[uf-discuss] hReview feedback

[Paul Bryson]

Froogle.Google.com:
<a href="/froogle/reviews?cid=fea516c1c02389cb">
 <img src="gstar-on.gif">
 <img src="gstar-on.gif">
 <img src="gstar-on.gif">
 <img src="gstar-half.gif">
 <img src="star-off.gif">
</a>
<a href="/froogle/reviews?cid=fea516c1c02389cb">
 <nobr>445&nbsp;merchant&nbsp;ratings</nobr>
</a>



"Paul Bryson" <paul at msn.com> wrote in message 
news:dq93ah$8hb$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> "Ryan King" wrote...
> On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Paul Bryson wrote:
>>> Good question.  I believe I've seen it said, but not without looking
>>> extraneous.  Maybe a bigger question would be, "if there were a way to
>>> provide this information, would people use it?"
>>
>> That's a very good question and I think the way to answer it is to go 
>> back to my previous question– do people state the lower bound for 
>> ratings? Do they say "I give this a 3 on a scale from 0 to 10  foobars"? 
>> Or do they just say "I give this 3 out of 10 foobars"?
>>
>> I would suggest that the latter is overwhelming more common than the 
>> former. If you can show a number of examples of the former, though,  I'd 
>> be more than willing to recant.
>
> I would suggest that neither is used.  The vast majority of reviews on the 
> web exist in sites like Amazon.com and IMDB.com.  In these, users write 
> reviews and rate the item based on some numerical system, but they 
> typically don't state in the text what that rating is.  And in most cases, 
> the rated value is listed as only an image, with no numerical value 
> attached.  (IMDB lists an average and upper bound for the aggregate of 
> reviews, but not individual reviews)
>
> Newegg.com applies a title to a span that contains a number of images.
>
> Amazon.com:
> <img src="stars-2-0.gif" />
>
> IMDB.com average:
> <a href="/title/tt0133093/ratings">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="goldstar.gif" alt="*">
>    <img src="greystar.gif" alt="_">
> </a>
> <b>8.5/10</b> (165,742 votes)
>
> IMDB.com user:
> <img alt="8/10" src="80.gif">
>
> Newegg.com average:
> <a>
>    <img src="goldEgg.gif" alt="Rating + 5" title="Rating + 5">
>    <img src="goldEgg.gif" alt="Rating + 5" title="Rating + 5">
>    <img src="goldEgg.gif" alt="Rating + 5" title="Rating + 5">
>    <img src="goldEgg.gif" alt="Rating + 5" title="Rating + 5">
>    <img src="goldEgg.gif" alt="Rating + 5" title="Rating + 5">
> </a>
> [<a href="">280 reviews</a>]
>
> Newegg.com user:
> <span title="Rating + 4">
>    <img src="goldegg.gif" />
>    <img src="goldegg.gif" />
>    <img src="goldegg.gif" />
>    <img src="goldegg.gif" />
>    <img src="whiteegg.gif" />
> </span>
>
>> Yeah, AFAICT, there's no commonly used format for ranges used on the  web 
>> (or elsewhere, for that matter), so we have little prior art in  terms of 
>> previous formats. However, we still have prior art in terms  of examples 
>> of emergent human behavior on the web.
>
> On the web, no.  Elsewhere?  Most certainly.  I think staticians would be 
> a little frustrated if they didn't have a common way to share information. 
> Now if that way is useful to us is something entirely different.
>
>
> Atamido