FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Scotland

Data nerds - 6 degrees of sexual separation?

Jump to newest
 

By *eliciouslySalacious OP   Couple
over a year ago

Glasgow

Have you ever wondered whether Fab's big enough to satisfy the 6 degrees of sexual separation?

I wanted a wee coding challenge to fill a day off work, so I wrote a program to try to calculate how connected we are. The design is pretty simple - it starts at our page and follows all our verification links, and their verification links, and their verification links and so on... to see how many different folk we're sexually connected to and how far removed. I could have gone with friend lists rather than verifications but verifications seemed like a more legitimate record of connection.

From the set of verifications on one page, just following account links the program hadn't seen before (so no clicking on the same account twice ever), the program was able to reach 101,313 unique accounts .

A bit more breakdown showed the following:

Total number of accounts in the subset: 101,313

Breakdown of account type:

+--------------------+---------+---------------+

| accountType --- | - Total | Percentage |

+--------------------+---------+---------------+

| Man ------------- | 53,620 | --- 52.9251 |

| Couple ---------- | 29,913 | --- 29.5253 |

| Woman --------- | 13,370 | --- 13.1967 |

| TV/TS ---------- | -- 3,960 | --- 03.9087 |

| Couple (MM) -- | ---- 361 | --- 00.3563 |

| Couple (FF) --- | ------ 89 | --- 00.0878 |

+--------------------+----------+----------------+

(Just to emphasise, this may not be representative of the whole site, it's only the network of verifications of people who've verified people who've at some point verified us. That might be a tiny subset of the whole site.)

Total displayed verifications: 528,833

Meeting type:

+----------------------+------------+----------------+

| meetingType ----- | Total --- | Percentage |

+----------------------+------------+----------------+

| Meeting in person | 498,884 | ---- 94.3368 |

| Webcam ---------- | -- 27,449 | ---- 05.1905 |

| Phone ------------- | --- 2,500 | ---- 00.4727 |

+-----------------------+------------+----------------+

Average number of displayed verifications per account: 5.22

Highest number of displayed verifications: 612 (chapeau!)

To answer the degrees of separation question, I used Edsger Dijkstra's Shortest Path algorithm (the same one a basic SatNav might use). Sadly we're not at 6 degrees yet - the longest shortest path (greatest direct distance between two accounts) was 12 hops, so there's still a lot of shagging to be done!

Please don't be worried about any of this, no personal information was collected, nothing's stored and certainly, beyond this post, nothing's published. Nothing can be tied back to any account or anyone, I just thought it might be interesting. Also... it all might be incorrect, my coding's pretty terrible . I'm also not a statistician...

Please don't kill our account, Erin will never forgive me. The program doesn't do anything that couldn't be done automatically or even manually with a throwaway account. If anyone is worried, I'll never do anything like this again and I can delete the post.

Thanks for reading, challenge/ question my method at will. Apologies if this is woefully boring and nerdy .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ighlander80884Man
over a year ago

Inverness

Geek lol!

25% of people think that 60% of statistics are 52% useful

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *p4funduoCouple
over a year ago

Edinburgh

u have far too much time on ur hand's ....i just look at cock picks and choose one!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Interesting, personally I feel someone with your skills should be utilised by designing or improving app platforms, incredible skill you have acquired, so useful to ensure efficiency and minimise waste in these times.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *auradCouple
over a year ago

glasgow

We are not massively active on this or the fet scene but it never ceases to amaze me how, when we do manage to venture into each, the connections between them and people we meet that know each other.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have you ever wondered whether Fab's big enough to satisfy the 6 degrees of sexual separation?

I wanted a wee coding challenge to fill a day off work, so I wrote a program to try to calculate how connected we are. The design is pretty simple - it starts at our page and follows all our verification links, and their verification links, and their verification links and so on... to see how many different folk we're sexually connected to and how far removed. I could have gone with friend lists rather than verifications but verifications seemed like a more legitimate record of connection.

From the set of verifications on one page, just following account links the program hadn't seen before (so no clicking on the same account twice ever), the program was able to reach 101,313 unique accounts .

A bit more breakdown showed the following:

Total number of accounts in the subset: 101,313

Breakdown of account type:

+--------------------+---------+---------------+

| accountType --- | - Total | Percentage |

+--------------------+---------+---------------+

| Man ------------- | 53,620 | --- 52.9251 |

| Couple ---------- | 29,913 | --- 29.5253 |

| Woman --------- | 13,370 | --- 13.1967 |

| TV/TS ---------- | -- 3,960 | --- 03.9087 |

| Couple (MM) -- | ---- 361 | --- 00.3563 |

| Couple (FF) --- | ------ 89 | --- 00.0878 |

+--------------------+----------+----------------+

(Just to emphasise, this may not be representative of the whole site, it's only the network of verifications of people who've verified people who've at some point verified us. That might be a tiny subset of the whole site.)

Total displayed verifications: 528,833

Meeting type:

+----------------------+------------+----------------+

| meetingType ----- | Total --- | Percentage |

+----------------------+------------+----------------+

| Meeting in person | 498,884 | ---- 94.3368 |

| Webcam ---------- | -- 27,449 | ---- 05.1905 |

| Phone ------------- | --- 2,500 | ---- 00.4727 |

+-----------------------+------------+----------------+

Average number of displayed verifications per account: 5.22

Highest number of displayed verifications: 612 (chapeau!)

To answer the degrees of separation question, I used Edsger Dijkstra's Shortest Path algorithm (the same one a basic SatNav might use). Sadly we're not at 6 degrees yet - the longest shortest path (greatest direct distance between two accounts) was 12 hops, so there's still a lot of shagging to be done!

Please don't be worried about any of this, no personal information was collected, nothing's stored and certainly, beyond this post, nothing's published. Nothing can be tied back to any account or anyone, I just thought it might be interesting. Also... it all might be incorrect, my coding's pretty terrible . I'm also not a statistician...

Please don't kill our account, Erin will never forgive me. The program doesn't do anything that couldn't be done automatically or even manually with a throwaway account. If anyone is worried, I'll never do anything like this again and I can delete the post.

Thanks for reading, challenge/ question my method at will. Apologies if this is woefully boring and nerdy ."

Haha!! This is brilliant!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge

Now I found this rather interesting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

this is brilliant!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *earded blossomCouple
over a year ago

Glasgow

Once a geek always a geek.... Keep meaning to speak to you about something but we always seem to get side tracked haha

John

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Erm aye

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ustcutieWoman
over a year ago

edinburgh

I didn't understand any of this bit I'm s blonde hairdresser

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 06/12/15 23:05:01]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the 6 degrees can be achieved in smaller circles far more quickly than if you looked at the site as a whole. Purely because of logistics.

For example if we were to take the Scottish forum.

I reckon we could get it down to as short as 3 or 4...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *horstrollMan
over a year ago

Caprona


"I think the 6 degrees can be achieved in smaller circles far more quickly than if you looked at the site as a whole. Purely because of logistics.

For example if we were to take the Scottish forum.

I reckon we could get it down to as short as 3 or 4...

"

Or 6-8

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane and AbleCouple
over a year ago

Glasgow, southside

Really interesting. ..

It would be good to see a range of data originating from other profiles

If it were geographically plotted your could work out where in the country you're most likely to run into a swinger in the supermarket!!!

N x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndykayMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

Interesting. I wonder if admins numbers are close to yours?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ab femWoman
over a year ago

Ayrshire

Do you work for Sidney University?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do you work for Sidney University? "

If you do can. You pinch my photos. And use them for advertising purposes .everyone should get a look at. Gas

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fascinating stuff!!! I love it but you do know 132% of people exaggerate...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue4youCouple
over a year ago

Lanarkshire

You are deffinately in need of a good seeing to

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostEligibleBachelorMan
over a year ago

—


"Geek lol!

25% of people think that 60% of statistics are 52% useful "

And 74.2% of statistics found on the Internet are made up; including this one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think id like to be a few degrees of separation closer to some people on this thread haha ... Like maybe 1?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

WTF. the theory of everything hasn't got a look in. Thought men only cared about the number 69 ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliciouslySalacious OP   Couple
over a year ago

Glasgow

Thank you everyone, it was a lot of fun.


"Interesting, personally I feel someone with your skills should be utilised by designing or improving app platforms, incredible skill you have acquired, so useful to ensure efficiency and minimise waste in these times."

Sorry, I should have said , I write computer programs for a living...


"I think the 6 degrees can be achieved in smaller circles far more quickly than if you looked at the site as a whole. Purely because of logistics. For example if we were to take the Scottish forum I reckon we could get it down to as short as 3 or 4..."

Yeah, I suspect you're right. It's probably only so wide because of holiday meetups. Every time someone comes here on holiday or we go somewhere and hookup, the verification joins the two local networks and the graph could double.


"Do you work for Sydney University?"

Haha! I don't, promise! Everyone can stand down the teams of solicitors they all keep on retainer just in case .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You are deffinately in need of a good seeing to "

We'll both need to sort him out.

That hurt my brain and I'm frazzled enough without all that!

Bx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So there's only 5 men to every woman on here? that's interesting to know, people are always asking the ratio of guys to ladies on here.

Rest of the stuff idk what you're talking about, sorry, not geeky enough here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliciouslySalacious OP   Couple
over a year ago

Glasgow


"So there's only 5 men to every woman on here? that's interesting to know, people are always asking the ratio of guys to ladies on here."

Only by verification. There are 5 times as many verifications left by men than by women (in this subset). It's probably not representative of the membership ratios unless we could assume the same number of men and women proportionally meet and equally as often.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So there's only 5 men to every woman on here? that's interesting to know, people are always asking the ratio of guys to ladies on here.

Only by verification. There are 5 times as many verifications left by men than by women (in this subset). It's probably not representative of the membership ratios unless we could assume the same number of men and women proportionally meet and equally as often."

I actually understood less then i thought i did, lol.

I get what you mean now though, thanks. Plus not everyone verifies either and that would need taking into account also?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *izzabelle and well hungCouple
over a year ago

Edinburgh.


"Have you ever wondered whether Fab's big enough to satisfy the 6 degrees of sexual separation?

I wanted a wee coding challenge to fill a day off work, so I wrote a program to try to calculate how connected we are. The design is pretty simple - it starts at our page and follows all our verification links, and their verification links, and their verification links and so on... to see how many different folk we're sexually connected to and how far removed. I could have gone with friend lists rather than verifications but verifications seemed like a more legitimate record of connection.

From the set of verifications on one page, just following account links the program hadn't seen before (so no clicking on the same account twice ever), the program was able to reach 101,313 unique accounts .

A bit more breakdown showed the following:

Total number of accounts in the subset: 101,313

Breakdown of account type:

+--------------------+---------+---------------+

| accountType --- | - Total | Percentage |

+--------------------+---------+---------------+

| Man ------------- | 53,620 | --- 52.9251 |

| Couple ---------- | 29,913 | --- 29.5253 |

| Woman --------- | 13,370 | --- 13.1967 |

| TV/TS ---------- | -- 3,960 | --- 03.9087 |

| Couple (MM) -- | ---- 361 | --- 00.3563 |

| Couple (FF) --- | ------ 89 | --- 00.0878 |

+--------------------+----------+----------------+

(Just to emphasise, this may not be representative of the whole site, it's only the network of verifications of people who've verified people who've at some point verified us. That might be a tiny subset of the whole site.)

Total displayed verifications: 528,833

Meeting type:

+----------------------+------------+----------------+

| meetingType ----- | Total --- | Percentage |

+----------------------+------------+----------------+

| Meeting in person | 498,884 | ---- 94.3368 |

| Webcam ---------- | -- 27,449 | ---- 05.1905 |

| Phone ------------- | --- 2,500 | ---- 00.4727 |

+-----------------------+------------+----------------+

Average number of displayed verifications per account: 5.22

Highest number of displayed verifications: 612 (chapeau!)

To answer the degrees of separation question, I used Edsger Dijkstra's Shortest Path algorithm (the same one a basic SatNav might use). Sadly we're not at 6 degrees yet - the longest shortest path (greatest direct distance between two accounts) was 12 hops, so there's still a lot of shagging to be done!

Please don't be worried about any of this, no personal information was collected, nothing's stored and certainly, beyond this post, nothing's published. Nothing can be tied back to any account or anyone, I just thought it might be interesting. Also... it all might be incorrect, my coding's pretty terrible . I'm also not a statistician...

Please don't kill our account, Erin will never forgive me. The program doesn't do anything that couldn't be done automatically or even manually with a throwaway account. If anyone is worried, I'll never do anything like this again and I can delete the post.

Thanks for reading, challenge/ question my method at will. Apologies if this is woefully boring and nerdy ."

Utterly brilliant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliciouslySalacious OP   Couple
over a year ago

Glasgow

Someone asked about ratios of men to women on here so I thought I'd dredge this back up. I can't imagine things have changed much.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ringles0510Woman
over a year ago

Central Borders

Loved this! Makes for an interesting read

If I check single males and single females within a 5 mile radius from me it comes to 8.3 men for every female.

Not sure if this is the same in Glasgow or Edinburgh (my area is quite scarcely populated). I'll check that tomorrow, since it's past my bedtime.

Sweet dreams x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oamshrimps_BobMan
over a year ago

Babcary (ish)

Well the one thing statisticians will always tell you is that 84.326% of all statistics are made up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The closeness in connections grosses me out really.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

I met a guy on here that knew my sister in law. He nearly crashed the car. Two degrees of separation. I later discovered we have quite a few mutual friends through the fet scene.

Small world! No need for complicated algorithms.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top