[uf-discuss] hReview feedback
jpanzer at aol.net
Fri Jan 20 14:55:24 PST 2006
Benjamin Carlyle wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:13 -0600, Paul Bryson wrote:
>>"Ryan King" wrote...
>>>On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Paul Bryson wrote:
>>>>A good portion of the numerical ratings on the internet are aggregates
>>>>many people voting, usually without their own detailed reviews, so
>>>>float value for the rating would be pretty likely.
>>>I think this missed the point. Its those individual votes which are
>>>candidates for hreview, not the aggregate data.
>>I would have thought that they would both be canidates. One is as common as
>>the other, and there is so much overlap that it seems wasteful to me to
>>ignore aggregate data.
>I think it may be especially important to be able to mark up aggregate
>ratings as well as individual ratings, given that the aggregate may be
>of data not available to the web as individual ratings (think Amazon).
>It does seem likely, however, that the hReview format as written is not
>a good match to aggregates. It is designed to include text descriptions
>as well as a simle rating.
It allows for text descriptions but doesn't mandate them; this seems to
me to be a pretty good fit -- consider that it's perfectly reasonable
for even an aggregator to include snippets of individual reviews. (I
can even imagine a cool web service that does some textual and numerical
analysis to provide a representative sampling of the underlying reviews
or quotes from same, saving you from having to wade through 90 reviews
that all say basically the same thing...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the microformats-discuss