|
|
|
|
|
by ileitch
5168 days ago
|
|
I assume each vector has its own weight? So better in "Better in both respects" is a stronger sign of similarity than just "Higher quality but same rewatchability." So say..
"Same in both dimensions" = 0
"Same quality but more rewatchable." = +1
"Same quality but less rewatchable." = -1
"Higher quality but less rewatchable." = +2
"Higher quality but same rewatchability." = +3
"Better in both respects." = +4
etc.. Then you could pass those to a coefficient like Pearson's R. x = [0, 1, 2, -1, -3, 4, -4]
y = [0, 1, 1, 2, -1, -2, 0] It'd be an interesting experiment to see what results that gives vs. your current algorithm. |
|
The really significant change would be that agreeing in one dimension (yes A is better quality than B, but we disagree on which is more rewatchable) still contributes to your correlation with someone. We're not doing that at the moment, because it felt like pairwise partial agreement would weaken the signal - I wanted _real_ agreement (in both dimensions) to stand out.
While there might be a way to capture that with a linear function, I've favoured solutions that reflect that our ratings are two-dimensional.