Tag Archives: feedback

WHAT ARE SOME OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT CAN BE USED FOR SENTIMENT ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMER FEEDBACK?

Deep learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) have shown strong performance for sentiment analysis of text data. Deep learning models are capable of automatically learning representations of text needed for sentiment classification from large amounts of unlabeled training data through architectures inspired by the human brain.

CNNs have proven effective for sentiment analysis because their sliding window approach allows them to identify sentiment-bearing n-grams in text. CNNs apply consecutive layers of convolutions and pooling operations over word embeddings or character n-grams to extract key features. The final fully connected layers then use these features for sentiment classification. A CNN can learn effective n-gram features in an end-to-end fashion without needing feature engineering.

RNNs, particularly long short-term memory (LSTM) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) networks, are well-suited for sentiment analysis due to their ability to model contextual information and long distance relationships in sequential data like sentences and documents. RNNs read the input text sequentially one token at a time and maintain an internal state to capture dependencies between tokens. This makes them effective at detecting sentiment that arises from longer-range contextual cues. Bidirectional RNNs that process the text in both the forward and backward directions have further improved results.

CNN-RNN hybrid models that combine the strengths of CNNs and RNNs have become very popular for sentiment analysis. In these models, CNNs are applied first to learn n-gram features from the input embeddings or character sequences. RNN layers are then utilized on top of the CNN layers to identify sentiment based on sequential relationships between the extracted n-gram features. Such models have achieved state-of-the-art results on many sentiment analysis benchmarks.

Rule-based techniques such as dictionary-based approaches are also used for sentiment analysis. Dictionary-based techniques identify sentiment words, phrases and expressions in the text by comparing them against predefined sentiment dictionaries or lexicons. Scoring is then performed based on the sentiment orientation and strength of the identified terms. While not as accurate as machine learning methods due to their dependence on the completeness of dictionaries, rule-based techniques still see use for simplicity and interpretability. They can also supplement ML models.

Aspect-based sentiment analysis techniques aim to determine sentiment at a more granular level – towards specific aspects, features or attributes of an entity or topic rather than the overall sentiment. They first identify these aspects from text, map sentiment-bearing expressions to identified aspects, and determine polarity and strength of sentiment for each aspect. Techniques such as rule-based methods, topic modeling, and supervised ML algorithms like SVMs or deep learning have been applied for aspect extraction and sentiment classification.

Unsupervised machine learning techniques can also be utilized to some extent for sentiment analysis when labeled training data is limited. In these techniques, machine learning models are trained without supervision by only utilizing unlabeled sentiment data. Examples include clustering algorithms like k-means clustering to group messages into positive and negative clusters based on word distributions and frequencies. Dimensionality reduction techniques like principal component analysis (PCA) can also be applied as a preprocessing step to project text into lower dimensional spaces better suited for unsupervised learning.

In addition to the above modeling techniques, many advanced natural language processing and deep learning principles have been leveraged to further improve sentiment analysis results. Some examples include:

Word embeddings: Representing words as dense, low-dimensional and real-valued vectors which preserve semantic and syntactic relationships. Popular techniques include Word2vec, GloVe and FastText.

Attention mechanisms: Helping models focus on sentiment-bearing parts of the text by weighting token representations based on relevance to the classification task.

Transfer learning: Using large pretrained language models like BERT, XLNet, RoBERTa that have been trained on massive unlabeled corpora to extract universal features and initialize weights for downstream sentiment analysis tasks.

Data augmentation: Creating additional synthetic training samples through simple techniques like synonym replacement to improve robustness of models.

Multi-task learning: Jointly training models on related NLP tasks like topic modeling, relation extraction, aspect extraction to leverage shared representations and improve sentiment analysis performance.

Ensemble methods: Combining predictions from multiple models like SVM, CNN, RNN through averaging or weighted voting to yield more robust and accurate sentiment predictions than individual models.

While techniques like naïve Bayes and support vector machines formed the basis, latest deep learning and NLP advancements have significantly improved sentiment analysis. Hybrid models leveraging strengths of different techniques tend to work best in practice for analyzing customer feedback at scale in terms of both accuracy and interpretability of results.

CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE MENTORSHIP AND PEER FEEDBACK DURING THE CAPSTONE PROCESS

The capstone project is intended to be a culmination of the skills and knowledge gained throughout the Nanodegree program. It provides students an opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency and ability to independently develop and complete a project from concept to deployment using the tools and techniques learned.

To help guide students through this ambitious independent project, Udacity provides both mentorship support and a structured peer feedback system. Mentors are industry professionals who review student work and provide guidance to help ensure projects meet specifications and stay on track. Students also rely on feedback from their peers to improve their work before final submission.

Each student is assigned a dedicated capstone mentor from Udacity’s pool of experienced mentors at the start of the capstone. Mentors have deep expertise in the relevant technical field and have additionally received training from Udacity on providing constructive guidance and feedback. The role of the mentor is to review interim project work and hold check-in meetings to discuss challenges, evaluate progress, and offer targeted advice for improvement.

Mentors provide guidance on the design, implementation, and deployment of the project from the initial proposal, through standups and work-in-progress reviews. Students submit portions of their work—such as architecture diagrams, code samples, and prototypes—on a regular basis for mentor review. The mentor evaluates the work based on the program rubrics and provides written and verbal commentary. They look for demonstration of key skills and knowledge, adherence to best practices, and trajectory toward successful completion. Their goal is to steer students toward high-quality results through constructive criticism and suggestions.

For complex projects spanning several months, mentors typically scheduleindividual video conferences with each student every 1-2 weeks. These meetings allow for a more comprehensive check-in than written feedback alone. Students can then demonstrate live prototypes, discuss technical difficulties, and receive live coaching from their mentors. Meeting frequency may increase as project deadlines approach to ensure students stay on track. Mentors are also available via email or chat outside of formal meetings to answer any questions that come up.

In addition to mentor support, students provide peer feedback to their fellow classmates throughout the capstone. After each work-in-progress submission, students anonymously review two of their peers’ projects. They evaluate based on the same rubrics as the mentors and leave thoughtful written comments on project strengths and potential areas for improvement. Students integrate this outside perspective into further iterations of their work.

Peer feedback ensures diverse opinions beyond just the assigned mentor. It also allows students to practice evaluating projects themselves and learn from reviewing others’ work. Students have found peer feedback to be extremely valuable—seeing projects from an outside student perspective often surfaces new ideas. The feedback is also meant to be shaped as constructive suggestions rather than personal criticism.

Prior to final submission, students go through an internal “peer review” where they swap projects and conduct a deep code review with another classmate. This acts as a final checkpoint before projects are polished and submitted to the mentors for evaluation. Students find bugs, pinpoint potential improvements, and get another set of eyes to ensure their work is production-ready before the evaluation process begins.

The structured mentoring and peer review procedures employed during Nanodegree capstones are essential for guiding students through substantial self-directed projects. They allow for regular project monitoring, issues to surface early, and work to iteratively improve according to feedback. With support from both mentors and peers, students can confidently develop advanced skills and demonstrate their learning through a polished final portfolio project. The combination of human expertise and community input helps maximize the outcome of each student’s capstone experience.

HOW DID YOU GATHER FEEDBACK FROM USERS AFTER THE INITIAL LAUNCH

Gathering user feedback is crucial after the initial launch of any new software, product, or service. It allows companies to understand how real people are actually using and experiencing their offering, identify issues or opportunities for improvement, and make informed decisions on what to prioritize for future development.

For our initial launch, we had a multi-pronged approach to feedback collection that involved both quantitative and qualitative methods. On the quantitative side, we implemented tracking of key metrics within the product itself such as active user counts, time spent on different features, error/crash rates, completion of onboarding flows, and conversion rates for core tasks. This data was automatically collected in our analytics platform and provided insights into what parts of the experience were working well and where users may be dropping off.

We also implemented optional in-product surveys that would pop up after significant user milestones like completing onboarding, making a purchase, or using a new feature for the first time. These surveys asked users to rate their satisfaction on various aspects of the experience on a 1-5 star scale as well as leaving open comments. Automatic trigger-based surveys allowed us to collect statistically meaningful sample sizes of feedback on specific parts of the experience.

In addition to in-product feedback mechanisms, we initiated several email campaigns targeting both active users as well as people who had started but not completed the onboarding process. These emails simply asked users to fill out an online survey sharing their thoughts on the product in more depth. We saw response rates of around 15-20% for these surveys which provided a valuable source of qualitative feedback.

To gather perspectives from customers who did not complete the onboarding process or become active users, we also conducted interviews with 10 individuals who had started but not finished signing up. These interviews dug into the specific reasons for drop-off and pain points encountered during onboarding. Insights from these interviews were especially helpful for identifying major flaws to prioritize fixing in early updates.

For active customers, we hosted two virtual focus groups with 5 participants each to get an even deeper qualitative understanding of how they used different features and what aspect of the experience could be improved. Focus groups allowed participants to build off each other’s responses in a dynamic discussion format which uncovered nuanced feedback.

In addition to directly surveying and interviewing users ourselves, we closely monitored forums both on our website as well as general discussion sites online for unprompted feedback. Searching for mentions of our product and service on sites like Reddit and Twitter provided a window into conversations we were not directly a part of. We also had a dedicated email for user support tickets that generated a wealth of feedback as customers reached out about issues or requested new features.

Throughout the process, all feedback received both quantitative and qualitative was systematically logged, tagged, and prioritized by our product and design teams. The in-product usage metrics were the biggest driver of prioritization, but qualitative feedback helped validate hypotheses and shed new light on problems detected in analytics. After distilling learnings from all sources into actionable insights, we then made several iterative updates within the first 3 months post-launch focused on improving core tasks, simplifying onboarding flows, and addressing common pain points.

Following these initial rounds of updates, we repeated the full feedback collection process to gauge how well changes addressed issues and to continue evolving the product based on a continuous feedback loop. User research became embedded in our core product development cycle, and we now have dedicated staff focused on ongoing feedback mechanisms and usability testing for all new features and experiments. While collecting feedback requires dedicated resources, it has proven invaluable for understanding user needs, identifying problems, building trust with customers, and delivering the best possible experience as our service continues to evolve.

HOW CAN USER FEEDBACK BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF A CLASS SCHEDULING SYSTEM

Incorporating user feedback is crucial when developing any system that is intended for end users. For a class scheduling system, gaining insights from students, instructors, and administrators can help ensure the final product meets real-world needs and is easy to use. There are several ways to collect and apply feedback throughout the development life cycle.

During the requirements gathering phase, user research should be conducted to understand how the current manual or outdated scheduling process works, as well as pain points that need to be addressed. Focus groups and interviews with representatives from the target user groups can provide rich qualitative feedback. Surveys can also help collect feedback from a wider audience on desired features and functionality. Studying examples from comparable universities’ course planning platforms would also offer ideas. With consent, usability testing of competitors’ systems could provide opportunities to observe users accomplishing typical tasks and uncover frustrations.

The collected feedback should be synthesized and used to define detailed functional specifications and user stories for the development team. Personas should be created to represent the different user types so their needs remain front of mind during design. A preliminary information architecture and conceptual prototypes or paper wireframes could then be created to validate the understanding of requirements with users. Feedback on early designs and ideas ensures scope creep is avoided and resources are focused on higher priority needs.

Once development of core functionality begins, a beta testing program engaging actual end users can provide valuable feedback for improvements. Small groups of representative users could be invited to test pre-release versions in a usability lab or remotely, while providing feedback through structured interviews, surveys and bug reporting. Observing users accomplish tasks in this staged environment would surface bugs, performance issues, and incomplete or confusing functionality before official release. Further design enhancements or changes in approach based on beta feedback helps strengthen the system.

Throughout the development cycle, an online feedback portal, helpdesk system, or community forum are additional channels to gather ongoing input from a wider audience. Crowdsourcing ideas this way provides a broader range of perspectives beyond a limited testing pool. The portal should make it easy for users to submit enhancement requests, bugs, comments and suggestions in a structured format, with voting to prioritize the most impactful items. Regular review of the feedback repository ensures no inputs are overlooked as work continues.

After launch, it is critical to continue soliciting and addressing user feedback to support ongoing improvement. Integrating feedback channels directly into the scheduling system interface keeps the process top of mind. Options like in-app surveys, feedback buttons, and context-sensitive help can collect insights from actual usage in real scenarios. Usage metrics and log data should also be analyzed to uncover pain points or suboptimal workflows. The customer support team also serves as an invaluable source of feedback from addressing user issues and questions.

All captured feedback must be systematically tracked and prioritized through a workflow like an Agile backlog, issue tracker, or project board. The project team needs to regularly pull highest priority items for resolution in upcoming sprints or releases based on factors like urgency, usage volume, ease of fixing, and stakeholder requests. Communicating feedback resolution and applying learnings gained keeps users invested in the process. Over time, continuous improvement informed by users at every step helps ensure a class scheduling system that optimally supports their evolving needs.

Incorporating user feedback is an ongoing commitment across the entire system development lifecycle. Gaining insights from representative end users through multiple channels provides invaluable guidance to address real-world needs and deliver a class scheduling solution that is intuitive, efficient and truly helpful. Maintaining open feedback loops even after launch keeps the product advancing in a direction aligned with its community of instructors, students and administrators. When prioritized and acted upon systematically, user input is one of the most effective ways to develop software that optimally serves its intended audience.

HOW CAN THE DATABASE APPLICATION BE DEPLOYED TO END USERS FOR FEEDBACK AND ENHANCEMENTS

The first step in deploying the database application to end users is to ensure it is in a stable and complete state to be tested by others. All functionality should be implemented, bugs should be minimized, and performance should be adequate. It’s a good idea to do internal testing by other teams within the organization before exposing the application externally. This helps catch any major issues prior to sharing with end users.

Once internal testing is complete, the application needs to be prepared for external deployment. The deployment package should contain everything needed to install and run the application. This would include executables, configuration files, database scripts to set up the schema and seed data, documentation, and a readme file explaining how to get started. The deployment package is typically distributed as a downloadable file or files that can be run on the target system.

The next step is to determine the deployment strategy. Will it be a closed or controlled beta with a small number of selected users, or an open public beta? A controlled beta allows issues to be identified and fixed in a limited setting before widespread release, while an open beta garners broader feedback. The deployment strategy needs to be chosen based on the complexity of the application, goals of the beta period, and risk tolerance.

With the deployment package and strategy determined, it’s time to engage with users to participate in the beta. For a controlled beta, relevant people within the target user community should be directly contacted to request their participation. An open call for participation can also be used. When recruiting beta testers, it’s important to be clear about the purpose being feedback and testing rather than fully rolled-out production usage. Testers need to understand and accept that bugs may be encountered.

Each beta tester is provided with access to install and run the application from the deployment package. During onboarding, testers should be given documentation on application features and workflows, as well as guidelines on providing feedback. It’s useful to have testers sign a non-disclosure agreement and terms of use if it’s a controlled beta of an unreleased application.

With the application deployed, the feedback period begins. Testers use the application for its intended purposes, exploring features and attempting different tasks. They document any issues experienced, such as bugs, usability problems, missing features, or requests for enhancements. Feedback should be collected periodically through online questionnaires, interviews, support tickets, or other predefined mechanisms.

Throughout the beta, the development team monitors incoming feedback and works to address high priority problems. Fixes are deployed to testers as new versions of the application package. This continual feedback-implement-test cycle allows improvements to be made based on real-world usage experiences. As major issues are resolved, more testers may be onboarded to further stress test the application.

Once the feedback period ends, all input from testers is analyzed to finalize any outstanding work. Common feedback themes may indicate deeper problems or opportunities for enhancements. User experience metrics like task success rates and task completion times provide quantitative insights. The development team reviews all data to decide if the application is ready for general release, or if another beta cycle is needed.

When ultimately ready for launch, the final deployment package is published through appropriate channels for the intended user base. For example, a consumer-facing app would be released to Android and iOS app stores, while an enterprise product may be deployed through internal tools and support portals. Comprehensive documentation including setup guides, tutorials and product handbooks support the production rollout.

Deploying a database application to end users for testing and improvement is a structured process. It requires technical, process and communications work to carefully manage a productive feedback period, continually refine the product based on experiences, and validate readiness for production usage. The feedback obtained directly from target users is invaluable for creating a high quality application that genuinely meets real-world needs.