I’m sorry to say that it does indeed entail that a the frequency with which the plural of ‘point of contact’ is written (and spoken) as ‘point of contacts) is sufficient for it to constitute legitimate usage. I write that holding my nose, but I have to accept the fact of ‘demolinguism’ (that at some point how the general public use the language determines its rules: grammarians follow the demos!
But there is a good ‘metagrammatical’ question here: in fact, there are two.
- Is English language usage determined by the sheer numbers of instances regardless of whether or not the instance is produced by a
native speaker of English?
A significant proportion of the English used across the internet must surely be by non-native users. Certainly that is true of our ELU. It is likely that the UNESCO material includes much more non-native than native writers of English. Should we then discount UNESCO examples? Who should decide? As I say, an interesting question to which the answer is far from self evident.
- Should every native utterance of English, including those of the careless, the lazy and the ignorant (however you identify these!), should count equally in determining standard English usage.
My grumpy-old-man gut tells me to cry out “no, never!”. Surely it should be ‘points of contact’: In the same way, if we turn ‘contact’ into a virtual adjective, we have to say ‘contact points. But the logic of my commitment to the evolution of language by natural selection tells me I cannot object to millions: that’s how ‘demolinguism’ works.