed, I want to remove that downvote - but it's tricky to keep track of all the questions I've looked at over the last few hours.  I don't actually downvote very much, but it's very easy to forget what's going on.  It would be nice to have some way of indicating in an edit that you (the editor/answerer) believe the reason for the downvote has now been resolved, so that the downvoters could come and undo their downvotes or explain why it's still not fixed.  (Note: this isn't about rep-recovery, but quality control. I would feel a lot better about downvoting on "iffy" answers if I felt it was likely that the answer would be fixed and I could undo the vote. Whether or not I'd get back the cost of the downvote is somewhat immaterial.)
15747
I downvoted  and now really can't say why, so I wanted to remove my downvote. However, I get the message:  You last voted on this question yesterday Your vote is now locked in unless this question is edited  Why is this? I don't think I voted on it multiple times, and even when I did, I can change my mind, can't I?
86511
Possible Duplicates:        As Dan Dyer mentioned in his comment on , there is a conflict of interest when you have posted your own answer and are allowed to downvote other answers.  Despite the vote editing window being drastically reduced, the fundamental problem remains: I can downvote the other answers permanently and still benefit - my answer gets upvoted ONCE and wham, I have just made up the rep loss for my 10 other downvotes. The vote editing window fixes part of the problem, but there is a more complete fix that has the extra benefit of not preventing legitimate vote changes: to disallow downvotes on competing answers when you have posted one yourself.  The temptation to wrongfully downvote competing answers is huge. The rep loss is tiny in comparison. It has to be in order for people to continue to legitimately downvote.  Details:   If I have previously voted and then post my own answers, delete my downvotes. Continue to allow me to remove the upvotes - I think this is fully legitimate. If I delete my answer it's probably best to continue to deny downvotes (perhaps even including the question), but I don't have a strong opinion either way.
123990
Consider the following situation:  I downvote a question / answer with a comment The answerer / asker edits the question and improves it  In that case, I think the downvote should be removed. I know it's possible to find my downvotes by going to:  http://stackoverflow.com/users/1438393/?tab=votes&amp;sort=downvote  but that requires me going to each and every post, check if it was edited etc. I was wondering if it can be done with the . I've looked at the existing queries searched for a similar one but couldn't find anything except  and . (I've seen  answer by Jeff and this is just a personal view) So, my question is: how can I list the posts that I downvoted that were edited later?
50581
Someone commented on my answer and I just replied to that in a comment. The I immediately edited the comment by selecting it and then pressing edit on action bar.  The edit didn't show up, even after doing a pull to refresh on the question, it was showing the comment in its original form.  It only showed up once I reopened the question from the right drawer (notifications).  The apps says 1.0.60 in about.
118054
When reviewing on Suggested Edits:   Normal suggested edits are displayed instantly. Review audits take 2 seconds to load (and that's not because of my ISP).   So whenever I see the loading animation and have to wait a bit, I know before even looking at the changes that I can immediately reject the suggested edit.  Now, to quote  ():     There are many ways to identify audits (e.g. click to see the post itself, the user, the vote count, etc.). Almost all of these ways involve having to further investigate the post. By this time, you've already carefully reviewed the post, which is the intent of the queues.   This let us understand that the 2 seconds lag is breaking the game: it allows detection of the audit without careful review of the post, without further investigation.  My feature-request is to have Review audits being served as fast as real suggested edits. To achieve that, you could maybe pre-generate audits?
757
I see the  on the user page.  It seems to edit posts sometimes.  What is it? And why has it downvoted over 1800 times? See also:
25750
Prologue:  This is an effort to follow up on  which is marked as a duplicate of  highly voted and status-declined feature request (although they seem to be different, one focusing on the OP and the other on the downvoter).   My New Year's resolution was to downvote more.  So on January 3rd or so, I saw a post that was low quality, and downvoted.  Two days later, I came back to see if it was ready to be deleted or had gotten piled with downvotes, to find it with a significant positive score!  At which point, I noticed that the answer had been significantly improved.  So I retracted my downvote, changed it to an upvote, and immediately resumed my dearth of downvoting again.  I think I have a responsibility to downvote bad posts, despite that oh-so-painful -1 rep penalty.  But if I am also going to have the responsibility to follow up on every downvote I cast, I'm not going to bother. I don't want my downvote to leave a residual penalty on posts that were once low quality, and I am not going to trouble myself to keep checking up on every post I downvoted.  Can a downvoter have an option to be notified when a post they voted down was edited?  I wouldn't make this an automatic thing, because not all downvoters want it, and it isn't applicable to all cases of downvoting (although  that this should be part of the responsibility of a downvoter).  Personally, I would make this a universal toggle on-off option on the user profile page, not a question-by-question option, but I don't have strong feelings about it.
66850
Now, it is easy to workaround this: add 10 characters, plus your one-character change, then remove these 10 characters in the next edit for the same post.  But this can hardly be what the designers intended. Instead, my suggestion is to change it to something like on Wikipedia, where you can mark an edit as "minor". Something like this:     Edits must be at least 6 characters, or select the checkbox "Minor, spelling or punctuational correction."   Edits like that will, of course, not count toward the edit-limit (before it becomes Community Wiki).  The suggestion often seen on Meta Stack Overflow is "just edit more in that post". But sometimes the post is just right, and there aren't any other spelling mistakes to correct. Why force a user to change more than necessary, or use an ugly hack?