On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Matthew Wilson wrote: > I don't know if I'll be able to join your team since I'm pretty far > along with my efforts in research and implementation, and I have a > lot of confidence in the overall approach I'm taking. I'll be glad > to compare notes though. Depending on how things go in the next > few days, I'll know just how much computing power I will be > needing, so I may be looking for minority-share team members. > > > Remember, once someone passes the 0.8563 mark (and I do believe it > will happen in the next few weeks), everyone else will have 30 days > to match/beat their progress before a winner is examined/judged/ > declared. >
I'm not so sure it'll be beaten. There has yet to be an entry on the leaderboard that matches Cinematch... I too would like to have done a more "people with similar tastes" style ratings projection, but the data set of ~100 million ratings using 480,000 unique customer id's... doesn't lend itself very well to that approach. That and I somehow doubt that the people at Netflix are incompetent. I.e., they say that there are a lot of approaches that they aren't using. But that doesn't mean that they haven't explored and rejected those routes. Myself, I've dumped the training set data into a database. And am trying to figure out the right questions to ask... I do think someone will get the $50,000 progress prize. But I also doubt that it'll be me. I expect a team strong in mathematics and statistics will find a way to finesse small improvements on Cinematch. Enough to justify the progress bounty. I wish there was more documentation on the approach Cinematch takes and the alternative approaches. The progress bounty might be had by anyone who stumbles upon a better balance of approaches, but I doubt anyone will manage the million dollar prize without a novel approach. cheers, Garrett _______________________________________________ kc mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/kc
