I don't see why one would believe that the randomly selected items farther down the list are more likely to engage a user. If anything, the recommender says they are less likely to be engaging.
(Or put another way, by this reasoning, we ought to pick recommendations at random.) I do think that it's possible that a recommender isn't quite capturing the utility of recommendations correctly. But then that's an issue of the algorithm. On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Konstantin Shmakov <kshma...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems that as long as recommenders are dealing with the "economy of spam" > (most users are not interested) any additional engagement e.g. through > randomization or more reach recommendations would help. Is that right?
