[uf-discuss] hReview feedback

[Paul Bryson]

"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