@MonicaCellio I rejected it....this case was clearly not the intent of the author....he had a numbered list of 5 items, and was looking for the sixth....the suggested edit under discussion put in the missing item as number six on the question list......
@MonicaCellio DoubleAA also rejected it, so that's that.
@Shokhet so, go forth and review -- even if the counter is annoyingly wrong sometimes. :-) (I think that's because it would be way more expensive to generate an individual number for each user; right now they can generate that number once per site.)
@Shokhet oh I'm sorry; were you not part of that conversation? Oops. There was some discussion in here earlier today ("yesterday", in SE time) about the counter next to the "review" link in the header and how it's not necessarily accurate. I was referring to that. I was kind of busy at the time so I only skimmed the transcript and didn't note who brought that up.
@MonicaCellio Oh. I did notice that sometimes I'll click on an orange number and SE will tell me the queue had been cleared....I figured that the number doesn't auto-update like the comment updater or the rep counter does, and displays the number of review items available at the time the page was loaded....was that the problem under discussion?
@Shokhet that's the problem under discussion, yes. In fact, it's not just caching; that number might be wrong for you for extended periods of time. Somebody in here was saying "that's why I don't click on reviews". I understand why they implement it that way, but I'd like to encourage everybody with access to at least some of the queues to click on the reviews link regularly anyway, despite the number being possibly wrong, to see if there's stuff that needs attention.
@MonicaCellio Aha. I don't think we have a problem with under-reviewing -- whenever I go to the review page, if the numbers aren't 0 they're less than 3, usually 1. (in my limited experience with review queues)