Also, from a practical point of view, people rarely watch videos repeatedly, even if they like them and want to see more.
(people - excluding two year olds who will watch something they like until it wears out) On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that ratings contain relatively little data. Here you're not using > direct ratings, but inferring some notion of rating from impressions. Does > your scheme make sense? It's not illogical but not one I would choose. To > me, there is the most "information" in the jump from 0 impressions to 1. > There are a universe of things you don't look at; the fact that you look at > something at all is much more significant. Looking at something 2, 3, 10, > 100 times from there means something more, but not much more in comparison. >
