Re^3: Extensive List of Names by Gender?by kennethk (Abbot)
|on Jul 12, 2013 at 18:37 UTC||Need Help??|
Why else would CPAN host a module that attempts to solve this?Have you perused the CPAN Acme offerings?
we target our audience through certain advertisementsBy providing context, you have very substantially informed the question. One of the points raised in the Slashdot discussion (And I am, of course, loathe to consider Slashdot as a reliable source) is that application dictates what you actually mean by gender in a CS context. And your targeting question is precisely why the real question here is what are your failure tolerances? What is the cost benefit of an incorrectly targeted ad vs. offering non-specific ads to the same consumer?
Therefore, our ability to unfailingly gather pointed data from our viewers is quite limited and we are attempting a 'behind-the-scenes' approach.Which hits on the DB question: why are you doing this in preprocessing rather than post? You are applying a model to your data, and therefore potentially corrupting your input stream by mixing original and derived information.
this module produces 6.8% accuracy for our dataYou do get that there is inherent error, which is important, however, 6.8% accuracy is a pretty specific number. How did you determine that? Do you have independent training and test data sets, or does that mean some guy looked at the results and guessed yes or no?
Subjective means that there is no general right answer. Because the cost benefit questions are use case specific, you must tune your own list. Because you were asking about using someone else's list.
Unreliable means you can't rely on an external answer. Because you were asking about using someone else's list.
frozenwithjoy's dataset will give you what you need to generate your own list. You can set your tolerances where ever you like, and have quantified reliability metrics in a particular market. My whole point was not that you shouldn't do it; rather that someone else's solution is almost assuredly wrong for you, a.k.a. Does Not (yet) Exist.
#11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.