Benjamin Carlyle wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:13 -0600, Paul Bryson wrote:
"Ryan King" wrote...
On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Paul Bryson wrote:
A good portion of the numerical ratings on the internet are aggregates
of
many people voting, usually without their own detailed reviews, so
getting a
float value for the rating would be pretty likely.
I think this missed the point. Its those individual votes which are
candidates for hreview, not the aggregate data.
I would have thought that they would both be canidates. One is as common as
the other, and there is so much overlap that it seems wasteful to me to
ignore aggregate data.
I think it may be especially important to be able to mark up aggregate
ratings as well as individual ratings, given that the aggregate may be
of data not available to the web as individual ratings (think Amazon).
It does seem likely, however, that the hReview format as written is not
a good match to aggregates. It is designed to include text descriptions
as well as a simle rating.
It allows for text descriptions but doesn't mandate them; this seems to
me to be a pretty good fit -- consider that it's perfectly reasonable
for even an aggregator to include snippets of individual reviews. (I
can even imagine a cool web service that does some textual and
numerical analysis to provide a representative sampling of the
underlying reviews or quotes from same, saving you from having to wade
through 90 reviews that all say basically the same thing...)
-John
|
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
