I think I agree with this for clusters that are intended for human
consumption, but I am sure that I disagree with this if you are looking to
use the clusters internally for machine learning purposes.

The basic idea for the latter is that the distances to a bunch of clusters
can be used as a description of a point.  This description in terms of
distances to cluster centroids can make some machine learning tasks vastly
easier.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:

> What's worse -- neither method is "better". We at Carrot2 have a
> strong feeling that clusters should be described properly in order to
> be useful, but one may argue that in many, many applications of
> clustering, the labels are _not_ important and just individual
> features of clusters (like keywords or even documents themselves) are
> enough.
>



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

Reply via email to