Live data from Hacker News

Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

nytimes.com

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#11

I've been getting increasingly frustrated at Netflix, because it keeps recommended things I have already seen, or definitely do not want to see. Having to keep scrolling through unwanted content like that really reinforces just how dumb it is, despite all these claims about their intelligence. Eventually I did figure out that on the website you can say you aren't interested in particular items, but Android/Roku etc d…

"Things I've already seen" is the worst part of it for me, and is making me more and more likely to cancel the service out of (possibly misplaced) anger at feeling like Netflix is just regurgitating the same content at me to hide lack of a fuller back catalog.

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#14
"If you use a computerized system based on ratings, you will tend to get very relevant but safe answers"... I call this my "Radiohead metric": for a given music recommendation system, how long do I have to use it before it tries to recommend me Radiohead.

One of the problems I find in music algorithms is they can't know how I've changed - suggesting music based on what I play or input - but that's stuff I liked in mid-2000s when I was in peak music consumption mode. Most suggestions then get picked from the same pool.

I'd love these algorithms to take my age into consideration: "If you liked X when you were 25, you're going to love Y now that you're 35!"

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#15
post #7
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eventually I did figure out that on the website you can say you aren't interested in particular items I didn't know you could do this. Looking forward to telling Netflix that no, I do not want to watch The Interview.

I haven't looked into in a while, but from what I remember it lets you say whether you are interested in categories of content and not specific content.

You can say not interested specific content as well (on the web interface at least). It doesn't always seem to get the message straight away though.

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the cost of postage/fulfillment/bandwidth should be a secondary concern to how many users can Netflix attract by providing content they actually enjoy. A bad recommendation for streaming or DVD both waste n minutes of viewing time. A bad DVD recommendation additionally wastes 2-6 days of waiting on USPS. They already have the recommendation engine built and they need every differentiation they can get to comp…

I completely agree. Real hype is generated when Netflix consistently nails recommendation. Content is still king, but curation of that content is the engine that drives the whole thing

I agree about your "real hype" statement. There is always the potential for a provider to build business value by nailing recommendation, especially when it comes to lesser known content. Most viewers have heard of big-budget films they plan to watch, or they'll watch any movie with . However, if someone created a system that did this well enough for users to trust it with unknown content, it would go a long way toward meaningful differentiation.

Right now, I don't know of anyone who has limited spare time who would risk trying something unknown just because it shows up in their Netflix recommendations. If Netflix got those right frequently, people would rely on it more and probably enjoy it more. A 10% increase in accuracy has a decent chance to push beyond the invisible "good enough to trust" threshold and create an experience other streaming services just don't have.

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#17
post #4

I've been getting increasingly frustrated at Netflix, because it keeps recommended things I have already seen, or definitely do not want to see. Having to keep scrolling through unwanted content like that really reinforces just how dumb it is, despite all these claims about their intelligence. Eventually I did figure out that on the website you can say you aren't interested in particular items, but Android/Roku etc d…

> Eventually I did figure out that on the website you can say you aren't interested in particular items I didn't know you could do this. Looking forward to telling Netflix that no, I do not want to watch The Interview.

FWIW, I thought The Interview was way better than I expected it to be. It is very, very silly, and it does not take itself seriously, but it wasn't particularly predictable either. Maybe you'd be pleasantly surprised?

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#18
In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky nailed the reason computers and science and algorithms will never be able to replicate humanity or predict the actions of man, when he wrote:

“What is to be done with the millions of facts that bear witness that men, consciously, that is fully understanding their real interests, have left them in the background and have rushed headlong on another path, to meet peril and danger, compelled to this course by nobody and by nothing, but, as it were, simply disliking the beaten track, and have obstinately, wilfully, struck out another difficult, absurd way, seeking it almost in the darkness. So, I suppose, this obstinacy and perversity were pleasanter to them than any advantage...

The fact is, gentlemen, it seems there must really exist something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages, or (not to be illogical) there is a most advantageous advantage (the very one omitted of which we spoke just now) which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for the sake of which a man if necessary is ready to act in opposition to all laws; that is, in opposition to reason, honour, peace, prosperity -- in fact, in opposition to all those excellent and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all. "Yes, but it's advantage all the same," you will retort. But excuse me, I'll make the point clear, and it is not a case of playing upon words. What matters is, that this advantage is remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all our classifications, and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers of mankind for the benefit of mankind. In fact, it upsets everything...

One's own free unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it may be, one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy -- is that very "most advantageous advantage" which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.

Of course, this very stupid thing, this caprice of ours, may be in reality, gentlemen, more advantageous for us than anything else on earth, especially in certain cases… for in any circumstances it preserves for us what is most precious and most important -- that is, our personality, our individuality. Some, you see, maintain that this really is the most precious thing for mankind; choice can, of course, if it chooses, be in agreement with reason… It is profitable and sometimes even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often, choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason ... and ... and ... do you know that that, too, is profitable, sometimes even praiseworthy?

I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! …And this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come off, and that desire still depends on something we don't know?

You will scream at me (that is, if you condescend to do so) that no one is touching my free will, that all they are concerned with is that my will should of itself, of its own free will, coincide with my own normal interests, with the laws of nature and arithmetic. Good heavens, gentlemen, what sort of free will is left when we come to tabulation and arithmetic, when it will all be a case of twice two make four? Twice two makes four without my will. As if free will meant that!”

I think it comes down to authenticity. Humans can predict the actions of humans, so long as humans act by and large as they think they're supposed to act or like the things they think they're supposed to like. The moment an individual walks in, an individual who does what they truly want to do when they want to do it, all correlations and inferences and predictors fall to waste.

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#19

All those hours and millions of dollars into perfecting their recommendation system, and Popcorn Time still has a better UI for viewing movies than Netflix does. Just show me all the top movies and let me pick one, why partition them into drama/comedy and filter out the one's you don't think I'll like? it makes the experience worse.

Or you know, just let me use scrollbars instead of having to wait for your stupid javascript to SLOOOOOWLY pan the movie list. And then I have to hover and usually click through to get details about a movie.

What's wrong with vertical lists with relevant information next to the picture? Something like every shopping interface ever? Using Netflix is like going to a grocery store, deciding that you want some canned corn, and having to walk up to a conveyer belt and wait while canned beans, turnips, tomatoes, mushrooms, etc... slide by before the corn comes around. And it is like this for every single item.

Re: Netflix and the Napoleon Dynamite Problem (2008)

#20

In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky nailed the reason computers and science and algorithms will never be able to replicate humanity or predict the actions of man, when he wrote: “What is to be done with the millions of facts that bear witness that men, consciously, that is fully understanding their real interests, have left them in the background and have rushed headlong on another path, to meet peril and danger, c…

The point of any system should never be to choose for a person, but rather, to improve the quality of available choices.
Post reply on HN