<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Explanatory algorithms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms</link>
	<description>a weblog by cameron marlow</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:03:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms/comment-page-1#comment-2681</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms#comment-2681</guid>
		<description>I like your observation, but disagree with the conclusion.  I agree that early recommendation systems would never had added this extra information in the result.  Still, I disagree, that their doing so exposes their algorithm, or that the reason they didn&#039;t show reasons was because of a fear in doing so.

First, the reasons shown are simply relevant attributes that are more a product of the algorithm, than they are the algorithm itself.  I suspect selecting the appropriate attributes is most of the challenge in building the recommendation algorithm.

Secondly, I think early adopters of recommendation systems liked its black box nature.  They wanted the recommendation to be magical.  &quot;Wow, how did you know I needed new socks?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like your observation, but disagree with the conclusion.  I agree that early recommendation systems would never had added this extra information in the result.  Still, I disagree, that their doing so exposes their algorithm, or that the reason they didn&#8217;t show reasons was because of a fear in doing so.</p>
<p>First, the reasons shown are simply relevant attributes that are more a product of the algorithm, than they are the algorithm itself.  I suspect selecting the appropriate attributes is most of the challenge in building the recommendation algorithm.</p>
<p>Secondly, I think early adopters of recommendation systems liked its black box nature.  They wanted the recommendation to be magical.  &#8220;Wow, how did you know I needed new socks?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms/comment-page-1#comment-2614</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms#comment-2614</guid>
		<description>Nice post ...

My favorite example of why transparency in recommendations is important is found in this image on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolemite/61664428/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post &#8230;</p>
<p>My favorite example of why transparency in recommendations is important is found in this image on Flickr:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolemite/61664428/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolemite/61664428/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrienne</title>
		<link>http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms/comment-page-1#comment-2582</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrienne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms#comment-2582</guid>
		<description>You know the problem with iLike&#039;s current algorithm, though?  It doesn&#039;t take into account the true music taste similarities.  For example, I&#039;m apparently very similar musically to someone named &quot;mary m&quot; because I said I liked Justin Timberlake.  Similarities end there, however, as her actual playlist shows a perplexing predilection for Beyonce, Nick Lachey, and N&#039;Sync.  She&#039;s not actually indicated any artists using the &quot;iLike&quot; feature, so based (incorrectly) on the assumption that I like Timberlake and she&#039;s *played* lots of JT, the system ranks us as being supremely compatible.  People who have actually listed a number of artists using the iLike feature (i&#039;M bEginnIng to hAte sEcondary cAps) are generally appearing as only medium-compatible with me.

This just doesn&#039;t work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know the problem with iLike&#8217;s current algorithm, though?  It doesn&#8217;t take into account the true music taste similarities.  For example, I&#8217;m apparently very similar musically to someone named &#8220;mary m&#8221; because I said I liked Justin Timberlake.  Similarities end there, however, as her actual playlist shows a perplexing predilection for Beyonce, Nick Lachey, and N&#8217;Sync.  She&#8217;s not actually indicated any artists using the &#8220;iLike&#8221; feature, so based (incorrectly) on the assumption that I like Timberlake and she&#8217;s *played* lots of JT, the system ranks us as being supremely compatible.  People who have actually listed a number of artists using the iLike feature (i&#8217;M bEginnIng to hAte sEcondary cAps) are generally appearing as only medium-compatible with me.</p>
<p>This just doesn&#8217;t work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms/comment-page-1#comment-2521</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overstated.net/2006/11/09/explanatory-algorithms#comment-2521</guid>
		<description>Digg users reverse engineering the new algo create a new unofficial FAQ: http://www.seopedia.org/tips-tricks/social-media/the-digg-algorithm-unofficial-faq/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Digg users reverse engineering the new algo create a new unofficial FAQ: <a href="http://www.seopedia.org/tips-tricks/social-media/the-digg-algorithm-unofficial-faq/" rel="nofollow">http://www.seopedia.org/tips-tricks/social-media/the-digg-algorithm-unofficial-faq/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
