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.
..except, instead of making it open to the community (which is not a bad idea, I must say) I thought of having Google do it. This is, perhaps, IMHO, a much better idea. Now, what we really need is a Movie Genome Project, much like the Music Genome project that lead to Pandora.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
The problem with recommendation systems is that they use too little information to catagorize their subject.
What they need to do is copy the methods of the Music Genome Project (www.pandora.com), and list a larger set of attributes for the films. This way it can recommend films by checking many more characteristics, such as director, tone, writer, or subject.
I wish they'd fix the problems in the logic determining what they actually send me from my queue before fixing problems with what they recommend to me. If I've got season 1 of a show in my queue prior to season 2, don't start sending me season 2 because some disc of season 1 is unavailable (which has happened to me multiple with both netflix and blockbuster online), send me something else completely. They've got the tech to keep one season of a tv show in order, it can't possibly be that difficult to extend that to keeping multiple seasons of a show in order.
On top of that, don't show me that it's available in my queue but send me something else instead. While I haven't asked netflix about this, I have asked blockbuster online, and I imagine they are both doing the same thing. The disc is "available" just not at the warehouse used to ship to me personally. Instead of basing one piece of information off of total stock and one off of local stock, base them both on the stock at the warehouse shipping to me.
Any marketer will tell you that what people tell you they want and what people actually want are very different things. Even if people answer honestly, the data you gather is often unreliable: people simply don't have as good a handle on what they want as they think they do.
Not that marketers have a better handle, but simply that people will swear up and down that they would buy a peanut-butter-filled hot dog, that they loved the one they tried, and then don't actually buy any.
Don't believe me? Go see Snakes on a Plane. Nobody else did. (Sure, $33 million seems like a lot, but that's chump change for a major studio release these days.)
The best improvements will come from insights gained between the lines. You may have rated The English Patient eleventeen stars, but if your next seven rentals were all episodes of The Girls Next Door, which you only rated 3 stars, it certainly looks like you want more Hugh Hefner and less Ralph Fiennes.
The best data is the data that the subject doesn't realize he's giving you. Once you start imposing conscious choice on the ratings, you get only what they say they like, not what they really like.