From mahout-user-return-1137-apmail-lucene-mahout-user-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Tue Jul 28 15:32:20 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-mahout-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 16678 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2009 15:00:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Jul 2009 15:00:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 33975 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2009 15:02:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-mahout-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 33955 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2009 15:02:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mahout-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: mahout-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list mahout-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 33945 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jul 2009 15:02:01 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:02:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of srowen@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.210 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.210] (HELO mail-bw0-f210.google.com) (209.85.218.210) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:01:53 +0000 Received: by bwz6 with SMTP id 6so96748bwz.5 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rYaYMx9GdIHcLSOiMM3/cpxRwTdFfgubDkXVZlsRJ34=; b=SF+ltyIlyiu35eexCesJ+9KOp+TeCVJhUnuSEMf7Nnt5G3L5ouevBvA8c5s6biYbgf a41i0L2ABW8n80+WRHUewDDh4+QmnfCG09fMfq9IaWS6py5Cb1lmSTv2fyKiSdzBlhKR 73o+uhptgfVVme/+K3dBftlP1+pyAaoXFi5n8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XFYArJ+KHo+nGxc8Ct0xPvboguP2LPIoXaBi1Fp1DNnuybuq2oKIjkAqek1ZoOO2VO b+ZOwFZIcZEEEc8CrTi/NjyhZdW77eHl39HPHZJ8LZIwlKm3/UMaZqmsdLcvF8u8hdDV nGWAdEBklnuNDWpLYcjyis2tyV4gB+W4uCpyY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.118.134 with SMTP id v6mr4525762bkq.2.1248793292213; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <705443.75025.qm@web111801.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <705443.75025.qm@web111801.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:01:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: recommender on binary data From: Sean Owen To: mahout-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Yeah, the return value of estimatePreference() is meaningless in this context, since you have no preference values (or they're all, conceptually, the same). The result of other methods would still have meaning though, like recommend(). On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:59 PM, James James w= rote: > I also built a recommender using taste which operates on a binary=C2=A0da= ta set (an user has bought or not bought a product). However, the recommend= er always return the same predicted value for all test items (in other word= s, all test items are considered preferred by the recommender). Did I do so= mething wrong? > > James > > >