On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Brian J Mingus
<Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
...
That is an interesting negative finding as well. Just so this thread doesn't
go without some positive results, here is a table from one of my technical
reports on some features that do correlate with quality. If the number is
greater than zero it correlates with quality, if it is 0 it does not
correlate, and if it is less than 0 it is negatively correlated with
quality. The scale of the numbers is meaningless and not interpretable,
although the relative magnitude is important. These are just the relative
performance of each feature for each class, as extracted from the weights of
a random forests classifier.
http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/1/1e/DeHoustMangalat…
Any chance you can run a similar analysis to look for correlations
with page-views?
I think Liam was originally looking for justification to improve
article content in order for the article to attain higher page-views,
as he has his own private scientific evidence that higher page-views
results in a higher click-though rate (hopefully not with a sample
size of one museum?).
--
John Vandenberg
