2 ms·
The hypothesis they chose is not the most obvious one to attack, and it ignores the most obvious application of collaborative filtering. Their hypothesis is th
by bagels 5y ago
The hypothesis they chose is not the most obvious one to attack, and it ignores the most obvious application of collaborative filtering.
Their hypothesis is that if A likes B, and A likes C then C will like B.
They should instead attack this hypothesis (much more common application of collaborative filtering, think predicting what book you might buy on Amazon):
A likes B, A likes C, D likes B -> D has higher probability of liking C as well
- robbrown451 5y agoBut to them, A liking B and B liking A are one and the same, since all they are measuring is talk time. Regardless, I think it would do much better if it took into account ratings. Even better if they allow you to rate them on several things and then give an overall rating. I personally hate it when things try to learn from my behavior rather than my explicit declarations. For instance, if I click on clickbait (hey, I'm human) it shouldn't assume I actually like that thing or want to see more of it.