4 ms·

Specifically, type I and II are probably male and female. Isn't it immediately obvious that model doesn't make sense if people are talking to the opposite sex?

Specifically, type I and II are probably male and female. Isn't it immediately obvious that model doesn't make sense if people are talking to the opposite sex? No, Bob and Carlie don't want to have a "meaningful chat" because they both chatted with Alice.

mattkrause 5y ago
s/Carlie/Charlie/, I assume? (Carlie, where I grew up, is a woman's name so this threw me for a bit).
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Yes, Charlie, sorry.
woko 5y ago
With this in mind, the conclusion of the blog post is hilarious. Quotes from the blog post: > [The] rough idea is that if, say, Alice spoke to Bob for a long time and then Alice also spoke to Carol for a long time, then Bob and Carol are more likely than not to speak for a long time too. > [...] > The data have clearly shown us that, despite proving a successful technique for many other products across a range of contexts, collaborative filtering simply wasn’t a match for Chatroulette. Basically: 1) make an arbitrary assumption about your data, 2) apply a widely-used recommendation algorithm, 3) notice that the results are really bad, 4) reject the algorithm... rather than the assumption. Admittedly, I don't know whether the algorithm requires this assumption, or whether a slightly different one could be used. For instance, if Alice spoke to Bob and Charlie, then Bob and Charlie don't want to talk together. Or, if Alice spoke to Bob and Charlie, and Carol spoke to Bob, then Carol should be recommended to Charlie, etc.
livinginfear 5y ago
I came here to say this very thing. This was the first thing that popped into my mind when I started reading. I hope the people responsible understand the motivations behind their customers using their product. It's a very superficial, and obvious observation to make that a large number of people use this product for romantic interactions.

mattkrause 5y ago

s/Carlie/Charlie/, I assume? (Carlie, where I grew up, is a woman's name so this threw me for a bit).

exporectomy 5y ago
Yes, Charlie, sorry.

woko 5y ago

With this in mind, the conclusion of the blog post is hilarious. Quotes from the blog post: > [The] rough idea is that if, say, Alice spoke to Bob for a long time and then Alice also spoke to Carol for a long time, then Bob and Carol are more likely than not to speak for a long time too. > [...] > The data have clearly shown us that, despite proving a successful technique for many other products across a range of contexts, collaborative filtering simply wasn’t a match for Chatroulette. Basically: 1) make an arbitrary assumption about your data, 2) apply a widely-used recommendation algorithm, 3) notice that the results are really bad, 4) reject the algorithm... rather than the assumption. Admittedly, I don't know whether the algorithm requires this assumption, or whether a slightly different one could be used. For instance, if Alice spoke to Bob and Charlie, then Bob and Charlie don't want to talk together. Or, if Alice spoke to Bob and Charlie, and Carol spoke to Bob, then Carol should be recommended to Charlie, etc.

livinginfear 5y ago

I came here to say this very thing. This was the first thing that popped into my mind when I started reading. I hope the people responsible understand the motivations behind their customers using their product. It's a very superficial, and obvious observation to make that a large number of people use this product for romantic interactions.