Robots don't merchandise, that's the problem. For many people decisions about what to wear is very intimate, but algorithms are bloodless.
The who, where, and how matter much more in fashion. Algorithms miss that.
The who, where, and how matter much more in fashion. Algorithms miss that.
Instead, it's correlating prototypical woman A to prototypical woman B based on available demographic data and past purchase history, and suggesting to "A" some of the things that "B" purchased. The emotion and intimacy there was the human act of "B" purchasing clothing that she connected with.
I remember reading about the Netflix contest and how one of the algorithms categorizes movies into it's own statistically relevant categories*.
Once a comparative algorithm is used and the dataset gets large enough, I have no doubt the recommendations will start to get real good real fast.
http://devlicio.us/blogs/billy_mccafferty/archive/2007/01/02...
The who, what, and how of the recommendation matter almost as much as the product itself. Just the fact that I know this recommendation came from a human counts for something, especially if it's a human I trust or respect when it comes to fashion (not necessarily a friend).
e.g., a celebrity wearing a shirt and having it sell out the next day.
Movies are different because their consumption isn't inherently conspicuous. I do it alone and talk about it with friends if I choose, but everyone sees the clothes I wear no matter what.
For example, I can choose to hide the fact that I love Katy Perry, but I can't hide the fact that LVMH made my handbag.
How you dress is a performance, and so the decision to wear something is filtered more rigorously through a social dimension than watching a movie or listening to a song is.
That seems almost a perfect marriage of my comments on the innate human quality behind a nearest-neighbor algorithm your comments here.