Also I agree with ebs #12 post, wherein they made the implication that attributing value or worth to threads solely according to # of posts might not be the way to go.
This reminds me of the discussion we had a while back on Accepted answers (where the original poster determines which solution is best, an approach I think is irrational, as the OP is the person literally least qualified to know which solution is best, they were the ones who lacked knowledge on the very thing in the first place), whereas, Voting (by other members) is a little bit better, because other experienced members vote on a solution, which lets the posters know what other experienced users think, which is a lot better than the poster letting everyone know what the poster thinks..(the latter is only good if you subscribe to the old joke Hey! It Compiles. Ship it! wherein one clicks Execute and it seems to 'work', thereby the OP thinks it is the best solution...a common newbie mistaken approach on how to evaluate success).
Suggesting that threads have value due to # of replies is a dangerous way to go IMO. In fact more often than not they are the result of a situation where the OP needs to be told to go do Step 1 before trying to do Step 5, but people will spend dozens of hours anyway trying to help them do Step 5 - frankly it makes not only the OP but the whole community look unprofessional & unwise because our ego of wanting to post answers is outweighing our discipline in enforcing the sequential steps the person should have taken.
I think what Doc mentioned would at least be a little bit improvement over that - that is, derive popularity from Hits, not posts.
But I would almost pay for the red # to be more intelligent
