Froogle.Google.com: <a href="/froogle/reviews?cid=fea516c1c02389cb"> <img src="gstar-on.gif"> <img src="gstar-on.gif"> <img src="gstar-on.gif"> <img src="gstar-half.gif"> <img src="star-off.gif"> </a> <a href="/froogle/reviews?cid=fea516c1c02389cb"> <nobr>445 merchant ratings</nobr> </a>
"Paul Bryson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "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 _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
