You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If someone has only rated say 2 maps in common with me, and it happens I rated the first higher and they rated the second higher, the rating similarity probably shouldn't display as extreme as a literal -1.
Maybe there should be a minimum number of ratings in common before it displays?
Alternatively I think a way to do a kind of Bayesian thing would be to add C artificial identical 2.5 ratings when calculating the correlation coefficient, where C is a confidence value.
As a side note if there's division by zero in the correlation coefficient the result should be 0 or nothing at all, though I assume you're already handling that fine.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If someone has only rated say 2 maps in common with me, and it happens I rated the first higher and they rated the second higher, the rating similarity probably shouldn't display as extreme as a literal -1.
Maybe there should be a minimum number of ratings in common before it displays?
Alternatively I think a way to do a kind of Bayesian thing would be to add C artificial identical 2.5 ratings when calculating the correlation coefficient, where C is a confidence value.
As a side note if there's division by zero in the correlation coefficient the result should be 0 or nothing at all, though I assume you're already handling that fine.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: