[uf-discuss] Actual research regarding usage of rel-me, rel-contact, and friends. WAS: Social Networks that use XFN and Social Networks that use FOAF

[André Luís]

What I interpreted from Chris' words was that contact and me was the
only values _needed_ to achieve contact list portability. Not that the
rest should be dropped altogether.

I learned that from now on, I should always include the value contact,
on top of all other values. XFN exists for more than just contact list
portability...

--
André Luís

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Costello, Roger L. <costello at mitre.org> wrote:
>
>  Awesome job Derrick!
>
>  Thanks!
>
>  /Roger
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
>  [mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of
>  Derrick Lyndon Pallas
>  Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:18 AM
>  To: Microformats Discuss
>  Subject: [uf-discuss] Actual research regarding usage of rel-me,
>  rel-contact, and friends. WAS: Social Networks that use XFN and Social
>  Networks that use FOAF
>
>  Out of a sample of ~150k sites with some XFN, the following XFN rels
>  are
>  used, in order of frequency. (That is, one site gets one vote for an
>  XFN
>  rel used somewhere on the site.)
>
>     me    65.46%
>     friend    31.82%
>     met    20.81%
>     colleague    19.56%
>     co-worker    14.46%
>     contact    11.15%
>     neighbor    5.00%
>     co-resident    4.45%
>     sweetheart    3.72%
>     sibling    3.03%
>     spouse    2.85%
>     muse    2.79%
>     parent    2.25%
>     crush    1.86%
>     kin    1.83%
>     date    1.12%
>     child    1.12%
>     acquaintance    0.14%
>
>
>  Out of a sample of ~15M pages with XFN, the following XFN rels are
>  used,
>  in order of frequency. (That is, one page gets one vote for an XFN rel
>  used somewhere on the page.)
>
>     me    71.051%
>     friend    22.403%
>     colleague    13.929%
>     met    13.247%
>     co-worker    11.306%
>     contact    11.182%
>     neighbor    3.618%
>     co-resident    2.940%
>     parent    2.698%
>     sweetheart    2.094%
>     muse    1.707%
>     spouse    1.652%
>     sibling    1.398%
>     crush    1.073%
>     kin    0.942%
>     acquaintance    0.641%
>     date    0.612%
>     child    0.603%
>
>  So, while a large number of sites that use XFN do have "me" somewhere,
>  35% don't. Furthermore, while the statement by Chris Messina[1] is
>  corrent in asserting that "me" and "contact" are widely used, it is not
>
>  based on solid research.
>
>  The above data indicates that "contact" is not nearly as supreme as
>  "me," which is in a different league altogether. On the contrary,
>  "friend," "met," "colleague," and "co-worker" are at least as widely
>  used as "contact." The discrepancy appears to be bias towards the short
>
>  head of the usage curve.
>
>  Furthermore, I don't think anyone has really done a survey of
>  non-English usage. I certainly haven't. Many of the sites that I've
>  found that do use more than "me" are non-English, but certainly should
>  not be discounted.
>
>  Here is a random sampling of sites that do use XFN and the rels are
>  used
>  by each in the last six months and are in the long tail.
>
>
>  ziki.com        colleague friend me met muse spouse
>
>  topspeed.com    contact friend
>
>  birdz.sk        friend me neighbor
>
>  pushhit.com     met
>
>  majoke.com      co-worker friend met
>
>  bloguje.cz      child co-resident co-worker colleague contact crush
>  date
>  friend kin me met muse neighbor parent sibling spouse sweetheart
>
>  11870.com       contact me
>
>  inter.co.yu     co-resident colleague contact friend me met neighbor
>
>  finaltr.com     friend muse
>
>  tractorfan.nl   colleague kin me
>
>  botonturbo.com  co-resident colleague contact friend me met
>
>  tecnosquad.com  acquaintance co-resident colleague contact friend me
>  met
>
>  giovani.it      child date friend me met muse
>
>  wolkanca.com    co-resident co-worker contact crush date friend me met
>  muse spouse sweetheart
>
>  ~D
>
>
>  [1]
>  http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/11/portable-contact-lists-and-the-ca
>  se-against-xfn/
>
>
>
>  Derrick Lyndon Pallas wrote:
>  > Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>  >> Everyone, if you know of other social networks using XFN please let
>  me
>  >> know and I will add it to the list.  Thanks
>  >
>  > I should be able to generate a more
>  > complete list of sites that use XFN --- including the types of
>  > relationships found on each --- some time tonight. ~D
>  >
>  >
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  microformats-discuss mailing list
>  microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>  http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  microformats-discuss mailing list
>  microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>  http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>