[uf-discuss] Microformats collection and VoteFor
svenfuchs at artweb-design.de
Mon Jun 12 15:16:50 PDT 2006
Thanks for your answer, Brian!
>> 1) spiders (requires actively searching the web, expensive)
>> 2) track/pingback (requires usage of specially crafted publishing tools)
>> 3) a form to manually enter the URL (requires additional user action)
> --- i don't think these are the only options.
You suggested to observe the referer log. Yup, I agree that should do
what the webbug does with less hassle. (Thanks for this one!)
Any other suggestions?
> The link that is what you are casting your vote for can be the item or
> represent the item. Back in 2003-2004 Technorati, as it
> indexed/spidered normally, collected links for the candidates that
> were running for US President. I don't know exactly what URIs they
> were keying off of, but i would guess that it was the official
> candidates websites and possibly their parties websites as well? (some
> one may correct me if i am wrong).
Ah, I see. This hasn't been clear to me from the wiki.
Hmm, I think in cases like this (politics/election) there might actually
be a real impact on the result when there are massively people
"voting-for" a certain candidate's website by directly linking to it.
This is IMO an interesting aspect of directly linking to the "object" of
Unfortunately (as far as I understand the specs) there's no way to
provide any additionally context or information about the voting (the
election) itself when I link directly from my (say) own blog to the
homepage of my favorite candidate. There's no way to say: "I vote for
this candidate in this election in this year in this land ..." - as long
as this isn't clear from the candidates website of course.
> You could just use your referrer log to find inbound
> links and then spider just those. The downside is that peole without
> traffic would not get their vote in, so the blogger themself would
> have to click the link to "activate" the vote.
I've actually never thought of the log files ... don't ask me why :)
Seems pretty obvious, yes.
The "webbug" has a similar downside, it must be displayed at least once.
> Although it could be interesting to leave the voting on going... (e.g.
> Mac v Windows, Christmas stockings or christmas shoes for St. Nick,
> etc.) Then instead of just having a simple pie graph, you could have a
> line graph over time and see how things change.
Yup. That's a very interesting suggestion. I'm planning to allow for
different types of "votings" anyway.
> --- by definition, yes. It is saying that "The resource at the end of
> this URL is a vote-for this resource", but it would only make sense if
> your outbouned Rel links were on a unique page.. It would not be true
> to say <a href="http://example.com" rel="vote-for">...</a> on the
> folksr.de homepage because they were not voting for folksr.de, but for
> a specific question page.
Ok, thanks for the specification about the homepage. Yes, of course
these would only make sense on pages that uniquely serve as voteoptions.
> --- (i think) this goes back to 2003-2004 when the US presidential
> elections were taking place. At first people were told to use REL,
> then it was realized that REV was the proper semantics, so for a time
> both were accepted. Now you should use REV, that is the correct
Hmmm, to me this sounds as if it would pretty save to completely ignore
the fact that there's ever been a different spec. :)
> I hope this helps and i haven't created more questions than answers.
Yes, thanks again! :)
More information about the microformats-discuss