Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

boffosocko.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 317 posts

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#231

Post by nol13 »

fritzw wrote: post #175
crowbahr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix, I think, has killed their own recommendation algorithm when they removed stars and made it boolean. I don't know if those buttons even do anything anymore because I think they're just matching based off demographic and who they're trying to market to now. It's recommending shows that I never would watch in a million years and giving them high matches despite me disliking most similar shows just because I'm a…

I think Netflix probably did it because people are inherently bad at being objective. For the average person, 2 stars for a movie and 4 for another isn't based on anything measurable, even they couldn't explain. I'm shocked at some of the amazon product reviews, most of which are 5 star reviews even if the product is absolutely terrible. Movies are different than products, but it's the same people doing the reviewing…

Plus the scale bias differing vastly between people and cultures makes the data a mess. Like say or me a 5 means 100% perfect, Why discreet choice stuff is all the rage in the market research world. (unless that's changed in last few years)

Asking people "which of these 3 things you like best" vs. "rate these 3 things 1-5" will usually give you much more useful data, plus be easier for respondents.

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#232

Post by jimbobimbo »

ballenf wrote: post #200
fritzw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Netflix probably did it because people are inherently bad at being objective. For the average person, 2 stars for a movie and 4 for another isn't based on anything measurable, even they couldn't explain. I'm shocked at some of the amazon product reviews, most of which are 5 star reviews even if the product is absolutely terrible. Movies are different than products, but it's the same people doing the reviewing…

I know I'm in the minority here, but I am a big fan of the new system. I would torture myself trying to decide between, e.g., 3 or 4 stars for movie. And then go back and re-rate other movies that I realized I liked more but rated lower than the just-rated movie. Their % match numbers are fairly accurate, but I have had to go into the watch history and delete the occasional movie watched and finished that we actually…

My system was (and is, in DVDs):

  5 - Absolutely loved it, will buy a disc
  4 - Good, but won't buy a disc
  3 - Movie was okay
  2 - Not a good movie
  1 - Stopped watching 20 minutes into it
My problem with binary choice is that 1 == 2 and 3 == 4 == 5, whilst 1 and 5 were very special for me. :(

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#233

Post by warcher »

Unrelated but worse problem: top of feed livelock. If you're below the fold, cause, I dunno, you got shit to do, you are only going to get viewed by heavy scrollers, which overly favors (IMHO, as somebody with shit to do) folks who get on the thread first. Even a one-dimensional "rank by number of uplikes" filter still doesn't calculate your likes/views ratio, which is what you'd actually care about.

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#234

Post by warcher »

warcher wrote: post #233

Unrelated but worse problem: top of feed livelock. If you're below the fold, cause, I dunno, you got shit to do, you are only going to get viewed by heavy scrollers, which overly favors (IMHO, as somebody with shit to do) folks who get on the thread first. Even a one-dimensional "rank by number of uplikes" filter still doesn't calculate your likes/views ratio, which is what you'd actually care about.

This is probably not a facebook problem, as facebook serves you content based on.... god only knows what. But HN? Reddit? Tweeter? Rampant. Real bad for engagement, as anybody looking at a post with more than a few comments knows not to even bother. Gots to get that engagement, you know?

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#235

Post by freehunter »

tgb wrote: post #209
inopinatus wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give some justice to the algorithm, after purchasing my first Dyson I wanted to replace all my vacuum cleaners with Dysen.

How many vacuum cleaners do you have?

Not the same person, but I have three. I have a roomba for everyday sweeping, a Bissell for actually cleaning the carpets not just sweeping them, and a Black and Decker handheld for the stairs, the car, and other places it's hard to take a full vacuum or a robot.

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#236

Post by barking »

tgb wrote: post #209
inopinatus wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give some justice to the algorithm, after purchasing my first Dyson I wanted to replace all my vacuum cleaners with Dysen.

How many vacuum cleaners do you have?

One per house, like everyone else!

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#237

Post by freehunter »

type0 wrote: post #210
maxxxxx wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny story: A while ago I took an Ayurveda class (Indian medicine) and part of it was doing an oil enema. There are devices for this that are also used by a certain population for sexual pleasures. Bought one on Amazon and for months I couldn't show my Amazon page to other people because it was filled with sex toys....

And the lesson here would be not to get involved with Ayrveda.

Or more specifically, not pour random fluids into your butt for some mystical health benefit. Only for pleasure.

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#238

Post by freehunter »

fletchowns wrote: post #204
afarrell wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Amazon doesn't have a way to recommend complimentary products ("oh, you just bought a tent? You probably want some bug spray") boggles.

Isn't that what the "frequently bought together" suggestions are?

Yeah but they should show that in the recommendations, not just when I'm at the product page.

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#239

Post by [deleted] »

compiler-guy wrote: post #105

For every social media site XX: Question: "Why does XX do things this way?" Answer: "Because it increases engagement." Why does the Facebook algorithm do this? Because it increases clicks. Why does Youtube use autoplay? Because it increases watch time. For every single social media site.

[deleted]

Re: The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem

#240

Post by cameldrv »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #95

I find a lot of sites feel like they're overtuning their recommendation engines, to the detriment of using the site. YouTube is particularly bad for this - given the years of history and somewhat regular viewing of the site, I feel like it should have a relatively good idea of what I'm interested in. Instead, the YouTube homepage seems myopically focused on the last 5-10 videos I watched.

The problem is the economics of the Internet today. Most sites are ad-funded. They need to maximize pageviews and time on site. The recommender is a huge part of accomplishing that, and it simply won't be tuned to any metric other than maximizing revenue. The solution would be to reskin popular sites with recommenders that had other objectives, such as retrospective satisfaction with time spent. Unfortunately sites know that if they give up control of the UI through an API that is open, they will lose money when people do things like this.

I really think we're entering a crisis here where sites and apps that are engineered to maximize corporate metrics are leading people down horrible paths of addiction, and psychic stress as they spend their mental energy resisting temptations constantly thrown at them.

Post reply on HN