It Is Often Necessary to Make Choices without Sufficient

Recommender systems assist and augment this natural social process. In a typical recommender system people provide recommendations as inputs, which the system then aggregates and directs to appropriate recipients. In some cases the primary transformation is in the aggregation; in others the system’s value lies in its ability to make good matches between the recommenders and those seeking recommendations. The developers of the first recommender system, Tapestry [1], coined the phrase “collaborative filtering” and several others have adopted it. We prefer the more general term “recommender system” for two reasons. First, recommenders may not explictly collaborate with recipients, who may be unknown to each other. Second, recommendations may suggest particularly interesting items, in addition to indicating those that should be filtered out. This special section includes descriptions of five recommender systems. A sixth article analyzes incentives for provision of recommendations. Figure 1 places the systems in a technical design space defined by five dimensions. First, the contents of an evaluation can be anything from a single bit (recommended or not) to unstructured textual annotations. Second, recommendations may be entered explicitly, but several systems gather implicit evaluations: GroupLens monitors users’ reading times; PHOAKS mines Usenet articles for mentions of URLs; and Siteseer mines personal bookmark lists. Third, recommendations may be anonymous, tagged with the source’s identity, or tagged with a pseudonym. The fourth dimension, and one of the richest areas for exploration, is how to aggregate evaluations. GroupLens, PHOAKS, and Siteseer employ variants on weighted voting. Fab takes that one step further to combine evaluations with content analysis. ReferralWeb combines suggested links between people to form longer referral chains. Finally, the (perhaps aggregated) evaluations may be used in several ways: negative recommendations may be filtered out, the items may be sorted according to numeric evaluations, or evaluations may accompany items in a display. Figures 2 and 3 identify dimensions of the domain space: The kinds of items being recommended and the people among whom evaluations are shared. Consider, first, the domain of items. The sheer volume is an important variable: Detailed textual reviews of restaurants or movies may be practical, but applying the same approach to thousands of daily Netnews messages would not. Ephemeral media such as netnews (most news servers throw away articles after one or two weeks) place a premium on gathering and distributing evaluations quickly, while evaluations for 19th century books can be gathered at a more leisurely pace. The last dimension describes the cost structure of choices people make about the items. Is it very costly to miss IT IS OFTEN NECESSARY TO MAKE CHOICES WITHOUT SUFFICIENT personal experience of the alternatives. In everyday life, we rely on