1

I really don’t know if this is a bug or not, because one of the numbers seems correct and the other is wrong. The first number you see on my user page is incorrect. I went to the Your Articles page and listed and counted my articles in a spreadsheet and it matches the amount of articles listed further down on the page. My wikiHow stats: 896 My wikiHow stats (in the box below): 895 Does anyone else have that problem. I know it is a pretty minor one in the scheme of things, but just wondered what is wrong.

2

I know sometimes there can be a lag in the number of articles shown on your profile box. Do you still see this difference?

3

I have taken into count the lag. It never changes. The two numbers are always 1 apart. http://www.wikihow.com/User:Ttrimm

4

That’s so weird! When I look at your profile page, they match up: http://screencast.com/t/hs0vEhn84HzD

5

Her numbers are 1 apart for me also. However, on my own page, it is correct.

6

THOSE two numbers match. It’s the one below them both that doesn’t match.

7

It’s the number obtained by {{ #ARTICLESSTARTED:x }} @Krystle in the “My Statistics” box.

8

One thing that I was thinking of is that maybe it is because of the number of articles. Do any other ‘high numbers’ editors have the same problem?

9

I tried it on Maluniu’s userpage and she doesn’t seem to have the same problem.

10

I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t some redirected article gone mad!?

11

What would a high numbers editors be considered? How many authored articles? Where’s the starting boundary?

12

That was just my way of saying a lot of articles…but a pretty good number would be more than 100.

13

@Ttrimm : In the wikiHow infrastructure we have multiple databases, where there is a database called a “master” database and a couple databases called “slave” databases. All changes to the data at wikiHow are suppose to be written to the master database then replicated to the slave automatically. Occasionally, we have a bug in our source code where either the master won’t replicate data or the slave receives a direct data write instead of the write going through the master database. If this happens, it creates data inconsistencies. Generally it’s not a big problem, but the data might stay slightly inconsistent. The reason we don’t correct these small inconsistencies is that the risk in fixing is higher than the reward in doing so. Generally we try to solve any issues that come up so that these inconsistencies don’t have large repercussions, but bugs are sometimes difficult to track down. Anyway, I hope this explanation helps you. It’s important to understand why we sometimes avoid fixing issues such as this one. It’s likely that this particular issue is caused by a replication-related problem. Reuben

14

I just responded to the auto-responder!!! Here is my reply. I have no ‘problems’ with it, I was just curious and concerned that it might signify something more dire. I am TOTALLY fine with it!