<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stay Classified</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.evernote.com/tech/2013/01/22/stay-classified/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.evernote.com/tech/2013/01/22/stay-classified/</link>
	<description>The Care and Feeding of Elephants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:43:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Ayzenshtat</title>
		<link>http://blog.evernote.com/tech/2013/01/22/stay-classified/#comment-744</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Ayzenshtat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.evernote.com/tech/?p=677#comment-744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vikram -- glad you like it!

Many classification techniques are more sophisticated than Naive Bayes, but that doesn&#039;t necessarily make them better. As always, it&#039;s about finding the right tool for the job. For this application (mostly a text classification problem), Naive Bayes performs great and has fewer moving parts than the alternatives. Also, gathering great training data and selecting the right features are challenges in their own right and probably affected the final user experience much more than the choice of classification algorithm.

We currently don&#039;t plan to share the recipe training data, but we&#039;d definitely like to have developers build other kinds of classifiers over time, and the &quot;classifications&quot; field in the API was added with this in mind.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vikram &#8212; glad you like it!</p>
<p>Many classification techniques are more sophisticated than Naive Bayes, but that doesn&#8217;t necessarily make them better. As always, it&#8217;s about finding the right tool for the job. For this application (mostly a text classification problem), Naive Bayes performs great and has fewer moving parts than the alternatives. Also, gathering great training data and selecting the right features are challenges in their own right and probably affected the final user experience much more than the choice of classification algorithm.</p>
<p>We currently don&#8217;t plan to share the recipe training data, but we&#8217;d definitely like to have developers build other kinds of classifiers over time, and the &#8220;classifications&#8221; field in the API was added with this in mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vikram</title>
		<link>http://blog.evernote.com/tech/2013/01/22/stay-classified/#comment-741</link>
		<dc:creator>Vikram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.evernote.com/tech/?p=677#comment-741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Surely there are better classifiers than the Näive Bayes approach. Do you also intend to share a limited amount of recipe information to test and develop other classifiers?
The idea is really cool!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely there are better classifiers than the Näive Bayes approach. Do you also intend to share a limited amount of recipe information to test and develop other classifiers?<br />
The idea is really cool!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
