You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently if recipeYield is missing from the LD+JSON the servings for that recipe will be set to 1, which is logical.
However, there are instances when a recipe does not have a recipeYield, but at the same time does have a nutrition.servingSize. In these cases it would be good to use the nutrition.servingSize as the recipeYield instead of automatically setting the yield = 1.
The bigger issue with the current setup is that it makes it very unclear what the nutritional information is actually for.
Example:
recipeYield is missing from LD+JSON -> converts to 1 during scraping.
nutrition.servingSize = 8 in LD+JSON -> creates nutritional information by dividing the entire recipe by 8, which is correctly calculated. It will also correctly say per serving, since the nutrition.servingSize was not blank (otherwise it would say per 100g).
However, even though the nutritional information has been correctly calculated, one might assume that the entire recipe, since the yield has been set to 1, equals one serving.
Besides looking a bit strange, the calculations will also be incorrect if using the de-/increase servings function on the recipe, as the ingredients will multiply the entire recipe, which is basically 8 servings with the above example. I think the expectation here would be to increase the number of servings, not the number of full recipes (e.g. entire cakes etc.).
Describe the solution you'd like
If recipeYield is blank or missing, then use nutrition.servingSize (if not blank or missing) when setting the recipeYield during scraping.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently if recipeYield is missing from the LD+JSON the servings for that recipe will be set to 1, which is logical.
However, there are instances when a recipe does not have a recipeYield, but at the same time does have a nutrition.servingSize. In these cases it would be good to use the nutrition.servingSize as the recipeYield instead of automatically setting the yield = 1.
The bigger issue with the current setup is that it makes it very unclear what the nutritional information is actually for.
Example:
recipeYield is missing from LD+JSON -> converts to 1 during scraping.
nutrition.servingSize = 8 in LD+JSON -> creates nutritional information by dividing the entire recipe by 8, which is correctly calculated. It will also correctly say per serving, since the nutrition.servingSize was not blank (otherwise it would say per 100g).
However, even though the nutritional information has been correctly calculated, one might assume that the entire recipe, since the yield has been set to 1, equals one serving.
Besides looking a bit strange, the calculations will also be incorrect if using the de-/increase servings function on the recipe, as the ingredients will multiply the entire recipe, which is basically 8 servings with the above example. I think the expectation here would be to increase the number of servings, not the number of full recipes (e.g. entire cakes etc.).
Describe the solution you'd like
If recipeYield is blank or missing, then use nutrition.servingSize (if not blank or missing) when setting the recipeYield during scraping.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: