2 ms·

That's a rather cynical take. The objective function is clearly defined as "giving recommendations the user agrees with". As such, a well-working algorithm is c

That's a rather cynical take. The objective function is clearly defined as "giving recommendations the user agrees with". As such, a well-working algorithm is clearly superior to search, almost by definition. Here's an optimistic cultural take: good recommendations take you outside your bubble. It's not following Return of the Jedi with Episode I, but changing to something different, that you enjoy even though you would not have expected it.

joe_the_user 7y ago
That's a rather cynical take. The objective function is clearly defined as "giving recommendations the user agrees with". I wouldn't call cynical at all. I view it as idealistic. The user should be in charge, the user should have tools to formulate a query describing what they want. Doubting the value of something other than the user being in charge goes with this. You can say we're each optimistic about something different but then we come to objective comparisons. Here's an optimistic cultural take: good recommendations take you outside your bubble. It's not following Return of the Jedi with Episode I, but changing to something different, that you enjoy even though you would not have expected it. The thing consider with your comparison is - most Youtube recommendation don't give anything new at all. They usually some other thing from whatever is considered the top ten. Google gives ten mainstream movies, Youtube gives top ten of whatever song-era you are looking at. The engines never, ever find "hidden gems". The rise of recommendation engines resulted in a homogenization of the web - we have all experienced this. And I'd claim better algorithms can't change since the algorithms just don't have enough information to why a user like song/movie/product X; for just songs you have multiple qualities that different people look for (etc. back to the GP and OP's fine arguments). And further, if a user wanted something new, you could have a "choose at random" button that let them know what they were getting into. Further, I don't think a certain amount of recommendation within tool-type processes is bad but that can devolve. Google rose by being more likely to indeed get people what they were thinking of but that vein has mined to the point that all that's left is ... low quality trash. But I'm optimistic there are ways to do better.
darepublic 7y ago
Even though recommendation engines can sometimes surface things you didn't know you actually wanted, there should be a way for users to be in control and search knowing how the search will be conducted on their behalf

joe_the_user 7y ago

That's a rather cynical take. The objective function is clearly defined as "giving recommendations the user agrees with". I wouldn't call cynical at all. I view it as idealistic. The user should be in charge, the user should have tools to formulate a query describing what they want. Doubting the value of something other than the user being in charge goes with this. You can say we're each optimistic about something different but then we come to objective comparisons. Here's an optimistic cultural take: good recommendations take you outside your bubble. It's not following Return of the Jedi with Episode I, but changing to something different, that you enjoy even though you would not have expected it. The thing consider with your comparison is - most Youtube recommendation don't give anything new at all. They usually some other thing from whatever is considered the top ten. Google gives ten mainstream movies, Youtube gives top ten of whatever song-era you are looking at. The engines never, ever find "hidden gems". The rise of recommendation engines resulted in a homogenization of the web - we have all experienced this. And I'd claim better algorithms can't change since the algorithms just don't have enough information to why a user like song/movie/product X; for just songs you have multiple qualities that different people look for (etc. back to the GP and OP's fine arguments). And further, if a user wanted something new, you could have a "choose at random" button that let them know what they were getting into. Further, I don't think a certain amount of recommendation within tool-type processes is bad but that can devolve. Google rose by being more likely to indeed get people what they were thinking of but that vein has mined to the point that all that's left is ... low quality trash. But I'm optimistic there are ways to do better.

darepublic 7y ago

Even though recommendation engines can sometimes surface things you didn't know you actually wanted, there should be a way for users to be in control and search knowing how the search will be conducted on their behalf