3 ms·

You’re talking about literally billions of people, not “occasional edge cases”.

lmm 3y ago
How do you figure that? Billions of people would mean over 10% of the world population having exceptional names, which seems very implausible.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  They aren’t exceptional names, that’s my whole point. They are just unfamiliar to you.
  - lmm 3y ago
    I don't know what you imagine I'm unfamiliar with (and you're probably wrong, but never mind that), but familiar or not, it's quite easy to handle the unexceptional cases, almost by definition.
- Scarblac 3y ago
  It's not implausible if you consider that you're taking a rule that usually but not always works in the US and try to apply it to the whole world.
- pmontra 3y ago
  In way you are right. From the global point of view the exceptional case is the American one, Name Middle Family. It's about 330 M people vs 8 billions, 4%, which is less than 10%. But then you add the exceptional cases for every country or culture. From the other comments we already know that even in Western Europe there are many differences. So if you sum all those exceptional cases you get the 100% of the world population. Edit: 330 M, typo was 353 M.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > From the global point of view the exceptional case is the American one, Name Middle Family. That’s not really “American”. Most other Anglophone countries are mostly the same. Maybe it should be called “Anglophone” not “American”? To a certain extent, even “West European” There are some subtle differences - my impression is the US is more accepting of generational suffixes (Jr, III, etc) than Australia is, for instance. But the overall structure “Given [Middle…] Surname” is shared
    - freddie_mercury 3y ago
      Is it really true that most Anglophone countries are the same? Is that how they do it in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines, Jamaica, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Botswana, Ghana, South Africa, and Fiji? There are a lot more Anglophone countries than just the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.
      - skissane 3y ago
        I think we should distinguish between (1) traditional English naming practices, and Anglophone countries which have inherited those from England, and (2) countries with a majority non-European cultural background which have adopted the English language, but some or many of whose naming practices derive from that non-European cultural background. When I said "Anglophone", I was really talking about (1) not (2). Maybe I should have said "Anglosphere". But, I don't actually know to what extent majority non-European Anglophone countries ("Anglophone but not Anglosphere") take their naming practices from England vs from their non-European culture(s); quite possibly, for some of them, much of their naming practices are derived from English/British culture not their non-European culture(s), and hence in terms of "First Middle Last" may be indistinguishable from (1).
    - numpad0 3y ago
      > Most other Anglophone countries are mostly the same. I don't have any French or German or Polish friends to verify but this is so demonstably false just by reading some of comments here. Name Middle Family is clearly at most American.
- jmopp 3y ago
  ...yes? Have you looked at Indian names? Or Indonesian names? Or Ethiopian names
  - lmm 3y ago
    Yes. The vast majority of them follow a small number of simple patterns, and it's really not that hard to find a heuristic that interprets them with high accuracy.
    - jmopp 3y ago
      The prime minister of Ethiopia is Abiy Ahmed. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he was referred to as Mr Abiy, which is his given name. Ahmed is his father's name, and it would be incorrect to refer to him as Mr Ahmed. Likewise, many Tamil people often have a first name and a patronymic, which may just be referred to with an initial. Example: S. Ramanujan. Ramanujan is his given name, Srinivasa is his father's name. In Indonesia, the government doesn't have a notion of first and last names. If you have a surname it's interpreted by the government as your family having a tradition of adding the family name to the end (or beginning) of your name. Similarly in India you can have surnames, clan names, caste names, patronymics, or mononyms. Trying to divide a name up into its parts is a fool's errand: Much easier to simply ask, what is your full name and what is your preferred name.
    - pharrington 3y ago
      What everyone is saying is that you do less work, use 0 heuristics and guess absolutely nothing, to get 100% accuracy.
      - lmm 3y ago
        100% accuracy but a substantially worse UX for the overwhelming majority of users. A heuristic doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
        pharrington 3y ago
        You say the heuristic is simple. Would you mind writing out the heuristic you have in mind for deriving "name you'd want to be called" from "official name for administrative purposes"/"full name"?

lmm 3y ago

How do you figure that? Billions of people would mean over 10% of the world population having exceptional names, which seems very implausible.

JimDabell 3y ago
They aren’t exceptional names, that’s my whole point. They are just unfamiliar to you.
- lmm 3y ago
  I don't know what you imagine I'm unfamiliar with (and you're probably wrong, but never mind that), but familiar or not, it's quite easy to handle the unexceptional cases, almost by definition.
Scarblac 3y ago
It's not implausible if you consider that you're taking a rule that usually but not always works in the US and try to apply it to the whole world.
pmontra 3y ago
In way you are right. From the global point of view the exceptional case is the American one, Name Middle Family. It's about 330 M people vs 8 billions, 4%, which is less than 10%. But then you add the exceptional cases for every country or culture. From the other comments we already know that even in Western Europe there are many differences. So if you sum all those exceptional cases you get the 100% of the world population. Edit: 330 M, typo was 353 M.
- skissane 3y ago
  > From the global point of view the exceptional case is the American one, Name Middle Family. That’s not really “American”. Most other Anglophone countries are mostly the same. Maybe it should be called “Anglophone” not “American”? To a certain extent, even “West European” There are some subtle differences - my impression is the US is more accepting of generational suffixes (Jr, III, etc) than Australia is, for instance. But the overall structure “Given [Middle…] Surname” is shared
  - freddie_mercury 3y ago
    Is it really true that most Anglophone countries are the same? Is that how they do it in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines, Jamaica, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Botswana, Ghana, South Africa, and Fiji? There are a lot more Anglophone countries than just the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.
    - skissane 3y ago
      I think we should distinguish between (1) traditional English naming practices, and Anglophone countries which have inherited those from England, and (2) countries with a majority non-European cultural background which have adopted the English language, but some or many of whose naming practices derive from that non-European cultural background. When I said "Anglophone", I was really talking about (1) not (2). Maybe I should have said "Anglosphere". But, I don't actually know to what extent majority non-European Anglophone countries ("Anglophone but not Anglosphere") take their naming practices from England vs from their non-European culture(s); quite possibly, for some of them, much of their naming practices are derived from English/British culture not their non-European culture(s), and hence in terms of "First Middle Last" may be indistinguishable from (1).
  - numpad0 3y ago
    > Most other Anglophone countries are mostly the same. I don't have any French or German or Polish friends to verify but this is so demonstably false just by reading some of comments here. Name Middle Family is clearly at most American.
jmopp 3y ago
...yes? Have you looked at Indian names? Or Indonesian names? Or Ethiopian names
- lmm 3y ago
  Yes. The vast majority of them follow a small number of simple patterns, and it's really not that hard to find a heuristic that interprets them with high accuracy.
  - jmopp 3y ago
    The prime minister of Ethiopia is Abiy Ahmed. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he was referred to as Mr Abiy, which is his given name. Ahmed is his father's name, and it would be incorrect to refer to him as Mr Ahmed. Likewise, many Tamil people often have a first name and a patronymic, which may just be referred to with an initial. Example: S. Ramanujan. Ramanujan is his given name, Srinivasa is his father's name. In Indonesia, the government doesn't have a notion of first and last names. If you have a surname it's interpreted by the government as your family having a tradition of adding the family name to the end (or beginning) of your name. Similarly in India you can have surnames, clan names, caste names, patronymics, or mononyms. Trying to divide a name up into its parts is a fool's errand: Much easier to simply ask, what is your full name and what is your preferred name.
  - pharrington 3y ago
    What everyone is saying is that you do less work, use 0 heuristics and guess absolutely nothing, to get 100% accuracy.
    - lmm 3y ago
      100% accuracy but a substantially worse UX for the overwhelming majority of users. A heuristic doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
      - pharrington 3y ago
        You say the heuristic is simple. Would you mind writing out the heuristic you have in mind for deriving "name you'd want to be called" from "official name for administrative purposes"/"full name"?