Re: Haters get Love too

Fascinating!!! Not too surprising really!!! On Nov 3, 2015 6:31 PM, "Suneel Marthi" wrote: > Thanks Pat, very interesting indeed. > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote: > > > A colleague of mine just build a MAP@k precision evaluator

Re: Haters get Love too

Thanks Pat, very interesting indeed. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote: > A colleague of mine just build a MAP@k precision evaluator for the Mahout > based cooccurrence recommender we’ve been working on and we ran some data > scraped from

Haters get Love too

A colleague of mine just build a MAP@k precision evaluator for the Mahout based cooccurrence recommender we’ve been working on and we ran some data scraped from rottentomatoes.com They have “fresh” and “rotten” reviews tied to reviewer ids. A fair bit of discussion

Re: Haters get Love too

No. Not entirely surprising, but it is *really* nice to get some public results on this. The treatment of the negatives as a separate cross term instead of just lumping them together is a very significant difference. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Peter Jaumann

Re: Haters get Love too

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote: > For the strict out there we did not directly isolate the two actions, > which is work remaining so some of the lift might be due to just having > more data but it’s a really good first step because more data doesn't >