Tantek Çelik wrote:
On 10/1/06 5:34 PM, "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://lavalife.com.au/
http://www.rsvp.com.au/
http://match.com.au/
http://adultmatchmaker.com.au/
It would be a good start to at least add those URLs as sources for profile
information to the profile-examples page.
Added those, as well as the non-english ones Karl sent.
(Unfortunately, on some of those sites, you need to become a member
before you can see any profiles.)
The more closed the system, the less the likelihood that they will bother to
adopt a microformat, thus the less useful such a system is as a "real world"
example to use for modeling.
Yeah, that's one of the problems I mentioned with those kind of sites in
my initial e-mail to this thread.
I recommend finding some sites where you don't have to become a member
before seeing any profiles.
Of those sites, LavaLife and RSVP will allow you to see profile details
without registration. Match.com will only show you a nickname and
photo, AdultMatchMaker requires registration to see anything. That's
why I said my research was primarily based on LavaLife and RSVP.
In addition, I do suggest more research.
E.g. you mentioned supposed rel-tag limitations, giving the example of
"brown":
The recurring problem with the use of rel-tag in most of these is that
we're trying to represent name:value pairs, whereas rel-tag only really
represents the value.
e.g. <a href="/tags/blue" rel="tag">Brown</a>
That doesn't indicate whether it represents hair colour, eye colour,
favourite colour or something else entirely.
The participants of at least one "social networking" site (consumating.com)
have already solved this problem, WITHOUT name/value pairs with tags like:
brown_hair
blue_eyes
I thought of that, but one of the problems is that some sites may tag
them like that, others may use "brown_(Hair_Colour)", "Brunette",
"cheveux bruns" (French for brown hair, according to babelfish) or some
other variation.
You are talking theoretically "some sites *may* tag them like that..."
Actually, it has happened.
http://consumating.com/tags/brownhair (1069 people - 43.3%)
http://consumating.com/tags/brunette (1292 people - 52.4%)
http://consumating.com/tags/brown_hair (56 people - 2.3%)
http://consumating.com/tags/darkbrownhair (21 people - 0.8%)
http://consumating.com/tags/lightbrownhair (21 people - 0.8%)
http://consumating.com/tags/hairbrown (6 people - 0.2%)
So, it seems to be fairly close between "brownhair" and "brunette". The
other tags are relatively minor. However, the sample size isn't very large.
It is irrelevant what some sites "may" do. What is relevant is what sites
*actually* do. Do you have any other examples?
RSVP, AdultMatchMaker and Match.com don't do tagging like that, they
offer a list of common hair colours instead (similarly for many other
fields). Although, the lists used by all 3 are very similar to each other.
Although "brunette" seems to be winning on consumating.com, those other
3 sites all unanimously use "dark brown" and "light brown".
Even before personals search engines, there were printed personals, and
"tagging" conventions evolved there for people to quickly/accurately
describe attributes and wants. You don't need to presolve most of these
problems with a-priori taxonomies/ontologies - the authors of the data often
solve them themselves.
Good point.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
