On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:29 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > So my question was -shouldn't we consider both the frequency distribution > of item sales *and* of users purchases in the same formula? Am I correct if > I say that this does not happen when we compute the contingency table (if > we build the contingency table for two users, we do not consider the > frequency distribution of book sales, and vice versa), right? > > That said, I am fully aware that mine is a mainly academic question, as the > LLR makes anyway a fantastic job....! >
As I understand it, I believe that LLR does what your want since it knows the overall frequency of the user and the item in question. What is does not do directly is include information about how *other* users and *other* items are distributed except in aggregate. On the other hand, when you rank these LLR scores for a single user, you do incorporate evidence from all other items (relative to that single user). I think that your point is actually quite subtle and I may have missed the point. Can you correct me if so?
