Augmenting Data Beats Better Algorithms

eldavojohn writes "A teacher is offering empirical evidence that when you're mining data, augmenting data is better than a better algorithm. He explains that he had teams in his class enter the Netflix challenge, and two teams went two different ways. One team used a better algorithm while the other harvested augmenting data on movies from the Internet Movie Database. And this team, which used a simpler algorithm, did much better — nearly as well as the best algorithm on the boards for the $1 million challenge. The teacher relates this back to Google's page ranking algorithm and presents a pretty convincing argument. What do you think? Will more data usually perform better than a better algorithm?"

Comments

Hold on a sec...

[peacefinder]

"What do you think? Will more data usually perform better than a better algorithm?"

I need more data.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

you guys are nothing more than glorified engineers. Computer scientists are not glorified engineers. They're the butt of engineers' jokes too.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Freeside1]

Say what you want about computer scientists, but without them you'd probably be complaining on a chalkboard.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[jank1887]

Mathematics is physics without purpose, Chemistry is physics without thought, Engineering is physics - CliffsNotes edition.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[JasonKChapman]

Mathematics is physics without purpose, Chemistry is physics without thought, Engineering is physics

Mathematics is physics without purpose, Chemistry is physics without thought, Engineering is physics without tenure.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Arthur B.]

"machine learning" is just statistical inference

Riiiht. And mathematical research is just finding a Hamiltonian cycle in a graph defined by the set of axioms used.