I found quite a few false positives, like "the livejournal of Nikki", and "the Linux of your choice", but upholding the glorious scientific tradition of ignoring every methodological issue that cannot be fixed, I completely disregarded them.
- "the windows of" - 15,100,000
- "the internet of" - 7,790,000
- "the apple of" - 6,470,000
- "the google of" - 3,160,000
- "the youtube of" - 766,000
- "the microsoft of" - 397,000
- "the imdb of" - 307,000
- "the craigslist of" - 303,000
- "the livejournal of" - 290,000
- "the ebay of" - 277,000
- "the amazon of" - 262,000
- "the facebook of" - 237,000
- "the myspace of" - 235,000
- "the linux of" - 197,000
- "the wikipedia of" - 180,000
- "the yahoo of" - 142,000
- "the flickr of" - 124,000
- "the ibm of" - 109,000
- "the blogspot of" - 108,000
- "the web 2.0 of" - 92,900
- "the bing of" - 90,900
- "the firefox of" - 63,200
- "the aol of" - 63,100
- "the napster of" - 61,200
- "the msn of" - 52,100
- "the digg of" - 23,600
It seems the most popular activity is explaining one web service as metaphor of another:
- Is Craigslist the "Napster" of the Sex Industry
- YouTube Redesign: Becoming the Google of Video?
- Is Facebook: the Google of Social Networks
- Google Earth Is the AOL of the Geoweb
- MySpace is the AOL of Social Media/Web 2.0
- YouTube.com — the Flickr of Video
There are also some unusual finds:
- The Wikipedia of Slutty Dressing
- The Craigslist of Antibiotic Resistance
- Is Python the Apple of Programming Languages?
Another interesting find is that while I've been expecting a lot of "the X of sex", only Wikipedia (36,200) and Facebook (29,500) have decent number of matches.
"The X of porn" is a lot more popular, here Google (378,000), YouTube (354,000), and surprisingly Napster (22,200) are taking the lead.
The other most popular Internet activity, spam, got almost no hits.
I hope you realize "the windows of" and "the apple of" are parts of phrases and statements that are pretty common.. Skewed data.
ReplyDeleteI'm very well aware of it, and as I said - because there's nothing I can do to fix the data, I'm going to ignore the problem.
ReplyDeleteThat's well-established methodology of science.
@ anonymous
ReplyDeletei hope you realize you didn't read the first paragraph