And how do you purpose to kill these items? I mean, we should still keep all the user-item associations, shouldn't we? If it's that popular, how would we recommend items for users which had interacted only with that item alone?
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > Since touching them adds nothing but cost, then not touching them is > better. Kill the item! > > In practical terms, we had this problem at Veoh. Everybody got the same > intro video. It provided no information. Likewise at Musicmatch, > everybody got the same startup noise during the splash screen. It added no > information. Both of these cases would kill performance in lots of > recommendation engines because a vast number of users would get sucked into > computations where it made no difference at all. > > Better to kill these items. > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, but those users will bring no more candidate items to consider, and > > the apparent bottleneck is not touching those users, but later computing > > all those similarities. That's my argument. > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Actually, if these users single item is a fantastically popular item, > > then > > > all of those users will be roped into the computation (with no effect). > > > > > > Sean's argument would be correct if the users were each interacting > with > > > some item that is way out in the low frequency tail. By Murphy, this > > won't > > > be the case. > > > > > > Better to dump the uninformative items using a kill list. > > > > > >
