It’s not “hiding” the number; it’s a deliberate simplification to make it easier to read. The rest of the digits are not ignored but are factored into the rounding process. The core point here is that simplifying numbers to K format (e.g., 4.9K) involves rounding rules, not just omitting digits.
if you’re going to continue, I suggest you DM me now because there’s too much clutter here for no reason.
Simplification as in hiding the rest of the number (4,950 part that’s hidden for example.) showing as 4.9K. There’s nothing to discuss in the dms, you’re objectively wrong. The core point here is that the rounding shows incorrect data and therefore has to be fixed. As you wouldn’t make 4.9K in currency in your game 5K, confusing the player that’s trying to purchase an item for 5K and is unable to you wouldn’t do the same here.
You’re calling it simplification by hiding the rest of the number, but if you really want to avoid ‘hiding’ and be more precise, the correct representation would be 4.95K, not 4.9K. By rounding to one decimal, you’re already simplifying the number and losing detail, so it’s still rounding, not just ‘hiding.’ Saying otherwise is objectively misunderstanding how this works.
You’ll literally just be told this is intended behaviour and the “bug” will be closed.
If you have an issue with this behaviour you should make a feature request given staff won’t bother arguing whether this is intended or not, putting it in #feature-requests would avoid that wasted time.
No, 4.9K is also correct and is preferred for better simplicity as it shows less numbers. There’s no rounding involved in hiding the rest of the number 
The only rounding involved in this is the incorrect one to 5K when you have 4.9K
A ticket was made by staff earlier in this post and I’ve already made the same post about group member count having that issue and it was resolved. This is a bug, objectively.
4.9K being preferred for simplicity is fair, but it’s still rounding. When converting 4950 to 4.9K, you’re rounding to one decimal place by dropping the remaining digits after the first decimal, which is an adjustment, not just hiding. If it were purely about ‘hiding,’ the more accurate representation would be 4.95K. So yes, there is rounding involved—simplified rounding, but rounding nonetheless.
I won’t continue further, my time is valuable.
You’re not converting anything, you’re hiding the number for simplicity, idk why that concept is so hard for you to grasp. 4.9K is 4,923 4,900 4,999. It’s not open to debate.
I can see this being somewhat useful to be corrected in the group category, but is there any exact reason for this to be specified in follower counts?
Or are you reporting it for a matter of consistency all across?
Can’t really see how this is bothersome otherwise
What’s the difference between group members and followers?
I would argue group member counts are far more valuable in the sense that there is more purpose there, members are directly attached to your group, on which you can post announcements/games/items etc.
Follower counts being attached to your profile are not in the same realm as groups, “following” tab I would argue is checked way less than group tabs would be, the only true purpose follower counts seemed to serve (not upto date whether this is still being consistently given) is the verification badge.
Using your profile for announcements regarding your content is also highly impractical and I doubt is common practice anymore.
Essentially I would argue this is a non-issue, or one of insanely low impact and upto personal preference for what type of metric is displayed, what exactly will this help with if fixed? Do you have a use-case? Maybe something API related?
(bugs are typically made because they’re directly impacting you or others negatively or unfairly, is that truly the case here?)
Regardless of your argument of why one matters more than the other, there’s no reason to not fix the broken. And the count is objectively incorrect.
If the broken is bothering absolutely no one in any real sense that matters, then fixing the broken would be a waste of resource would it not?
I suppose that’s up to the engineers to decide here.
The saying goes, if it’s not broken don’t fix it. Not if it’s bothering absolutely no one and broken don’t fix it.
Not the point that was made and neither really relevant.
However I do advise you remove the solution marking as that’ll autoclose your thread in 2 weeks time (if no one replies) and would prevent staff from further following up with additional information, save the solution for an actual conclusion by staff later.
Your point by itself is irrelevant. Because you’re trying to avoid the fixing of something broken on the basis that according to you, it doesn’t really matter. But it’s objectively incorrect, therefore broken, meaning there is no harm and only benefit to fixing it and it doesn’t matter how tiny you see that as an issue it’s still an issue. And good idea about the solution