I had a query on the UI of the 'Improve' feature of Watson Conversation.Please refer below snapshot from my workspace:
snapshot from the improve feature of WCS
How is that result count ( 7418 ) calculated? Suppose in a single conversation , I had five questions and corresponding five responses from watson, is it a total of 10 results OR would it be 1 result..The reason I am asking is that the UI is confusing and I can see some repetitions , as I keep expanding the 'View conversation'.
The result shows the user input along with how Watson Conversation classified the input (referred to as "questions" in your question above). Each variation is counted.
I believe there was a recent change the the UI that simplifies the search and lets you easily filter by entity or intent type.
Related
I have defined an intent in Watson Assistant using the following training examples:
adieu
au revoir
bye
bye now
ciao
cu
cya
exit
farewell
good bye
have a nice day
I'm leaving
later
quit
see you
so long
stop
we are done
A user inputs the word "again". Watson returns a match to this intent with a confidence level of about .9
The word "again" does appear in a training example for a completely different intent, namely "I'm looking forward to working with you again! :)". It does not appear in any other training example.
What is the reasoning used by Watson Assistant to arrive at this match and with such a high level of confidence?
There is a whole load of factors that determine why an intent is picked over the other.
Intents do not work properly if you have <= 2 intents.
Any entities you have created that are referenced in the example questions can also impact what is picked.
Contextual entities will also add weight to the POS of those entities.
Number of intents and how frequently the word is used across those intents can also impact the scoring.
Watson Assistant always tries to get meaning from the term where it can.
When trying to determine why it picked one intent over another, you need to look at both. The intent you mention may not even be the second one picked.
With just one intent shown above it's hard to say the 'Why', so this is just an educated guess as to what may be happening.
"again" is a single word and by itself has no context to determine an intent. The closest in the list would be "later".
It couldn't find any meaning whatsoever in a single word, so looked at the intent with the most single word examples, as possible reason to pick it.
That aside, you should try not to answer real 1-2 keyword based questions. There is almost never any context that a person could answer, so it's unlikely WA will be able to either.
I made a app and I use goole maps API. I would like know, you know when you make a request for place, API return 5 last reviews and reviews.rating, and rating, for how many reviews this rating is calculate ? How I can have this information do you know?
I calculated for 5 last reviews and rating, the average does not correspond in 5 reviews.rating. Thus how to know this average is calculated on how much reviews? Thanks
Edit : in this question (4 years ago) : how to get total number of reviews from google reviews I have try this solution user_ratings_total but that don't work
Edit 2 : it's certainly possible nobody's know ?
it is possible now to get total number of reviews using Place Details Place APIs call: https://developers.google.com/places/web-service/details#fields
as of Jan 2019, it returns user_ratings_total field: https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/releases#335
which contains the total number of reviews.
If this isn't a long term project, give my API a shot:
http://reviewsmaker.com/api/google/?business=mumbai%20cafe&api_key=4a2819f3-2874-4eee-9c46-baa7fa17971c
You can just swap the business name; I created it local to the US though by the looks of your images it seems you're looking to do it for CA; user_ratings_total was indeed removed from places but the GMB API still has access to this data, I just kind of tweaked it a little bit.
Here's a tip on how you can get the data, if you create a custom RSS feed with the URLs for the places and (not sure what language your using) you can parse through the URLs and get the metadata out; or if you use Google CSE (Custom Search Engine) the PageMap for the schemas 'review', 'aggregatedreviews' will be easy to parse through as well. These are just clevar workarounds; it sucks they omit this data from the natural official API it was very useful.
Im learning dimensional modeling and Im trying to create a model. I was thinking about a social media platform which rates hotels. The platform has following data:
hotel information: name and address
a user can rate hotels (1-5 points)
a user can write comments
platform stores the date of the comments
hotel can answer via comment and it stores the date of it
the platform stores the total number of each rating level (i.e.: all rates with 1 point, all rates with 2 point etc.)
platform stores information of the user: sex, name, total number of votes he/she made and address
First, I tried to define which information belongs to a dimension or fact table
(here I also checked which one is additive/semi additive/non-additive)
I realized my example is kind of difficult, because it’s hard to decide if it belongs to a fact table or dimension.
I would like to hear some advice. Would someone agree with my model?
This is how I would model it:
Hotel information -> hotel dimension
User rating -> additive fact – because I can aggregate them with all dimensions
User comment -> semi additive? – because I can aggregate them with the date dimension (I don’t know if my argument is correct, but I know I would have new comments every day, which is for me a reason to store it in a fact table
Answer as comment -> same handling like with the user comments
Date of comment-> dimension
Total Number of all votes (1/2/3/4/5) -> semi-additive facts – makes no sense to aggregate them, since its already total but I would get the average
User information sex and name, address -> user-dimension
User Information: total number of votes -> could be dimension or fact. It depends how often it changes. If it changes often, I store it in a fact. If its not that often, then dimension
I still have question, hope someone can help me:
My Question: should I create two date dimensions, or can I store both information in one date dimension?
2nd Question: each user and hotel just have one address. Are there arguments, to separate the address dimension in a own hierarchy? Can I create a 1:1 relationship to a user dimension and address dimension?
For your model, it looks well considered, but here are some thoughts:
User comment (and answers to comments): they are an event to be captured (with new ones each day, as you mention) so are factual, with dimensionality of the commenter, type of comment, date, and the measure is at least a 'count' which is additive. But you don't want to store big text in a fact so you would put that in a dimension by itself which is 1:1 with the fact, for situations where you need to query on the comment itself.
Total Number of all votes (1/2/3/4/5) are, as you say, already aggregates, mostly for performance. Totals should be easy from the raw data itself so maybe not worthwhile to store them at all. You might also consider updating the hotel dimension with columns (hotel A has 5 '1' votes and 4 '2' votes) that you'd update as you go on, for easy filtering and categorisation.
User Information: total number of votes: it is factual information about a user (dimension) and it depends on whether you always just want to 'find it out' about a person or whether you are likely to use it to filter other information (i.e. show me all reviews for users who have made 10-20 votes). In that case you might store the total in the user dimension (and/or a banding, like 'number of reviews range' with 10-20, 20-30). You can update dimensions often if you need to, but you're right, it could still just live as a fact only.
As for date dimensions, if the 'grain' is 'day' then you only need one dimension, that you refer to from multiple facts.
As for addresses, you're right that there are arguments on both sides! Many people separate addresses into their own dimension, referred to from the other dimensions that use them. Kimball suggests you can do that behind the scenes if necessary, but prefers for each dimension to have its own set of address columns(but modelled as consistently as possible).
Background
I'm writing an Alexa Skill and looking to get pieces of information from the user.
The following conversation for example:
Alexa: What month were you born at?
User: April
Alexa: Good. And what was your favorite movie?
User: April
The problem
Given the following utterances:
GetMonthIntent {month}
GetMovieIntent {movie}
Once a user answers April for the second time, the GetMonthIntent might be triggered.
What I have tried
Asking the user to specify which piece of information is giving by using the following utterances:
GetMonthIntent Month {month}
GetMovieIntent Movie {movie}
The question
What is the right way to make Alexa wait for a single term answer based on the current context?
In the same vein as the other answers here, you should take a look at the newest Node.JS library here, which handles state out of the box:
https://github.com/alexa/alexa-skills-kit-sdk-for-nodejs#making-skill-state-management-simpler
You could define:
State_Launch
State_Month
State_Movie
And then return the proper error response if anything other than the GetMovieIntent or GetMonthIntent (etc.) intents are called in the wrong state.
You would have to do data validation on the server side to make sure the "month" is a valid one, and movies are even harder to validate unless you have a list of expected values. That is, if you care to parse them for use beyond repeating back.
Unfortunately, there is no solution. There is no way to specify the 'context' in which a user reply should be interpreted, so you have to tell the user "what was your favorite movie? Please say 'my favorite movie is' and then the name of the movie".
Here are two ASK feature requests that I think would address your issue:
https://forums.developer.amazon.com/content/idea/41062/creating-something-to-help-with-more-structured-qu.html
https://forums.developer.amazon.com/content/idea/55525/allow-a-response-to-specify-a-set-of-expected-inte.html
Personally I think this is fairly important so I voted for those, but they are not near the top.
I ran into this same problem when I created the "Who's on First? Baseball Skit" skill. I handled this by:
Create a sequence number for each response given by Alexa
Write this number to the "session" in the response.
The session is then passed back to your skill by Alexa in the next request.
Read the sequence number from the request to know what the previous question was.
If a given intent could be the answer to multiple questions (eg. month and movie in your case) then use the sequence number to determine which it is.
This should give you ideas on how to deal with repeated answers. The session is quite easy to use. Other options include writing the userId and status to a database like DynamoDB, but I find that the session works in most cases.
I am trying to automatically populate a field through a calculated field.
Just a quick background we distribute equipment with serials numbers. This equipment is sometimes returned. So some customers have multiple products each with different status of returned, shipped and installed.
I would like to transfer this serial number to a field on the contact through a calculated field only if the status is installed or shipped.
I have tried:
related($products,"serial"),",",(related($products,"status"))
and
related(contains(status,"installed)"products,"serial")
I need this for reporting reasons and would be greatly appreciated if you could help.
Thanks
You need a combination of ifElse and equal and related and or
As an example, the following Sugar Logic formula can be placed on a Contact record and will populate the field with the related account's name if the related account is of the type "Reseller." If the Account is of some other account_type then the field takes the value of "nope!"
ifElse(equal(related($accounts,"account_type"),"Reseller"),related($accounts,"name"),"nope!")
If you wanted to add another condition, or allow for another acceptable Account Type, build in an or
When you're writing lengthy Sugar Logic like this, I find it helpful to start writing it out with indentation using a text editor:
ifElse(
or(
equal(related($accounts,"account_type"),"Reseller"),
equal(related($accounts,"account_type"),"Investor"),
),
related($accounts,"name"),
"nope!"
)
In some versions of Sugar I've had to remove the extra spacing but it seems like in 7.2.2.0 at least the editor actually allows and preservers the formatting, which is a pleasant surprise.