11

Subsequential edits within five minutes of the initial edit are combined into that edit. So if you post a question or answer, and then read it after posting (which for some reason may involve a different state of mind than while editing) and find a mistake, then go ahead and fix it within these five minutes. Of course, the question will get bumped to the ...


10

The user made an edit, then before five minutes (the "grace period") passed reverted it (but not via the "rollback" feature). In general if you do multiple edits within the five minutes window they only count as one. If the net result is that nothing changed, there's no difference to show in the revisions window, but the system still records the fact that ...


8

This is kinda intentional; if you don't change anything, it feels odd to record a change record. Indeed: you can't edit the revision history, but in the general case, that is probably a good thing anyway. I'm not sure this is going to cause a real problem very often - or at least, it seems more likely to be misused by changing revision reasons. As a rule of ...


7

Links to the review-summaries of the edits a user suggested are recorded on the user's page; these include a record of the proposed edit. The list of suggested edits is the "suggestion" tab on the "all actions" tab.


6

When a question gets reopened it is pushed to the top of the "active" list. This modification, the reopening, is assigned to the last (I think, or at least some) user that voted to reopen. See the question's revision history to see the reopening involving Bill Dubuque just at that time.


6

Does not seem like a bug. Edits done withing five minutes by the same user after posting or an initial edit are put together in one revision to avoid cluttering the revision history. (Except if somebody comments on a post in the interim. Then a new revision is created to avoid confusion over comments that refer to a part of the post that then gets changed.)...


5

From what I have learned today editing of an answer is to be used with discretion, and is not meant to be used as a sandbox in which to develop your (half) answer over a few hours (days (weeks (months(...)))) or so. (This also applies to editing questions, but my post was essentially about editing answers.) I have been looking at some of my past posts and ...


5

This was implemented one day after Tsuyoshi Ito posted his link. Bounties now show up in the revision lists. There is also the recent addition of a bounty tab on user pages.


4

If you don't mind installing a userscript in your browser, you can use one of the existing userscripts. SE Modifications — Username autocomplete in comments, inline revision source, and utility links adds a history link below every post if there isn't one already (as well as other features). Add Hidden Links is more specialized. Add Δimeline and ℜevisions ...


3

In the url, there is always the post number (this is post 6196). You can go to ...stackexchange.com/posts/(post number)/revisions where I put "posts" in italics to indicate that it changes too. For example, this post has never been edited, but you can go to https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/6196/revisions for this question.


3

If the question was edited, there's a link to the revision history, just like there will be with undeleted answers. In this case, https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/1680571/revisions And if it wasn't edited, then using https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/<answer number here>/revisions will work just fine. You can also access the timeline by ...


3

For the specific case: seconding John Ma, the last edit (by Will R.) actually clarifies the situation. The earlier addition(s) of "positive" however was besides the point. For the general question: there is no point in engaging in back-and-forth editing. It's just noise. Stop editing around (everybody). In case there is a conflict, make your case in a ...


1

The problem is caused by the green and red highlighting, if you look closely, you can see $'s in them. These $ aren't counted properly as MathJax, and therefor, the whole rendering breaks down. Fixing this would probably require a change in core Stack Exchange code, we could consider asking on Meta Stack Exchange as a feature request? I'm not positive on ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible