By hitting the search button at the bottom of every post you find all the threads you have posted to .
When I do this I see I’ve posted to 426 threads . At the time of this post I have 661 posts .
This gives me a ratio of 661/426 = 1.55
This makes sense as I usually just say whatever it is I want to say and leave .
What yours ?
2.6 here. This sounds right, too.
1041 to 671== roughly 1.6… or 1.551415797317… about right…
2010 threads with about 3940 posts (actually more, damn these software bugs!).
Zee ratie eezz 1.96. Healthy enough. See, there’s the flame wars on the one hand, and the smug onelines on the other. A good balance eh 
707 to 574, or 1.231. Is that good or bad?
Must drink more coffee.
That, and my ratio just went up 
Wrong, yojimbo. This means that in 1 / 1.55 = 64.5% of all cases, you can’t resist the urge to post ANOTHER time
I’m a little bit confused, is it better to have a higher or lower ratio? Or is this just a convienent way for us all to pad our post counts?
I need some coffee, too. We ran out of leaded, so I’ve been drinking decaf all morning. 
And I don’t have the energy to go to the store.
You’re quite correct Coldfire
[increasing ratio]
that would work for me too, I suppose.
[/increasing ratio]
does this mean we dont have to call it padding our postcount anymore?
146 threads, 218 posts
1.50 ratio, nice even number there.
Exactly half of the time after i post i feel the need to post some more pointless drivel.
Not sure of my exact post count until I post this, but let’s say about 409. 409/308 is a ratio of 1.32.
Is it better to have a lower or higher? That’s a matter of opinion, I guess. On the one hand I could congratulate myself for being succint or thorough, but it could also mean that I tend to give up after one post. Or do seagull posting, where I swoop down onto a thread, crap on it, and fly off.
Generally, though, in my case I try not to indulge in “conversation” which earlier in my newbiedom I saw someone get their ass chewed for. I also tend to discover that someone will speak my mind for me better than I could, so there is no need to post again.
I also don’t tend to post to the “point, counterpoint” threads and don’t spend much time at great debates, etc. I’d expect a much higher ratio from people who tackle those questions.
A system that records the number of time you roll your eyes? I’d probably be ashamed at my count.
Moi?
4.43.
I have no shame, and far too much time.
57/35 = 1.63
I think I see a ‘standard’ range developing here. Oddly enough it seems to hold true regardless of number of posts.
grem
Sorry, immediate second thought:
I wonder whether the ‘standard range’ hold for people who primarily post in only one forum? Methinks the Pit and GD specialists would have a higher ratio.
grem
2.07 posts per thread here. As of this post that is.
That’s quite nice IMO.
Mine is 1.35. I interpret this to mean that I can succinctly express myself with one post in most cases, while occasionaly offering more of my wisdom when it is needed.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with all those “what color is your toothbrush” type threads that only require one post…
Mr. Cynical, on the other hand…I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You just must have a huge wellspring of wisdom to share. OK, maybe wisdom isn’t the right word…
I think it was much smaller before I started flirting. You have to respond more than once to those posts.
Around here, we call it bullshit.
That was fun.