# Statistical Analysis of Markdown Usage?

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/statistical-analysis-of-markdown-usage/462>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [September 7, 2014, 7:07am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/statistical-analysis-of-markdown-usage/462 "2014-09-07T07:07:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rwzy](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/r/3d9bf3/32.png) [@rwzy](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/rwzy)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 7:24am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/statistical-analysis-of-markdown-usage/462/2 "2014-09-07T07:24:38Z")

</div>

This would exclude the many who use it not just on websites, but for personal offline documents too. I think any analysis should be on _implementations_ rather than across websites, because it’s difficult/near impossible to gauge popularity of offline usage. Nevertheless, there could still be meaning in analysis across websites as that might dictate/relate to how markdown is used offline.

Either way, removing underscores is likely not going to happen. Markdown usually wants to use what’s already being used, and underscores as a means of emphasis is still common. But I do understand that’s not exactly the point here.

John’s [babelmark2](http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/faq.html) is probably related here.  
See also: [Tables vs fenced code blocks, when is something “common”?](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/tables-vs-fenced-code-blocks-when-is-something-common/411)

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/statistical-analysis-of-markdown-usage/462)._