Post version numbers based on how many times the post gets edited.


Recommended Posts

Post version numbers based on how many times the post gets edited.

This is something I was thinking about the other night. It's just something more fun than anything else. What I was thinking about was adding version numbers to posts which would vary by how many times the posts get edited. For instances.

When someone first makes a post the post would be Version 1.0.

The next part could happen 1 of 2 ways. Either every time they click "Save changes" button after editing a post the version number then gets changed to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on.

Or (and I think this better) it would look at how much of the post the user actually changed. If the user replaces every word in the post and starts again, the version number would go from 1.0 to 2.0. If the user only changed half of what was said before, it would go from 1.0 to 1.5.

If the user only changed 1 word in the post it would go from 1.0 to 1.01, you get the idea.

Just something I was thinking about. I just thought it would be cute.

Note: Or it could use the Firefox version numbering system, when the user changes just 1 word the version number goes from 1.0 to 2.0 <------- :laugh: That was a Firefox joke and not a serious suggestion.

Quite limiting. There should be known ways to also denote public betas (for those cases when Post button moves in front of the cursor), RCs (when you think it's done but it's not) and, down the road, service packs (where you come later and actually read your own post or as a response to general community outrage). And most definitely day-one DLCs. :laugh:

And Patch Tuesdays as a subscriber-exclusive feature - allowing to edit any posts that one still wants to "support" on the second Tuesday of each month! :woot:

Quite limiting. There should be known ways to also denote public betas (for those cases when Post button moves in front of the cursor), RCs (when you think it's done but it's not) and, down the road, service packs (where you come later and actually read your own post or as a response to general community outrage). And most definitely day-one DLCs. :laugh:

And Patch Tuesdays as a subscriber-exclusive feature - allowing to edit any posts that one still wants to "support" on the second Tuesday of each month! :woot:

Cool... super extended support xp-style!!! :D

You trolled so hard and got me laughing so much, thank you for that.

That joking aside, I find warwagon's idea actually really cool...

Glassed Silver:mac

  • 9 months later...

While I was editing my front page comment over and over, adding and fixing some things, this came to mind again.

I was thinking about how, if this was implemented, my first post in the "Windows passwords easily guessed by 25-GPU server" front page article would be at v2.5 by now :D

If I ever get my own forum, i'm totally going to try to figure out how to do this!

Interesting idea but not really useful. Let say if you see someones post @ 2.0 or 1.5, how would that matter if you havent seen his 1.0 version.

It would (In a fun and geeky way, only a tech site could appreciate) tell you how many times that person has edited the original post (Regardless if you saw the original or not)

Oh and here would be another great feature.

If the name of the thread has "Chrome" or "Firefox" in the title, then any small edit made to a post inside the thread would result in a major version number increase!

Or have a link to a list of edits for which time, and maybe a record of the original post before the edit? That would work better than version numbers.

I think this would be more for the person who actually read the first post. Right now it's kind of hard to tell if someone edited a post. But if you read version 1.0 and came back later and the post said 1.5 then there might be something he added that you want to re read.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!