<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
>

<channel>
	<title>wrkng &#187; Data</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wrkng.net/category/data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wrkng.net</link>
	<description>Nick Grossman&#039;s ExoBrain</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:00:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
		<item>
		<title>Too much structure makes for useless data</title>
		<link>http://wrkng.net/2009/02/too-much-structure-makes-for-useless-data/</link>
		<comments>http://wrkng.net/2009/02/too-much-structure-makes-for-useless-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wrkng.net/?p=747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over at TOPP, we&#8217;ve been talking recently about the &#8220;spectrum of engagement&#8221; &#8212; in other words, providing a variety of ways that people can engage with a website, ranging from quick &#38; easy (e.g., thumbs-up-ing something) to slow and involved (e.g., writing a blog post or signing up for an account).  It&#8217;s obviously important to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Over at <a href="http://theopenplanningproject.org">TOPP</a>, we&#8217;ve been talking recently about the &#8220;spectrum of engagement&#8221; &#8212; in other words, providing a variety of ways that people can engage with a website, ranging from quick &amp; easy (e.g., thumbs-up-ing something) to slow and involved (e.g., writing a blog post or signing up for an account).  It&#8217;s obviously important to give people opportunities to engage at whatever effort/thought level works for them at a given time.</p>
<p>Along these lines, we&#8217;ve been talking about the role of &#8220;structured inputs&#8221; in facilitating various types of interactions.  Interactions that are quick &amp; easy are often (but don&#8217;t necessarily have to be) more structured &#8212; for example, signing a petition, filling out a multiple choice survey, or marking yourself as a &#8220;fan&#8221; of something.  Of course, there is a tradeoff here &#8212; when you impose structure, you make things easy at the expense of flexibility and power.  More open systems offer often limitless possibilities (think of all the ways you could use a wiki), but usually take a more invested set of power users to explore these and set cultural conventions (think twitter hashtags).</p>
<p>Another downside of too much structure, that I encountered today, is that <strong>it can often result in an abundance of meaningless data</strong>.  Let me give an example:</p>
<p>An example:  In what will likely prove a fit of hopeless optimism, I&#8217;m going to buy a pull-up bar for our bedroom door.  As it turns out, there are a lot of options &#8212; bars that screw in to walls, bars that use horizontal tension (like a curtain rod), and big multipurpose bars for pushups, situps, and pullups.   I think I want the kind that doesn&#8217;t screw in, and I know I don&#8217;t want a big piece of equipment.  So, the question is, which is the best one?  Where to go but to the customer reviews.  And finally, to my point.</p>
<p>First stop: <a href="http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/reviews/index.jsp?productId=1832283&amp;pr_campaign_id=product_page">Dick&#8217;s Sporting Goods</a>.  As I flipped through the reviews I noticed that they all used many of the same words, and that none of them really said very much.</p>
<p><img src="/wp-content/uploads/dicks-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lo and behold, they provide a structured form for feedback, complete with checkbox suggestions for &#8220;pros&#8221; and &#8220;cons&#8221;.</p>
<p><img src="/wp-content/uploads/dicks-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>So, instead of actually writing anything meaningful, they just check a few boxes and are done with it.  There is a general comments field, but apparently no one takes the time to fill it out once they&#8217;ve checked those boxes off.  In the end, this approach attempts to make things easy for the reporter, but the end result for the next shopper is a set of reviews that really don&#8217;t say much.</p>
<p>Second stop: <a href="http://www.overstock.com/Sports-Toys/Doorway-Chin-Up-Bar/2502557/product.html?cid=123620&amp;fp=F&amp;ci_src=14110944&amp;ci_sku=10722707">Overstock</a>.  Similar product here, but when I get to the reviews, I see <a href="http://www.overstock.com/Sports-Toys/Doorway-Chin-Up-Bar/2502557/product.html?reviewsort=0&amp;reviewpage=1#custreviews">several pages of thoughtful and helpful reviews</a>.  People dealing with the exact same questions I was facing.  Sweet!  So helpful.</p>
<p><img src="/wp-content/uploads/overstock.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Looking at the overstock review form, you see a different story.  Rather than pre-thinking for the reviewers, they ask for ratings on general quality and then a detailed description.</p>
<p><img src="/wp-content/uploads/overstock-form.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><img class="alignright" style="float: right;" src="/wp-content/uploads/overstock-instructions.jpg" alt="" /> In addition, they provide instructions on <em>how to write a great review</em>.  These instructions also imply that bad reviews won&#8217;t be featured on the site, introducing another mechanism of motivation &#8212; getting your review published.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://wrkng.net/2009/02/too-much-structure-makes-for-useless-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
