Reply & view counts on OGS forums

[Atorrante]

It strikes me as funny that beneath the 1000 replies and view counts these are exact where as more than 1000 replies and views, these are not exact anymore but approximations, such as 14.6.

And another funny thing. On the screenshot you see This topic has been viewed 14.646 times. One would expect that it would take 54 more view to become 14.7. Not so! The system however will award this topic 14.7 views when the number of views reaches 14.650.

So why the accuracy beneath 1000 and the inaccuracy above 1000?

Just strikes me as a bit peculiar.
Doesn’t have to be changed as far as I am concerned.

[shinuito]

@Atorrante

So why the accuracy beneath 1000 and the inaccuracy above 1000?

Probably just design choice. Keep the display more minimal, cap the maximum number of symbols shown.

You could equally ask why the colour changes etc it’s just design choices.

I think realistically when there’s thousands of views the tens and hundreds don’t seem as important in terms of whether the thread is more or less popular.

The other point is probably just a case of rounding to the nearest hundred?

[Atorrante]

@shinuito

maximum number of symbols shown.

Okay, but wouldn’t it be more “logical” that numbers beneath 1000 would become .9 etc.?

[Groin]

There is a point to fix somewhere.
You care more to pass from let say 4 to 5 as 1942 to 1943.

[teapoweredrobot]

@Atorrante

funny that beneath the 1000 replies and view counts these are exact where as more than 1000 replies and views, these are not exact anymore but approximations,

This is just standard practice across the internet isn’t it? No one cares if something is 56683 or 56684. It’s good enough to say 56k
E.g. YouTube does the same with view and comments individually numbered up to 1k and then up to 1M and 1B. No-one cares that baby shark has 12025076376 views, 12B is good enough

[benjito]

I think @Atorrante is bothered also by the fact that 56683 becomes 57k instead of 56k. But still I think this is standard rounding practice.

If the actual count is 1999, 2k is a much better approximation than 1k!

[espoojaram]

While it is standard to round up if the next digit is 5 or more, I have to admit that on occasion I’ve felt bothered by it.

Personally, in some contexts, I try to never round the digits 4, 5 or 6, as it feels like it’s discarding important info.

[Leira]

True but…

@Atorrante

The system however will award this topic 14.7 views when the number of views reaches 14.650.

This is slightly weird for a different reason. At 14.650, should we round up or down? Both are certainly the same distance, but standard practice is to round towards the even number (14.6K in this case).

[benjito]

@Leira

standard practice is to round towards the even number

I think you’re talking about “banker’s rounding”, but “half up” rounding is just as common even if it is less numerically stable.

Edit: an example where rounding away from zero is literally part of a standard (C programming language):

[Uberdude]

@Atorrante

It strikes me as funny that beneath the 1000 replies and view counts these are exact where as more than 1000 replies and views, these are not exact anymore but approximations, such as 14.6.

And another funny thing.

Life must be more enjoyable when you are amused by such trivialities!