A set of automatic revisions removed some parenthesised text from the post thinking it was part of a link.

Note that I fixed this specific case but it may have happened elsewhere, the heuristic of these automatic edits should be re-examined.

See this revision by Community user

Original post:

I download rep data and [compare it to Benford's law](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/22842/benfords-law-as-it-relates-to-so-reputation) (on a day I'm home sick).

After automatic edit #1 Migration of MSO links to MSE links:

<p>I download rep data and <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22842/benfords-law-as-it-relates-to-so-reputation">compare it to Benford's law</a> (on a day I'm home sick).</p>

After automatic edit #2 Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration:

I download rep data and [compare it to Benford's law](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22842/benfords-law-as-it-relates-to-so-reputation)

  • If I had to wager a guess I'd say that it just used the most recent revision before the one that it messed up, and it didn't take into account the rollback (which is a separate post history type). – Tim Stone May 8 '14 at 13:06
  • @TimStone, if by the rollback you're referring to revision #4, I don't think it had any effect here (the rollback was in 2010). If you're referring to revision #7, there's no problem after this revision. – Motti May 8 '14 at 14:43
  • 1
    The second time the script ran (to fix the problems it caused the first time) it had to back out its changes, which I assume it did by taking the revision before the one where it turned everything to HTML (revision 5). But if it only looked for initial body/edited body revisions then it would have used revision 3 instead of revision 4 (since revision 4 is a rollback body revision), and revision 3 removed the text in question. Not that it matters much, in any case it's still a bug that should have been avoided. :P – Tim Stone May 8 '14 at 14:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .