Hackish speech makes heavy use of pseudo-mathematical metaphors.
Four particularly important ones involve the terms coefficient, factor, index of
X, and quotient. They are
often loosely applied to things you cannot really be quantitative about,
but there are subtle distinctions among them that convey information about
the way the speaker mentally models whatever he or she is describing.
Foo factor and foo quotient tend to describe something for
which the issue is one of presence or absence. The canonical example is
fudge factor. It's not important how much you're
fudging; the term simply acknowledges that some fudging is needed. You
might talk of liking a movie for its silliness factor. Quotient tends to
imply that the property is a ratio of two opposing factors: I would
have won except for my luck quotient.
This could also be I
would have won except for the luck factor
, but using
quotient emphasizes that it was bad luck overpowering
good luck (or someone else's good luck overpowering your own). Foo index and coefficient of foo both tend to imply that foo
is, if not strictly measurable, at least something that can be larger or
smaller. Thus, you might refer to a paper or person as having a high bogosity index, whereas you would be less
likely to speak of a high bogosity
factor. Foo index
suggests that foo is a condensation of many quantities, as in the mundane
cost-of-living index; coefficient of
foo suggests that foo is a fundamental quantity, as in a
coefficient of friction. The choice between these terms is often one of
personal preference; e.g., some people might feel that bogosity is a
fundamental attribute and thus say coefficient
of bogosity, whereas others might feel it is a combination of
factors and thus say bogosity
index.