Somewhat related to this discussion: "But two months ago, philly.com <http://www.philly.com/>, home of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, began analyzing their web traffic with an “engagement index” — an equation that goes beyond pageviews and into the factors that differentiate a loyal, dedicated reader from a fly-by. It sums up seven different ways that users can show “engagement” with the site, and it looks like this: *Σ(C_i + D_i + R_i + L_i + B_i + I_i + P_i )*"
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/10/getting-beyond-just-pageviews-philly-coms-seven-part-equation-for-measuring-online-engagement/ Regards, Siem > 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 >>> * >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> * >>> >>> >> > > -- / siem vaessen/ po box 76623/ 1070 he/ amsterdam/ holland / t: +31(0)651 229 221/ skype: siemvaessen/ www.webcode.nl/ blog: www.peakoil.nl / http://www.linkedin.com/in/siemvaessen / http://www.twitter.com/siemvaessen
