Possible Duplicate:
Community wiki post not displaying majority author correctly

Wonder why I am shown as a "CW-author" of this answer?

Looking at answer revisions history I can't see any compelling reason for why I could be seen as "CW-author" for it. In our discussion with moderator he suggested to post a question at MSO.

  • Of total 7 revisions, I contributed to 3 and 4 and all my changes were rolled back to rev 2 in 5th revision.
    The way I see it, my changes lasted for less than one day of more than a month answer lifetime, and could possibly be attributed to less than 1/20 of votes gained by the answer.

Everything else has been done by another guy - I would expect him to be shown as CW author.

Could anything be done to make this post appear in a more reasonably attributed way?


  • @ShaDowWizArd I see. What could be done to fix / workaround that? per my reading of Diff percentage seems a bit off, if "the right guy" inserts then removes <!-- some substantial amount of invisible text with line breaks -->, this may bring the diff algorithm results back to normal right?
    – gnat
    Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 13:22
  • @ShaDowWizArd I also wonder if diff algorithm does not take into account rollback I made
    – gnat
    Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 13:25
  • 1
    Guess your best bet would be writing a feature request asking to change the algorithm used to calculate the CW contribution percentage to something more logical, like comparing the amount of characters edited. The current algorithm is pretty old they probably never really paid much attention to it. Maybe a Bounty or lots of upvotes on such a request will bring the proper attention.. :) Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 13:39
  • correction "rollback I made" = "roll-back I mentioned"
    – gnat
    Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 13:58
  • 1
    Note that this particular "another guy" is actually the original author. Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 14:18
  • @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen with revision history like in this case, I think it would be 99.9% fair to state that "another guy" is the only author, not just original. I understand idea of collective wiki and I generally have no issues with "anonymizing" authorship, but this case feels quite off the mark
    – gnat
    Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 14:27


Browse other questions tagged .