Talk:Affinity analysis

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Affinity analysis

Why'd you revert the line that I added to the Affinity analysis article? I've been trying to improve it to give a sense of how it's actually viewed and used. The report from AMR Research is behind a subscription wall, but they're a fairly respected market research group and I thought it gave a good perspective on what people were actually expecting from it, since much of the current article only talks about hypothetical situations and a few companies currently using it. If you have a better way to structure the article, go for it, but it's completely unhelpful to just revert good-faith edits. modargo (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website required login and is spam in my view. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CITATION, requiring a login to view does not invalidate a reference if it's from an established organization, which AMR certainly is. If you want, I can quote the relevant section of the report on the article's talk page. modargo (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about quoting from the "thinker's guide to commonsense". What does a user gain from a website they can not access, about a report they can not read? How do you spell spam? That sentence told me NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING except alert me to the fact that AMR has a report I may want to buy. How do you spell spam? If you do not like my view, ask for arbitration. I am not changing my mind on this. History2007 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Association algorithms

I think Association rule learning, K-optimal pattern discovery, etc. are specific instances of algorithms that implement Affinity analysis and one may consider merging them into here, with "Affinity analysis" as a general approach with no specific algorithms and the others as algorithmic methods of realizing it. But then it will make it a hard to read page. It would probably be better to refer to those algorithms from here, and keep the top level concept separate. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding this organizational scheme. Next steps should then be to better link the seperate pages to one another. Jeffreydiehl (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, In the next few days I will come up with a link-scheme. A few of those need pages built, and I will put those on my to do list as well. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]