Search Results

Search found 7312 results on 293 pages for 'render quality'.

Page 1/293 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Data Quality and Master Data Management Resources

    - by Dejan Sarka
    Many companies or organizations do regular data cleansing. When you cleanse the data, the data quality goes up to some higher level. The data quality level is determined by the amount of work invested in the cleansing. As time passes, the data quality deteriorates, and you need to repeat the cleansing process. If you spend an equal amount of effort as you did with the previous cleansing, you can expect the same level of data quality as you had after the previous cleansing. And then the data quality deteriorates over time again, and the cleansing process starts over and over again. The idea of Data Quality Services is to mitigate the cleansing process. While the amount of time you need to spend on cleansing decreases, you will achieve higher and higher levels of data quality. While cleansing, you learn what types of errors to expect, discover error patterns, find domains of correct values, etc. You don’t throw away this knowledge. You store it and use it to find and correct the same issues automatically during your next cleansing process. The following figure shows this graphically. The idea of master data management, which you can perform with Master Data Services (MDS), is to prevent data quality from deteriorating. Once you reach a particular quality level, the MDS application—together with the defined policies, people, and master data management processes—allow you to maintain this level permanently. This idea is shown in the following picture. OK, now you know what DQS and MDS are about. You can imagine the importance on maintaining the data quality. Here are some resources that help you preparing and executing the data quality (DQ) and master data management (MDM) activities. Books Dejan Sarka and Davide Mauri: Data Quality and Master Data Management with Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 – a general introduction to MDM, MDS, and data profiling. Matching explained in depth. Dejan Sarka, Matija Lah and Grega Jerkic: MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-463): Building Data Warehouses with Microsoft SQL Server 2012 – I wrote quite a few chapters about DQ and MDM, and introduced also SQL Server 2012 DQS. Thomas Redman: Data Quality: The Field Guide – you should start with this book. Thomas Redman is the father of DQ and MDM. Tyler Graham: Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Master Data Services – MDS in depth from a product team mate. Arkady Maydanchik: Data Quality Assessment – data profiling in depth. Tamraparni Dasu, Theodore Johnson: Exploratory Data Mining and Data Cleaning – advanced data profiling with data mining. Forthcoming presentations I am presenting a DQS and MDM seminar at PASS SQL Rally Amsterdam 2013: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013: Enterprise Information Management with SQL Server 2012 – a good kick start to your first DQ and / or MDM project. Courses Data Quality and Master Data Management with SQL Server 2012 – I wrote a 2-day course for SolidQ. If you are interested in this course, which I could also deliver in a shorter seminar way, you can contact your closes SolidQ subsidiary, or, of course, me directly on addresses [email protected] or [email protected]. This course could also complement the existing courseware portfolio of training providers, which are welcome to contact me as well. Start improving the quality of your data now!

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance & Quality Control = verification & validation?

    - by user970696
    According to a book (page below), reviewing e.g. design (verification activity) is quality assurance. I would not agree, I would say its quality control because we are checking the conformance to specification, plans and detecting deviations (defects) as we do in quality control. But what would be an example of QA then? Could you give me a clear example that proves/disproves what is this book saying? Software Testing: Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh

    Read the article

  • Review quality of code

    - by magol
    I have been asked to quality review two code bases. I've never done anything like that, and need advice on how to perform it and report it. Background There are two providers of code, one in VB and one in C (ISO 9899:1999 (C99)). These two programs do not work so well together, and of course, the two suppliers blames each other. I will therefore as a independent person review both codes, on a comprehensive level review the quality of the codes to find out where it is most likely that the problem lies. I will not try to find problems, but simply review the quality and how simple it is to manage and understand the code. Edit: I have yet not received much information about what the problem consists of. I've just been told that I will examine the code in terms of quality. Not so much more. I do not know the background to why they took this decision.

    Read the article

  • How to measure code quality? [closed]

    - by Lo Wai Lun
    Is there a methodology or any objective standard to determine whether the code of the project is well-written? How to measure in a structural and scientific manner to access the quality of the code? Many people say code review is important and always do encapsulation and data abstraction to ensure the quality. How can we determine the quality? Can a structural, organised software design diagrams drawn implies good quality of code ? If we type the code with good cautions of encapsulation and data abstraction, why review anyway?

    Read the article

  • Does code-generation increase the code quality?

    - by platzhirsch
    Arguing for code-generation I am looking for some reasons, if howsoever, code generation increases the code quality, respectively is in favor for quality insurance. To clarify what I mean with code-generation I can talk only about a project of mine: We use XML files to describe different relationships, in fact our database schema. These XML files are used to generate our ORM framework and HTML forms which can be used to add, delete and modify entities. To my mind, it increases the quality, as the human error is reduced. If someone was implemented wrong, it is broken in the model. This is good, because the error might appear a lot faster, as more generated code is broken, too.

    Read the article

  • Where Next for Google Translate? And What of Information Quality?

    - by ultan o'broin
    Fascinating article in the UK Guardian newspaper called Can Google break the computer language barrier? In it, Andreas Zollman, who works on Google Translate, comments that the quality of Google Translate's output relative to the amount of data required to create that output is clearly now falling foul of the law of diminishing returns. He says: "Each doubling of the amount of translated data input led to about a 0.5% improvement in the quality of the output," he suggests, but the doublings are not infinite. "We are now at this limit where there isn't that much more data in the world that we can use," he admits. "So now it is much more important again to add on different approaches and rules-based models." The Translation Guy has a further discussion on this, called Google Translate is Finished. He says: "And there aren't that many doublings left, if any. I can't say how much text Google has assimilated into their machine translation databases, but it's been reported that they have scanned about 11% of all printed content ever published. So double that, and double it again, and once more, shoveling all that into the translation hopper, and pretty soon you get the sum of all human knowledge, which means a whopping 1.5% improvement in the quality of the engines when everything has been analyzed. That's what we've got to look forward to, at best, since Google spiders regularly surf the Web, which in its vastness dwarfs all previously published content. So to all intents and purposes, the statistical machine translation tools of Google are done. Outstanding job, Googlers. Thanks." Surprisingly, all this analysis hasn't raised that much comment from the fans of machine translation, or its detractors either for that matter. Perhaps, it's the season of goodwill? What is clear to me, however, of course is that Google Translate isn't really finished (in any sense of the word). I am sure Google will investigate and come up with new rule-based translation models to enhance what they have already and that will also scale effectively where others didn't. So too, will they harness human input, which really is the way to go to train MT in the quality direction. But that aside, what does it say about the quality of the data that is being used for statistical machine translation in the first place? From the Guardian article it's clear that a huge humanly translated corpus drove the gains for Google Translate and now what's left is the dregs of badly translated and poorly created source materials that just can't deliver quality translations. There's a message about information quality there, surely. In the enterprise applications space, where we have some control over content this whole debate reinforces the relationship between information quality at source and translation efficiency, regardless of the technology used to do the translation. But as more automation comes to the fore, that information quality is even more critical if you want anything approaching a scalable solution. This is important for user experience professionals. Issues like user generated content translation, multilingual personalization, and scalable language quality are central to a superior global UX; it's a competitive issue we cannot ignore.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Why Do We Need Data Quality Services – Importance and Significance of Data Quality Services (DQS)

    - by pinaldave
    Databases are awesome.  I’m sure my readers know my opinion about this – I have made SQL Server my life’s work after all!  I love technology and all things computer-related.  Of course, even with my love for technology, I have to admit that it has its limits.  For example, it takes a human brain to notice that data has been input incorrectly.  Computer “brains” might be faster than humans, but human brains are still better at pattern recognition.  For example, a human brain will notice that “300” is a ridiculous age for a human to be, but to a computer it is just a number.  A human will also notice similarities between “P. Dave” and “Pinal Dave,” but this would stump most computers. In a database, these sorts of anomalies are incredibly important.  Databases are often used by multiple people who rely on this data to be true and accurate, so data quality is key.  That is why the improved SQL Server features Master Data Management talks about Data Quality Services.  This service has the ability to recognize and flag anomalies like out of range numbers and similarities between data.  This allows a human brain with its pattern recognition abilities to double-check and ensure that P. Dave is the same as Pinal Dave. A nice feature of Data Quality Services is that once you set the rules for the program to follow, it will not only keep your data organized in the future, but go to the past and “fix up” any data that has already been entered.  It also allows you do combine data from multiple places and it will apply these rules across the board, so that you don’t have any weird issues that crop up when trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. There are two parts of Data Quality Services that help you accomplish all these neat things.  The first part is DQL Server, which you can think of as the hardware component of the system.  It is installed on the side of (it needs to install separately after SQL Server is installed) SQL Server and runs quietly in the background, performing all its cleanup services. DQS Client is the user interface that you can interact with to set the rules and check over your data.  There are three main aspects of Client: knowledge base management, data quality projects and administration.  Knowledge base management is the part of the system that allows you to set the rules, or program the “knowledge base,” so that your database is clean and consistent. Data Quality projects are what run in the background and clean up the data that is already present.  The administration allows you to check out what DQS Client is doing, change rules, and generally oversee the entire process.  The whole process is user-friendly and a pleasure to use.  I highly recommend implementing Data Quality Services in your database. Here are few of my blog posts which are related to Data Quality Services and I encourage you to try this out. SQL SERVER – Installing Data Quality Services (DQS) on SQL Server 2012 SQL SERVER – Step by Step Guide to Beginning Data Quality Services in SQL Server 2012 – Introduction to DQS SQL SERVER – DQS Error – Cannot connect to server – A .NET Framework error occurred during execution of user-defined routine or aggregate “SetDataQualitySessions” – SetDataQualitySessionPhaseTwo SQL SERVER – Configuring Interactive Cleansing Suggestion Min Score for Suggestions in Data Quality Services (DQS) – Sensitivity of Suggestion SQL SERVER – Unable to DELETE Project in Data Quality Projects (DQS) Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Data Quality Services, DQS

    Read the article

  • What industries develop the highest quality software? Lowest quality? Why?

    - by Derek Mahar
    From your experience, of those industries that develop custom software for internal use such as financial services companies, which ones produce higher quality software measured in defect rates and, more qualitatively, ease of maintenance over the long term? What contributes the most to this achievement of higher quality? Is it due to better software development practices such as greater emphasis on testing or specification? Developers who better understand the tools or who are strong problem solvers? Better communication between team members? On the flip-side, which industries do you think produce the lowest quality software? Why?

    Read the article

  • Is there a formal definiton of software quality

    - by user970696
    I am looking for a formal definition of software quality. It is my understanding that ISO 25000 is intended to provide or measure the quality of a piece of software, but it doesn't appear ready yet and I can't tell if it specifically contains such a definiton. Currently ISO 9126 did contain one such definition, but my understanding is that it is being replaced with ISO 25000. So I ask, is there are formal definition of software quality?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Installing Data Quality Services (DQS) on SQL Server 2012

    - by pinaldave
    Data Quality Services is very interesting enhancements in SQL Server 2012. My friend and SQL Server Expert Govind Kanshi have written an excellent article on this subject earlier on his blog. Yesterday I stumbled upon his blog one more time and decided to experiment myself with DQS. I have basic understanding of DQS and MDS so I knew I need to start with DQS Client. However, when I tried to find DQS Client I was not able to find it under SQL Server 2012 installation. I quickly realized that I needed to separately install the DQS client. You will find the DQS installer under SQL Server 2012 >> Data Quality Services directory. The pre-requisite of DQS is Master Data Services (MDS) and IIS. If you have not installed IIS, you can follow the simple steps and install IIS in your machine. Once the pre-requisites are installed, click on MDS installer once again and it will install DQS just fine. Be patient with the installer as it can take a bit longer time if your machine is low on configurations. Once the installation is over you will be able to expand SQL Server 2012 >> Data Quality Services directory and you will notice that it will have a new item called Data Quality Client.  Click on it and it will open the client. Well, in future blog post we will go over more details about DQS and detailed practical examples. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Utility, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Data Quality Services

    Read the article

  • Oracle UPK and IBM Rational Quality Manager

    - by marc.santosusso
    Did you know that you can import UPK topics into IBM Rational Quality Manager (RQM) as Test Scripts? Attached below is a ZIP of files which contains a customized style (for all supported languages) for creating spreadsheets that are compatible with IBM Rational Quality Manager, a sample IBM Rational Quality Manager mapping file, and a best practice document. UPK_Best_Practices_-_IBM_Rational_Quality_Manager_Integration.zip Extract the files and open the best practice document (PDF file) file to get started. Please note that the IBM Rational Quality Manager publishing style (the ODARC file) include with the above download was created using the customization instructions found within the UPK documentation. That said, it is not currently an "official" feature of the product, but rather an example of what can be created through style customization. Stay tuned for more details. We hope that you find this to be useful and welcome your feedback!

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance activities

    - by MasloIed
    Having asked but deleted the question as it was a bit misunderstood. If Quality Control is the actual testing, what are the commonest true quality assurance activities? I have read that verification (reviews, inspections..) but it does not make much sense to me as it looks more like quality control as mentioned here: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ENTERPRISE PERFORMANCE LIFE CYCLE FRAMEWORK Practices guide Verification - “Are we building the product right?” Verification is a quality control technique that is used to evaluate the system or its components to determine whether or not the project’s products satisfy defined requirements. During verification, the project’s processes are reviewed and examined by members of the IV&V team with the goal of preventing omissions, spotting problems, and ensuring the product is being developed correctly. Some Verification activities may include items such as: • Verification of requirement against defined specifications • Verification of design against defined specifications • Verification of product code against defined standards • Verification of terms, conditions, payment, etc., against contracts

    Read the article

  • Do you believe it's a good idea for Software Engineers to have to work as Quality Assurance Engineers for some period of time?

    - by Macy Abbey
    I believe it is. Why? I've encountered many Software Engineers who believe they are somehow superior to QA engineers. I think it may help quench this belief if they do the job of a QA engineer for some time, and realize that it is a unique and valuable skill-set of its own. The better a Software Engineer is at testing their own programs, the less cost in time their code incurs when making its way through the rest of the software development life-cycle. The more time a Software Engineer spends thinking about how a program can break, the more often they are to consider these cases as they are developing them, thus reducing bugs in the end product. A Software Engineer's definition of "complete" is always interesting...if they have spent time as a QA engineer maybe this definition will more closely match the designer of the software's. What do you all think?

    Read the article

  • Why is software quality so problematic?

    - by Yuval A
    Even when viewing the subject in the most objective way possible, it is clear that software, as a product, generally suffers from low quality. Take for example a house built from scratch. Usually, the house will function as it is supposed to. It will stand for many years to come, the roof will support heavy weather conditions, the doors and the windows will do their job, the foundations will not collapse even when the house is fully populated. Sure, minor problemsdo occur, like a leaking faucet or a bad paint job, but these are not critical. Software, on the other hand is much more susceptible to suffer from bad quality: unexpected crashes, erroneous behavior, miscellaneous bugs, etc. Sure, there are many software projects and products which show high quality and are very reliable. But lots of software products do not fall in this category. Take into consideration paradigms like TDD which its popularity is on the rise in the past few years. Why is this? Why do people have to fear that their software will not work or crash? (Do you walk into a house fearing its foundations will collapse?) Why is software - subjectively - so full of bugs? Possible reasons: Modern software engineering exists for only a few decades, a small time period compared to other forms of engineering/production. Software is very complicated with layers upon layers of complexity, integrating them all is not trivial. Software development is relatively easy to start with, anyone can write a simple program on his PC, which leads to amateur software leaking into the market. Tight budgets and timeframes do not allow complete and high quality development and extensive testing. How do you explain this issue, and do you see software quality advancing in the near future?

    Read the article

  • Good hosted sites to manage quality testing?

    - by Chirag Patel
    Basically, I would like to manage quality testing with an issue management system focused on quality testing? I can't use the typical issue management system such as Lighthouse, FogBugz because each test is written as a ticket and 20 to 30 tickets need to be duplicated (w/ no history) every time we start a quality cycle. Do any (hosted) sites exist? We're currently using a Google Spreadsheet so it can be collaboratively edited.

    Read the article

  • What are the processes of true Quality assurance?

    - by user970696
    Having read that Quality Assurance (QA) is focused on processes (while Quality Control (QC) is focused on the product), the books often mentions QA is the verification process - doing peer reviews, inspections etc. I still tend to think these are also QC as they check intermediate products. Elsewhere I have read that QA activity is e.g. choosing the right bugtracker. That sounds better to me in terms of process improvement. The question that close-voting person obviously missed is pretty clear: What are the activities that true QA should perform? I would appreciate the reference as I work on my thesis dealing with all these discrepancies and inconsistencies in the software quality world.

    Read the article

  • What is the correlation between the quality of the software development process and the quality of the product?

    - by Ophir Yoktan
    I used to believe the practicing "good" software development methods tends to yield a better product in the long run. However, I've seen quite a few cases where "quick-and-dirty" \ "brute-force" \ "copy-paste" programming appeared to give decent results quicker, and cheaper. This appears especially in cases where time to market is more critical then maintenance overhead. Is there a correlation between the quality of the development process and techniques and the quality of the product?

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture: Quality Attributes

    Quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. Dictonary.com ambiguously defines quality as a grade of excellence. Unfortunately, quality must be defined within the context of a situation in that each engineer must extract quality attributes from a project’s requirements. Because quality is defined by project requirements the meaning of quality is constantly changing base on the project. Software architecture factors that indicate the relevance and effectiveness The relevance and effectiveness of architecture can vary based on the context in which it was conceived and the quality attributes that are required to meet. Typically when evaluating architecture for a specific system regarding relevance and effectiveness the following questions should be asked.   Architectural relevance and effectiveness questions: Does the architectural concept meet the needs of the system for which it was designed? Out of the competing architectures for a system, which one is the most suitable? If we look at the first question regarding meeting the needs of a system for which it was designed. A system that answers yes to this question must meet all of its quality goals. This means that it consistently meets or exceeds performance goals for the system. In addition, the system meets all the other required system attributers based on the systems requirements. The suitability of a system is based on several factors. In order for a project to be suitable the necessary resources must be available to complete the task. Standard Project Resources: Money Trained Staff Time Life cycle factors that affect the system and design The development life cycle used on a project can drastically affect how a system’s architecture is created as well as influence its design. In the case of using the software development life cycle (SDLC) each phase must be completed before the next can begin.  This waterfall approach does not allow for changes in a system’s architecture after that phase is completed. This can lead to major system issues when the architecture for the system is not as optimal because of missed quality attributes. This can occur when a project has poor requirements and makes misguided architectural decisions to name a few examples. Once the architectural phase is complete the concepts established in this phase must move on to the design phase that is bound to use the concepts and guidelines defined in the previous phase regardless of any missing quality attributes needed for the project. If any issues arise during this phase regarding the selected architectural concepts they cannot be corrected during the current project. This directly has an effect on the design of a system because the proper qualities required for the project where not used when the architectural concepts were approved. When this is identified nothing can be done to fix the architectural issues and system design must use the existing architectural concepts regardless of its missing quality properties because the architectural concepts for the project cannot be altered. The decisions made in the design phase then preceded to fall down to the implementation phase where the actual system is coded based on the approved architectural concepts established in the architecture phase regardless of its architectural quality. Conversely projects using more of an iterative or agile methodology to implement a system has more flexibility to correct architectural decisions based on missing quality attributes. This is due to each phase of the SDLC is executed more than once so any issues identified in architecture of a system can be corrected in the next architectural phase. Subsequently the corresponding changes will then be adjusted in the following design phase so that when the project is completed the optimal architectural and design decision are applied to the solution. Architecture factors that indicate functional suitability Systems that have function shortcomings do not have the proper functionality based on the project’s driving quality attributes. What this means in English is that the system does not live up to what is required of it by the stakeholders as identified by the missing quality attributes and requirements. One way to prevent functional shortcomings is to test the project’s architecture, design, and implementation against the project’s driving quality attributes to ensure that none of the attributes were missed in any of the phases. Another way to ensure a system has functional suitability is to certify that all its requirements are fully articulated so that there is no chance for misconceptions or misinterpretations by all stakeholders. This will help prevent any issues regarding interpreting the system requirements during the initial architectural concept phase, design phase and implementation phase. Consider the applicability of other architectural models When considering an architectural model for a project is also important to consider other alternative architectural models to ensure that the model that is selected will meet the systems required functionality and high quality attributes. Recently I can remember talking about a project that I was working on and a coworker suggested a different architectural approach that I had never considered. This new model will allow for the same functionally that is offered by the existing model but will allow for a higher quality project because it fulfills more quality attributes. It is always important to seek alternatives prior to committing to an architectural model. Factors used to identify high-risk components A high risk component can be defined as a component that fulfills 2 or more quality attributes for a system. An example of this can be seen in a web application that utilizes a remote database. One high-risk component in this system is the TCIP component because it allows for HTTP connections to handle by a web server and as well as allows for the server to also connect to a remote database server so that it can import data into the system. This component allows for the assurance of data quality attribute and the accessibility quality attribute because the system is available on the network. If for some reason the TCIP component was to fail the web application would fail on two quality attributes accessibility and data assurance in that the web site is not accessible and data cannot be update as needed. Summary As stated previously, quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. The quality of a system can be directly determined by how closely it is implemented when compared to its desired quality attributes. One way to insure a higher quality system is to enforce that all project requirements are fully articulated so that no assumptions or misunderstandings can be made by any of the stakeholders. By doing this a system has a better chance of becoming a high quality system based on its quality attributes

    Read the article

  • How to Code Faster (Without Sacrificing Quality)

    - by ashes999
    I've been a professional coder for a several years. The comments about my code have generally been the same: writes great code, well-tested, but could be faster. So how do I become a faster coder, without sacrificing quality? For the sake of this question, I'm going to limit the scope to C#, since that's primarily what I code (for fun) -- or Java, which is similar enough in many ways that matter. Things that I'm already doing: Write the minimal solution that will get the job done Write a slew of automated tests (prevents regressions) Write (and use) reusable libraries for all kinds of things Use well-known technologies where they work well (eg. Hibernate) Use design patterns where they fit into place (eg. Singleton) These are all great, but I don't feel like my speed is increasing over time. I do care, because if I can do something to increase my productivity (even by 10%), that's 10% faster than my competitors. (Not that I have any.) Besides which, I've consistently gotten this feeback from my managers -- whether it was small-scale Flash development or enterprise Java/C++ development. Edit: There seem to be a lot of questions about what I mean by fast, and how I know I'm slow. Let me clarify with some more details. I worked in small and medium-sized teams (5-50 people) in various companies over various projects and various technologies (Flash, ASP.NET, Java, C++). The observation of my managers (which they told me directly) is that I'm "slow." Part of this is because a significant number of my peers sacrificed quality for speed; they wrote code that was buggy, hard to read, hard to maintain, and difficult to write automated tests for. My code generally is well-documented, readable, and testable. At Oracle, I would consistently solve bugs slower than other team-members. I know this, because I would get comments to that effect; this means that other (yes, more senior and experienced) developers could do my work in less time than it took me, at nearly the same quality (readability, maintainability, and testability). Why? What am I missing? How can I get better at this? My end goal is simple: if I can make product X in 40 hours today, and I can improve myself somehow so that I can create the same product at 20, 30, or even 38 hours tomorrow, that's what I want to know -- how do I get there? What process can I use to continually improve? I had thought it was about reusing code, but that's not enough, it seems.

    Read the article

  • Tips on ensuring Model Quality

    - by [email protected]
    Given enough data that represents well the domain and models that reflect exactly the decision being optimized, models usually provide good predictions that ensure lift. Nevertheless, sometimes the modeling situation is less than ideal. In this blog entry we explore the problems found in a few such situations and how to avoid them.1 - The Model does not reflect the problem you are trying to solveFor example, you may be trying to solve the problem: "What product should I recommend to this customer" but your model learns on the problem: "Given that a customer has acquired our products, what is the likelihood for each product". In this case the model you built may be too far of a proxy for the problem you are really trying to solve. What you could do in this case is try to build a model based on the result from recommendations of products to customers. If there is not enough data from actual recommendations, you could use a hybrid approach in which you would use the [bad] proxy model until the recommendation model converges.2 - Data is not predictive enoughIf the inputs are not correlated with the output then the models may be unable to provide good predictions. For example, if the input is the phase of the moon and the weather and the output is what car did the customer buy, there may be no correlations found. In this case you should see a low quality model.The solution in this case is to include more relevant inputs.3 - Not enough cases seenIf the data learned does not include enough cases, at least 200 positive examples for each output, then the quality of recommendations may be low. The obvious solution is to include more data records. If this is not possible, then it may be possible to build a model based on the characteristics of the output choices rather than the choices themselves. For example, instead of using products as output, use the product category, price and brand name, and then combine these models.4 - Output leaking into input giving the false impression of good quality modelsIf the input data in the training includes values that have changed or are available only because the output happened, then you will find some strong correlations between the input and the output, but these strong correlations do not reflect the data that you will have available at decision (prediction) time. For example, if you are building a model to predict whether a web site visitor will succeed in registering, and the input includes the variable DaysSinceRegistration, and you learn when this variable has already been set, you will probably see a big correlation between having a Zero (or one) in this variable and the fact that registration was successful.The solution is to remove these variables from the input or make sure they reflect the value as of the time of decision and not after the result is known. 

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance tools discrepancies

    - by Roudak
    It is a bit ironic, yesterday I answered a question related to this topic that was marked to be good and today I'm the one who asks. These are my thoughts and a question: Also let's agree on the terms: QA is a set of activities that defines and implements processes during SW development. The common tool is the process audit. However, my colleague at work agrees with the opinion that reviews and inspections are also quality assurance tools, although most sources classify them as quality control. I would say both sides are partially right: during inspections, we evaluate a physical product (clearly QC) but we see it as a white box so we can check its compliance with set processes (QA). Do you think it is the reason of the dichotomy among the authors? I know it is more like an academic question but it deserves the answer :)

    Read the article

  • Render on other render targets starting from one already rendered on

    - by JTulip
    I have to perform a double pass convolution on a texture that is actually the color attachment of another render target, and store it in the color attachment of ANOTHER render target. This must be done multiple time, but using the same texture as starting point What I do now is (a bit abstracted, but what I have abstract is guaranteed to work singularly) renderOnRT(firstTarget); // This is working. for each other RT currRT{ glBindFramebuffer(GL_FRAMEBUFFER, currRT.frameBufferID); programX.use(); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, firstTarget.colorAttachmentID); programX.setUniform1i("colourTexture",0); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE1); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, firstTarget.depthAttachmentID); programX.setUniform1i("depthTexture",1); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, quadBuffID); // quadBuffID is a VBO for a screen aligned quad. It is fine. programX.vertexAttribPointer(POSITION_ATTRIBUTE, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 0, (void*)0); glDrawArrays(GL_QUADS,0,4); programY.use(); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, currRT.colorAttachmentID); // The second pass is done on the previous pass programY.setUniform1i("colourTexture",0); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE1); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, currRT.depthAttachmentID); programY.setUniform1i("depthTexture",1); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, quadBuffID); programY.vertexAttribPointer(POSITION_ATTRIBUTE, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 0, (void*)0); glDrawArrays(GL_QUADS, 0, 4); } The problem is that I end up with black textures and not the wanted result. The GLSL programs program(X,Y) works fine, already tested on single targets. Is there something stupid I am missing? Even an hint is much appreciated, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Statistical Software Quality Control References

    - by Xodarap
    I'm looking for references about hypothesis testing in software management. For example, we might wonder whether "crunch time" leads to an increase in defect rate - this is a surprisingly difficult thing to do. There are many questions on how to measure quality - this isn't what I'm asking. And there are books like Kan which discuss various quality metrics and their utilities. I'm not asking this either. I want to know how one applies these metrics to make decisions. E.g. suppose we decide to go with critical errors / KLOC. One of the problems we'll have to deal with with that this is not a normally distributed data set (almost all patches have zero critical errors). And further, it's not clear that we really want to examine the difference in means. So what should our alternative hypothesis be? (Note: Based on previous questions, my guess is that I'll get a lot of answers telling me that this is a bad idea. That's fine, but I'd request that it's based on published data, instead of your own experience.)

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • Scrum metrics for quality

    - by zachary
    What is the best way to measure QA in scrum? We have members who typically test and they are measured against how many bugs they find. If they don't find any bugs then they are considered to be doing a bad job. However, it is my understanding that the developers and quality people are considered one in the same. I would think that they should be judged against the same metrics... not different metrics then the developers who may also be doing testing work... What is the best way to handle metrics for QA and should QA people have separate metrics from developers in scrum? Any documents or links someone can point me to in regards to this?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >