very nice

Thank you for this course -- it opened my eyes to the universal applicability of recommender systems in tech applications.

My feedback is that you could do more to tie the *implementation* to the theory and real-life applications you discuss. You have many great lectures talking about how these systems were implemented, qualitative differences, subtle differences, and interviewing people to give us perspectives. But then the videos on implementation (including working through the equations) are pretty sparse and short. I felt like I'm "on my own" to figure out how to go implement these in real life. The problem sets cover one test case, and that's it. I think you could update the lectures to focus more on different algorithms / equations in different scenarios, rather than just talking qualitatively about them.

Regardless thank you! I deeply appreciate this course and what you've done. I plan to help my Consulting clients directly based on what I learned from you.

The topics I am interested in covered by people who definitely has related expertise. But overall quality of the teaching materials expected to be higher. Forum is also a little bit deserted, although contains some critical hints to pass the assignments (such a hints worth to be included in the assignment descriptions itself). I want to support the course, and it is pity to give it only 4 of 5 stars, but I really expect more quality from the course I paid for.

Excellent course providing not only the knowledge of algorithms but also useful insights into developing and maintaining recommender systems. Only thing that could use some work is the assignments. Spreadsheet assignment in week 4 is poorly designed (as evidenced by many forum threads with people not knowing what is it that the authors actually want). Other than that, that was an extremely helpful course.

Overall , it is a very interesting course.

But I would like to say , that there are too many interviews. I think that it is a little bit difficult for some non-native speaker to understand the main and important things from the interview, because some interviewers talked in a very loose way. So I would suggest our teacher , to summarize the main points of those interview in a better way .

Diverse content that helps in understanding the basic concepts of collaborative filtering. Interviews with people specializing in different nuances of collaborative filteering were very useful.

Some thoughts on what could be improved

Pace of narration. It can be faster

More exercises are needed to get more familiar with the concepts. Each lecture should have a exercise (not just a quiz)

Rather non-technical, interesting general information, plus voluntary programming assignment which I personally found little bit "bulky". More effort I spent to get familiar with the library than to actually use the collaborative filtering algorithms.

I liked the course, assignment two for item item was so much harder than the user user piece. I really spent all my time fighting excel, rather that working on the problem. it would have been easier to program it in lenskit!

Much better than the first course, covers more interesting algorithms in more depth. The assignments can be clearer instructions. I also wish the lectures cover actual mathematical examples to work us through the algorithms

I found this course very informative and clears lot of concept in Item based and used based collaborative filtering. Spreadsheet assignment helped me to clearly understand the algorithms.

Very good content ! Very interesting interviews with expert in the field that shows real examples. However the exercise needs a bit more work to be very useful.

I think this is very useful for introductory, but it lacks some references for who wants go deeper.

Overall good, except for assignment 2 which was poorly explained on one of the parts

The course material is good, but the course itself is merely okay due to some problems with the assignments that have gone unaddressed for years. The Item-Item filtering assignment solution does not match the formula given in the lectures, and the honors assignments use an outdated version of the code (at one point recommending a package that has been deprecated). Really needs some attention to fix bugs and update the software.

There is good information in this course but there are so many problems in this course. There are major errors in the assignments and I was only about the get the right answers by reading the discussions on the message board. There are coding exercises but they expect you to write them in Java rather than a language used by data scientists such as Python or R. It is a good thing the made them optional.

The content of the course is actually great, the assignments are a bit challenging which was very interesting. I've learned a lot.

Nevertheless, I didn't enjoy the course much because the support to the course which is inexistent, forum's are almost empty. If you answer a question, you have maybe 1% chance to get an answer from someone, if you open a discussion, it ends up being a monologue...

good introduction to topics and algorithms but very little help provided for the assignment in clarifying doubts in forums and unclear explanations were given for assignments. also not providing option to use any other programming language like python or r to do programming assignment is a big miss. would still recommend this course to get started from basics about reco sys.

The course itself is interesting, but some of the programming assignments are horribly confusing, what makes you waste your time trying to decipher what the professor really meant. Spreadsheet assignment on Week 3 is the main reason I rate this course so low, and a lot of people on discussion forums agree with me on assignment quality

Making honours programming exercise in Java is a mistake. Pls consider Python in the future. Assignment for week 4 uses formula differs from the course: wasted many hours that don't benefit learning.

The course is pretty good, but the spreadsheet assignments are brutal: they are confusing, too tedious and don't have enough information to debug.

THe item based assignment, parts II and IV didn't give enough guidance. Otherwise a decent course.

Week 4 assignments can do with a bit more clarity.

Assignments are not explained so well on this one

the hands-on quiz is not well prepared.

Lessons need more examples.