|
|
After a quick view I can see nothing wrong with the article.
I think it's the subject, statistics just isn't for everyone.
It's also fairly advanced, which sorts away quite a few more readers.
Compare with CodeWitch's articles, she's mass producing advanced articles that needs commitment to read and understand, but gets the article of the month for a fairly simple straightforward article on adding list functionality for collections.
If it's points you're after you need to write articles for the broad mass of readers. 
<edit> That said, I have put your article on my reading list</edit>
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the article when it was published, did a quick glance and figured out its not for me or interest.
As for Article, there is nothing wrong or needs to be reworked.
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
I second you, super!
It looks like a great article, but it's just not a subject that I need to read about.
Can't find anything wrong with it either.
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I've just looked at the stats for your article. It shows that you had a peak of a little over 800 people looking at it in one day. Since then, there has been a steady decline. So why was there a peak? There would have been a peak because the article was visible on the home page at this point so it was something that was "in your face" for people coming in to the site. Given site traffic, why has this not been higher? If you think of the home page as being like a shop front, the title and description you give your article acts as the packaging. If the packaging isn't eye catching, people aren't going to bother with it. Your title needs to scream "look at me, I'm something interesting" and your description needs to tell people, "this is what I'm about and this is why YOU NEED to know about me". If you don't catch the readers attention instantly, you are competing with all the other articles on the home page. Once the article falls off the home page, your title, description, categorisation and tags become vital.
|
|
|
|
|
It's statistics.
Outside of a few weirdos, statistics is something people only do if coerced.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Just like parsers, lexers and regex 
|
|
|
|
|
I won a best article prize for my last parser there, clever guy. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: people only do if coerced
This is why you won.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
You're saying my binding spell worked, then.
That's not against the rules. I read them.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guilty. I've alays been a weirdo
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot, the community for your valuable comments and my question replies. 
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, when you use what an article is literally about in the title you'll only attract the type of people interested in that subject. I see "optimal k-means clustering" and I think "that sounds interesting but complex. Don't have time, might bookmark for a rainy day." So for traffic, it is probably a better idea to use the title to explain what this article practically accomplishes and maybe include the details in the sub-header description.
So instead of "A Gentle Introduction to Optimal K-Means Clustering" something like "A Gentle Introduction to Multi-Objective AIs" with the sub-header "An optimal k-means clustering algorithm". That grabs my attention more. A multi-purpose AI? Hmmm, that might be useful in -insert project or situation here-.
Such targeted articles still won't generate the traffic of more general-purpose stuff but I know from my own habits that if I know why an article is useful I'm much more likely to read it even if I don't fully understand the topics because I now have a motivation to invest at least some time in doing the background research to understand those topics at a basic level 
|
|
|
|
|
I've already modified the title of my article: Implementing An Optimal K-Means Clustering Algorithm.
So, how's that?
|
|
|
|
|
The primary subject is still "Optimal K-Means Clustering Algorithm" which before I clicked and read a bit of your article because of this post, I had zero idea what on Earth that even was. If I was busy and skimming for articles to read later from the front page I would probably pass to be honest. I think if you somehow hint in the title it relates to AI you'd get way more interest.
Edit: Of course I don't really do AI stuff, so maybe that's a common algorithm? This is all just my perspective as an AI noob 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I think if you somehow hint in the title it relates to AI you'd get way more interest.
I'm just working on it. Specifically, K-Means clustering is a very popular AI Machine Learning algorithm, I've already discussed in my previous articles years ago.
Anyway, I'll try to change the title to something AI and machine learning related.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a really good article from the parts I understand I didn't notice it mentioned but what's the Big-Oh performance of the sub-optimal k-means clustering algorithm? O(k)?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I didn't notice it mentioned but what's the Big-Oh performance of the sub-optimal k-means clustering algorithm? O(k)?
Quote Selected Text
The complexity of the sub-optimal (!) k-means algorithm is typically very high (e.g. it's NP-hard).
That's actually why I've used the number of algorithm optimizations such as k-means++ initialization algorithm, thoroughly discussed in this article, as well as the ability of the initialization process to produce the number of initial clusters prior to performing the actual clustering, and that really helps to reduce the computational complexity of the k-means algorithm.
modified 17-Jan-20 4:57am.
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, I've re-composed the article's title: "Quote: How To Implement The AI Supervised Learning K-Means Clustering Algorithm And Use It For Solving Data Classification Problems"
So, what's about this one?
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely peaks my interest more CodeProject is gonna cut off the title on listings somewhere around the middle but all the important keywords are in the first half anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes of course. I'll compact the beginning of the article's title right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I realized you'd have to change "Use" to "Using" if you did that which doesn't really save much space. English - ain't it fun? Could just use "Implement" though in the imperative sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me, but if I don't understand which word I should use in the imperative sense "Implement" or "Use", or both??
|
|
|
|
|
Implement and Use, yea. Haha. I swear I'm a native speaker and it's just really late! 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
