aggregate-review-brainstorming - Revision history

Kavi at 06:34, 16 December 2009

2009-12-16T06:34:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 16 December 2009
Line 65:		Line 65:
	== Reviews vs ratings ==		== Reviews vs ratings ==

	~~Section added Nov~~ 2009		Note -- this proposal has been incorporated into the hreview-aggregate draft spec version 0.2 in December 2009.

	Adoption of hreview-aggregate has been strong, but one issue that arisen is the notion of reviews vs ratings. The original hreview-aggregate spec as described below uses a single property called "count" to specify the total number of reviews for an item that contributed towards an aggregate review. This works well for a site like Yelp, where the aggregate rating is based on the number of individual user reviews.		Adoption of hreview-aggregate has been strong, but one issue that arisen is the notion of reviews vs ratings. The original hreview-aggregate spec as described below uses a single property called "count" to specify the total number of reviews for an item that contributed towards an aggregate review. This works well for a site like Yelp, where the aggregate rating is based on the number of individual user reviews.

Kavi: /* Reviews vs ratings */

2009-11-23T18:50:13Z

Reviews vs ratings

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 23 November 2009
Line 74:		Line 74:
	* Urbanspoon: http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/6/88896/restaurant/Patxis-Chicago-Pizza-Palo-Alto		* Urbanspoon: http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/6/88896/restaurant/Patxis-Chicago-Pizza-Palo-Alto
	* Download.com: http://download.cnet.com/Mayura-Chess-Board/3000-7562_4-10525218.html		* Download.com: http://download.cnet.com/Mayura-Chess-Board/3000-7562_4-10525218.html
			* Longer list of examples is here: [[aggregate-review-examples#Ratings_without_reviews_examples]]

	==== Proposed solution ====		==== Proposed solution ====

Kavi at 00:28, 3 November 2009

2009-11-03T00:28:56Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Ideas for how to support aggregate reviews via microformats.
 == Common themes amongst examples (that we might want to support) ==
@@ Line 11: / Line 10: @@
 ''Google Rich Snippets makes mistake of assuming that number of ratings equals number of reviews, but users may leave rating without leaving review''
 * Other elements that occur in the example set include:
@@ Line 61: / Line 62: @@
 * An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain hreview-aggregate '''without name collitions''' especially the rating tag (using include pattern).
 * An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain nested elements of hreview-aggregate, such as count and average rating, '''without name collitions''' (using include pattern). If this is not possible, pages will have to default to non semantic HTML, and markup that contains a lot of hidden content, making them less accessible.
 == See Also ==

Kklkl: discussion

2009-09-07T16:57:29Z

discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 7 September 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	** the number of reviewers		** the number of reviewers
	** the average rating		** the average rating

			''number of reviewers, really? unique people? what if there's more than one rating per person? Number of ratings would be simpler.''

			''Google Rich Snippets makes mistake of assuming that number of ratings equals number of reviews, but users may leave rating without leaving review''

	* Other elements that occur in the example set include:		* Other elements that occur in the example set include:

Elli: /* 4) Do not use hreview classes in hreview-aggregate */

2009-06-02T07:07:39Z

4) Do not use hreview classes in hreview-aggregate

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:07, 2 June 2009
Line 55:		Line 55:
	** Without adding listing information, such as the type of listing: <code><span class="type">business</span></code>.		** Without adding listing information, such as the type of listing: <code><span class="type">business</span></code>.
	** Without using non-semantic HTML, such as object tag.		** Without using non-semantic HTML, such as object tag.
	* An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain hreview-aggregate '''without name collitions''' especially the rating tag.		* An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain hreview-aggregate '''without name collitions''' especially the rating tag (using include pattern).
	* An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain nested elements of hreview-aggregate, such as count and average rating, '''without name collitions'''. If this is not possible, pages will have to default to non semantic HTML, and markup that contains a lot of hidden content, making them less accessible.		* An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain nested elements of hreview-aggregate, such as count and average rating, '''without name collitions''' (using include pattern). If this is not possible, pages will have to default to non semantic HTML, and markup that contains a lot of hidden content, making them less accessible.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==

Elli: /* Other proposals suggested */

2009-06-02T06:36:27Z

Other proposals suggested

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:36, 2 June 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	* Cons: some redundancy with hReview. Extending hReview might be sufficient		* Cons: some redundancy with hReview. Extending hReview might be sufficient

			==== 4) Do not use hreview classes in hreview-aggregate ====
			* This causes a collision when hreview includes an hcard that contains review aggregates per google specification http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=146645 . In that case, the hreview has its own rating, and a second rating imported via the include pattern.
			Currently Yelp implements review aggregate as an hreview-aggregate block that include the entire hcard inside it, and the aggregate rating. Importing this hcard from an hreview using the include pattern, imports the rating as well.
			* review-aggregate can be included INSIDE hcard block, or can surround that block.
			* review-aggregate can point to a '''self contained''' hcard (include pattern):
			** Without repeating any of the information in the hcard
			** Without including empty links, example <code><a class="item include" href="#my_business_hcard"></a></code>
			** Without including links with duplicate redundant information that is part of the hcard, example <code><a class="item include make_me_invisible_to_user" href="#my_business_hcard">Business Name</a></code>
			** Without adding listing information, such as the type of listing: <code><span class="type">business</span></code>.
			** Without using non-semantic HTML, such as object tag.
			* An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain hreview-aggregate '''without name collitions''' especially the rating tag.
			* An hreview should be able to safely import an hcard that may contain nested elements of hreview-aggregate, such as count and average rating, '''without name collitions'''. If this is not possible, pages will have to default to non semantic HTML, and markup that contains a lot of hidden content, making them less accessible.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==

Tantek: note specifically other proposals, and that chosen/consensus proposal should be written up as a draft.

2009-05-18T07:52:57Z

note specifically other proposals, and that chosen/consensus proposal should be written up as a draft.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 18 May 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	* Define a new microformat for aggregate reviews (root class name "hreview-aggregate").		* 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]] properties 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.

			'''This proposal should be written up on a separate page as a microformats draft, e.g. [[hreview-aggregate]].'''

	==== Why was this proposal preferred? ====		==== Why was this proposal preferred? ====
Line 27:		Line 29:
	* Supporting only the number of reviews (rather than scores per rating, etc) is probably sufficient for 80% of sites with aggregate reviews.		* 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 ==		== Other proposals suggested ==

	==== 1) Do nothing. Aggregation must be done by the microformats parser ====		==== 1) Do nothing. Aggregation must be done by the microformats parser ====
Line 46:		Line 48:
	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
	* Aggregate reviews: [[aggregate-review-examples\|examples]] - [[aggregate-review-formats\|formats]]		* Aggregate reviews: [[aggregate-review-examples\|examples]] - [[aggregate-review-formats\|formats]]
			* [[hreview-aggregate]]
	* [[hreview\|hReview]]		* [[hreview\|hReview]]

Tantek: /* What is the proposal? */ captured a few more details from past IRC discussion, root class name "hreview-aggregate", new property "count"

2009-05-18T07:50:46Z

What is the proposal?: captured a few more details from past IRC discussion, root class name "hreview-aggregate", new property "count"

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, 18 May 2009
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? ====

Kavi at 18:51, 9 February 2009

2009-02-09T18:51:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 9 February 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	** most recent date reviewed		** most recent date reviewed

	== ~~Proposals~~ ==		== Proposal discussed over IRC ==

			==== What is the proposal? ====
			* Define a new microformat for aggregate reviews.
			* 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.

			==== 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 ====		==== 1) Do nothing. Aggregation must be done by the microformats parser ====
Line 33:		Line 43:
	* Cons: some redundancy with hReview. Extending hReview might be sufficient		* Cons: some redundancy with hReview. Extending hReview might be sufficient

	~~== Discussion ==~~

	* Kavi: option #2 seems simple and covers the 80% case well for supporting aggregate reviews.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
	* Aggregate reviews: [[aggregate-review-examples\|examples]] - [[aggregate-review-formats\|formats]]		* Aggregate reviews: [[aggregate-review-examples\|examples]] - [[aggregate-review-formats\|formats]]
	* [[hreview\|hReview]]		* [[hreview\|hReview]]

Kavi: /* Discussion */

2009-01-12T23:12:05Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 12 January 2009
Line 35:		Line 35:
	== Discussion ==		== Discussion ==

	* Kavi: ~~I like~~ option #2 ~~the best. It is~~ simple and covers the 80% case well for supporting aggregate reviews.		* Kavi: option #2 seems simple and covers the 80% case well for supporting aggregate reviews.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
	* Aggregate reviews: [[aggregate-review-examples\|examples]] - [[aggregate-review-formats\|formats]]		* Aggregate reviews: [[aggregate-review-examples\|examples]] - [[aggregate-review-formats\|formats]]
	* [[hreview\|hReview]]		* [[hreview\|hReview]]