|
|
|
07 Sep 2006
Bookmarks, ratings and reviews: what’s the difference?
For my Wiki I am trying to define the various MicroContent Types I encountered in terms of the fields of a MicroContent Type.
Thus a Bookmark Type consists of an URI, a Title and a Description. This is however very close to a Review Type. A Review Type consists of a Title, a Review and an Identifier. It is possible to add other fields to either MicroContent Type, but that does not change the things fundamentally.
If one reviews a web-page, then the two Types become identical. Only the actual content might distinguish the two. And in case of a review, the Identifier might point to a web-page where one can find the product. One sees this a lot for reviews of books, where the Identifier points to a web-page at Amazon.
This leads to the conclusion that one should see a Bookmarks as some sort of Review. One could see a Bookmark as a minimal Review. The user has taken the time to create the Bookmark and has thus recorded his attention for the web-page. This recording is already a review: it was worthwhile to save the web-page.
And one can even go a step further by rating a bookmark as some services and applications do. The rating makes the appreciation even more visible. The same is true for rating a review. In that case one could even leave the description/review away, as is done in iTunes for instance.
I see the line Bookmarks -> Ratings and Reviews -> Rated Reviews appear. Each Type adds a new Field. The essential element of a Review is that it has an independent Identifier and not just a URI.
