The Formula of the Forum

Political thread creation. It may be an art, but it seems there is a tried and true method to finding success. One that can even be verified in math if you want to.

I would like to submit a formula for online interaction in a modern forum environment. This formula focuses specifically on appeal, if one were to quantify what it takes for success.

It could look like this:

∑(C + B) = k * (l + ∑P)

The amount of condemnation of opposing party plus partisan belief confirming one's own bias is directly proportional to the interest it receives and total sum of posts

In this formula, ∑(C + B) represents the sum of the condemnation of opposing party and the partisan belief confirming one's own bias. ∑P represents the sum of the total posts. k is the constant of proportionality, indicating the direct proportionality between the sum of condemnation and bias and the interest received and total sum of posts. The specific value of k would depend on the context and the specific relationship between these variables.

I would love to see a thread defy this, but so far it checks out.

Sigma notation added to look more mathy. Thanks to Skynet for formula writing assistance.

* I honestly didn't know where to put this. Move if necessary.

a reply to: Degradation33

And sensationalizing and lying in the title as a first step in the click bait.

a reply to: Degradation33

When I was in college taking a Speech class the professor said that there was a mathematical formula for a conversation. Just now I went searching for it. No luck. Closest I found was the 1949 book A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Available from many sources as pdf. Lots of log and tan.

Let's get this thread hopping!!
I dropped out of college. Spent many years to finally get:
an Associates of Science Degree in Liberal Arts.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Degradation33

I dropped out of college. Spent many years to finally get:
an Associates of Science Degree in Liberal Arts.

Congrats, you have the most valuable degree in the real world. You learned how to critically think and analyze the world around you.

This degree should be a requirement for everyone. And it should be taught in k-12.

a reply to: pthena

Let's get this thread hopping!!
I dropped out of college. Spent many years to finally get:
an Associates of Science Degree in Liberal Arts.

Naw, this thread lacks certain buzzwords and subject matter, and opinion on subject matter, to ever get going. This is about my average.

And It's a degree. Who cares if it's mocked as a worthless liberal arts degree. That framed thing is worth something.

You needed only a pulse to get into the university I went to, our rivals were slightly harder to get into than heaven.

And even if you drop out you are still alumni...

This was just a funny thought. An observation. It's inspired by only the most successful threads. The ones that can blow past 15 pages on the first day have commonality in many regards.

So I wrote out the description, made my own that looked like C + B = n + P, but it didn't seem right or complete, so I asked Chat GPT to put it in proper and unnecessary Sigma notation to look smart.

a reply to: quintessentone

That too...

I also wrote out a thread called, "Unofficial Guide To ATS Newcomers For A Successful Thread Experience", but felt it was too overtly antagonistic for the sake of it. Funny, but too baiting for my T/S self-sensor, so I went with this.

a reply to: Degradation33

I speculatively applied this to posts from both sides of the political spectrum and found the calculated outcomes are identical to each other.

However, I have observed differently to this, that there are more successful posts by those echoing popular sayings and ideas (even down to misusing the same verbiage in the same way) as if they had thought of these things for themselves?

These same posters decry someone else "telling them what to think".

a reply to: Degradation33

I don't know if it applies to political threads, but some years ago, another forum member was complaining that the threads he thought were the most interesting got less participation than the more speculative ones, so I suggested he add at least three exclamation points at the end of the title.

It worked. He did a new thread with more or less the same topic than one he had done before but gave it a slightly more "tabloid" tittle and ended the title with three exclamation points. The new thread got at least three times more posts than the first.

PS: I think the thread was in the "Aliens and UFOs" or the "Space Exploration" forum.