- From: Michael Andrews <nextcontent01@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:03:36 +0530
- To: Tim Finin <finin@umbc.edu>
- Cc: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF9ZrJ1BRu+31fkKmVYiyPWJUWgPTjQaXFEkVWwCO4D_TcnqHg@mail.gmail.com>
I see a usability issue with how Rating http://schema.org/Rating is applied to ClaimReview. On one hand, publishers should invert their scales when their own numeric systems indicate the worst rating as having the highest numeric value, IF the goal is for the value to be evaluated by an algorithm, say by a search engine, to assess the claim. In this case, the value is considered a number (integer) value, so that all numbers need to be consistent for an algorithm to compare them. On the other hand, the publisher has their own rating system that may involve numeric values that are understood by audiences in a certain way (more Pinocchios are worse, not better). If the rating value were inverted, but displayed to audiences in a snippet, then people would draw an incorrect conclusion about what the rating represented. In this case, the rating value is actually a text value, not a number value. Another point of confusion comes from the definitions of bestRating as the "highest value" implying it will be high number. Not all rating systems work that way. It would be better to keep the original values the publishers use, but clarify the scale by saying bestRating as "most favorable" rather than highest. Ultimately, I think there needs to be two separate rating values, a text value that is seen by audiences, and a numeric value that machine readable. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Tim Finin <finin@umbc.edu> wrote: > I just checked a few recent politifact items and they do indeed have the > scale inverted. :-( > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I haven't re-checked since I tweeted this on 11 April, but at that time >> PolitiFact seemed also was using a scale that was the inverse of the >> schema's specs: >> https://twitter.com/aaranged/status/851902710307737600 >> >
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 04:34:11 UTC