I really enjoyed all the concepts and implementations I did along this course....except during the Lasso module. I found this module harder than the others but very interesting as well. Great course!
Excellent professor. Fundamentals and math are provided as well. Very good notebooks for the assignments...it’s just that turicreate library that caused some issues, however the course deserves a 5/5
By Thuc D X•
The program assignment's description was written badly and hard to follow
For example: in week 6's assignment, the description doesn't indicate features list but ask students to compute distance between two houses. I could only find out the feature list in provided ipython notebook template for graphlab which I apparently didn't use.
By Erik P•
There are parts of the course which I got very very stuck on.. thankfully the forums have people's previous frustrations / questions on there. Reading these helped. Other than that, this course is the most comprehensive look at regression techniques I've taken yet, and I'm thankful that this course is provided.
Assignments instructions are not very clear. Formulas used in assignments are structured differently then formulas in lectures. Too much emphasis on using turicreate. Not practical- companies do not ask for knowledge of turicreate. Companies ask for knowledge of scikit learn, pandas and numpy.
By Neelkanth S M•
The content is good but completing assignments is a real pain because they choose to deploy a unstable proprietary python library, which gives hard time installing and running (as of Q1 2019). The entire learning experience is marred by this Graphlab python library.
By VINOJ J H•
Passing mark is 100%, it is tough for me and demotivating to persuade further. And the course becomes too extra factors and complexity on later classes, it made me to lose the interest on the algorithm and course.
I cannot complete it because of these two factors
By Debasish P•
The reading sections in module 4 had incorrect assumptions because of which I could not clear exams for months. Also the queries we posted in the forums are hardly responded. I just hope coursera takes support systems as actively as the contents
By Robert S•
Nice explanation and nice tasks but the course is designed for graphlab. If you want to use something else the tasks are often badly described or it is impossible to pass the
By Jaime S M O•
The material is excelente, But I would like you to promote a little more the community. Due to, sometime is difficult to advance when you don't understand a subject.
By Yuhuan Z•
Great indeed, but you have to rely on the Graphlab to realize those functions. You need to figure out whether you will use Graphlab in your future studies or work.
By tim h•
Rather elementary and slow-moving for my taste. But the material is competently presented and covers the material it is advertised to cover.
By Marco P•
Missing in-lesson quiz, with all the homeworks being at the end of the week: this make following the pace quite tough
By Cameron B•
Good course content but it can be very difficult to get help if you are stuck on something.
By Mahbub A•
Course materials are well organized. It could be improved by adding more description.
By Pratyush K D•
Please show examples of codes in lectures just like the previous course
By Shreyo M•
The course lacks deep theoretical understanding of the concepts.
By Akash B•
Course should contain a project related to real life.
By Saiprasad B•
very interesting environment to learn the subject.
By Konstantin B•
Too much math...
By Deleted A•
I'm a statistician, not a programmer. There is so much detail and explanation about the statistics and concepts behind how it works, but there is hardly ever an actual lesson on the code used or needed to implement the algorithms. When trying to fumble my way through the code, I found, on several occasions, the code in the self-directed lessons to be incomplete (I'm referring to pieces of code that were obviously meant to be there, but were missing), causing hours and hours of anguish and turmoil. I feel like there should be a lot more time spent on the actual coding and learning how to implement it within the code (similar to the 1st course), rather than spending an exuberant amount of time going through derivations and no time on actual coding and how to implement it within the programming language.
If you are a software designer/engineer or programmer, then you should be fine as long as you pay attention to the very long lessons and derivations and can fix the broken code that you are given. There are other mistakes within the quizzes as well, which make them near impossible to pass. For example, it is unclear which model you need to use to calculate in order to get the correct square foot. On other occasions, the question actually specifies to use the model from (3), whereas it actually wants you to use the model from (4) instead to get the correct answer. This course needs to have better quality checks to ensure needlessly lost time is minimized.
By Hans P H•
There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions.
2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems.
I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors.
By Matthew K•
The course is well structured and organized; however, there is too much focus on the complex mathematical formulas and notation. The concepts are not terribly advanced but the math involvement makes it easy to get lost. The math is obviously necessary, but I just wished the lecturer had spent more time on the concepts than trying to explain what each of the subscripts, superscripts, and greek letters meant. There were many 7 minute lectures in which 5-6 minutes would be confusing math and 1-2 minutes would be actual conceptual talk. I was able to understand what was going on, but I felt it would have stuck much better if more time was spent discussing and reiterating the concepts. The math involvement could come from the coding assignments.
By Amol N•
Pace is extremely slow. The instructor writes and talks simultaneously. The words are put so slow that it puts me off too sleep at times. I love taking courses where the instructor speaks at the right pace and keeps you involved. Carlos, the co instructor. One of the perfect MOOC is Calculus One by Jim Fowler
By Wayne P•
Great concepts but material presented is very theoretical with minimal practical examples. As such it is easy to get lost unless you have advanced mathematics skills.
By Mesum R H•
Too Statistical depth. Could have explained in a more exampled manner rather than deriving a maths equation class. We are not Phd Maths & Statistics
By Eric Z•
The material is not very clear and I have to keep going through it and seek clarification from other resources.