Bikash,

Don't use that version.  Use a more recent release.  We can't help that
Cloudera has an old version.




On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bikash Gupta <[email protected]>wrote:

> Suneel,
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> I am using 0.7 packaged with CDH .
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:37 AM, Bikash Gupta <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ted/Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for the response.
> >
> > This is exactly what I am trying to achieve. May be I was not able to
> > put my questions clearly.
> >
> > I am clustering on few variables of Customer/User(except their
> > customer_id/user_id) and storing customer_id/user_id list in a
> > separate place.
> >
> > Question) What is the approach to identify each member in each cluster
> > by its unique id.
> > Answer) I have to run a script post-clustering to map
> > customer_id/user_id for the clustered output to identify the member
> > uniquely.
> >
> >>> If u r working off of Mahout 0.9 u don't have to do that. The
> Clustered output should display the vectors with the vectorid (user_id in
> ur case) that belong to a specfic cluster along with the distance of that
> vector from the cluster center.
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong :)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Bikash,
> >>
> >> Peter is just right.
> >>
> >> Yes, you can cluster on these few variables that you have.  Probably you
> >> should translate location to x,y,z coordinates so that you don't have
> >> strange geometry problems, but location, gender and age are quite
> >> reasonable characteristics.  You will get a fairly weak clustering since
> >> these characteristics actually tell very little about people, but it is
> a
> >> start.
> >>
> >> You *don't* want to cluster using user ID for exactly the reasons that
> >> Peter mentioned.  Another way to put it is that the user ID tells you
> >> absolutely nothing about the person and thus is not useful for the
> >> clustering.
> >>
> >> You *do* have to retain the assignment of users to cluster and that
> >> assignment is usually stored as a list of user ID's for each cluster.
>  This
> >> does not at all imply, however, that the user ID was used to *form* the
> >> cluster.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Peter Jaumann <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bikash,
> >>> As Ted pointed out already......
> >>> You can cluster on all variables except your customer_id. That's your
> >>> identifier.
> >>> Customers within a cluster are 'similar'; how similar depends on the
> >>> fidelity of your clustering.
> >>> The clustering algorithm uses (you'll choose) some kind of distance, or
> >>> similarity/dissimilarity
> >>> measure (which one to use depends on the type of data you have). This
> >>> measure will,
> >>> eventually, determine how separate/how unique your clusters are. Goal
> is to
> >>> have your clusters distinct
> >>> from each other but have the cluster members, within a cluster, as
> similar
> >>> as possible.
> >>>
> >>> In the output, each member in each cluster is uniquely identified by
> it's
> >>> customer_id, the cluster it belongs to,
> >>> and a distance measure that shows (usually) how close, or not, the
> >>> customer_id is from its cluster center.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of what you want to do, my assumption is that you'd like to
> find
> >>> out a structure, or patterns,
> >>> within your customer base, based on a set of variables that you have.
> This
> >>> is often called a segmentation.
> >>>
> >>> Hope this helps! What you want to do is a pretty basic and
> straight-forward
> >>> application of clustering.
> >>> Good luck,
> >>> -Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bikash Gupta <
> [email protected]
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Basically I am trying to achieve customer segmentation.
> >>> >
> >>> > Now to measure customer similarity within a cluster I need to
> >>> > understand which two customer are similar.
> >>> >
> >>> > Assumption: To understand these customer uniquely I need to provide
> >>> > their CustomerId
> >>> >
> >>> > Is my assumption correct? If yes then, will customerId affect the
> >>> > clustering output
> >>> >
> >>> > If no then how can I identify customer uniquely
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > > That really depends on what you want to do.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > What is it that you want?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Bikash Gupta <
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> > >wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Ok...so UserId is not a good field for this combination, but if I
> want
> >>> > >> User Clustering, what should be combination(just for
> >>> > >> understanding).....
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Ted Dunning <
> [email protected]>
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Bikash Gupta <
> >>> > [email protected]
> >>> > >> >wrote:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >> Let say I am clustering users, I am providing their profile
> data to
> >>> > >> >> discover similarity between two user.
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> So my input would be [UserId, Location, Age, Gender, Time
> Created ]
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> Now if my UserId length is of minimum 10 characters which is
> >>> > >> >> comparative very large number than other categorical data.
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > User id is not a good field for clustering.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Location is fine if you want geo-graphical clsutering.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Location + age + gender is fine for geo-demo-graphical
> clustering.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Adding time created might give a tiny bit of insight.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > But these fields are not going to lead to great insights.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> --
> >>> > >> Thanks & Regards
> >>> > >> Bikash Kumar Gupta
> >
> >>> > >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Thanks & Regards
> >>> > Bikash Kumar Gupta
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Bikash Kumar Gupta
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Bikash Kumar Gupta
>

Reply via email to