Slashdot Mirror


Build a Better Netflix, Win a Million Dollars?

An anonymous reader writes "In a quest to better movie recommendations, Netflix is opening their database (nytimes, registration and first child required) to users to try to craft a better recommendation technology. The problem is not easy. Says one researcher: 'You're competing with 15 years of really smart people banging away at the problem.'" Recommender systems are really an interesting problem, and that is likely very interesting data to play with.

4 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Suggestion by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a NetFlix user I have one suggestion for their recommendation system that can make it much better. Make it aware of the connection between series. That is to say, If you rent season 1 of something, suggest season 2, not season 4 (even if season 4 has better review ratings). If I mark season 1 of something as "not interested" instead of giving it a user rating, don't suggest every other season of that same show at the top of my recommendations. I mean how many times do I have to tell you I don't want to see any season of "Friends" ever, even if you pay me?

    1. Re:Suggestion by Xentor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm, I see your point.

      I was about to mention that I mark things as Not Interested when I own them, to avoid being reccommended the rest (Usually because I prefer to buy series I like, and rent actual movies), but then I realized that fits into what you said perfectly.

      Point conceded.

      --
      "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
  2. RSSTimes by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In a quest to better movie recommendations, Netflix is opening their database (nytimes, registration and first child required)...
    Not quite, you can find it here (or the minimalist version for anyone sick of ads).

    Why is it that the Slashdot editors are just too damn lazy to look up the RSS feed links to these pages?

    The problem is not easy. Says one researcher: "You're competing with 15 years of really smart people banging away at the problem."
    While this may be true, I wouldn't let it deter you. Collaborative filtering is a field that is far from dead. The interesting thing about collaborative filtering is that on the surface, it seems pretty straight forward but once you dig into the mechanics of it, there is actually a lot of playing you can do. Ironically, the way you display the data to the end user is often what determines how well of a job you did.

    Allow me to take a naïve approach at this topic and say we generate a movie index of each person. I would have A Clockwork Orange and Koyaanisqatsi at 5 while The Ring 2 would be at the very low end. My friend might have similar movies. If he has A Clockwork Orange up there, you might be able to compute a Euclidean distance between us. However, this approach falls apart because no one has seen Koyaanisqatsi and of the 20 movies I've ranked highly, they are hard to find.

    You don't have to stop there, however. You could also database the movies I marked as "uninterested" or the movies that were presented to me but I didn't vote on. Like if I had seen the offer to mark J-Lo's latest flop but didn't, wouldn't that tell you something about me?

    So these caveats present themselves all along the way and, at the end computation, you have many different strategies for this data. For example, while you might not be able to link my friend an I through movies, how far apart are we on a nod network? What I mean is, if you plotted every user in their own dimension depending on the movies they ranked and attempted to compute as good a distance as possible between all users, how far would I be away from my friend by hopping on these nodes? There's a lot of information to be gleaned in this sort of friend-of-a-friend collaborative approach.

    Now you need to present this information to the user. Do you just up and recommend him a movie? Do you take Amazon's approach and say "Other people did this -- so should you."? Or do you give them some sort of three dimensional flash plotting of you versus the people nearest to you? Do you allow the user to contact those closest to them? Those farthest away?

    My point is that while 15 years of research has been done, it doesn't mean there's been 15 years of testing and implementation which, in the end of creating products, is where most of the importance lies.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. 5 star rating is flawed by BMonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I personally weigh movies on a number of different factors. I might give 3 stars to a movie because it has 4 of my favorite actors in it even if I didn't care for the plot. I might give 3 stars to a different movie with horrible acting but interesting camera angles (From Dusk Til Dawn 2). I tend to average out my ratings dependent on many things a movie has to offer.

    The problem is is that that is my rating system. It works for me. But it does little good to anybody else because they are rating based purely on something else.

    I think they need to implement the ability to rate more aspects of the movie. I'm sure some people out there rate the movie poorly if their disc is scratched or the transfer quality is poor even. A simple 1 to 5 system doesn't cut it. People rate things that aren't "Was the (romance) plot good?", "Do you like this director?", "Do you like these actors?". People rate things that aren't on the box.