Staff Emeritus
Post count. "Like" count. What are your best explanations about what they say about you (and other PF members)? This isn't serious, it's just a silly little game. Anything goes. I'll start:

Multiply your like count by 100 and then divide it by your post count. This is the number of lovers you've had.

##\frac{\log(Post Count)} {\log(Like Count)}## rounded to the nearest whole number = Number of times you'll win the lottery in your lifetime. (Only once for me )

##Post Count * e^{-6} =## chance that you've posted too much and should stop now. (I'm at 42.96%)

Evo

Anyone whose post count divided by their like count equals pi wins. Period.

Ibn Al Kishki, Evo, cnh1995 and 3 others
Borek
Mentor
The results are skewed, old regulars have plenty of posts from times when there were no likes.

nrqed, Evo and fresh_42
Staff Emeritus
The results are skewed, old regulars have plenty of posts from times when there were no likes.

Yep.

Evo and fresh_42
Borg
Gold Member
Multiply your like count by 100 and then divide it by your post count. This is the number of lovers you've had.
60? That equation is definitely off.

davenn, mister mishka, Evo and 2 others
strangerep
Heh, for guys at least, I'd suspect that ##(posts \times likes)## on PF has an inverse relationship to the number of girlfriends you've had.

Evo, Borek and Drakkith
Heh, for guys at least, I'd suspect that ##(posts \times likes)## on PF has an inverse relationship to the number of girlfriends you've had.
PF is the only girlfriend you need.

Ibn Al Kishki, fresh_42 and Drakkith
strangerep
PF is the only girlfriend you need.
Ahem,... have you been interfering with your computer's ethernet port again?

Ibn Al Kishki, Evo, ProfuselyQuarky and 2 others
DrGreg
Gold Member
PF is the only girlfriend you need.
PF is my girlfriend? I'm going to have to erase my browser history.

Again.

Drakkith, Evo and ProfuselyQuarky
Fervent Freyja
Gold Member
Probably that I must be an unhelpful harlot on here. I really dislike my like count being displayed. Not that I don't appreciate getting likes, because I do. An assumption could be that I didn't earn my likes by being helpful and working hard on here, but could be attributed to something else.

Ibn Al Kishki, vela, dkotschessaa and 2 others
fresh_42
Mentor
Probably that I must be an unhelpful harlot on here. I really dislike my like count being displayed. Not that I don't appreciate getting likes, because I do. An assumption could be that I didn't earn my likes by being helpful and working hard on here, but could be attributed to something else.
... those eyes ...

Ibn Al Kishki, mister mishka, ProfuselyQuarky and 2 others
60? That equation is definitely off.

Yeah same, 60 is much lower than in reality..

Evo, Borg and Drakkith
Probably that I must be an unhelpful harlot on here. I really dislike my like count being displayed. Not that I don't appreciate getting likes, because I do. An assumption could be that I didn't earn my likes by being helpful and working hard on here, but could be attributed to something else.

The bribe money? I haven't told any..oops

Fervent Freyja and Evo
phinds
Gold Member
An assumption could be that I didn't earn my likes by being helpful and working hard on here, but could be attributed to something else.
Well, I can assure you that in my particular case it most definitely IS attributable to something else. The "likes" USED to be "thanks" which was a MUCH more meaningful thing but Greg insisted (over my vehement but useless protestations) on changing it to "like", I guess so we'd be more like Facebook.

So now we have a situation where, for example, @Drakkith , @PeterDonis , and I all have about the same number of "likes". BUT ... They have them because they are in fact very helpful and are constantly giving people (including me) useful information. I have them largely because people sometimes find my smart-ass remarks amusing. Their "likes" and mine just aren't counting the same thing at all and I knew that would happen when Greg changed "thanks" to "like".

Evo, dkotschessaa, Bystander and 1 other person
jim mcnamara
Mentor
... Just gave a @phinds a like, for exactly the reason he cited. A kind of recursive like, if you like.

For myself, when I post a joke in the general discussion thread on lame jokes I get way more likes for one post than I do for dozens of more serious posts that each take time to research and set up. Not sure what that means. ... Don't know what I'm doing? Lame jokes are of more benefit? So is Paul (phinds) correct, the function of a like is what the crowd dictates by usage, and not what the forums admin wants it to be?

Evo and Bystander
phinds
Gold Member
... Just gave a @phinds a like, for exactly the reason he cited. A kind of recursive like, if you like.

For myself, when I post a joke in the general discussion thread on lame jokes I get way more likes for one post than I do for dozens of more serious posts that each take time to research and set up. Not sure what that means. ... Don't know what I'm doing? Lame jokes are of more benefit?
So is Paul (phinds) correct, the function of a like is what the crowd dictates by usage, and not what the forums admin wants it to be?
But I think it IS what @Greg Bernhardt wants it to be ... a Facebook-like "like". We had this conversation back when he changed it from "thanks".

Evo
Well, I can assure you that in my particular case it most definitely IS attributable to something else. The "likes" USED to be "thanks" which was a MUCH more meaningful thing but Greg insisted (over my vehement but useless protestations) on changing it to "like", I guess so we'd be more like Facebook.

So now we have a situation where, for example, @Drakkith , @PeterDonis , and I all have about the same number of "likes". BUT ... They have them because they are in fact very helpful and are constantly giving people (including me) useful information. I have them largely because people sometimes find my smart-ass remarks amusing. Their "likes" and mine just aren't counting the same thing at all and I knew that would happen when Greg changed "thanks" to "like".
I just liked your post out of spite. Take that!

Evo
phinds
Gold Member
I just liked your post out of spite. Take that!
Yeah, that happens all the time

You probably would not have done that if it had been a "thanks" button

Evo and dkotschessaa
Yeah, that happens all the time

You probably would not have done that if it had been a "thanks" button
I like likes. (Did it again! )

I don't have Facebook anymore, but I do think the idea of "likes" as well as +1s (on Google+) were a good idea.

I think the idea is that you want to acknowledge a post and it's content whether something further needs to be added or not.

It's a nod, an approving grunt, an "I get ya."

Get me?

Evo
phinds
Gold Member
I
It's a nod, an approving grunt, an "I get ya."

Get me?
Yes, I get you, but my point is that this ISN'T Facebook, it's a serious science forum and I believe "thanks" means "thank you for the help" which is what I would like to see when appropriate vs "like" which means exactly what you said it means, nothing more.

Evo and nrqed
Yes, I get you, but my point is that this ISN'T Facebook, it's a serious science forum and I believe "thanks" means "thank you for the help" which is what I would like to see when appropriate vs "like" which means exactly what you said it means, nothing more.
My take on the controversy was that a "thanks" ought to be explicitly expressed in a post addressing the person you're thanking. Seems like the least you could do if they spend some time and effort on your question. A "thanks" button trivializes this.

Also, when it used to be a "thanks" button, it was clear a large percentage of people were misusing it as a "like" button, having been primed by FaceBook to do so, a situation that further eroded its function as an expression of gratitude.

The problem from the start, it seemed to me, was that Greg had gotten the very idea of some kind of button from the FaceBook "like" button, and, that being the case, was having a hard time hijacking it for other purposes. You may claim this isn't FaceBook, but when you import a FaceBook device, you psychologically put people in a FaceBook kind of frame.

Evo
phinds
Gold Member
My take on the controversy was that a "thanks" ought to be explicitly expressed in a post addressing the person you're thanking. Seems like the least you could do if they spend some time and effort on your question. A "thanks" button trivializes this.
I agree this was one of the best arguments Greg put forward for the change and I agree w/ your point of view.

Also, when it used to be a "thanks" button, it was clear a large percentage of people were misusing it as a "like" button, having been primed by FaceBook to do so, a situation that further eroded its function as an expression of gratitude.

The problem from the start, it seemed to me, was that Greg had gotten the very idea of some kind of button from the FaceBook "like" button, and, that being the case, was having a hard time hijacking it for other purposes. You may claim this isn't FaceBook, but when you import a FaceBook device, you psychologically put people in a FaceBook kind of frame.
Yeah, but I'm curmudgeonly and don't WANT PF to be Facebook, thus my resistance to the change.

Evo
Also, when it used to be a "thanks" button, it was clear a large percentage of people were misusing it as a "like" button, having been primed by FaceBook to do so, a situation that further eroded its function as an expression of gratitude.
It's certainly a personal perception on my part, but what I perceived is that random people were "thanking" people without having ever posed any questions. The "thanks," therefore, seemed actually to mean, "Given that someone else, and not me, posed this question, I never-the-less "like" your answer."
Yeah, but I'm curmudgeonly and don't WANT PF to be Facebook, thus my resistance to the change.
Prior to any button a really large percentage of people were quoting posts they liked and commenting by means of emoticon alone. A whole separate post like that, as opposed to a mere "like" notice, causes untold trillions of electrical charges to be tied up in electronic chips each and every time someone does that, charges which might serve a much more useful purpose in some other capacity. There's only so much electrical charge in the universe and only a micro-minute fraction of that is available for our use here on earth. Let us deploy our limited supply conservatively.

Evo
phinds
Gold Member
It's certainly a personal perception on my part, but what I perceived is that random people were "thanking" people without having ever posed any questions. The "thanks," therefore, seemed actually to mean, "Given that someone else, and not me, posed this question, I never-the-less "like" your answer."
At leas some of those were probably intended as "thanks for posting such a helpful answer" but I get your point.

Prior to any button a really large percentage of people were quoting posts they liked and commenting by means of emoticon alone. A whole separate post like that, as opposed to a mere "like" notice, causes untold trillions of electrical charges to be tied up in electronic chips each and every time someone does that, charges which might serve a much more useful purpose in some other capacity. There's only so much electrical charge in the universe and only a micro-minute fraction of that is available for our use here on earth. Let us deploy our limited supply conservatively.

Evo
BillTre