Stumbled upon a paper that might fit into this discussion: "The Learning Behind Gmail Priority Inbox" http://goo.gl/DXjga
--sebastian Am 05.01.2011 19:17, schrieb Ted Dunning: > I wonder if the right notion is that importance is some notional aggregate > of relevance over all users, queries and times. The aggregate might be > maximum or something similar. > > That would make importance be a measure of whether a resource is likely to > ever be relevant. > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Niall Riddell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> * >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> * >> >
