6 ms·
I don't think recipes themselves can really be rated; we probably have to rate the person who created the recipe or the person evaluating the recipe. Let me exp
by matrix 17y ago
I don't think recipes themselves can really be rated; we probably have to rate the person who created the recipe or the person evaluating the recipe. Let me explain:
The number of people that come back and rate a recipe is probably small. And how many people who had a middling experience with the recipe would make the effort to come back and rate it? Or even a good experience, for that matter? A bad one? You bet they're going to rate it.
So right there, you have all kinds of bias problems with the data. And just to make it more fun, how many of those people rating the recipes prepared it properly? How many substituted ingredients that just completely ruined the dish? You see this all the time on these sites - "This recipe is horrible. I vomited for 3 hours straight. BTW I didn't have any red onions so I used pickled cocktail cherries instead."
Somehow you have to find a more indirect way of evaluating a recipe's worth. Maybe it could be a measure of how many times a person comes back to look at it (on the theory that each hit is presumably them coming back to look up that recipe again)? Or perhaps how many people chose to make it.
- amr 17y agoI think your are on to something. Report how many people saved a recipe (and unsaved it?), how many printed it and how many views it received. Additionally, I think the mentioned websites ignore an important fact about recipes: they are not static. Most recipes have variations in technique or ingredients. Many cooks, as you stated, substitute ingredients that subtly, or not so subtly, change a recipe. If a mechanism exists to capture those variations (wiki style, maybe?), those people might have an incentive to come back and share their experience rather than their impressions.