Difference between revisions of "aggregate-review-brainstorming"

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎What is the proposal?: captured a few more details from past IRC discussion, root class name "hreview-aggregate", new property "count")
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
==== What is the proposal? ====
 
==== What is the proposal? ====
* Define a new microformat for aggregate reviews.  
+
* Define a new microformat for aggregate reviews (root class name "hreview-aggregate").
* The format will contain only value (the number of reviews) and an embedded hReview that contains details like the average review score, summary, and a reference to the object of the review.
+
* The format will contain only value (the number of reviews) with a new property "count" and embedded [[hReview]]  properties that contains details like the average review score, summary, and a reference to the object of the review.
  
 
==== Why was this proposal preferred? ====
 
==== Why was this proposal preferred? ====

Revision as of 07:50, 18 May 2009

Ideas for how to support aggregate reviews via microformats.


Common themes amongst examples (that we might want to support)

  • Aggregations of reviews always contain these two elements:
    • the number of reviewers
    • the average rating
  • Other elements that occur in the example set include:
    • the number of reviews for each rating (i.e. 10 5-star ratings, 7 4-star ratings, etc)
    • recurring themes about the entity being reviewed (i.e. "romantic restaurant" or "love the chicken mole").
    • who are the reviewers (i.e. "critics" or "users"). Some sites (i.e. Rotten Tomatoes or GameSpot) have multiple sets of aggregate reviews to cover both critics and users.
  • In addition, some elements already present in the hReview schema exist in aggregate reviews as well:
    • review summary/description
    • most recent date reviewed

Proposal discussed over IRC

What is the proposal?

  • Define a new microformat for aggregate reviews (root class name "hreview-aggregate").
  • The format will contain only value (the number of reviews) with a new property "count" and embedded hReview 0.4 (in progress) properties that contains details like the average review score, summary, and a reference to the object of the review.

Why was this proposal preferred?

  • Creating a new uF rather than extending hReview doesn't require branching the spec for hReview and provides clean separation in case we want to extend the new format to include other data in the future
  • Supporting only the number of reviews (rather than scores per rating, etc) is probably sufficient for 80% of sites with aggregate reviews.

All proposals suggested

1) Do nothing. Aggregation must be done by the microformats parser

  • Pros: Doesn't require any change to the existing microformats definitions
  • Cons: Very difficult for parsers. Reviews for a single entity are usually not limited to a single web page (there are typically no more than 5-10 reviews per page), so aggregating this data would require the parser to figure out which pages to crawl to assemble the aggregate scores.

2) Extend existing hReview format to include "reviewcount"

  • Any hReview that contains a reviewcount field (which denotes the number of reviewers) would implicitly refer to an aggregation of reviews. The rating would correspond to the average rating of all individual reviews, summary/description refer to a summary of overall sentiments from the reviews, date refers to the most recent review's date.
  • Pros: very simple addition to the existing microformat
  • Cons: Mild overloading of what an hReview contains -- a review can now correspond to a single user's review or an aggregation of user reviews.

3) Define a new microformat type for aggregate reviews

  • This type could contain the staples -- average review score and number of reviewers -- as well as some of the other sometimes-used features listed in the "common themes" section earlier.
  • Pros: robust way to mark up many elements of aggregate review information
  • Cons: some redundancy with hReview. Extending hReview might be sufficient


See Also