To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 6471
6470  |  6472
Subject: 
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:58:57 GMT
Viewed: 
2283 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
That's what the averaging effect is for -- to smooth that out.  If the
system also could learn what you liked, you might find that helpful.
(That's a long way down the road, though.)

Smoothing what out, though? How does the system distinguish between "0: I
like posts about robots, but not in .castle" and "0: not interesting to me",
or "60: kinda funny if you're in the right mood" and "60: contains some
useful information but could be more complete"?

It can't (and doesn't actually need to) distinguish that so greatly -- the
bottom line (to it) would be that you disfavor posts about robots in castle
and things that are kinda funny or contain some useful info.


Also, I'm _very_ skeptical of the "match what you like" concept. It sounds
neat in practice, but I've never seen it implemented well.
homr/ringo/Firefly/bignote/launch/whateverthey'recallingthemselvestoday did
an ok job, but you'd have to do some serious language parsing/comprehension
stuff to make it work with news posts, even in such a narrow subject as
Lego.

I'm very skeptical about that form of collaborative filtering as well.  But
there's a completely other form of it which is purely statistical correlation
based.  It looks only at how your responses correlate to the responses of
others, without knowing (or having to know) anything at all about the content.
Then it makes a prediction about how you would feel about some brand new data
point based on how other people before you felt about that new data point.
Of course, it's a scheme which works better for things like record albums or
books or LEGO sets than time-sensitive things like news articles.  If you're
always the first one to rate something, it couldn't help you out, but if
you're always the last one to rate something, then it could.  That's the
theory, anyway.  It works basically on the premise that everyone tends to
have opinions which can be approximated by a linear combination of other some
set of other people having multiple partially overlapping domains of input.

--Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
 
(...) Whoops -- :) -- I meant to say, "...that you disfavor posts about robots in castle and _favor_ (somewhat) things that are kinda funny or contain some useful info." But actually it would just look at the statistical correlation between your (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
 
(...) Smoothing what out, though? How does the system distinguish between "0: I like posts about robots, but not in .castle" and "0: not interesting to me", or "60: kinda funny if you're in the right mood" and "60: contains some useful information (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR