This is frustrating to consider losing Bayes, but I would consider keeping it if only to decrease the number of questions on the list about why the examples from the book don't work.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote: > - Bayes + Random Forest - Seems a shame on bayes, since it gives a > baseline, but I don't know that it actually works and then there's the > whole split personality nature of it (text-based and vector-based) >
