Talk:frecency

RFV discussion — passed

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Equinox ◑ 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3, it is mentioned in online reviews of Firefox 3 by the mainstream press, and thus is likely in print as well for those sites such as PCMagazine's that correspond to a print publication. Doubtful it'll ever get used beyond this narrow field of use though, but who knows? Possibly troublesome to get three durable cites, but I'm fairly certain it meets CFI, tho barely. — Carolina wren discussió 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly cited. Please take a look, let me know what you think. (BTW, as Carolina wren says, it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3. So, I don't know how I feel about this; if it were a Microsoft-ism, I'd be clamoring for its deletion …) —Ruakh_TALK 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Two of the citations are very poor because the word appears in quotation marks, suggesting that they need to define it: this is bordering on mention rather than usage. The third looks okay, but is very recent (don't we need to span a year?). As you suggest, there are always plenty of Microsoft buzzwords (I believe the new Internet Explorer 8 has a few) that might be comparable, and comparably "unkeepable". I feel we should move the citations to that special page and ditch the entry until (and unless — which may not happen) it really catches on. Web buzzwords are two a penny. Equinox ◑ 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: needing to span a year: yeah, that's why I added the very recent cite. The term is only about a year old, so it doesn't span a year unless it reaches the present. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind quotation marks so much. Even though a term is awkwardly set aside as such, it can be a structural part of the sentence. However, the citation

a feature called "frecency"

in particular is very weak indeed. DAVilla 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good point. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

O.K., I've added a new cite (from late May). Please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)