Writedown review analysis
This commit is contained in:
parent
6f2648ac0b
commit
5966dd3aa7
2 changed files with 110 additions and 0 deletions
109
Docs/Reasonings/ReviewAnalysis.md
Normal file
109
Docs/Reasonings/ReviewAnalysis.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
|||
# Analysis a reviews on Mangrove.reviews
|
||||
|
||||
MapComplete has - for some thematic maps - the ability to leave a review on a entity.
|
||||
Up till now, I had no idea how much this feature was used. However, due to technical reasons I had another look to the reviews module and discovered the ['download all'-option](https://api.mangrove.reviews/reviews) on [mangrove.reviews](https://mangrove.reviews)
|
||||
|
||||
## Mangrove Clients
|
||||
|
||||
The analysis was made with data from 20 january 2023, downloaded around 17:00 UTC time.
|
||||
|
||||
This data contained 660 reviews. As the website making the review is recorded, we can make a breakdown of the top websites:
|
||||
|
||||
- https://mangrove.reviews is unsuprisingly the most popular website to make reviews on, with 318 reviews made
|
||||
- MapComplete is the second (and the biggest 'external' website), with 192 reviews (of which 13 are made with the development version)
|
||||
- toggenburg.swiss is third, with 35 reviews
|
||||
|
||||
A variety of smaller websites follows, each with a few reviews made. At first glance, most of them seem to be swiss or german.
|
||||
Furthermore, there are 5 reviews made by `localhost:1234` and 7 by `localhost:5000`. The former is probably me, testing the creation of reviews while developing.
|
||||
|
||||
The full table is listed below.
|
||||
|
||||
| Client website | Number of reviews |
|
||||
|----------------------------------------|-------------------|
|
||||
| https://mangrove.reviews | 318 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be | 179 |
|
||||
| https://toggenburg.swiss | 35 |
|
||||
| https://thurgau-bodensee.ch | 29 |
|
||||
| https://pietervdvn.github.io | 13 |
|
||||
| https://open-reviews.orderingstack.com | 13 |
|
||||
| https://heidiland.com | 12 |
|
||||
| https://open-reviews.net | 12 |
|
||||
| https://winterthur.com | 9 |
|
||||
| https://ostschweiz.ch | 7 |
|
||||
| https://localhost:5000 | 7 |
|
||||
| https://actuallyfoods.com | 5 |
|
||||
| https://staging.mangrove.reviews | 5 |
|
||||
| https://localhost:1234 | 5 |
|
||||
| https://examples.twblue.cms.tso.ch | 3 |
|
||||
| https://ivydog.art (has NSFW content) | 2 |
|
||||
| https://toggenburg-aktiv.ch | 1 |
|
||||
| https://modernmount.blogspot.com | 1 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Themes
|
||||
|
||||
It seems that pet owners gave reviews the most. The 'pets'-theme - first known as the 'dog' theme - yielded 35 reviews in total (if summed).
|
||||
The 'Pin je Punt'-campagin by Visit Flanders (which included pubs and cafés) is a close second with 29 reviews, followed by the shops theme.
|
||||
|
||||
While it might be surprising that the pets-theme has such a high number of reviews, the reason for this is straight-forward:
|
||||
the review-module is placed on top of the infobox for vets, whereas most other layers do have the images block there.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Theme | Review count |
|
||||
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/pets (incl 14 reviews made under the previous name 'dog') | 35 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/toerisme_vlaanderen | 29 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/shops | 28 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/food | 18 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/playgrounds | 16 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/cafes_and_pubs | 14 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/personal | 14 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/campersite | 9 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/sport_pitches | 9 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/fritures | 8 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/climbing | 7 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/onwheels | 3 |
|
||||
| https://mapcomplete.osm.be/hackerspaces | 1 |
|
||||
| lgbtmap (theme on a fork) | 1 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Language
|
||||
|
||||
At last, due to the full client URL being saved, we also know what language the user interface was in when the review was made:
|
||||
|
||||
| language | count |
|
||||
|----------|-------|
|
||||
| en | 77 |
|
||||
| nl | 37 |
|
||||
| de | 27 |
|
||||
| ru | 13 |
|
||||
| fr | 9 |
|
||||
| da | 6 |
|
||||
| es | 2 |
|
||||
| unkown | 21 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Locations
|
||||
|
||||
And as map makers, a quick geolocation-analysis can't miss as well.
|
||||
|
||||
Unsurprisingly, most of the reviews are in Europe:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
When zooming in, a clear cluster in Switzerland and Flanders is visible:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
When keeping only the Reviews made with MapComplete, the cluster in Flanders remains:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
(Copyright: pins are Mangrove Reviews, background map is OpenStreetMap of course)
|
||||
|
||||
# Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
So, no big conclusions and surprises in this little analysis.
|
||||
The reviews are being used - but not very much, especially in comparison with the image-upload feature.
|
||||
Placing the reviews higher up might help or including in into the questions flow.
|
||||
The core question is how important reviews are within the vision of MapComplete.
|
||||
|
||||
As usual, data is available online [here](https://github.com/pietervdvn/MapComplete-data/blob/main/reviewsAnalysis), script is [here](./scripts/generateReviewsAnalysis.ts)
|
||||
|
|
@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ export default class GenerateReviewsAnalysis extends Script {
|
|||
console.error(e)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
console.log("Total number of reviews", reviews.length)
|
||||
this.print("Website", clientWebsites)
|
||||
this.print("Theme", themeHist)
|
||||
this.print("language", languageHist)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue