The TOP method:
http://developers.deezer.com/api/artist/top
retrieve the top tracks for each artist; I know that the answer is country-related; is it possible to have a "global" top? Which is the date range taken into consideration for the answer?
I expected, from the TOP answer, decreasing (or increasing, depending on the order) RANK, but from this query
http://api.deezer.com/2.0/artist/2276/top?output=xml&limit=20
I can see, for the first three results, the following ranks:
1) 425272
2) 434667
3) 401878
Is the order of "rank" different than top? Maybe the date range is different?
The rank is a global indicator of a song's popularity on DEezer, who goes from 0 to 1M. The closer to 1M, the most popular the track is. The rank is updated daily based on all the Deezer users' streams.
Related
Data granularity is per customer, per invoice date, per product type.
Generally the idea is simple:
We have a moving average calculation of the volume per week. MA based on last 12 weeks (MA Volume):
window_sum(sum([Volume]),-11,0)/window_count(count([Volume]), -11,0)
We need to see the deviation of the current week vs the MA for that week (Vol DIFF):
SUM([Volume])-[MA Calc]
We need to sum up the deviations for a fixed period of time (Year/Month)
Basically this should show us whether on average, for a given period of time, we deviate positively or negatively vs the base.
enter image description here
Unfortunately I get errors like:
"Argument to SUM (an aggregate function) is already an aggregation, and cannot be further aggregated."
Or
"Level of detail expressions cannot contain table calculations or the ATTR function"
Any ideas how I can go around this one?
Managed to solve this one. Needed to add months to the view and then just WINDOW_SUM(Vol_DIFF).
Simple as that!
I am trying to show the change in moving average by county on a map.
Currently, I have the calculated field for this:
IF ISNULL(LOOKUP(SUM([Covid Count]),-14)) THEN NULL ELSE
WINDOW_AVG(SUM([Covid Count]), -7, 0)-WINDOW_AVG(SUM([Covid Count]), -14, -7)
END
This works in creating a line graph where I filter the dates to only include 15 consecutive dates. This results in one point with the correct change in average.
I would like this to number to be plotted on a map but it says there are just null values.
The formula is only one part of defining a table calculation (a class of calculations performed client side tableau taking the aggregate query results returned from the data source)
Equally critical are the dimensions in play on the view to determine the level of detail of the query, and the instructions you provide to tell Tableau how to slice up or layout the query results before applying the table calc formula. This critical step is known as setting the “partitioning and addressing” for the table calc, sometimes also as setting the “compute using”. Read about it in the online help for table calcs. You can experiment with using the Edit Table Calc dialog by clicking on the corresponding pill.
In short, you probably have to a dimension, such as your Date field to some shelf - likely the detail shelf, and the set the partitioning and addressing, probably to partition by county and address by state.
If you have more than a couple of weeks of data, then you’ll get multiple marks per county. You may need to decide how to handle that on your map.
Is it possible to rank search results based solely on proximity (and other filters) to a specific point and ignore the custom ranking formula (likes)?
For example, I'd like to rank results closest to times square strictly by distance and for the query to not care about the likes attribute.
I suppose the likes attributes is one of you own.
You can do what you need by removing the attribute like from the custom ranking.
If you need 2 way to search, you can do a replica index, with the same data but a different ranking formula: https://www.algolia.com/doc/guides/ranking/sorting/?language=go#multiple-sorting-strategies-for-an-index
I have a dataset that contains various wait-time metrics for all appointments in a practice for a year (check-in to call-back, call-back to check-out, etc). It contains appt time (one of about 40 15 minute slots), provider, various wait times.
I can get Tableau to show me, for each 15 minute slot, the average wait times for each provider in the practice.
What I can't seem to be able to do is also display the overall average for the practice for that given time slot so as to be able to compare that provider vs. the "office standard".
I'm super new to trying out Tableau, so I am sure it is something very simple.
Thanks in advance.
Use a level-of-detail (LOD) calculated field. An LOD calculation occurs at whatever aggregation level you specify, rather than what's on the row or column shelf.
You didn't provide any info about your data set so I will use made up names here.
This gives you the overall average wait time, regardless of other dimensions on row/column shelves:
{FIXED : avg([wait time])}
This gives you the overall average wait time per provider, regardless of other dimensions on row/column shelves:
{FIXED [Provider Name] : avg([wait time])}
See the online Tableau help at https://onlinehelp.tableau.com/current/pro/desktop/en-us/calculations_calculatedfields_lod_overview.html for more information. If you have filtering and need to calculate the overall without filters applied, look at the INCLUDE LOD keyword.
The problem I'm trying to solve is finding the right similarity metric, rescorer heuristic and filtration level for my data. (I'm using 'filtration level' to mean the amount of ratings that a user or item must have associated with it to make it into the production database).
Setup
I'm using mahout's taste collaborative filtering framework. My data comes in the form of triplets where an item's rating are contained in the set {1,2,3,4,5}. I'm using an itemBased recommender atop a logLikelihood similarity metric. I filter out users who rate fewer than 20 items from the production dataset. RMSE looks good (1.17ish) and there is no data capping going on, but there is an odd behavior that is undesireable and borders on error-like.
Question
First Call -- Generate a 'top items' list with no info from the user. To do this I use, what I call, a Centered Sum:
for i in items
for r in i's ratings
sum += r - center
where center = (5+1)/2 , if you allow ratings in the scale of 1 to 5 for example
I use a centered sum instead of average ratings to generate a top items list mainly because I want the number of ratings that an item has received to factor into the ranking.
Second Call -- I ask for 9 similar items to each of the top items returned in the first call. For each top item I asked for similar items for, 7 out of 9 of the similar items returned are the same (as the similar items set returned for the other top items)!
Is it about time to try some rescoring? Maybe multiplying the similarity of two games by (number of co-rated items)/x, where x is tuned (around 50 or something to begin with).
Thanks in advance fellas
You are asking for 50 items similar to some item X. Then you look for 9 similar items for each of those 50. And most of them are the same. Why is that surprising? Similar items ought to be similar to the same other items.
What's a "centered" sum? ranking by sum rather than average still gives you a relatively similar output if the number of items in the sum for each calculation is roughly similar.
What problem are you trying to solve? Because none of this seems to have a bearing on the recommender system you describe that you're using and works. Log-likelihood similarity is not even based on ratings.