What's your thank: post ratio?

1. 2016-03-14 at 12:12 PM UTC

   #41
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   x^4 means nothing in this context as well. How does cubing x mathematically represent or relate to "average posts per day"? Lowest value retort yet buddy. Good luck trying to explain this one.
   
   Also δ isnt even a measure of posts but rather a measure of poster value as denoted by a formula I created. It goes something like so,
   
   Formula: (15 x n) + m where n = number of pages - 1 and m = last page and the constant 15 is the number of thanks per page
   
   (15 x n) + m = T
   
   Then divide your post count by number of thanks
   
   P / [(15 x n) + m] = P/T = δ where δ is the poster value

   
   Because average posts per day is a function from the beginning of Time. Sδ is arbitrarily defining a posters value from a certain subset of time and Tδ is defining a posters value from all of time. In this case, you are comparing your Timeless δ to my Situational δ, because you are only using the posts I've made since you've started posting for your calculations. Since Sδ and Tδ and incompatible in equating value difference between multiple posters, the only way to solve for this inequality is to use my Timeless δ, which once again puts me at 6.7 and you at an negatively-valenced outlier quantity (above 11).
2. 2016-03-14 at 12:18 PM UTC

   #42
   Industrial Houston
   looooool
3. 2016-03-14 at 4:54 PM UTC

   #43
   

   mashlehash victim of incest [my perspicuously dependant flavourlessness]

   achieve a coveted 6.73.

   
   Dear God.
4. 2016-03-14 at 5:14 PM UTC

   #44
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   just fucking triangle scissor each others logic pussies already
5. 2016-03-14 at 6:17 PM UTC

   #45
   Kek Houston

   Because average posts per day is a function from the beginning of Time. Sδ is arbitrarily defining a posters value from a certain subset of time and Tδ is defining a posters value from all of time. In this case, you are comparing your Timeless δ to my Situational δ, because you are only using the posts I've made since you've started posting for your calculations. Since Sδ and Tδ and incompatible in equating value difference between multiple posters, the only way to solve for this inequality is to use my Timeless δ, which once again puts me at 6.7 and you at an negatively-valenced outlier quantity (above 11).

   
   Keep trying you low value 9 poster.
6. 2016-03-14 at 8:04 PM UTC

   #46
   Kek Houston
   I will now demonstrate that my Timeless δ still gives me a higher poster value and that I am less forum codependent.
   
   Let us compare on the whole our 4 most active accounts on this forum. Your first was The Boobyverse X = X 1 = 0 and your second the holy ghost. My first was thelittlestnigger and my second is Kek.
   
   The math for OP:
   
   The Boobyverse X = X 1 = 0
   Posts: 643
   Thanks: 2
   
   the holy ghost
   Posts: 1294
   Thanks: 132
   
   1294 + 643 = 1937 posts
   132 + 2 = 134 thanks
   This gives you a Timeless δ of 14.46. Remember this is True Timeless δ since it takes into account all possible variables and combinations of the sum of all possible Situational δ
   
   Now for me:
   
   thelittlestnigger
   Posts: 988
   Thanks: 114
   
   Kek
   Posts: 433
   Thanks: 136
   
   988 + 433 = 1421 posts
   114 + 136 = 250 thanks
   This gives me a Timeless δ of 5.68.
   
   You see if we account for your True Timeless δ we find that your poster value objectively decreases even though you have spent more time on the forums and made almost 500 more posts than I have. This objectively proves that you are 1. a low value poster and 2. more forum codependent.
   
   [SIZE=24px]LOW
   O
   W[/SIZE]
   
   [SIZE=48px]VALUE
   A
   L
   U
   E[/SIZE]
   
   [SIZE=72px]SPLOO
   P
   L
   O
   O[/SIZE]
   
   
7. 2016-03-14 at 8:27 PM UTC

   #47
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   dont know dont care
8. 2016-03-14 at 8:29 PM UTC

   #48
   

   Dissociator African Astronaut
   Doesnt matter
   Thank count does not reflect post quality
9. 2016-03-14 at 8:33 PM UTC

   #49
   Kek Houston
   But as the op says it is in direct correlation with poster value. Post quality means nothing. Poster value means everything and I have the most value on this site objectively.
10. 2016-03-14 at 9:01 PM UTC

    #50
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Don't thank me just doing my job.
11. 2016-03-15 at 12:53 AM UTC

    #51
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    I will now demonstrate that my Timeless δ still gives me a higher poster value and that I am less forum codependent.
    
    Let us compare on the whole our 4 most active accounts on this forum. Your first was The Boobyverse X = X 1 = 0 and your second the holy ghost. My first was thelittlestnigger and my second is Kek.
    
    The math for OP:
    
    The Boobyverse X = X 1 = 0
    Posts: 643
    Thanks: 2
    
    the holy ghost
    Posts: 1294
    Thanks: 132
    
    1294 + 643 = 1937 posts
    132 + 2 = 134 thanks
    This gives you a Timeless δ of 14.46. Remember this is True Timeless δ since it takes into account all possible variables and combinations of the sum of all possible Situational δ
    
    Now for me:
    
    thelittlestnigger
    Posts: 988
    Thanks: 114
    
    Kek
    Posts: 433
    Thanks: 136
    
    988 + 433 = 1421 posts
    114 + 136 = 250 thanks
    This gives me a Timeless δ of 5.68.
    
    You see if we account for your True Timeless δ we find that your poster value objectively decreases even though you have spent more time on the forums and made almost 500 more posts than I have. This objectively proves that you are 1. a low value poster and 2. more forum codependent.
    
    [SIZE=24px]LOW
    O
    W[/SIZE]
    
    [SIZE=48px]VALUE
    A
    L
    U
    E[/SIZE]
    
    [SIZE=72px]SPLOO
    P
    L
    O
    O[/SIZE]

    
    I went to sleep before you posted this, proving I have less forum codependency. Also The Boobyverse X=X 1=0 was pre-thanks like B.C. and A.D.
12. 2016-03-15 at 1:03 AM UTC

    #52
    Kek Houston
    How can boobyverse be pre thanks if you have 2? Stop trying to worm your way out of this. Also when you go to bed objectively has no effect on your forum codependency especially since I posted it at like noon today. I objectively proved you have a lower post value and have a higher forum codependency (as demonstrated by your extreme post count on both accounts) and you literally cant even handle it.
    
    Kekin @ ur low value life.
13. 2016-03-15 at 1:11 AM UTC

    #53
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    How can boobyverse be pre thanks if you have 2?.

    
    Retrospective thanks.
14. 2016-03-15 at 1:15 AM UTC

    #54
    Kek Houston
    Even in that case 2 retrospective thanks over more than 600 posts is pretty fucking lame bro. Gotta make more high value posts if you wanna keep up with posters like me.
15. 2016-03-15 at 2:20 AM UTC

    #55
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    You fucking plebs, a more accurate way would be using the thanks/post ratio (which is objectively simple as fuck) as the expected value. Then make 100 users of this site (we'll have to recruit about 85) look through the posts of each person and select which ones they "like" and which ones they're "indifferent" to in the exact context of each thread, then use chi square to determine if the level of significance is >triangle, in which case, the user is objectively too good this website which will always be completely insignificant.
16. 2016-03-15 at 2:22 AM UTC

    #56
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Vizier had the most thanks in zoklet history. Vizier.
    
    Vizier
    
    I've never tried to post images on this site (which is exactly the type of thing that gets thanks) but if you google "vizier zoklet" you see a pic I posted on intosanc of the infamous leather jacket shot. That is what you can aspire to with these kinds of games.
17. 2016-03-15 at 2:47 AM UTC

    #57
    Kek Houston
    [greentext]>zoklet[/greentext]
    [greentext]>niggasin.space[/greentext]
    
    Which site are we on again?
18. 2016-03-15 at 2:52 AM UTC

    #58
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    [greentext]>posts 4chan speak faggotry on this site[/greentext]
    [greentext]>asks what site we're on[/greentext]
    [greentext]>doesn't get that zoklet was objectively better than this site and had more aggregate data for a thanks system comprised of most of the same posters[/greentext]
    
    try to keep up child
19. 2016-03-15 at 3:13 AM UTC

    #59
    Kek Houston
    [greentext]>doesnt realize that meme arrows are literally a function of this site[/greentext]
    [greentext]>thinks zoklet was worth anything[/greentext]
    [greentext]>literally named yum with a poster value of 10.2[/greentext]
    
    wew lad.
20. 2016-03-15 at 3:15 AM UTC

    #60
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Did you take into account posts per day?