Post

If you screw up again, you could always delete and repost.

If you really want to, you could even limit this to 3 total edits. This would encourage people to be more careful with their edits.

Version history visible to everyone? What is the point of having an editing button at all if everyone can still see the typo you made? I'd rather just delete the entire post. Version history only available to the writer would be a better option or give people the choice for both options.

Edit it one time, forever. But have a massive EDITED and version history. I think the place would police the puppy thing. Comments would be "block this jerk" and the jerk would be blocked. This is hard though. You have to predict what the shittiest people will do.

My initial thoughts: Editing isn't all that important to me. The limits seem like a good starting point. I'd suggest architecting it in a way where you can tweak the limits as folks start using the feature and you learn about how the community uses it.

I can live with the 5 min limit. But why only one edit in those 5 minutes? IMHO it should be enough if the 5 min timer does not restart. Or is this an implementation problem/limitation?

So you can't change 'I fucked under the bridge' to 'I ducked under the bridge'?

Legitimately, yes on all three counts. I might go with like, a *slightly* longer time, like ten minutes? Post editing is important because auto-correct is Satan and will occasionally destroy the meaning of an otherwise prefecture post. It can make conversation very frustrating!

after 15 or 20 minutes, you really have had way too much chance to totally change your mind, to see way too much. i'd be opposed to letting people rewrite their stuff more than 20m latter. you're a different person, make a new post.

I don’t think any good faith desire to edit a post outweighs the immensely problematic Pandora’s box that comes from bad faith actors leveraging the edit function as you outline. So I don’t think these limits will succeed, appreciate the willingness to contemplate the challenge.

The 5 minutes is plenty acceptable. I know allot of folks might take issue with it being limited, but like mentioned it would be far too easy to abuse on viral posts otherwise. Would hate to see posts being edited way after the fact with links/ads and such and I think the limit prevents that.

Also speaking from the POV of fb groups whose names you could change long after creation: the false endorsement thing is lame but ultimately not the worst thing that happens on social networks by quite a lot.

that's an option, though there's still some concern about posts being screenshotted re: gating on a certain amount of engagement, reposts/quote posts are probably a bigger issue than likes (stronger potential signal of endorsement) how would you define the threshold?

This seems perfectly fine.

I'm fine with this honestly. it's not hugely important to me, but I'm okay with it lol. and like jerry mentioned, please keep alt text in mind too! thank ya :)

Maybe also clear any comments and reset likes to zero once a Post is edited?

This feels reasonable Yes I dont like making mistakes

- Limits are understandable but some could be lifted/edited as the T&S team scales in the future - 5min feels a bit short, but more depends on the T&S team here too - Post editing is important because copy/delete/paste/fix the one letter typo is an unnecessary hassle

genuinely: delete and repost has always worked for me and i don't know why it wouldn't work for others

5 minutes seems like a good way to avoid a viral post being changed maliciously. Thanks for the clear communication about this

Dyslexia and poor eyesight

like i don't think it's noteworthy if a post is edited, in isolation ("if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it" etc.) the problem is if bsky makes it look like someone interacted with a different post than they actually did.

- Version history makes everything better. - A week feels short but I'm not clear on the trade-offs. - Latter of (5 minutes or 1,000 likes/reposts/replies) would give most people extra time while limiting the dangers - Why it's important? To clarify or remove typos

the limits feel generous bc i am someone who does not care whether or not i can edit a post. i know a lot of people want that, but on a microblogging platform like bluesky, i think it is unnecessary. thanks for giving us the chance for feedback~

it sounds brilliant, but should be for accounts older than 6 months. it's the reward for the teensiest bit of loyalty and patience.

And finally (forgive my lengthy replies): Please oh please, half an hour? Maybe? If there must be limits? Editing is important for: Obviously, typos, but mostly for accuracy, small details needed to be added for clarity. And again, #gratitude, Alex, @joshuajfriedman.com

Oops, I missed one of your posts addressing this, sorry! But again, on Mastodon, we've experienced zero issues. Interesting about the safety issues, I really appreciate your take on those. Again, thank you! We'll take what we can get.

Yeah, the ratio of "edit pranks" over "legit edits" is effectively 0.0. Edit pranks are incredibly rare vs. legit edits on sites that have edit buttons. And you can do edit pranks without an edit button by changing your username and PFP to recontextualize a post. Musk was pranked like that often.

1) I’d like to edit freely within 5 mins ideally, but whatever this is still a huge upgrade. 2) Yes 3) I feel like it’s disrespectful to readers to leave a typo when it could be fixed, and oftentimes discover them in the middle of a thread after I’ve posted it.

And I'm pro edit

I don't care if posts can be edited.

Editing posts is simply a feature that contemporary social media ought to offer. And I do hate typos. Five minutes would be the absolute bare minimum. Mastodon is much more generous with its edit window, for example. (I think price of editing should be losing likes and alerting reposters/quoters.)

I appreciate the caution. Although it’s an order of magnitude smaller-space, post editing didn’t have many problems on Mastodon. This may all be much ado about nothing. Maybe run it in beta for a while to get feedback?

30 minutes, please!

- no - no - it is evil and it will make me leave bsky

💯 80% of the reason anyone wants an edit button at all is so they don't lose their preciously farmed engagement by making a new post. The trade off should just be that you lose all the likes and reposts anyway.

Time limits are inherently arbitrary and ableist. Someone with motor function issues and/or cognitive processing delay is far more likely to need to edit errors and your plan actively punishes their disabilities. Make a better edit log if you have concerns rather than creating obstacles.

would a more accurate preview in the post composer solve this problem for you, rather than post editing?

+1. Allow infinite edit time, but also expose edit history

These are reasonable. Do it. You can always relax things later, but if you go too lax too soon, a whole heap of people will get mad when you have to tighten. Just iterate it until you get to the right place.

Editing multiple times should be fine as long as the original tweet is recorded/viewable. Editing one time limits the usefulness — people will want to tweak, revise, and expand on an original tweet, add alt text to an images, etc. I’m fine without edits as a feature, but it seems better this way.

It's better than nothing but 5 minutes is pretty restrictive.

Very good. I mostly think it's a sound solution. A small suggestion: - A longer time limit (15 minutes?) if nobody has reposted or quoted. Allow replies (as these often point out a typo) - 5 minutes limit if the post has been reposted, quoted (as per your original plan)

Why is post editing important to me? Because I usually do voice-to-text, which never seems to understand me, and I am way too impulsive and hit send before I’ve read it carefully. And nothing ruins a well-crafted snarky, post more than a stupid typo.

FWIW, I really have never seen post-editing abused in all my time on mastodon, and it doesn't have most of these limits. But also, masto notifies the people who boosted the post so that they can decide if they still want it boosted.

No edits. People can live with a typo. Or they can delete and repost.

Here's an example of why those limits would be useless.. this post says "Athena Aguilar loses Ward 5" it was raised in the comments that the correct information was "Athena Aguiar is headed to a November runoff in Ward 5".

I.e. instead of crippling the tool, allow malicious actors to be reported and punished

1- No. Any post that has been boosted, quoted, or replied to should have editing disabled. 2- No. Too long. 5 *seconds* may be too long, for all I know. 3- It's not. It's dangerous and will be used to attack or harass people.

I like 4 & 5 best, agree that editing image alt text would be GREAT, and my reason for wanting edits is basically exclusively to fix tyops, so 5 minutes is both sufficient and aggravating. :) but I suppose a "can only edit 2% of text after 5 minutes" thing would be very difficult to implement.

Sounds fair, I'm particularly prone to typos, so go for it.

- 2 minutes to edit a post. if your account is at least a year old Then - 10 minutes when your account is at least 2 years old

5 minutes is in line with the way blogspot replies used to work and is completely reasonable. The edit function is meant for the brainfart moments, not for indepth rephrasing.

If only 5min, just delete and repost. Here’s one idea by example: 1. Author posts. 2. Readers comment, repost, etc. 3. Author edits 1 day later. 4. New version shows 0 reposts and 0 likes, prior version shows prior number of reposts and likes. 5. Optional combined total for all versions.

Why not remove time limits for accounts with check marks? Or accounts that have posted 500 times for over a year? Also we are already overloaded with notifications, can an edit notification be it's own tab?

Just give me a 1% edit budget so that I can fix my typos.

Idk how complex this is, but I had the thought of altering someone through a notification when something they liked or reposted had been edited. That way if there is a malicious change to make it look like you endorse something, you can take the like or repost away.

Imo with all the other guardrails (esp. version history) very short time limit is probably less urgent.

and you could combine both if you want to... only replace reposts/quotes within five minutes, but let the user edit a post regardless. this is also friendlier for appview hosts when they need to bootstrap all the old posts... they won't know for sure if something was edited within five minutes.

I'd be okay with post editing ONLY if there are no interactions yet. The instant someone has liked, reposted, quoted it? Nope, set it in metaphorical stone. Delete and repost or reply with corrections.

I hate those typos that slipped in )looking at you autocorrect.. thou be damned! ) and love the edit first 5 mins feature would save lots of embarrassing typo posts

If its limited like that I don't think it makes sense to have. Maybe look at how Mastodon handles it, I think they have a pretty good take at it. You will get a notification when something you reposted got edited.

Tbh if I spot an error and nobody has replied, I just delete it and do it again. I don't understand why some (most?) people don't do this. But yeah, 5 or 10 minutes if no replies is fine.

Honestly, these limits seem very fair. I'm not super sure about the one-time edit limit, but better to err on the side of security.

3. A countdown clock to tell you how long you have left within the 5 min editing window All 3 things the FT already have on their comment section… #2 by seeing how minutes ago someone posted.

It often takes me longer than 5 minutes to compose a complex correction to a complex post. Like, that's one second per character.

as long as history is preserved + discoverable in-app, I don’t think there needs to be either time limits or edit limits.

Not to mention that malicious links can be blocked during the post or edit time, but also at any time - either through the link-out service (ie, click-time validation) or by shadow-banning after link re-classification.

I think they're all great ideas except #2 and would like 15 mins. 🩵

My only feedback is that, if you do this, the "edited badge" should, very specifically, say, 'mfer said "[typo]".'

DAMMIT

Did you consider some kind of "edit distance"? It seems to me that minor changes are different from large edits.

Realistically, this is an AppView concern (based on the way atproto is designed today). I'm pretty confident this is just relevant to Bluesky as an AppView. Other AppViews have to make their own decisions on how to handle it.

Character limit vs time limit? Ex: 80% of the post has to stay the same, so in a 100 character post can only edit up to 20 characters?

the thing is - if all that is edited is a spelling error - and nothing in the way of links/media - that seems like a very different problem to solve. you could easily say "you can only edit five characters for up to 24 hours later" and that wouldn't allow folks to make URI changes, right?

Yeah, just keep it to a few min (I'd have said 10 spontaneously, but not gonna quibble). I have to delete way too many posts bc of autocorrect atrocities, and if they're in the middle of a thread it gets awkward. Not editing images (other than ALT text) is smart. Edit badges are fine.

10 min would be ideal to me and for me it's catching typos and realizing I forgot alt text

Ten minutes, unless it's been reposted, in which case no edit. But I'd bring it to those who have accounts longest first, and make it at least a month and regularly using the account (twice a week?). Btw, a turn off reposts option for those you follow would be very welcome too!

99% of folk would be correcting typos/rephrasing. 5 Minutes sounds about right. It's Bluesky not X.

It hasn't been simply the lack of an edit button. It's been the radio silence about it. How rude. 🤨

- these limits are a bit of a fussbudget; - 5 minutes better than 0; - I am prone to typos or autocorrects. If I notice immediately after posting, I copy my post, delete it, and re-post with corrections. If I notice several minutes later, I just delete and curse the lack of an EDIT button.

Having ways to address A-E are desirable to avoid: - embarrassment (for me) + - confusion (for readers) TBH, we often underestimate the social benefit of having more cleanly-worded posts

Well it's definitely an improvement on what's currently available. Is there an argument for stripping likes, reposts etc from a post and allowing longer to edit?

Currently, edits are generally dealt with using a comment with what was wrong or out of date. That's fine except when that comment gets lost in a thread or among other comments. If it could just not get lost somehow.

If the history is visible, 5 minutes + 1 edit seems very strict. Would many as edits as I like, within 15 mins, really make a difference? If I do something shady, like your puppy example, I will be caught out.

If you want to get fancy you could allow a decaying number of editable characters. E.g. at 5 min, 50% of the post; at 10 minutes, 25%; and so on. Yes, it would make it a little bit harder to explain to users, but more fun!

People just need to get over themselves and learn to live with imperfection

Yes. Perfect. Love this offering. It matters to me because sometimes I make spelling mistakes, or autocorrect deletes words, or I want to add additional info and I like being able to fix my posts for clarity. Thanks 😊

A tag saying a post has been edited would be useful, especially if you give the user a choice of what type of edit tag to apply (typo fix, information correction, re-writes, etc.)

Plus issues like this prior post, where I meant to type "swaps in words" but forgot the "in words"

It's necessary

What would solve 90% of use cases without causing any problems is the ability to tag one of your posts as a correction to a previous post of yours, so that when the first post is retrieved the second is also retrieved [or presented in the body of the first? "XXX ed: for X read Y"]

> why is post editing important to you? most times, to avoid typos. other times to add additional hashtags and to add important notes I missed still mostly corrections

The only thought is, if you can only edit in 5 minutes, you might as well delete and repost?

For major edits you could also send a notification to the people who liked or commented to say “hey, this just changed a lot, check you still feel the same”

Re:limits: Not being able to edit the image itself seems fine but can we correct the alt text? 5 minutes seems ok if we're doing this at all It's not, but it is less likely to break a thread than replying to yourself *Loss=less if you use the wrong word

I agree with this one million percent

I don't think 5 mins is enough. sometimes I notice a typo a while later. twitter gives an hour and that seems fine, and of course mastodon lets you edit forever. I don't think it makes sense to make it so limited while other platforms have more reasonable limits that have been working fine

5 minutes seems ... long? Microblogging is old enough legally drink now. I think everyone has made their peace with typos. And within days of releasing this feature, you'll find power users creating whole new cute/obnoxious posting vernaculars out of unforseen and unintended usages.