This has probably been reported already, but still, the k on the number of views for thousands isn't displaying properly:

alt text http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9762/picture5me.png

Yeah, pretty sure that that's not intentional. The k should probably be on the same line as the 2.

  • 2
    it's like "kbytes" - they're "kiloviews"
    – warren
    Nov 8 '09 at 2:07
  • 1
    2048 views, then?
    – Phoshi
    Nov 8 '09 at 2:34

I know this is 'by design', but IMHO, the design is not working.

The 'k' should definitely be on the same line as the '2', and in upper case.

The current method of using '2 kviews' makes the post look like it only has two votes when you are scanning the page. It would be much clearer if it said '2K views' (with line break between the '2K' and 'views' of course).

  • 3
    That's how it was originally. However, "100k" was too wide to fit in the spot, so the design needed to be changed. Though it's not great, the "kviews" solution is the best one I've seen suggested. Jan 11 '10 at 5:53
  • The unit prefix kilo is assigned the lower case symbol k: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-
    – Stephan202
    Jan 11 '10 at 7:24
  • no, it doesn't -- it's also in a different color. Harder to see here on greyscale meta, but obviously orange-tinted on SO. Jan 11 '10 at 8:37
  • @Stepan202: My bad if I had the incorrect case. But my point stands - '2k views' is (again, IMHO) much more readable than '2 kviews'.
    – Dhaust
    Jan 11 '10 at 21:29
  • @Kyle: Sorry, but I think the design should be adjusted to fit the content, not the other way around.
    – Dhaust
    Jan 11 '10 at 21:31
  • I also just noticed that '1000 view' questions are displayed as '2k views' on the main questions pages (as opposed to the front page). I know I'm nit-picking here, so feel free to start ignoring me, but it seems possible that you do like the '2k view' format better, but didn't want to adjust the design to accomodate this format.
    – Dhaust
    Jan 11 '10 at 21:41
  • 1
    @Jeff: 'no, it doesn't'. sorry, what were you referring to here?
    – Dhaust
    Jan 11 '10 at 21:41

Actually, this is intentional. This is a recent change to accommodate over 100,000 views on a question.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .