Hi James, On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for the words of encouragement. :) A quick note (which you already probably know): you can watch the showcase afterwards, and you know where to find us, so do ping with questions. (I may be slow in responding in the next 2 weeks, but I will get back to you). At the moment, we're not using the systems you mentioned but that's because we're not at the ranking stage, yet. Once we get there, we will start interacting with them more, to figure out where we can use what. In our previous work for recommending what articles to be created, we ranked missing articles in a given language (Section 2.2. in https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03235). When we're working with already existing articles, our job can become easier, given that, as you mentioned, more information is available about the article. (For example, we had to build a prediction model that would predict article pageviews if they get created in the previous work, while pageviews are now available to us for the already existing articles.). While we're at it: While ranking is an important step, so far what we have learned is that there is so much missing articles/content across languages that it suffices if the ranking is "good enough". The combination of a good enough ranking to give us, let's say the top 300K thousand high priority items to contribute to, and empowering users to tune recommendations based on their interests will be powerful enough from the users' perspective. I will add a few slides to talk about the challenges we see if article expansion, inspired by your question. :) Best, Leila