Solomon Rutzky
Currently there is a 5 minute window in which one can edit a comment they just posted. After that, the comment is there for future generations to ponder. In that context, I submitted the following request:

[Countdown timer for editing a comment](

At that point I figured, why not make the same request on StackExchange given that the same problem exists over there as well? It turns out that I didn't need to as it has been requested a few times before over the years (though the feedback has been far less positive than it has been here). In reading through some of those requests, however, I came across a related request to remove the time-limit altogether. The main request of that on Meta.SE is:

[Please ditch the five-minute window on comment editing](

The question itself, as well as the top scoring answer, talk about understanding the issues of potential abuse, and that allowing edits without a time-limit might require revision history which adds technical complexity (more code, more data stored) for messages that are intended on being short-term / light-weight, etc. There is some discussion of the possibility of abuse being more potential than reality, and perhaps simply adding a CAPTCHA would suffice.

If that represented the entirety of the issue I still think I would be inclined to side with: "sure, it _might_ be abused, but in reality, will that ever really happen? And if so, would it really be anything more than playful as opposed to something meaningful / impacting? Hence, allowing edits without time-limit has more actual benefit as the main counter-point is needlessly cautious."

However, one answer in particular brings up an interesting point regarding accessibility / usability / inclusiveness that I think should be considered:

So my question here is this:

Is there a real and clear motivation / reasoning for setting a time-limit, and having said time-limit be 5 minutes? Or is this more of a "common convention" sorta deal? There was some minor discussion on the main question there between myself and the person who posted the answer I just linked to. Seeing the official push-back to the idea of getting rid of the 5-minute limit, I had proposed a middle-ground of increasing the time-limit to several hours or even maybe a couple of days. This wouldn't fix all noted concerns, but it would at least remove several issues, and thus make a more user-friendly experience. I have never really appreciated the 5-minute limit, but can't think of too many reasons to make an edit months or years down the road, outside of updating links the next time Microsoft moves their bug/enhancement reporting system without forwarding the URLs that have been pasted everywhere for years. :pouting_cat:
Top Answer
Jack Douglas
We've informally agreed to increase the limit at least to 10 minutes, but your write-up has prompted us to think more about this issue.

I was not aware that SE do not keep comment revision history — we already do (and it [is accessible](/meta?q=14#a47)), and if the lack of history is the main fear of undetectable abuse then we don't need to worry so much. I assumed, without doing much research, there were other reasons that SE had for strictly limiting edits.

So lets make the limit generous. We could remove it altogether, but no-one has asked for that, and it seems likely that virtually all the frustrations would go away if we allow edits for 7 days, which would still limit the possibility of the kind of abuse that sometimes happens when people rage-quit.

***We've set the new limit to 7 days as of now.***

Apart from that, we are going to look at two things:

1. Making it more obvious when a chat message has changed
1. A new way of seeing the message history without navigating away from the page

We'll update this post when we make progress with those.

Enter question or answer id or url (and optionally further answer ids/urls from the same question) from

Separate each id/url with a space. No need to list your own answers; they will be imported automatically.