96 ms·
> You can't write a blog post on how to build a statistical model without stating how good the model is in actuality > it is disappointing to see this post onl
by vmarsy 10y ago
> You can't write a blog post on how to build a statistical model without stating how good the model is in actuality
> it is disappointing to see this post only do a high-level overview. Yes, it may be a Google trade secret, but there has to be give-and-take.
Why exaclty? This is not an academic paper. People who get this feature to show up might be curious about how it works, and 99.9% of them won't understand anything about independence of features, train/test split, etc. Worse, they would find the article too boring and technical. Just knowing that it is powered by a ML algorithm (and not some human input) is enough. I'm not sure why there has to be a give-and-take.
The fact that they put links to wikipedia for what Logistic regression is should give a good idea of the intended audience of this blog post.
- minimaxir 10y ago> Worse, they would find the article too boring and technical. > The fact that they put links to wikipedia for what Logistic regression is should give a good idea of the intended audience of this blog post. The Wikipedia page on logistic regression is an order of magnitude more technical than this blog post.
- peatmoss 10y agoIt seems like they could have had a "how good is the model" section where they tested it on a different chunk of data, maybe show a ROC plot... I can't imagine that would have taken away from their message.