I'd be curious to know what orifice these numbers are being pulled from how these values are calculated, given the data.
(As far as I know, _none_ of my exes are on LJ, which makes it difficult for them to make it on my friends list. Crushes, ambiguous relationships, ongoing co-flirters, etc., yes; people that I've ever actually dated, no. Then again, I haven't actually dated anyone in (urk!) > 10 years...aside from Megan, that is. :) (Who also is not on LJ.))
they assure you that it's all Highly Scientific, and that "no exacter information exists." :)
Yeah, I saw that. I especially liked the careful use of 'exacter'. ;)
(Seriously, though, I assume that they're using _some_ kind of heuristic to come up with these numbers, and while I assume that it's actually, um, less than rigorously scientific, the thinking that's revealed by such methods is often interesting (assuming that it's not simply random, which seems unlikely).)
Now you've made me count. Turns out I have between 5 and 7 exes in my flist, depending on how you define "ex". (I actually had one fewer a few minutes ago; your post caused me to realize I'd forgotten to friend a particular ex.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 06:15 pm (UTC)what orifice these numbers are being pulled fromhow these values are calculated, given the data.(As far as I know, _none_ of my exes are on LJ, which makes it difficult for them to make it on my friends list. Crushes, ambiguous relationships, ongoing co-flirters, etc., yes; people that I've ever actually dated, no. Then again, I haven't actually dated anyone in (urk!) > 10 years...aside from Megan, that is. :) (Who also is not on LJ.))
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 07:12 pm (UTC)Oh, don't worry, they assure you that it's all Highly Scientific, and that "no exacter information exists." :)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 08:52 pm (UTC)Yeah, I saw that. I especially liked the careful use of 'exacter'. ;)
(Seriously, though, I assume that they're using _some_ kind of heuristic to come up with these numbers, and while I assume that it's actually, um, less than rigorously scientific, the thinking that's revealed by such methods is often interesting (assuming that it's not simply random, which seems unlikely).)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-14 06:18 am (UTC)