The bulk update request #2362 is pending approval.

change category funny_post_number (67) -> meta

Reason: This tag marks posts with a funny post number on this site, which is just meta.

Is there any point to this whatsoever? Unlike any other Meta tag, this seems entirely and absolutely useless. lol_comments at least helps identify posts where you can find drama, story_in_description does as is said, but funny_post_number has nothing to do with anything visible on the page.

furrin_gok said:
Is there any point to this whatsoever? Unlike any other Meta tag, this seems entirely and absolutely useless. lol_comments at least helps identify posts where you can find drama, story_in_description does as is said, but funny_post_number has nothing to do with anything visible on the page.

Post ID is located right below tags so I guess this should qualify for being visible on the page.

Upvoted for now but I don't think this really needs to exist in its current form. When, exactly, does a number cease to be "funny"?

Can post #2718281 and post #2718282 both be funny at the same time even though they're both representing the same number? If post #2001911 is funny, do other permutations of the same date count as funny? Does the Oklahoma City Bombing's date count as a funny number? How about Hitler's birthday with the year included? Should post #1488 count as funny because it represents the Fourteen Words and "Heil Hitler"?

Also, you can search for posts by their exact ID, whereas you can't search a comment section by how funny it is. If somebody wants to find id:666, they don't need this tag to do it.

There, furthermore, appears to be some overlap with milestone.

lafcadio said:
Upvoted for now but I don't think this really needs to exist in its current form. When, exactly, does a number cease to be "funny"?

Can post #2718281 and post #2718282 both be funny at the same time even though they're both representing the same number? If post #2001911 is funny, do other permutations of the same date count as funny? Does the Oklahoma City Bombing's date count as a funny number? How about Hitler's birthday with the year included? Should post #1488 count as funny because it represents the Fourteen Words and "Heil Hitler"?

Also, you can search for posts by their exact ID, whereas you can't search a comment section by how funny it is. If somebody wants to find id:666, they don't need this tag to do it.

There, furthermore, appears to be some overlap with milestone.

Upvoted but I also agree with all of these points, there's no real use to the tag, and what's the point in tagging every single time "420" or "69" occurs in a post number? Is anyone looking for this? I don't even know what's funny about 2718281 and 2718282, is it the palindrome and repeating numbers?

hungrymaple said:
Upvoted but I also agree with all of these points, there's no real use to the tag, and what's the point in tagging every single time "420" or "69" occurs in a post number? Is anyone looking for this? I don't even know what's funny about 2718281 and 2718282, is it the palindrome and repeating numbers?

The criteria could be users organically freaking out about the post ID in the comments, like lol_comments.

I don't get it.

hungrymaple said:
Upvoted but I also agree with all of these points, there's no real use to the tag, and what's the point in tagging every single time "420" or "69" occurs in a post number? Is anyone looking for this? I don't even know what's funny about 2718281 and 2718282, is it the palindrome and repeating numbers?

The second of those is a rounded version of Euler's number, and the first a truncated version (the next digit is an 8.) Theoretically, post #271828, post #27182, post #2718, post #271, and post #27 should all be funny numbers because they're similarly shortened versions of Euler's number. There's definitely a point to be made about the obscurity of some of these funny post numbers, though.

lance_armstrong said:
The criteria could be users organically freaking out about the post ID in the comments, like lol_comments.

This still doesn't quite feel like a meaningful criterium, and I'm not certain that there could be meaningful criteria for counting interesting post numbers. Celebrity births and deaths? Who's looking at the deleted post #2009628 and going "haha sick that's the day that Billy Mays died"? What of dates that can't reasonably be represented in exactly 7 digits? Mathematical constants? How many digits do we expect out of those?

lafcadio said:
There, furthermore, appears to be some overlap with milestone.

Looks like half of the posts in there should've been tagged with milestone_celebration instead...

lance_armstrong said:
The criteria could be users organically freaking out about the post ID in the comments, like lol_comments.

lafcadio said:
This still doesn't quite feel like a meaningful criterium, and I'm not certain that there could be meaningful criteria for counting interesting post numbers. Celebrity births and deaths? Who's looking at the deleted post #2009628 and going "haha sick that's the day that Billy Mays died"? What of dates that can't reasonably be represented in exactly 7 digits? Mathematical constants? How many digits do we expect out of those?

Not to mention that dates can be represented in different ways. post #2001911 and post #1192001 could be the same date.

Regardless, I think Lance’s suggestion would make the most sense. At least then it’s put on an equal level with lol_comments in terms of objective verifiability (even moreso, actually, as what counts as “lol” is somewhat ambiguous). If a post number is actually worthy of note (and not overly obscure like a celebrity death date), there will likely be comments about it. And if there aren’t any, perhaps it wasn’t that special in the first place.