Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Algorithmic Filters' keyword pg.1 of 1
04 JANUARY 2014

An introduction to recommender systems

1

TAGS

advogato.org • affinity analysisalgorithmic filtersAmazon.comautomatic predictions • collaborative filtering • collaborative filtering approach • correlationsdata matchingdata miningecho chamberfavourite things • FilmTrust • information filtering • information filtering system • information patterns • interests • Jennifer Golbeck • large datasetsLast.fm • moleskiing.it • Pandora Radiopersonal tastepersonalised suggestionsprediction • process of filtering • rating systemrecommendationrecommendation enginerecommendation platform • recommendation system • recommendation systems • recommender systems • relatednessrelationships between individualsserendipitysimilaritysimilarity machinesimilitude • trust metric • trust-based recommender systems • user datauser preferences

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
02 DECEMBER 2012

Billy Bragg: 'education reforms risk stifling creativity'

"Singer Billy Bragg has warned that the government's education reforms risk stifling creativity and leaving the pop charts the preserve of a well–off public school elite.

Bragg used a lecture in memory of broadcaster John Peel in Salford to criticise education secretary Michael Gove's plans to scrap GCSEs in favour of an English baccalaureate. He also turned his ire on and 'culture–clogging shows' such as Simon Cowell's The X Factor on ITV1.

The singer and leftwing activist said the government's proposed new education system threatened to exclude creative subjects from the core qualifications expected of 16–year–olds.

'At a time of cuts to the education budget, the pressure on schools to dump subjects like music and drama in favour of those that offer high marks in performances tables will only grow,' said Bragg.

He criticised the 'insistence that knowledge is more important than creativity', adding: 'As Albert Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited while imagination embraces the whole world'.

Bragg, delivering the second annual John Peel Lecture at the Radio Festival on Monday, said: 'Under the English baccalaureate, with its reliance on a single end of course exam, the child with the creative imagination will always lose out to the child with the ability to recall knowledge learned by rote."

(John Plunkett, 12 November 2012, The Guardian)

Billy Bragg "John Peel Lecture", photograph: Andrew Stuart/Radio Festival/PR.

1

TAGS

2012Albert Einsteinalgorithmic filtersart schools • Billy Bragg • coalition government • core subjects • creative arts • creative imagination • creative professionscreative subjectscreativitycriticism • culture-clogging • DIY ethicdramaeducation budgeteducation reform • education secretary • English Baccalaureateexamsfreedom of expressionGCSEimaginationITV1John Peel • John Peel Lecture • knowledge • learning by rote • leftwing activistMichael Govemusic • new education system • Notts Unsigned • performance tablesperformativitypolicy agenda • public school elite • Radio Festival • reality television • recall knowledge • rote learningSalford • Simon Cowell • singer • skiffle • Spotify • stifling creativity • X Factor

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
26 SEPTEMBER 2012

The mathematics of Hollywood blockbuster

HOLLYWOOD'S golden age may have ended in the 1950s, but it is only recently that Tinseltown appears to have hit upon a mathematical way to capitalise on our fickle attention spans.

"Film–makers have got better and better at constructing shots so that their lengths grab our attention," says James Cutting, a psychologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He analysed 150 Hollywood movies and found that the more recent they were, the more closely their shot lengths tended to follow a mathematical pattern that also describes human attention spans.

In the 1990s, a team at the University of Texas, Austin, measured the attention spans of volunteers as they performed hundreds of consecutive trials. When they turned these measurements into a series of waves using a mathematical trick called a Fourier transform, the waves increased in magnitude as their frequency decreased.

(Ewen Callaway, 18 February 2010, New Scientist)

TAGS

1/f law1950s • a series of waves • algorithmalgorithmic filters • attention spans • consecutive trials • constructing shots • Cornell University • decreased frequency • filmmaker • Fourier transform • golden agegrab our attentionHollywoodHollywood movies • human attention spans • increased magnitude • James Cutting • mathematical algorithm • mathematical patternmeasurementneurocinematicsNew Scientist • our fickle attention spans • psychological analysispsychological perceptionpsychological sciencepsychology • shot lengths • Tinseltown • University of Texas

CONTRIBUTOR

Tessa Szwarnowska
31 MAY 2011

Eli Pariser: beware online 'filter bubbles'

"Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed. And the journalist was asking him, 'Why is this so important?' And Zuckerberg said, 'A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.' And I want to talk about what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.

So when I was growing up in a really rural area in Maine, the Internet meant something very different to me. It meant a connection to the world. It meant something that would connect us all together. And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy and for our society. But there's this shift in how information is flowing online, and it's invisible. And if we don't pay attention to it, it could be a real problem. So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time –– my Facebook page. I'm progressive, politically –– big surprise –– but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives. I like hearing what they're thinking about; I like seeing what they link to; I like learning a thing or two. And so I was surprised when I noticed one day that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed. And what it turned out was going on was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on, and it was noticing that, actually, I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links. And without consulting me about it, it had edited them out. They disappeared.

So Facebook isn't the only place that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic editing of the Web. Google's doing it too. If I search for something, and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results. Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at –– everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located –– that it uses to personally tailor your query results. Think about it for a second: there is no standard Google anymore. And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see. You can't see how different your search results are from anyone else's.

But a couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of friends to Google 'Egypt' and to send me screen shots of what they got. So here's my friend Scott's screen shot. And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot. When you put them side–by–side, you don't even have to read the links to see how different these two pages are. But when you do read the links, it's really quite remarkable. Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all in his first page of Google results. Scott's results were full of them. And this was the big story of the day at that time. That's how different these results are becoming.

So it's not just Google and Facebook either. This is something that's sweeping the Web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization. Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet, is now personalized –– different people get different things. Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times –– all flirting with personalization in various ways. And this moves us very quickly toward a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see. As Eric Schmidt said, 'It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them.'

So I do think this is a problem. And I think, if you take all of these filters together, you take all these algorithms, you get what I call a filter bubble. And your filter bubble is your own personal unique universe of information that you live in online. And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out. So one of the problems with the filter bubble was discovered by some researchers at Netflix. And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny that a lot of us probably have noticed, which is there are some movies that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses. They enter the queue, they just zip right out. So 'Iron Man' zips right out, and 'Waiting for Superman' can wait for a really long time.

What they discovered was that in our Netflix queues there's this epic struggle going on between our future aspirational selves and our more impulsive present selves. You know we all want to be someone who has watched 'Rashomon,' but right now we want to watch 'Ace Ventura' for the fourth time. (Laughter) So the best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber and a little bit of Afghanistan. It gives us some information vegetables, it gives us some information dessert. And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they're mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance. And instead of a balanced information diet, you can end up surrounded by information junk food.

What this suggests is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong. In a broadcast society –– this is how the founding mythology goes –– in a broadcast society, there were these gatekeepers, the editors, and they controlled the flows of information. And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way, and it allowed all of us to connect together, and it was awesome. But that's not actually what's happening right now. What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones. And the thing is that the algorithms don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics that the editors did. So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance. We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable or challenging or important –– this is what TED does –– other points of view.

And the thing is we've actually been here before as a society. In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot about their civic responsibilities. Then people noticed that they were doing something really important. That, in fact, you couldn't have a functioning democracy if citizens didn't get a good flow of information. That the newspapers were critical, because they were acting as the filter, and then journalistic ethics developed. It wasn't perfect, but it got us through the last century. And so now, we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web. And we need the new gatekeepers to encode that kind of responsibility into the code that they're writing.

I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google –– Larry and Sergey –– people who have helped build the Web as it is, and I'm grateful for that. But we really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility. We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters. And we need you to give us some control, so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn't. Because I think we really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it's not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one."

(Eli Pariser, TED.com)

Fig.1 recorded at TED2011, March 2011, in Long Beach, CA. duration: 9:05

1

TAGS

57 signals • algorithmic editing • algorithmic filters • algorithmic gatekeepers • authorised voiceauthorship • balanced information diet • broadcast society • challenging consensus • civic responsibilities • civic responsibility • content editors • curate the world for us • demassificationdemocracydifferent perspectivesecho chamberEgyptEli Pariser • embedded ethics • Eric SchmidtFacebookfilterfilter bubbles • gatekeeper • Google IncHuffington Post • human gatekeepers • information dessert • information flows • information junk food • insular • insular communitiesinsulationisolated in a Web of one • journalistic ethics • Mark ZuckerbergNetflixnew ideas • new people • New York Timesno single standard • personal unique universe of information • personalisation • personalised filters • query results tailoring • relevancesearchsilotailoredTED Talksthe self • uncomfortable • Washington Post • Yahoo News

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.