[uf-discuss] hReview feedback

John Panzer 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 
>>>>getting a
>>>>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...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/attachments/20060120/02b3de0a/attachment.htm

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list