Just to note that I'm having all kinds of thoughts about this page, though I'm not sure I can do any better. I've put together some of my own batshit crazy concepts, most of which ... really don't directly relate, though I think they can be built out to the point that they do, as a draft, here: User:Dredmorbius/Signal_theory.
That's probably going to be the first of several of my failed efforts.
If User:JollyOrc could give some background as to where the current set of classifications comes from, that would be helpful.
I'm mulling this and other bits and trying to figure out how to create something that's generally accurate, simple, and useful. A difficult bill to fill.
I actually pulled this out of thin air while thinking hard about this whole topic. Over the past two weeks I realized that the whole topic is at the same time fascinating and complicated, expect more general musings (audience/user types, their specific woes and feature needs, and so on). There probably won't be any one platform that will fit all those criteria, but it will give people a language to talk about what is there and what isn't. And who knows, maybe someone will take the concepts and use it to make things better. Maybe even me.. --JollyOrc (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2018 (CEST)
Every time I try to describe this, I have to basically reinvent the universe. Which takes a while and costs too much ;-)
I've made a few cuts and passes, and might be able to land on something tractable at some point. It's not that what you've given is wrong, it's not. It's made me think. I don't see it as ... complete is probably the wrong word, because completeness will be the death of this. Sufficient, diverse, and useful, may be better. But I'm wrestling with this and have been for a while (some months before all this came to a head).
Jesse Covner at the G+ RPG Escape Rocket has another couple of independent and good (though still not quite sitting fully right) takes:
- High (but basic) Level Analysis of Social Networks and the G+ Predicament. Part 1
- High (but basic) Level Analysis of Social Networks and the G+ Predicament. Part 2: We are Screwed
I'll keep thinking.
I have a related but right now (due to reasons private) document that will look at the same problem from the "who uses this and why?" point of view. Will merge the results in here too once it's done. ----JollyOrc (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2018 (CEST)
(oops, should've checked that I am logged in...)
There's also this bit, which is sort of flowery, but less dreadfully horrid than I'd feared, and which actually does manage to say much of what I've tried to about different media types (starting at about "arity", might back up a paragraph or so.
"I want a space"
Use cases is definitely a valid analysis mode.