Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

E-Mail Can Reveal Your Friend Hierarchy

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the add-them-to-the-list dept.

Communications 85

sciencehabit writes "It's not surprising that someone could guess your friends simply by peeking at your e-mail. But a more detailed look at your electronic communications could reveal which friends are closer to you than others, according to a new study. The trick has to do with response time--the time it takes for a sender to respond to e-mails from different contacts. The fastest responses went to friends and that the slowest responses went to acquaintances, with colleagues somewhere in between."

cancel ×

85 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fast Reply (5, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217694)

My fastest reply is always to the person who will make me the most money. My friends can wait.

Re:Fast Reply (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217760)

Technically you're friends with money

Re:Fast Reply (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217802)

Being drunk often breaks this. When I'm drunk, I do everything randomly. Sometimes I email, sometimes I dont. Sometimes it goes to who it belongs to, sometimes it goes to random persons, sometimes it goes to my parents. Sometimes the message can contain valid stuff, sometimes the messages can contain solution to some hard problem, sometimes sexual suggestions and sometimes crying back my old girlfriends. Even if it ended up to my mother.

Forget about thermal noise or quantum phenomena. Beer and vodka makes everything truly random!

Re:Fast Reply (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218364)

I suppose this is one of those random moments for you.

Funny, though, how you somehow found the wherewithal to check the "Post Anonymously" option before hitting Submit.

Re:Fast Reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218522)

After the last weeks disaster on Facebook, I wouldn't call posting on Slashdot much of a problem. Those were some bad mornings to wake up to.

Btw, I like shemales.

Re:Fast Reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218394)

Hey, Cain. Welcome to /.

(Although, questions about Libya don't really qualify as "hard problems".)

Re:Fast Reply (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38224146)

"Subject had a three e-mail conversation with mailer daemon. Subject was subsequently flagged for alcoholism and/or mental instability."

Re:Fast Reply (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217834)

I find replying to those people slow, because I go into full on uptight mode and agonize over every paragraph.

My friends: "yeah we did that in the branch.. lemme know if it doesn't make sense!"

Re:Fast Reply (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217850)

Damn slashdot!

* My friends: "yeah we did that in the <whatever> branch.. lemme know if it doesn't make sense!"

Re:Fast Reply (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218058)

Let me guess... it's always a local branch, and they can't push it right now because "some details need to be fixed first", right?

Re:Fast Reply (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218060)

Obligatory Why some emails go unanswered [theoatmeal.com]

Re:Fast Reply (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218416)

I'd tend to agree. Friends are usually important, work is usually urgent. Work gets a quick reply, friends get a longer more thoughtful reply. You'd need to take message length into account for this to work. I'll often put off replying to friends until I have enough time to write something longer, while colleagues get a quick 'yes, that looks fine' within a couple of minutes.

Re:Fast Reply (1)

kmoser (1469707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223510)

Fastest reply always goes to the person who gets "first post".

10 free wordpress themes (-1, Redundant)

danty00 (2518656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217770)

Responsive web design is the future of the web. All these WordPress themes are optimized for handheld and mobile devices (resize the windows and you will see)Don’t stop thinking about to subscribe to the blog. http://funnyphones.net/?p=635 [funnyphones.net]

Is this an article from 2005? (5, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217782)

I don't communicate with friends via email.

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217832)

Business = email
Friends = IM

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (2)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217944)

Yea, but this article was about how good your friends are based on you're email response time. With the exception of work, email is mostly how I reset passwords.

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (3, Funny)

ebombme (1092605) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218096)

Evidently I am extremely close friends with someone named HawtTexasRedheads.com...

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218730)

http://HawtTexasRedheads.com [hawttexasredheads.com]

That's not fair. I'm up for some redheads, and all you give me is a non-existing domain.

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226444)

So it is all your's to develop.
Next step... PROFIT!!!!!!!

You mean 1995! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218152)

ICQ launched in 1996!

E-Mail... next they be tellin' us about how "Ye horse-mounted letter carriers doth uncovereth thine royal household, verily!".

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (2)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218896)

Sure you do, you just do it on Facebook. It's the same goddamn thing, but with even less privacy.

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38220038)

Or it's relevant to people who were born before 2005. Most people I know who have friends and close relatives who are physically distant (100's or 1000's of miles) use e-mail. OK, I'm 60, but most of the people whom I describe are decades younger than that.

Most of us would prefer to trust e-mail than Facebook. Is that so wrong?

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38220436)

I guess you and I will never be friends then.

Do you have a professional vocation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38221450)

Do you communicate with business or work colleagues via email? Is there overlap?

For professionals, the distinction is often blurry or nonexistent.

People use multiple means of communication. Get over yourself.

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38221868)

I have friends who love e-mails and hates IMs/chatting in real time. :(

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (1)

itwbennett (1594911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225402)

My thoughts exactly. Email is so 5-10 years ago. If I'm communicating only with people who are in their 40s, then maybe this study has some merit. But anyone in their 20s is using facebook (incl facebook chat) or texting. And folks on the other end of the age spectrum are probably using the phone.

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (2)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225638)

Yeah, my friends and I are old farts (over 35) and love e-mails too. Funny, we don't like IMs and real-time chats. We use e-mails as IMs! :(

Re:Is this an article from 2005? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38224322)

and more-ever a lot of people don't check their mails that often, i check my personal mail 1 or 2 times per week... if i need to contact my friends it'll be by phone...

Not entirely believable (1)

Wamoc (1263324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217788)

I am sure that instances like going on vacation can skew the hierarchy. If you often go for a few days without email access it will easily mess up how quickly you reply to various emails.

Re:Not entirely believable (1)

dmmiller2k (414630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218406)

Indeed, those Out-Of-Office emails go out pretty much immediately.

Re:Not entirely believable (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218620)

I only check my personal email every few days at the most, and I get little email; it's mostly IM and phone calls. Email was great before everybody had text phones and free calling. My work email, otoh, is open all the time. But I don't work with my friends.

This why.. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217800)

Facebook would like me to offer them up my email addresses so they can helpfully locate my friends on Facebook.

Cold day in Hell when I agree to that.

Re:This why.. (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218014)

My latest social networking invention, Hermitbook, protects against social analysis like this by not allowing messaging.

Re:This why.. (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218086)

You forgot the link: Hermitbook [1112.net]

How wired are they? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217826)

Seems to me this only lets you know how wired a correspondent is. My acquaintance X answers me much faster than my good friend Y because all of X's mail goes to his phone and Y doesn't get to check their email until the evening when they get home.

Re:How wired are they? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217910)

Statistics is pretty good at determining relationships between variables - and lack thereof.

Re:How wired are they? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218004)

Statistics is pretty good at determining relationships between variables - and lack thereof.

Why let lack of relationship between variables stand in your way?

You could suggest to people who should be their friends.

and people who want to be your friends could always boost their visibility with easy payments.

Re:How wired are they? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218104)

Sounds like a great idea! And - you can be my friend for just 2,000,000 silver coins, or 10 gold ones...

Re:How wired are they? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218538)

Well, I only have a small bag with me, so 10 gold it is!

Re:How wired are they? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218256)

Seems to me this only lets you know how wired a correspondent is. My acquaintance X answers me much faster than my good friend Y because all of X's mail goes to his phone and Y doesn't get to check their email until the evening when they get home.

The theory is that acquaintance X would answer everyone faster than acquaintance Y, not just you. Basically, regardless of how fast someone responds on average they're still going to have some people they respond to sooner and some they respond to later.

Re:How wired are they? (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218398)

That doesn't include the other side of the coin.

I have (actually, this isn't a hypothetical) two friends that I consider to be equally good friends. One will generally respond to emails within an hour, the other may take anywhere from seconds to weeks.

Individually, those are typical behaviours from them; one checks email regularly and one considers it rather secondary to life in general.

Now, as a result of *their* standard emailing behaviour, my behaviour towards them regarding email has changed. I often wait a few days to respond to Neverchecks, whereas I'll make a distinct effort to respond quickly to Emailonphone.

However, if either of them were to call me, show up at my door, or if I'm looking for someone to hang out with they get identical treatment because they are equally good friends.

To get a full picture of my friends from email alone would require not just analyzing my email, but every one of my friends' email as well.

Who does this? (0)

Pionar (620916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217840)

With texting and social networking sites, who actually emails their friends anymore? Everyone I know only uses email for work. Although I'd assume that the same would apply to those media as well.

Re:Who does this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217878)

You sound young. Get lost n00b.

Re:Who does this? (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218064)

With texting and social networking sites, who actually emails their friends anymore? Everyone I know only uses email for work. Although I'd assume that the same would apply to those media as well.

With the telephone and spending time with someone face-to-face, who actually uses the computer to communicate with their friends anymore? Everyone I know uses text-based electronic means to avoid talking to their "friends"...

Seriously, I use electronic means to communicate with my real friends for a couple of things- to figure out where/when to see them, and to share things that are of mutual interest. If I don't see them in person or at least engage in an interactive discussion using my voice with them then I have a difficult time referring to them as friends. On a related note, I've been in a fandom-oriented social club for almost 20 years, and we meet in person every other week. We have a mailing list, but it's for, again, deciding things or bringing things to the group's attention that then get discussed at meetings. This club has met every other week since 1975 when it was founded, in large part because meeting face to face helps bind the group together better.

Re:Who does this? (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218926)

Do you not realize that most of this is simply because you guys are all older people (at least the original members) and are used to communicating this way? There's nothing personal and awesome about asking someone if they're coming home for dinner tonight. It's just trivial efficiency-related chit-chat and I'd rather you text it to me than having to take a call (which may deduce call minutes, which doesn't happen with Internet-based texting) and stop whatever I'm doing at the time, pick up the phone, engage into two minutes of prelude and prologue conversation (that I would've talked to you about anyway at dinner or the next one) and then hang up and resume what I'm doing.

What if I'm on a bus and don't want to be annoying? What if YOU are annoying and I don't want the guy next to me to hear our conversation on said bus? Email and SMS becomes much more useful then.

I'm not saying all communications should be replaced by non-face-to-face communication. You do realize that being on the phone with someone is impersonal just like texting them, right? Sure you hear their voice, but you aren't anywhere near them and cannot really engage in physical social activities (in b4 "but phone sex!" joke). You could've had the same argument about the phone when it was invented, and look where we are today...

Same with Facebook really, is it that bad that people use that as a medium to reach people and talk to them? They're people that they may not have invented to their houses otherwise; is it really worse to talk to them over a website than to not talk to them at all?

I just feel like we keep hearing one side of an argument that just doesn't hold up. In the end it seems more of a matter of preference than anything else, and I have a hard time really believing the whole "SMS is bad cause you don't have real friends" shit after hearing it for so long (not that your post was implying this).

Re:Who does this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38221588)

It's not because you don't have real friends, it's because the idea that one medium of communication is superior is bullshit (pardon my language).

Professional contacts often can't be done over texts, because of the paper trail involved. Facebook is similarly problematic, along with a bunch of other reasons. This all the "I use email for work" posts.

"But," you say, "I use texts, FB for friends!" Well, if you're a professional, the line between friends and work gets really blurry, really fast. It's just easier to email them than go to something else. There's no way in hell I'd entrust my professional correspondence to FB, and because my friends and colleagues are often one and the same, it's extra time.

I totally get the texting in public thing. But some of us don't want to pay for texts, and can't get everyone to use GTalk or whatever because people are too busy SMSing. I'd rather save that money for faster, more nuanced, personal conversation on the phone.

With regard to your post about "trivial efficiency-related chit-chat"--you've just dug your own grave in trying to assert it's not related to the quality of relationships. You've just said you'd rather text because you can't be bothered with them. People I care about, I want to talk to them. It's easier and faster, and conveys more information. I want to hear my wife's voice, I want to joke with her.

And yes, all of this has been around for a long, long, long time. SMS has been around for a long time. Before SMS and messaging there was IRC. So texting, messaging is nothing new or younger. It's just on your phone, and even that isn't new.

What I'm saying, is that what's stupid isn't phoning or emailing or texting in particular, it's the ridiculous idea that one means of communication is better than another.

You're right--it is a matter of preference. So deal with it and stop acting superior because you like to text.

Re:Who does this? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38224108)

Do you not realize that most of this is simply because you guys are all older people (at least the original members) and are used to communicating this way?

Your argument fails on account of there being only one or two founding members of the group left, and their not being terribly active anymore. The longest-continually-active member joined in about 1980, and he's actually the one who maintains the listserv. I'm in my thirties so I grew up with BBSes and other textual means of communication, and many of the members are computing professionals and are well used to text as a means of communication. Arguably, most of the active members of the club have been in the club less than fifteen years, some less than five, and we still don't use text as our primary means of communication. Yes, most of the original members have moved on, but generally people join and either let their membership lapse at the first time they'd renew, or else they remain members for years and years, even if they don't show up to every meeting.

Re:Who does this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226052)

Right, I did put in parens that this might have changed, and thanksfully I produced another page of argument explaining my point about text != impersonal. Meetings are simply more productive in person, it's not surprising that you guys don't debate over mailing lists. I think you'd find that a Skype conference would work fine for times where meeting wouldn't be possible.

Re:Who does this? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38232448)

But the point of it is that this is a social club, and if we're not going to meet up to do whatever activity we decided upon and happen to have a business meeting along with, why are we even a group?

Re:Who does this? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218274)

Everyone I know has social networking sites adblocked away. Neither does any of my friends use Twitter. I haven't received a SMS from other sources than the bank, phone company and marketing scum in years as well. The only person I know who uses IM is my sister, but she's a 28 years old kid (with kids of her own but hey).

It might be a generational thing, but at least for me email is an important medium.

Re:Who does this? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218328)

With texting and social networking sites, who actually emails their friends anymore?

You do realize that communicating via Text, IM or Social Networking is basically the same thing as email - right?

email? (1)

Tyrannosaur (2485772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217866)

Who emails their friends? I use different methods of communication...

Re:email? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218122)

Old farts like me.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:email? (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218168)

If I want to send a link- or something that they may need to reference back to I send an e-mail.

If it is a casual comment- that they won't need to ref back to I send a text.

Other services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217872)

E-mail is so 2003. Though I suppose the same would apply to facebook/twitter/blog coments/sms/im today.

Re:Other services (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218148)

Maybe. On the other hand, at some point, the rush to make one's connections instant may peak, and reverse.

Email is a bit less urgent in nature - one tends to think a bit more than a tweet, FB post or IM. And, for me, at least, I don't feel like I'm blowing someone off if I don't respond immediately to an email; far less so with the other types of electronic communications.

yuVo Fail It? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38217874)

Our chanceFs

My friends don't send me emails (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217946)

My friends know my phone number, twitter account and other contact information. They don't send me emails.

Re:My friends don't send me emails (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218116)

My friends know my phone number, twitter account and other contact information. They don't send me emails.

My friends see me in person.

Re:My friends don't send me emails (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218212)

Ha! Ha! You have social interaction.

Re:My friends don't send me emails (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218426)

Social interaction is the best time to get pizza and stay up way too late playing D20 and other board games.

Re:My friends don't send me emails (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218972)

And I'm willing to bet that his friends do too, on top of having even more social contacts on other mediums.

Doesn't seem so bad when you put it like it really is, does it?

Re:My friends don't send me emails (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218536)

I was going to say the same thing. I talk to my friends mostly over text or phone, with a few messages on Facebook, and of course in person. In fact, I can even count on 1 hand the number of emails I've sent to my girlfriend. With me, odds are the more emails I have with you, you are more likely to be simply an acquaintance or some type of non-friendship relationship. I find emails to be rather impersonal, so I don't like to use them unless it is urgent/important or I need a record of the conversation in some way. I guess this is partly why I do not like to leave voice mails as well; if I'm calling you, it's probably about something that can't be conveyed in a 30 second message.

Re:My friends don't send me emails (1)

renedox (866133) | more than 2 years ago | (#38219946)

My friends and I communicate by email almost every work day - it is far easier than starting a group chat over IM.

But... (2)

pahles (701275) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217948)

why would you let somebody else peek at your email? It's not strange they found relationships if they examined *all* the email data of some firm. I hope they had permission to do so... Okay, the email you send as an employee is property of the employer, but still...

Uh-huh... (4, Funny)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38217968)

My boss and other superiors must be my best friends in that case.

Re:Uh-huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218304)

Yes, they are, when they have the power to fire you and ruin your career if you don't MAKE them your best friend :P

Not about email (4, Interesting)

cshake (736412) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218108)

Mixed-mode communication completely breaks this:
When I get a really long email from a friend or family member asking a question that would take longer to write out than to explain over the phone, I'll wait until I'm free and then give them a call. I guess that means from an email perspective that I hate them and never reply.
Or what about various organization mailing lists where you reply to the sender with a new email instead of sending something to the whole list?

Of course this is all irrelevant because this study isn't really intended for emails, despite how they report it - it's for social networking sites with embedded messaging systems to be able to mine more data about you, so they can show you ads that your "closer" friends have clicked on in addition to matching with your profile items, so they can charge more for ads.

Re:Not about email (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218472)

I was thinking more along the lines of: One of my parents sends me a hundred emails a day (spam/jokes/annoyance) and I might respond to one a month, but my friend sends me maybe one a month and I respond to most of his, but I wouldn't say he was closer than my parent.

tumbleweed.jpb (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218138)

There needs to be an 'obvious' moderation option. Did anyone seriously not know this already?

Best friend is not always the fastest response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218156)

I responded to an email that the police sent to me -- perhaps the quickest of them all. Especially in this case; they are NOT my friend. (They are refusing to communicate with me, and refusing to investigate the death of my daughter. Asking a question about how to report other crimes at the same time: Response "I'm not going to divulge every aspect of the investigation to you" after three weeks of waiting.)

Re:Best friend is not always the fastest response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38219350)

Since one else has said it yet, let me be the first it.

My condolences- I'm very sorry for your loss.

It is a terrible burden for a parent to outlive their child.

 

Too bad... (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218164)

Too bad I never communicate with friends via email. Hell, I hardly communicate with anyone via email, except for work. This seems both obvious and completely pointless. Obvious that you're going to reply to people you like faster than others, and completely pointless in that I don't know anyone who does all of their conversing through email.

What about money? (1)

edibobb (113989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218500)

I'll respond to (1) and email in which I can make money (Income related, Nigerians in dire straits, etc.), (2) easy-to-answer emails, and (3) all others. I apparently have no friends.

Re:What about money? (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38219586)

I'll respond to (1) and email in which I can make money (Income related, Nigerians in dire straits, etc.), (2) easy-to-answer emails, and (3) all others. I apparently have no friends.

I doubt that will last for much longer. If you're replying to Nigerians with deceased relatives I'm sure you'll soon have lots of friends.

Gee such a relevation, I wonder if phone calls... (1)

neurocutie (677249) | more than 2 years ago | (#38218656)

Really? the timing and frequency with which you communicate tells you something about your closeness to friends and associates... really?
Perhaps who you call and calls you, and how often and how long...

this counts as news? Investigative Research 101?

pffft. duhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38218670)

Money was spent on this study?

Grammatical error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38220072)

"the time it takes for a sender to respond to e-mails from different contacts"

You mean "the time it takes for a recipient to respond..."

Friends? (1)

32771 (906153) | more than 2 years ago | (#38220286)

That is odd, the people I have the most persistent email exchange with are the ones whose ideas are the most different from my own. I just love the challenge. Also they can put up with some partial disagreement from my side.

I have other friends that I don't need to talk to because we don't have much to fight about. I suppose I'm different.

Wouldn't work for me... (1)

bratwiz (635601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38221700)

This technique wouldn't work on me. I answer emails according to how much time the answer is likely to take. If it's going to take a while, I always put it off until later. If it's a one word or couple of words answer, chances are good you'll get a response right away.

been there, done that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222374)

http://www.spoke.com/ - we really *do* read your email (headers, at least). When we were first bringing the service online, we figured out many heuristics for measuring closeness, as well as other attributes of a social connection, all based upon publicly available email information.

I've been telling people I know for a couple years now - Google has the biggest, most information-rich social graph on the planet. Which is why I don't use gmail unless I am forced to by an employer.

Works for phones, too. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223264)

Someone did that decades ago at Harvard, when they first got an electronic phone switch which logged internal calls. They were able to construct an organization chart of the university from the phone traffic. How fast someone called back after a message was left was a key indicator.

In a small world, maybe. (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 2 years ago | (#38224580)

Most of my friends are in one time zone, my relatives in yet another, my colleagues in several others. Response times are laregly governed by who's asleep.

Social Network Analysis for Beginners (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225438)

Honestly, we designed such stuff in classes at university. And yes you can do such things with e-mails and every other form of communication. Nice are also analyzes of mailing lists of OSS projects, you can determine the group structure and it works for alumni networks. You can do this with icq logs (oh it has already been done). Ask Google if you want to know what they can find in your e-mail.

BTW: All such methods, however, rely on a model on human behavior. If your subjects fail to confirm to that model you get wrong results. But that is nothing new to empirical science.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?