SPCOlympics wrote:
lau wrote:
No. That was claire333 that mentioned that, and I answered her post - that it was an optimisation employed by Alex, to cut down on the rate of updates to the database, by adding three on each third view..
It's broken though. I went to a long dead thread (to make sure noone else was viewing too) and the view counter increments by 3 for every 2nd view, not every 3rd view.
I'm afraid you haven't quite seen what is going on.
A view count is being maintained, but only ever as a multiple of three.
Each time a view occurs, there is no way to tell whether this is the first, second or third time that the thread has been viewed, since last changing the count by three, because those intermediate values of the count aren't recorded - anywhere.
In fact, the software chooses, at randow, two times out of three to ignore the view.
On the one chance in three that it does not ignore the view, it updates the database by a count of three.
The result is that the view count is not precise, just approximate.
For example, if a new thread receives three real views:
There is one chance in 27 that it will show a view count of nine.
There is a 2/9 chance that it will show a view count of six.
There is a 4/9 chance that it will show the correct real count.
There is an 8/27 chance that it will still show a view count of zero.
Taken over time, the displayed view count will differ from the real view count. Statistically, the deviation from the real count is expected to be proportionate to the square root of the count. I.e. when it shows 10,000 views, it may be out by about 1%.
_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports."
Kamran Nazeer