On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Could maybe someone just sit down and rewrite it? Naive Bayes is not a particularly difficult thing to implement, even distributed (it's like, word-count, basically. Ok, maybe it's more like counting collocations, but still!). It would be pretty silly to not have an NB impl (although I agree that it's even worse to have a broken or clunky one). > > 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) > > > -- -jake
