How accurate is the views number under posts?

[Trurl]

How accurate is the views number under posts?

Not the views to profile.

I thought it was accurate because it increased slightly over time. Also the post has replies.

I wanted to inspire new cryptographers. I believed it was so simple and would spread fast.

Is 11,000 to large? Is it accurate?

[iNow]

Not very accurate, or at least not informative. 

Mostly web crawlers and search engine indexing. As for real people, it’s basically the same 3 people who keep coming back to read new replies. 

[Trurl]

Darn. But that doesn’t explain why some posts have thousands and some have single digits.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to track member’s views? Like on profiles?

Can’t the forum stats identify a human user?

What about trackers? When you view a website they say you have 10 trackers trying to spy on you. I want SFN readers not bots.

But if it were accurate it would be useful. Knowing your audience and how many readers have read what you wrote is very important. Not as important as the message. But if you write a message and no one sees it, the message falls short of its goal.

 

[StringJunky]

Depending on how active your site is, you should expect Google to crawl it anywhere between every four and thirty days. Sites updated more regularly tend to be crawled more often, given Googlebot tends to hunt for new content first -Google

[Trurl]

Ok. So the views under the posts aren’t exact. But I was wondering if they could still be useful. On my Posts: Simple Yet Interesting and Prime Products One More Time, I have over 40,000 combined views. So these post are seen a lot, although 40,000 is much larger than the precise number of views.

 

Why am I concerned with the number of views? Well I thought it was a pattern in factorization of semiPrimes. Obviously if it would have worked, RSA would no longer be in use and most digital signatures wouldn’t be able to authenticate. But we would have a pattern of Prime numbers in return.

 

But I look on the bright side. Maybe there is still use of the work. Maybe it can find larger Prime numbers.

 

My goal started as trying to find a weakness in RSA and then a pattern in factorization. It sounds disastrous to try and attempt such things, but remember people and governments are attacking ciphers all the time. Wouldn’t it be better to know RSA is flawed. That is, if it is.

 

And since we don’t have to worry about the destruction of RSA, my challenge to the viewers is to find a legitimate application for Simple Yet Interesting. That is, the Pappy Craylar Conjecture.

 

I am researching sources on Prime numbers, in order to see what is already known and try and find an application for the Pappy Craylar Conjecture. I know views aren’t the goal of science. But the reason I wanted views was that someone would come and prove my work. There is a networked science in the book Reinventing Discovery by Michael Nielsen, These posts were my attempts at networked science.