Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

It appears that revisions are indexed starting both at 0 and 1 (related, sometimes they just don't make sense at all).

For example, this question says "9 revs, 8 users". But in the revision history, the most recent revision is numbered 10 not 9. That 10th revision is also a reversion, to revision 8 (the summary is automatically generated).

The original post was not a revision of itself, obviously, so 0-indexing and "9 revisions" makes sense. But it was the first version, so 1-indexing and "10 versions" makes sense as well. But I think we should have something consistent so we all know what we're talking about.

Solution 1: Have the revisions page start the numbering at 0, or have the original post marked "OP" and the revisions to it start as 1. (The auto-generated text on a reversion would follow suit.) This is my preferred solution, since it makes the numbers consistent between versions and revisions.

Solution 2: Change the text on the posts from "X revs" to "ver. Y". The example question would then show "ver. 10, 8 users" rather than "9 revs, 8 users". I prefer "revs" though, and hence prefer the first proposal.

share|improve this question
Does 0/1-indexing have anything to do with it? It just seems like this is a bug, particularly with the one that has 97 revisions but says 103 -- is it 7-indexed? – Michael Mrozek Sep 8 '11 at 5:16
Possible duplicate: Community Wiki revision counter missing one revision. This was reported earlier in Revision count incorrect on CW question, but that question was deleted, for whatever reason. (By the way, I love your 103-97 example!) – Hendrik Vogt Sep 8 '11 at 8:48
@Michael I think it might be due to being migrated from SO. Hendrik, thanks for finding the dupe. I'll leave this to be purely about the 0/1 indexing and update that other question with the 103-97 example. – Matthew Read Sep 8 '11 at 15:29
@Hendrik Completed :) – Matthew Read Sep 8 '11 at 15:34
@Matthew: I've never thought about this "revision counter" problem in this way - maybe you have a point here. I always thought the original post was counted as "revision 1" (although it's not revisited yet). – Hendrik Vogt Sep 9 '11 at 5:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .