I think `creation_date` *is* a default/universal sorting, unless `activity_date` is available. <sup><sub>(But you know what they say happens when you "ASSUME".)<sup>‡</sup></sub></sup> **Evidence for:** - Seems like it would be required if paging is going to work well. - This [post has 753 edits][1] ([759 revision entries][2]) and the creation dates are all in descending order. - This [post has 429 edits][3] ([502 revision entries][4]) and it has at least 1 edit of each subtype ([title, body, tag] x [edit, rollback] + suggested edit). The creation dates are all in descending order. - [Other routes *seem* to sort by `creation_date` although sorting parameters are not supported by the route][5]. - Likewise, [`/events` sorts by `creation_date`, descending][6], despite that being [unmentioned in the livedoc][7]. - This [way old answer about API version 1][8], has the lead developer saying: > Because sorting by dates is much more common than by name, ordering is descending by default. <br> **Evidence against:** - The various inconsistent behaviors as documented in the unresolved bugs here on Stack Apps. And on Meta Stack Exchange, and on Meta Stack Overflow. <br><br> ---------- <sup><sup>‡</sup> They say that you've made a cost-effective branching decision based on knowledge and experience. And that it in no way precludes you observing-for and reacting-to signs that the assumption was false.</sup> [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/posts/4673436/revisions [2]: https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/revisions-by-ids#pagesize=100&ids=4673436&filter=!*JxbFHyEBcq*hArY&site=stackoverflow&run=true [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/posts/3122/revisions [4]: https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/revisions-by-ids#pagesize=100&ids=3122&filter=!*JxbFHyEBcq*hArY&site=meta&run=true [5]: https://stackapps.com/a/8196/7653 [6]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3151/sorting-the-event-stream [7]: https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/events [8]: https://stackapps.com/a/2233/7653