ok, committed here:
http://mahout.apache.org/users/basics/algorithms.html
thx
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Mahout 1.0 features (revisited)
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:49:15 -0400
>
> Thank you guys for the feedback! I'll just commit the reorganized page in
> place of the current "List of Algorithms" page as is and the experts on each
> section can have at it / reorganize as they see fit.
>
> I know that this page is not a big deal but my goal is to clarify- not
> confuse- so I really appreciate the eyes!
>
> Another concern is that the page did not reflect the Hierarchical design of
> the new code.. ie. the Engine-bindings inheriting from and optimizing
> math-scala, which I think is a huge Mahout strong point. Maybe that is for
> another page...
>
> Thanks for the comments, Thejas...
> > > > I guess another thing that could be added would be (needs
> > > > development) so that developer can dig in and start working.
>
> this is a good idea but might clutter the page, Instead maybe we can make it
> known that anything (non- MR) without a marker "needs development". Then
> maybe an explanation/link from the "How to Contribute page" regarding this
> fact.
>
> > > > I think this is a very clear, and another thing we can add is maybe
> > > > a link to the source code of the algorithm or an example/tutorial.
>
> I like this idea very much- maybe moving the doc links over to the algo
> column and then having the markers link to directly to the github source.
> The only problem i can think of here is that eg. "Item-Based Collaborative
> Filtering" has docs for both MapReduce and Spark, and in the future this may
> occur more often- though with the legacy status of MapReduce and the recent
> abstraction of CLI drivers, probably won't.
>
> It would be nice to have another dimension to work in.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andy
>
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Mahout 1.0 features (revisited)
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:46:34 -0400
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you guys for the feedback! I'll just commit the reorganized page in
> place of the current "List of Algorithms" page as is and the experts on each
> section can have at it / reorganize as they see fit.
>
> I know that this page is not a big deal but my goal is to clarify- not
> confuse- so I really appreciate the eyes!
>
> Another concern is that the page did not reflect the Hierarchical design of
> the new code.. ie. the Engine-bindings inheriting from and optimizing
> math-scala, which I think is a huge Mahout strong point. Maybe that is for
> another page...
>
> Thanks for the comments, Thejas...
> > > > I guess another thing that could be added would be (needs
> > > > development) so that developer can dig in and start working.this is a
> > > > good idea but might clutter the page, Instead maybe we can make it
> > > > known that anything (non- MR) without a marker "needs development".
> > > > Then maybe an explanation/link from the "How to Contribute page"
> > > > regarding this fact.
>
> > > > I think this is a very clear, and another thing we can add is maybe
> > > > a link to the source code of the algorithm or an example/tutorial.I
> > > > like this idea very much- maybe moving the doc links over to the algo
> > > > column and then having the markers link to directly to the github
> > > > source. The only problem i can think of here is that eg. "Item-Based
> > > > Collaborative Filtering" has docs for both MapReduce and Spark, and in
> > > > the future this may occur more often- though with the legacy status of
> > > > MapReduce and the recent abstraction of CLI drivers, probably won't.
>
> It would be nice to have another dimension to work in.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andy
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:54:09 +0200
> > Subject: Re: Mahout 1.0 features (revisited)
> > From: [email protected]
> > To: [email protected]
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or I can just commit as is and people can have at the organization.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me!
> > >
>
>
>
