tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post7354031738298258350..comments2024-03-24T10:38:16.997-07:00Comments on Geeking with Greg: Collective search versus personalizationGreg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-59189014413893338352007-08-23T22:52:00.000-07:002007-08-23T22:52:00.000-07:00How is "the aggregate behavior of different types ...How is "the aggregate behavior of different types of users" similar or different than the concept of searching through a 'lens'?Mike Dierkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02406913273929110651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-89016825325513920702007-08-22T17:45:00.000-07:002007-08-22T17:45:00.000-07:00In my opinion, I think this is a case where Jim is...In my opinion, I think this is a case where Jim is trying to confuse the marketplace and differentiate Ask.com (i.e. make it more relevant).<BR/><BR/>Also, how would it work where a user with no history is made better by this approach? Surely they have to do *something* to be put into a classification whereby their search could be improved (assuming that underlying technique is in fact what data miners call "clustering"), right? As I see it (and correct me if I'm wrong here), doing optimization without user history to make the experience better already has a name: experiment design. (something which, I'm told, Amazoners are intimately familiar)Toby DiPasqualehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275795191015170220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-27833803626967765232007-08-22T16:43:00.000-07:002007-08-22T16:43:00.000-07:00To me the real question is should result rankings ...To me the real question is should result rankings differ on a per-user basis, a per-group basis, or be the same for all users.<BR/><BR/>So far, i haven't seen evidence per-user results make much of a difference. Perhaps ask is taking the per-group approach - whether or not this is really different from past "personaliation" technologies based on collaborative filtering is probably more of a quibble about terminology than a meaningful answer.<BR/><BR/>Personally I still think that a single user can be in multiple "modes". I would prefer to tell Google I am in "medical mode" or "shopping mode" and then see the same results everyone else does.<BR/><BR/>The really useful thing si if the actual ranking criteria were adjustable. I believe MSN / Live had a demo up that did it awhile back. <BR/><BR/>Its just a feeling but for a LOT of queries, I'm not so sure that user A's needs for a query are appreciably different than user B, even if they are radically different "kinds" of people. For instance, I have a blog post that is by far my most accessed post because it is #1 for the query "fishbone throat" http://www.google.com/custom?q=fishbone+throat<BR/> - the thread has taken a life of its own on and honestly its hard to think of anyone who is googling the topic looking at the result and not finding it useful.<BR/><BR/>Short story: google as currently configured is pretty damn good.chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272480610329333973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-58578695806921017392007-08-22T12:50:00.000-07:002007-08-22T12:50:00.000-07:00Yet even that often still is referred to as person...<I>Yet even that often still is referred to as personalization. For example, one of Amazon.com's most successful and useful personalization features is similarities ("Customers who bought X also bought"). That feature is targeted to a specific page, not to a user's history, but is still personalization.</I><BR/><BR/>One of the reasons I keep commenting on your blog is that I am also struggling (through no fault of your own) to tease out the distinction, if there even is one.<BR/><BR/>I do not know the answer, but let me make the following small thought experiment: Starting with your Amazon, tied to the page example, let's suppose that, for the next 24 hours, no one in the world bought the item on a particular page. Suppose, that is, that the history of that item were frozen. Now, suppose furthermore that, in that 24 hours, <I>everyone</I> in the world visits that page. It's just that no one buys anything.<BR/><BR/>Now, the first question in this thought experiment is: Are the recommendations offered on this page based on that item's history, as it has interacted with (been bought by) people all over the world? Yes.<BR/><BR/>The second question is: With all the people in the world now visiting this page, over a 24 hour period, are the recommendations that each person sees different? Or are they all the same? I think the answer (please correct me if not!) is that the recommendations are all going to be the same. <BR/><BR/>So from that perspective, it seems like "personalization", as you have often applied it to users and their own history, is not really happening here. If everyone in the world visits this page over a 24 hour period, everyone is going to see the same recommendations. There will be nothing personal about any of the recommendations. If I happen to like "jaguar" the car and you happen to like "jaguar" the animal, we'll both still see the same recommendations, for that item, on that page.<BR/><BR/>I think the distinction that Jim Lanzone may be drawing here is the distinction between "item" personalization and "person" personalization. In the Amazon example, the item itself is actually being "personalized", in that the item sees a different set of recommended other items on its page, depending on that items history of interactions with those other items, through the users with whom it comes in contact. <BR/><BR/>But what is not happening (again, if I have understood all this correctly, which is not necessarily very likely) is personalization of the people visiting this item. Each person sees the exact same recommendations; the recommendations are global, and therefore not "personal".<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts. Someone please correct me if I've skipped a logical step somewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com