I think that notion of Importance implies the need for some form of action based on that Information which distinguishes it from relevant or merely interesting information.
Niall On 4 January 2011 05:36, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote: > Relevance is a personal choice. Global importance + Personalization and the > ratio of the blend == Better(No one knows whats best yet :) > > Robin > > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Lance Norskog <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yup- the one-word story would be 'interesting' rather than 'relevant'. > > Context matters: anything from the searcher to moment-to-moment > > differences. Intertwined with this is attention. > > > > In econ-speak, the user has a resource called 'attention'. You are > > talking about optimizing the utils received when the user spends this > > resource. ('util' is a unitless measure of'what you got when you > > spent'.) > > > > Lance > > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Dinesh B Vadhia wrote: > > > > > >> We could end-up in a hair-splitting hole. Sounds like you want to be > > able to identify things (items) that are relevant and important. You > could > > also say, items that are relevant and of value. > > > > > > Yes, I would agree. > > > > > >> > > >> Describing the use-case might help? > > > > > > The use case is I am writing on the topic (well, a bunch of topics) and > > the thought occurred to me that an organizing principal of this > particular > > section is best summed up by the word Importance, namely "Identifying > > Important Content and People". What I would like to be able to do is > point > > a user at the most relevant/important research in the area as well as > some > > open source implementations that help solve the problem and also provide > the > > basic theory behind it. When I first outlined the section, I was mainly > > going to focus on graph algorithms like PageRank, but it occurred to me > > recently that it was broader than that. Hence the question being aimed > > more at the academic side of the equation and not so much at the > > implementation side (besides, I would agree with most others here that > the > > actual implementations focus on either categorization or graph > approaches.) > > > > > > From Twitter, there were other suggestions of things to look into: > > significance, novelty, surprisal, information gain. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Grant Ingersoll > > >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:41 AM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: [slightly off topic] Determining Importance > > >> > > >> > > >> I guess Relevance is a useful word to describe it, but I don't think > it > > resonates as well (that is, Joe on the street is much more likely to say > > "That is important to me" than to say "That is relevant to me".) > > >> > > >> If we split hairs, Wikipedia defines relevance as "... how pertinent, > > connected, or applicable something is to a given matter." Webster has > > important as "marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence > : > > valuable in content or relationship" -- I think importance has a stronger > > connotation than relevance. Under these definitions, I think something > can > > be relevant but still not be important. Certainly everything that is > > important is also relevant. And certainly all the studies around > relevance > > are important (!) to the discussion, but what I'm getting at is a bit > deeper > > (I think, but I can be dissuaded). > > >> > > >> I would also agree with Ted here in that I don't think PageRank is > > necessarily a measure of relevance (the page, after all, is on the given > > matter or not based on it's keywords, but it is Important because of the > > fact that everyone else has said so). I also wonder if we aren't clouded > by > > the use of relevance in search terms, particularly in keyword-based > > approaches. Importance to me factors in many other things (including > > personalization). Again, maybe I'm splitting hairs. > > >> > > >> -Grant > > >> > > >> On Jan 3, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > >> > > >>> That is close, but I think that there is something else going on with > > this > > >>> as well. > > >>> > > >>> Is page rank a measure of relevance? Not really (to my mind) > > >>> > > >>> Relevance has a strong notion of context. What is relevant to me in > > one > > >>> moment may not be relevant the next moment. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Dinesh B Vadhia > > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Yep, what I'd call it too - relevance. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> From: Jake Mannix > > >>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:48 AM > > >>>> To: [email protected] > > >>>> Subject: Re: [slightly off topic] Determining Importance > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I've got one word for you, Grant: > > >>>> > > >>>> Relevance. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> -------------------------- > > >> Grant Ingersoll > > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com > > >> > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > Grant Ingersoll > > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Lance Norskog > > [email protected] > > > -- Niall Riddell *xSpace Analytics Ltd* * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * T: +44 161 408 3830 M:+44 778 696 3830 Skype: niall.riddell * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *
