| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating | Contradiction-Based_MOY | Contradiction-Based_Ci |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | I've already written a review but it seems to have been removed... This is an awful course, there is very little purpose to it whatsoever, it is basically a module in markdown which will in all honesty not have much application for most learners. In addition, the course is not at all balanced / laid out well, there is a peer assignment in week 1, which you need to have covered week 2's content for. Lastly, the recording quality of some of the lectures is awful, it is clear that they have simply used some recordings of an actual classroom session of a related course instead of recording for Coursera. In all honesty, this entire specialisation is of awful quality, it is not a data science course, it is a "here's a few useful things in R" course, and the instructors should be ashamed that their institution makes money from it. | this entire specialisation is of awful | Quality | it is not a data science | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | In this course, there was a slide presentation with audio recorded in a classroom. This part of the course should be replaced as soon as possible to offer better experience. As it is presented right now, with a loudy environment, it really doesn't match to the quality of the other courses. | it really doesn't match to the | Quality | of the other courses. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | One of the most useful classes so far! Provides great foundation for creating quality reports! | far! Provides great foundation for creating | Quality | reports! | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Some videos have bad audio quality. | Some videos have bad audio | Quality | | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | To be honest, I couldn't realize why this had to be an entire seminar on its own. Apart from that, in some videos the audio quality was rather poor and the instructor seemed to have caught some cold or something. Although the topic of the course is interesting and significant, I think that do far it is the least engaging of the specialization... | that, in some videos the audio | Quality | was rather poor and the instructor | Negative | -0.8 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Some of the videos has low quality, which make them harder to understand for non native speakers. In my opinion there is also too less tips for second assessment. | Some of the videos has low | Quality | which make them harder to understand | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Covers some important and interesting areas and is generally well taught (although the recording quality on the videos varies). Interesting final project! | generally well taught (although the recording | Quality | on the videos varies). Interesting final | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| -qKIDPnAEeS1QCIACy-KcQ | You will have to make a Scratch account (free) for this course. Areti is a very clear instructor that explained concepts very well for complete beginners into programming, like myself and I found the course insightful. 1) Presentation - I couldn't help but wonder whether they had a lower target age (teenagers or younger) in mind, which was entertaining at some points but also distracting at other times. // Also, I only realized halfway through the course that it is in fact possible to see what Areti is doing on the Scratch program once the quality of the video is adjusted. 2) Projects/Time Commitment - Going through the lectures and quizzes are not time consuming at all, but the projects (especially the final project) takes a lot of time. It took longer than expected because I felt like much of the practical instructions on how to use Scratch for specific purposes were not provided during the course, leaving me to work by myself. 3) Discussion Forum - When I took the course, the discussion forum was close to being dead (especially compared to some of the other courses that I was taking simultaneously on Coursera). Gerry (mentor) did an amazing job responding to my inquiry, but I noticed that although there were a lot of students talking at the beginning, introducing themselves, there weren't that many discussions concerning the final assignment, making me feel like I was working alone. It would be great if there was more time to work on the final project, and perhaps a way in which students can collaborate and help out others when faced with a bug (ie preliminary project submission and feedback session). I recommend taking this course, but realistically, you won't be program proficient after 5 weeks. You will, however, learn some basic programming theory, understand how programming works, and learn how to make a fun interactive game on Scratch! | on the Scratch program once the | Quality | of the video is adjusted. 2) | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| -qKIDPnAEeS1QCIACy-KcQ | i was a dot, you molded me in a line.... :) happy to join the course quality of education play create program repeat, Instructor is excellent in explaining everything of the course, thank you Instructor , university of Edinburgh and Coursera | :) happy to join the course | Quality | of education play create program repeat, | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Terrible course compared to all others I've seen on Coursera. Content is scarce, quality is low, maybe okay for college graduates, but being in business, it's just too slim. Video quality is also terrible. Don't waste 35$ | seen on Coursera. Content is scarce, | Quality | is low, maybe okay for college | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.03 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Terrible course compared to all others I've seen on Coursera. Content is scarce, quality is low, maybe okay for college graduates, but being in business, it's just too slim. Video quality is also terrible. Don't waste 35$ | business, it's just too slim. Video | Quality | is also terrible. Don't waste 35$ | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.03 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Unfortunately, without a doubt, the worst und most uninformative course I've ever taken. Apart from stating the obvious nothing new. A lot of repetition of "useless" information. Super disappointed. Can't believe that such a course is offered here and that I really paid for nothing of such quality. | really paid for nothing of such | Quality | | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.03 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | I think the best quality of this course is that it is a short course, which bolds the most important facts in our mind. It is not like that we don't know them at all, It's just we don't pay much or enough attention. I start using this method from today and I hope it goes well ! You should try this course, I think it worth it ! | I think the best | Quality | of this course is that it | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.79 | 1.03 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very good introductory course to probability and data. Very hands-on examples and outstanding explanations. I already had several statistics courses before in my life but not in this quality. I can really recommend this course to anyone who to learn more about statistics. | my life but not in this | Quality | I can really recommend this course | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 0.98 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Simple delivery with quality reading and video materials. | Simple delivery with | Quality | reading and video materials. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 0.98 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | The content of this course is not terribly difficult, I thought, but it's a very good introduction into most aspects of Data Science. You learn to familiarize yourself with R quite well and get a lot of independence to create a final project based on a huge data set. One thing I would've liked is a sample completed project, start to finish, to see what was expected- the things that got produced (which you peer review) varied hugely in quality. | you peer review) varied hugely in | Quality | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 0.98 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Provided Unity scripts for projects don't work properly with newer versions of Unity. Quality of video recording is kind of crappy esp. audio. Most of the stuff learned in this course you'd be able to learn straight from the Unity tutorials anyway. Not recommended unless you absolutely need scheduled assignments in order to learn. | properly with newer versions of Unity. | Quality | of video recording is kind of | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Excellent hands-on introduction to the Unity game engine, the development workflow and the many nuances of how these all work together for the artistic as well as the technical designers. I especially appreciate the instructor's careful attention to learner-centered demonstration, and for his respectful use of, as well as frequent nods to, Unity as a top notch engine for quality development. Packed with a great deal of information, and the demonstration of how to apply this knowledge, I would highly recommend this course to anyone who is wanting to break into interactive media development, or is wanting to broaden their methods and application knowledge in this area. | as a top notch engine for | Quality | development. Packed with a great deal | Positive | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Really good course. Very high quality teaching and lectures | Really good course. Very high | Quality | teaching and lectures | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Excellent video content and quality, engaging assignments and helpful resources. | Excellent video content and | Quality | engaging assignments and helpful resources. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | The only downside is the video | Quality | is not that great its not | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | lot better if it was better | Quality | Its very Blurry even in High | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | Its very Blurry even in High | Quality | Although thats not a problem that | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Extremely highlevel, quality of the material is significantly lower than in the previous courses. | Extremely highlevel, | Quality | of the material is significantly lower | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 0.82 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The course provides an overview on classification methods in machine learning. The lectures are clear and easy to understand due to the quality of the slides and of the explanations. The limit of this course lies in the assignments: too easy if done with the provided notebooks and tools. Sometimes impossible to do with different tools (the suggested machine learning package is free for educational purposes, but otherwise it needs a license). | easy to understand due to the | Quality | of the slides and of the | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 0.82 |
| 41f7CjlXEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very good and perfect course for new comers. The lessons have been properly designed and needs to applauded. The English language and orator ship is good and fair in listening. The picture quality is also good. The examples given are fair. | and fair in listening. The picture | Quality | is also good. The examples given | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.78 |
| 41f7CjlXEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | the peer feedback is not working that well. the time range is very short and the rating quality varies, so resubmissions of assignments can mean you have to re-enroll for the following course and lose your cohort. | is very short and the rating | Quality | varies, so resubmissions of assignments can | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.78 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | An absolutely complete course that teaches about Luxury companies, but mainly about Fashion. There are 2 great teachers that gives contents, but also makes sudents think about future and trends. Cases and interviews are also great !! I got very impressed about quality of Albini Group. Its clearer for me definition luxury vs fashion, business models, differences, challenges and opportunities in Fashion companies. Thank you Bocconi ! | ! I got very impressed about | Quality | of Albini Group. Its clearer for | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.54 | 1.07 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | Thought the course does not start very strong, it evolves into a very interesting place of compact knowledge for both the fashion and the luxury industry. For a professional, like myself, who already has a master's degree in the field of luxury and works within the industry, it is a great way to get remind of the theories and the knowledge behind the management, the how and the why luxury does things in its own unique way. It would be even better to add knowledge into more "exclusive" categories like cars or yachts. Yet, the structure of the course, the delivery, the case studies and the overall performance keep the attendee's attention. Personally, I started the course a bit hesitant, but managed to finish it within only a week because of the flow and quality of information. | week because of the flow and | Quality | of information. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.54 | 1.07 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | excellent quality | excellent | Quality | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.54 | 1.07 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | The quality of the content is very good. However, the content should be more detailed. Further, certain key subject-areas are missing such as the fashion calendar, quality control, merchandising, cool-hunting and forecasting, market research, event management, public relations management, retail operations in more detail, logistics, store operations etc. Overall, however, the course is a good overview about managing fashion and luxury companies. Moreover, interviews with CEOs and brand directors would make the course more interesting. | The | Quality | of the content is very good. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.54 | 1.07 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | great material and video quality, love it. | great material and video | Quality | love it. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.19 | 1.19 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Not the expected quality | Not the expected | Quality | | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.19 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Thanks a lot for all the instructors and the team behind this course. The content quality reminds me of some agile principles. Simplicity of the words, the illustrations, the examples Feedback from students through the discussions Technical excellence and good design Welcoming change (I've witnessed commitments of the team to improve some points in the content) I'm thrilled to go on and look at the next courses I say Bravo ! Smail | team behind this course. The content | Quality | reminds me of some agile principles. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.03 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Great course, now i have a really clear idea about the many choices in processes to make a better software in a quality and timely manner. I´m enjoying so much this specialization, Thanks! | make a better software in a | Quality | and timely manner. I´m enjoying so | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.03 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Good introduction to many core concepts. Overall video and presentation quality are quite good. The course is not particularly challenging, so if you are concerned with time requirements, I don't think you need to worry. | core concepts. Overall video and presentation | Quality | are quite good. The course is | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.51 | 1.03 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Good course! Excellent to reinforce my knowledge on scrum, xp and agile. In the end however I think that the content was somehow repetitive, but this not change the quality of the course. | repetitive, but this not change the | Quality | of the course. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.51 | 1.03 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | It is no surprise that a course that emphasises quality is of the utmost quality. An enjoyable and valuable learning experience. | emphasises quality is of the utmost | Quality | An enjoyable and valuable learning experience. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.03 |
| 7t9y531dEeWKYwric11Hpw | the quality of this course is very low, and the content are not interesting and useful at all. | the | Quality | of this course is very low, | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 1.22 | 1.22 |
| 7t9y531dEeWKYwric11Hpw | This is a very great program full of important and accurate information! Congratulations! I find it very complete inside its category. It's pretty interesting since the first moment you watch the first video lecture. Good design and presentation of the program. In other words: beautiful! Thanks. Keep bringing quality! | other words: beautiful! Thanks. Keep bringing | Quality | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.22 | 1.22 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Without a doubt the worst course I have ever taken anywhere. When the instructor, who is supposed to be teaching you how to write iOS apps, takes (no exaggeration) SIX minutes to even figure out how to open XCode, you know you're in for a rocky ride. Still, I stuck with it for three more weeks. To my horror, the course only got worse from there. This course was clearly thrown together with a minimum of effort by someone who is not qualified to teach the subject. It's an insult to Coursera customers, and a major failure of quality control. | customers, and a major failure of | Quality | control. | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 1.11 | 1.23 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The material and videos are so poor, and low quality, I am happy to not have bought this course | videos are so poor, and low | Quality | I am happy to not have | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 1.11 | 1.23 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Really good information, good quality presentation. The working examples are well chosen and fun to work along with. Thank you! | Really good information, good | Quality | presentation. The working examples are well | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.11 | 1.23 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Fantastic! A well presented course filled with high quality information from leading experts in the field. | well presented course filled with high | Quality | information from leading experts in the | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.75 | 1.01 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Great subject and some very well presented videos. However there were several which were incomprehensible. Either because of the quality of the video or the very heavy accent of the speaker especially to a non-American viewer. One doesn't always want to read a transcript but to listen and concentrate. If all the videos had been of good listenable quality I would have given the course 5 stars | were incomprehensible. Either because of the | Quality | of the video or the very | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 1.01 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | "Gut Check: Exploring Your Microbiome" is a fabulously informative course that contains a significant amount of pertinent information presented in a well-paced, user-friendly manner. The class offers high quality ancillary resources for further research on the topic in the forms of interviews, journal articles, books and website links. I would recommend this course to anyone who might have an interest in the gut microbiome, whether it be for personal reasons or for academic research as it provides a solid foundation for future studies in this arena. | user-friendly manner. The class offers high | Quality | ancillary resources for further research on | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.75 | 1.01 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | Enjoyable and informative. The assignments were workable, though they were not always super-well coordinated with the course material. The in-lecture exercises are of uneven quality. The course material is obviously spliced together from other sources in places. All this notwithstanding, the lectures are interesting, and the exercises help a lot to cement in the concepts. As an experienced programmer, but a newcomer to functional techniques, this was satisfying. I'm aware that the other courses in this sequence suffer from similar issues to what I outlined, but I'm moving ahead anyway. | The in-lecture exercises are of uneven | Quality | The course material is obviously spliced | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.87 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | Great course and very helpful. The following details prevent me from giving it a 5 stars review: * the explanation of the tools to use during the course is very messy. It may discourage people that are less used to work their way around searching working tools. * The audio of the videos sometimes loses A LOT of quality. * For me it seemed like all the assignments were on spot with the balance between theory and standalone thinking. However, I really noticed the jump of time invested for the last assignment. I think the course would highly benefit from having an assignment on Week 5, instead of having that pause in between. Anyway, the course was greatly structured and interesting. Can't wait to go on with the whole specialization! | videos sometimes loses A LOT of | Quality | * For me it seemed like | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.87 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | The assignments in particular were of very high quality and interesting. I liked the academic approach to teaching. | in particular were of very high | Quality | and interesting. I liked the academic | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 0.87 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | Reviewing process is quite slow, thus you have to wait until someone review your assignment and grade it, even if you complete this course in just 1 week but you can't pursue certificate in just 1 week because review of assignment 3-4 days minimum for each one. Coursera should improve that problem, but overall teaching quality was great. | improve that problem, but overall teaching | Quality | was great. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 0.9 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | Good quality information, excellent instructor. | Good | Quality | information, excellent instructor. | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.9 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | Very well presented material, good production quality. A tad bit sparse on details, but I guess that is apt for an Intro level course. | Very well presented material, good production | Quality | A tad bit sparse on details, | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.75 | 0.9 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | I thought the material was presented at an overly high level and was not particularly useful, particularly in the second half of the course. Add more detail. Furthermore, the presentation style of the professor is not engaging, nor does he address interesting archetypes or examples in his lectures. The early material was fine but again presentation could be dramatically improved. Lastly, the assignments were rather interesting early on but once again quality decreased as the course progressed. | interesting early on but once again | Quality | decreased as the course progressed. | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.9 |
| d1D5SCmGEeWEOhKP8F7imw | The quality of the slides, and the notes written on them were fantastic. It was a great experience. Looking forward to the capstone project. | The | Quality | of the slides, and the notes | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.89 |
| d1D5SCmGEeWEOhKP8F7imw | The quality of the lectures is very good but the material of the course has some little deficiencies, at least compared to the previous courses of the specialization: -Some slides are not completed. Dr. Khurram Afridi completes these slides in the lecture, but there are not the slides with the final result. I had to take screen captures to save this final result. -Subtitles impede to watch correctly the video when explaining in the subtitles area. I had to switch off the subtitles to be able to watch the video correctly. -I missed the pdfs of the homework assignments. I like to work on them off line, so I had to enter into the assignments to be able to see them. -I also missed the questions alternated during the videos as in previous courses. For these reasons I only give 4 stars instead of 5. | The | Quality | of the lectures is very good | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.89 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Love the succinct quality of the videos. The information was clear, and the assignments easy to follow. I learned a lot, and felt supported by the community. I felt a bit rushed for some assignments, specially the rapid prototyping one. Better understanding of the time that would take me to conceptualize and draw was needed (the 2 hours observed on the time estimate were not realistic on my part - it took me 7 hours give or take for the whole assignment - and apparently other students have the same issue, since 4 assignments I graded were missing sketches or re-using the same ones for different scenarios.) | Love the succinct | Quality | of the videos. The information was | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Instructor is clearly reading off of cards or a prompter that doesn't face the camera so he's constantly not looking at you which is frustrating. The feeling of each lesson being so scripted takes away from the feeling of a professor teaching material with which he is comfortable. Comparing this to UC San Diego course videos is like night and day and really makes you realize the importance of quality production/natural flow of teaching. | makes you realize the importance of | Quality | production/natural flow of teaching. | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Some of the videos feel a little outdated but otherwise high quality. | a little outdated but otherwise high | Quality | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Good information and assignment design, but please just have someone on your team go through this. I could list the issues with your lectures, but they're so easy to detect by anyone who is watching them actively. It makes me think that QC isn't a part of your workflow, and worry about the quality of future courses in this specialization. | your workflow, and worry about the | Quality | of future courses in this specialization. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | I think the course covers pretty good range of topics and gives you a good information. I really liked the peer review assignments and I think they put pressure on you to achieve the goals and learn from them. I definitely did not like the multiple answer questions or the last assessment. The questions are not well presented and there is a clear violation of the help and error recovery heuristic for me. I also did not like the video set-up. The quality of the course material is really poor and disappointing. I would like to believe that on a UI course people would have come up with a better and more intuitive set-up. Finally, I would like to have a document in the course resources that students can download and keep that contains all the information we taught like quick reference guide. Again we can download the videos but when you are looking to fins something specific searching in 2-3 videos is not fun at all. | not like the video set-up. The | Quality | of the course material is really | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Very interesting and inspiring course. The material is of very good quality and the teacher is, to my mind, excellent. | The material is of very good | Quality | and the teacher is, to my | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.19 | 1.19 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Very bad course. The content can barely be applied outside US, you don't know from which perspective it's explained (for sales or purchasing people), the videos are bad quality, the teacher is babbling, no extra resources, no interaction with the audience outside the assessments. | purchasing people), the videos are bad | Quality | the teacher is babbling, no extra | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.19 |
| EfvjN5XvEeSqQiIACyEY7w | I want to thank Ed and the University of Virginia for the effort and the quality of the course. It was really helpful. | Virginia for the effort and the | Quality | of the course. It was really | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.05 |
| EfvjN5XvEeSqQiIACyEY7w | First course (of this type, I mean business, management... etc) I took, planning to take the second part as well. I would strongly recommand taking this course. Easy to follow, well paced, has quality course materials, and inspiring. | Easy to follow, well paced, has | Quality | course materials, and inspiring. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.05 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | Excellent course because is: Organized, current informed, excelent references, high quality, and deliver for very experience instructors | Organized, current informed, excelent references, high | Quality | and deliver for very experience instructors | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.13 | 1.13 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | This is a good course, providing quality information. It has a bit of a financial lean, as the professor has a background in this area; this was stretching for me as an engineer, but ultimately I found it helpful, as the financing of healthcare is an incredibly important issue! Unfortunately, the professor is a bit hard to understand; he does not speak in proper grammatical structure and often rambles or mutters, so even as a native English speaker, I had to turn on subtitles in order to understand the point he was trying to get across. Overall, after taking this course, I feel *much* more versed on the healthcare landscape and all the players involved therein. I recommend this course to students who want to better understand the general workings of the healthcare industry. | This is a good course, providing | Quality | information. It has a bit of | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.13 | 1.13 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | the quality of the lecture is poor - slides are dense and full of bullet points which the professor LITERALLY JUST READS OUT on videos. I did a google search, and found almost all of the analytical charts he presented, readily available on the internet. What exactly is the point in the lecture then? Instead, why don't you compress some valuable learning nuggets into half the course time, instead of hearing you ready through your ocean of bullet points, and needlessly underline (in red) the current bullet point your reading. Seriously, this is one the poorest quality lectures I've ever done! The quality of peer assignments to grade are a joke. Classmates are simply copying bits and pieces of the lecture material to make up the 'market sizing memo'. I seriously doubt the learning value in this class, and the quality of instruction. | the | Quality | of the lecture is poor - | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.13 | 1.13 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | the quality of the lecture is poor - slides are dense and full of bullet points which the professor LITERALLY JUST READS OUT on videos. I did a google search, and found almost all of the analytical charts he presented, readily available on the internet. What exactly is the point in the lecture then? Instead, why don't you compress some valuable learning nuggets into half the course time, instead of hearing you ready through your ocean of bullet points, and needlessly underline (in red) the current bullet point your reading. Seriously, this is one the poorest quality lectures I've ever done! The quality of peer assignments to grade are a joke. Classmates are simply copying bits and pieces of the lecture material to make up the 'market sizing memo'. I seriously doubt the learning value in this class, and the quality of instruction. | Seriously, this is one the poorest | Quality | lectures I've ever done! The quality | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 1.13 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The initial lessons were rather chaotic. The idea was good, but the execution was not really good. The significantly improved the quality for the second course so I assume that for a new iteration, the it will be better too. | really good. The significantly improved the | Quality | for the second course so I | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | In my honest opinion, the quality of this course is not that high. You can expect to learn some basic syntax of Swift, and that's about it. There are very little material each week, and then you get a quiz, which is not the best form of examination nor for learning. I do not recommend this course. | In my honest opinion, the | Quality | of this course is not that | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The Good: The idea of having the lectures in a Q&A style, two experts in continuous conversation about the topic has a potential The Bad: That potential is wasted on poorly planned lessons and course content The Ugly: Instructors run the Swift code that is written during the lesson and they get a wrong result due to an error in the code. They both agree that the result is weird but then continue to explain that this is how Swift works. In short, they are misleading and confusing you on a topic you are trying to learn. This is of course unintentional but gives you a clue about how the quality check on lecture videos are taken care of. Details here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/swift-programming/discussions/DBk-SJO2EeWNbBIwwhtGwQ | you a clue about how the | Quality | check on lecture videos are taken | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor Quality | Poor | Quality | | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The quality of the course is not as I expected from a Coursera course. | The | Quality | of the course is not as | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Probably guys did big amount of work, but the course looks extremely raw. Half of lectures time is talking about nothing and it seems that there were no lecture plan before shooting the video. It would have been ok if the course had been free, but I expected much more from it for that price. Thank you for you work, but, I think, you need to keep improving the quality of the course. | you need to keep improving the | Quality | of the course. | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I am sure if you are familiar with the content or an expert programmer looking for an overview of a new language then this would be perfect but you do need to understand swift before starting this introduction to swift. The lessons felt very unstructured, unplanned and ad hoc almost like the people presenting didn't know they were being recorded, this meant that the examples given were contrived without consideration to the suitability to present the concept succinctly and would require anyone but an existing swift programmer needing to carry out additional reading which rather defeats the purpose of an "introduction to..." course. A little scripting and lesson planning and preparation of content would have made the difference between this excellently produced and edited course being awkward and an effort to attend into a really useful reference for beginers of swift programming. To summarise, the obviously expert technical knowledge of the speakers and the quality of the editing are let down by rushed lesson content. | knowledge of the speakers and the | Quality | of the editing are let down | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Quality and length of material is mediocre. | | Quality | and length of material is mediocre. | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor video quality, weak, ad hoc examples, not well thought flow. Seems like tutors have not spent time on proper preparation. Free courses on iTunesU (especially those by Stanford University) are far more better. | Poor video | Quality | weak, ad hoc examples, not well | Negative | -0.9 | -0.5 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | No stars for this course, 3 modules I did, and I think is not a valuable course, gives a bad introduction to the language, there are inconsistencies in the theory and knowledge of the language. The preparation of the course is poor, there is no direction, a lot of errors using playground and the instructors hesitate and doubt all the time during the recording of the screen. That's not good point for the prestigious University of Toronto and Coursera. One star for the review is too much, no preparation, lack of security, bad quality. | no preparation, lack of security, bad | Quality | | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I wish I had paid closer attention to the refund policy. The production quality and content did not meet my expectations. | to the refund policy. The production | Quality | and content did not meet my | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Sadly, this course is NOT an Introduction to Swift Programming. As a beginner I found this course was not structured and I was confused about the correct steps to take in order to start programming in Swift. No doubt that these guys are knowledgable but they do not plan the course or teach in a linear fashion. Furthermore the sound and video quality is poor and I have decided to quit this course after the first week and a half. | fashion. Furthermore the sound and video | Quality | is poor and I have decided | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Bad audio quality Poor presentation Not for professional developers (perhaps can be fine for beginners) | Bad audio | Quality | Poor presentation Not for professional developers | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The material is OK, the video quality is regular and the instructors are childish. I prefer the Android specialization where the instructors are more mature and professional. | The material is OK, the video | Quality | is regular and the instructors are | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I am dropping the course. Suggestions 1) One person talk to the audience...rather than 2 or 3 talking to each other 2) Volume and pic quality poor 3) Its going too slowly.....just not enough "meat" to get me engaged...esp if u compare to the course by Paul Hegarty Stanford | each other 2) Volume and pic | Quality | poor 3) Its going too slowly. | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.46 | 1.01 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Very thought provoking course. The online content was well presented, and the supporting reading was highly quality, relevant material that expanded my knowledge on this subject and I am sure it will be really helpful in improving my future research projects and planning. Highly recommended. | and the supporting reading was highly | Quality | relevant material that expanded my knowledge | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.02 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | This course is nicely organized and has manageable readings & videos. The video quality could be better. It's very very basic information about research. It might be useful to someone who does not know anything about it at all. The title might lead one to expect that methods of research such as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method would be explored. Rather, this course is a general overview of what research is. | manageable readings & videos. The video | Quality | could be better. It's very very | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 1.02 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | High quality content. Congratulations to the team! | High | Quality | content. Congratulations to the team! | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.02 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | working javascript functions is lacking. The | Quality | of the explanations also varied in | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This is great, professors are awesome and quality of material is great. I loved it and I highly recommend this course! | is great, professors are awesome and | Quality | of material is great. I loved | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | Highly appealing subject matter but this was not the course I should have chosen to learn it from. The topics discussed are relevant, but there were some major drawbacks to this course: Limited academic rigour applied to the actual topics; instead they are discussed in a somewhat wordy and vague manner. Very slow progression beyond the most basic topics. At the beginning and end of each video there are some odd sound effects, and during the course itself the microphone the instructor is using seems to be very temperamental - sometimes I can't hear him at all, sometimes it's way too loud The software that is meant to be used has not been updated in 3 years (Jul13), and you notice it: A bug results in the software 'failing' during one of the homework assignments - students in this course had to fix it ad hoc themselves by changing the source code installed on their machine. Further, the assignments were not quite instructive but more a method of 'rote learning' -- amend the existing code, and then change 1-3 inputs and copy-paste the output into the 'quiz'. I didn't feel I was gaining much insight into the theory + subject matter during homeworks + quiz. The course videos also seem to be much more ad-hoc than I was expecting: There are many examples of 'Uhms...' 'Err's and pauses - there only seems to be a vague description of what is meant to be taught in the individual videos, where a set of points and theories to be discussed in a organized rigid manner may have been more appropriate. To conclude, there is no doubt that the instructor knows what he is talking about, but I can't help but feel that this course was put together quite hurriedly without much quality testing and preparation. It also lacks the depth and breadth of other courses available here and elsewhere. I signed up to this course under the 'Verified Track' and am likely not going to complete it despite having paid $$ to sign up. Having said all that I would definitely sign up to Computational Investing , Part II, as I would expect the team behind this course to be doing things differently (ie a lot better) 3-4 years after this course was made! | put together quite hurriedly without much | Quality | testing and preparation. It also lacks | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 0.73 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | Although this course holds quite a lot of information, it is quite slow in the way the information is transmitted and unfortunately, the presenter did not 'made homework' in terms of preparing what to say. In addition to the lagging of 'so, anyways, uhmm...' or just silence, many of the videos are also quite low in quality - especially sound due to bad microphone. Overall the information was interesting and useful, and I'm looking for Part II. | videos are also quite low in | Quality | - especially sound due to bad | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 0.73 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course developed by Andrew Ng is quite interesting, going to the essentials in order student get the big picture and the essential tools for building the backbone of future ML applications. Of course, being confident with mathematics principles and notations will be helpful but most of the time, it's not an issue if you have the minimal knowledge. What it lacks on Coursera is the next stage of this course where we could investigate further the technologies presented but in more technical way. Maybe we might see that in the future... Regarding course supports (videos, forums ...), they are of good quality and the fact Andrew used them by drawing on slides helps to have a better understanding. We could notice that there are few minor errors (eg: a "j" index which becomes "i" in J(theta) writing) and I think the technical slides on Back propagation could be improved if a dedicated slide to used mathematical notations / definitions. Sometimes, there are some errors which could induce some confusions. But these minors errors don't hide the impressive work done by Andrew. Regarding assessments, quizzes could be tricky if you don't got the "spirit" (not an exam habit in France) and coding exercises are well structured in order the student will focus on the core modules of the lesson and not on information flow. These exercises are inspiring if you're interesting in teaching and inspiring for Data Scientist Apprentices if you investigate the utils functions developed to support the exercise. Many thanks for this great course and I hope my two cents will help other people to attend it Bruno | . ), they are of good | Quality | and the fact Andrew used them | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Hi, I appreciate this course and the efforts put into it. However, I am unlikely to focus on it or be as much engaged as I'd hope to due to sound quality in your videos. I am really sorry for rating this course 4 stars. I hope that you'd recored your videos with a better microphone so I could enjoy listening to you and be more engaged in the course. I hope that you understand that it is hard to take a course with a bad sound quality, especially, that there is no excuse not to upgrade the microphone. Nowadays, almost everyone is using a respectably good microphone to recored videos. I believe if you use a better microphone many students would be more engaged and willing to take your course. My opinion might change after finishing this course but I don't think I'd be finishing this course anytime soon or at least on time before the next session because of the sound quality. Best regards, | a course with a bad sound | Quality | especially, that there is no excuse | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Hi, I appreciate this course and the efforts put into it. However, I am unlikely to focus on it or be as much engaged as I'd hope to due to sound quality in your videos. I am really sorry for rating this course 4 stars. I hope that you'd recored your videos with a better microphone so I could enjoy listening to you and be more engaged in the course. I hope that you understand that it is hard to take a course with a bad sound quality, especially, that there is no excuse not to upgrade the microphone. Nowadays, almost everyone is using a respectably good microphone to recored videos. I believe if you use a better microphone many students would be more engaged and willing to take your course. My opinion might change after finishing this course but I don't think I'd be finishing this course anytime soon or at least on time before the next session because of the sound quality. Best regards, | next session because of the sound | Quality | Best regards, | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | great lessons, with very explained material. the major downside for this course is the terrible sound quality, it just can't be heard with regular speakers, you have to hear it with earspeakers, and it still not that great. | this course is the terrible sound | Quality | it just can't be heard with | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | After completing the Machine Learning Course and after going through all of these videos and assignments, now I can say that I have learnt a lot from this course and content of the course have good quality and helps you expertise this field. Thanks a ton Prof. Andrew NG. | content of the course have good | Quality | and helps you expertise this field. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is acourse with a very high quality. Insights shared by the teacher and those programming homeworks are the most valuable part for me. There is relatively less material from theoretical aspect, but it's still good. (I use PRML as a complementary resource.) | is acourse with a very high | Quality | Insights shared by the teacher and | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Prof Andew Ng explains concepts and algorithms in a clear way. I'm impressed with the quality of the programming assignments , which was very thoughtful and instructive. | clear way. I'm impressed with the | Quality | of the programming assignments , which | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | One of the best mooc that I have taken till date. Thanks a lot for Andrew Ng and team to make this high quality class accessible to everyone. Learnt a great deal from the lecture videos, assignments, quiz, tutorials & test cases. I highly recommend to people who are just starting to explore ML for learning or to make a career out of it. Thanks again Andrew Ng, Team and Coursera | and team to make this high | Quality | class accessible to everyone. Learnt a | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Just finished the course. This is indeed an amazing course which can get started you in practical machine learning in less than 3 months. You will developing your own neural networks from the scratch. Below are the pros and not pros (i won't call it cons) that i experienced. PROs : Gets onto topics right away. Information about practical implementation Doable. Not too difficult and not downright easy. You have to put effort if you do not have backgroud in undergraduate mathematics to understand the concepts. Prof. Andrew Ng. - He has knack of explaining something very complex in a very easy manner. Also, he justifies if he is not going to explain something Assignments evaluation and practical scenarios. Not PROs : Very High Level : This course does NOT go in detail to explain the derivations and mathematics behind machine learning course. I think its OK and that is what makes the course doable. I find it really hard to accept a formula if the reasons are not known and hence, sometimes our only task was to learn the formula. For example : in SVMs. What Next : It is just a feedback. I think at the end of course, course team should guide students, what do to next. May be which course can be a good follow up course for this. So, at the end, i just want to thanks Coursera team, Stanford Team, mentors, peers and Prof. Andrew Ng for spreading this knowledge for free. It is really helping people like me to study something not readily available in good quality in reach. Hopefully, i will also be able to give back to community some time soon. | something not readily available in good | Quality | in reach. Hopefully, i will also | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Despite I guess the course has a pretty good coverage of the ML basics, it is definitely just an introductive class. In particular I was surprised by the low quality of the material. The following are my notes and suggestions: -- I found the lectures highly redundant, with many unnecessary repetitions -- using a vector notation (like an arrow or a simple line on top of the letters) throughout the course would have make formulas much more readable -- too much hand writing on the slides while talking: a better set of slides with blocks of text shown at the right moment would be much smoother and readable -- very, very poor video editing (many times it's clear some parts of the videos were meant to be cut!!) -- the desire to create a format suitable for people with a scarce algebra preparation lead to use not the appropriate terminology, which would be more correct and easier to understand. Just realize that ML is basically applied math, and without a good math knowledge it is almost pointless to approach the subject | I was surprised by the low | Quality | of the material. The following are | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Way of teaching, quality of examples is one of the Best. | Way of teaching, | Quality | of examples is one of the | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The instructor Andrew Ng has put in lot of effort to explain the fundamentals and then the coding assignments take it to the next level. Video length and quality is optimum. Discussion forums are very useful whenever I get stuck with a technical or course related problem. | the next level. Video length and | Quality | is optimum. Discussion forums are very | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good introduction to machine learning. The content is fairly basic, it's up to you is you want to go deeper into the subject. Only one downside, the quality of videos is low. | the subject. Only one downside, the | Quality | of videos is low. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course with great quality assignments from a credible and reputed expert in the field. | Great course with great | Quality | assignments from a credible and reputed | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course is very good,throgh taking this course,I have a general picture about machine learning .But ,there still exsists several problems,for example,the quality of the videos are low,and I am really looking forward to new version of the course. | exsists several problems, for example, the | Quality | of the videos are low, and | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course both with quality content and teaching. Loved the way Prof NG taught this class. Really happy to complete this course. | Excellent course both with | Quality | content and teaching. Loved the way | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It's really impressive that Andrew Ng created this course, which (I believe) was the original Coursera course. And, at the halfway point I am finding it somewhat useful. However, I've been doing the University of Washington Machine Learning Specialization in tandem and I much prefer that course. The videos are clearer, both in terms of audio quality and presentation, and I am able to seamlessly transition from lectures to quiz/homework, whereas with this Stanford course I sometimes find that the lectures do not prepare me for the homework. That may also be because I had not used Matlab prior to this course, but am very fluent in python, which is used in the UW course. Finally, the notation used in the lectures can be quite confusing for me at times. UPDATE: I am now finishing the last week of the course, and I increased my rating to 4 stars. The course got easier and more fun after the halfway point. If you are struggling through the early weeks, I encourage you to stick with it, as it pays off later on. | clearer, both in terms of audio | Quality | and presentation, and I am able | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Good quality, Andrew NG is all the best. | Good | Quality | Andrew NG is all the best. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course really makes you understand how Machine Learning algorithms work. You have to solve challenging programming exercises to complete it. Fortunately the support given by the community is always one click away. Professor Andrew Ng is really an engaging person who transmit his deep love for the matter. I would save the fifth star for when typos will be solved and audio quality will be improved. | typos will be solved and audio | Quality | will be improved. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It was really an excellent course. It was challenging but feasable with a huge quantity & quality of knowledges. I have learned a lot of things about Machine Learning. Thanks a lot, Mr Andrew Ng | feasable with a huge quantity & | Quality | of knowledges. I have learned a | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Wonder Prof. and coherent informative material, the only minor issue is the bad sound quality, other than that it is excellent and recommended for everyone passionate about the field of Machine Learning. | minor issue is the bad sound | Quality | other than that it is excellent | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I have been really impressed with the quality of this course. The subject of the lecures is undoubtedly fascinating, while the teacher, Andrew Ng, is able to introduce even the most complex topics with clarity and effectiveness. The weekly workload is reasonable and carefully planned, as the difficulty of assignments and tests. Many thanks for making this course available! | have been really impressed with the | Quality | of this course. The subject of | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Top quality! | Top | Quality | | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good introduction to machine learning. The only issue I have is quality of video materials which is rather low mostly due to bad mic used. | The only issue I have is | Quality | of video materials which is rather | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Low quality video and audio | Low | Quality | video and audio | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Sound quality could be improved in video. It kind of curbs the understanding of what the teacher is saying :/ Otherwise everything's great! | Sound | Quality | could be improved in video. It | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I'll only mentions things I didn't like: sound/video quality is poor, lack of lecture notes. | mentions things I didn't like: sound/video | Quality | is poor, lack of lecture notes. | Negative | -0.9 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Judging by my three weeks' study, this course is surely high quality and helpful. Hope to learn more from Professor Ng in the following weeks. Five stars! | study, this course is surely high | Quality | and helpful. Hope to learn more | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Highly recommended. Quality lectures, each one with programming assignments which leave you with usable opensource code, with appropriate tutorials for those assignments and adequate test-cases. Well worth the time invested. | Highly recommended. | Quality | lectures, each one with programming assignments | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course content was excellent. Only drawback was voice recording quality. | excellent. Only drawback was voice recording | Quality | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Quality lessons, good course if you want to start in machine learning. | | Quality | lessons, good course if you want | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Course is designed perfectly and it covers almost everything about supervised and unsupervised learning. Video quality is awesome and examples given are sufficient. Hope to see RStudio codes also in future. Regards, Ritesh Jain | about supervised and unsupervised learning. Video | Quality | is awesome and examples given are | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Lots of great condensed content. I miss a written summary of the videos though. Furthermore, the quality of sound is awful. Well designed quizzes and assignments. Good: In-video quizzes. | of the videos though. Furthermore, the | Quality | of sound is awful. Well designed | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Audio quality is not great. Also, all concepts could be easily taught in Python rather than Matlab. Great material never the less. | Audio | Quality | is not great. Also, all concepts | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good. Only negative bit is the sound quality of the videos. | Only negative bit is the sound | Quality | of the videos. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Can't thank enough for offering through this course ! The pace of lessons, insights, brevity of course material and very valuable assignments are right mix for anyone wishing to learn this subject, which one finds often hard to grasp and apply while learning directly from books, even with technical background. This course is an example of how access top quality learning can be democratized and be brought within reach of so many who wish to learn it. Thank again Prof. Ng and team for this enlightenment | an example of how access top | Quality | learning can be democratized and be | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The materials and assignments are of great quality. | materials and assignments are of great | Quality | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good material but sound quality of videos is bad, could use his own machine learning techniques to improve the sound, also no literature which is bad. | good material but sound | Quality | of videos is bad, could use | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Truly amazing quality of study that everyone can get from Coursera. Machine Learning topic got very well explained by the Instructor & He is obviously mastering this topic in all dimensions. I am benefited with enormous confidence into Machine learning topics which I would enhance further with practical experience in my field of study. | Truly amazing | Quality | of study that everyone can get | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Wonderful course! Sound quality requires revision, but content is supreme. | Wonderful course! Sound | Quality | requires revision, but content is supreme. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The topic is interesting, the course content is presented clearly, and the lectures are informative. While the assignments can be challenging, they really help to reenforce the lessons. From what I gather, the class was recently moved over from an older Coursera model/design. This is frustratingly apparent at times. Some information can be difficult to find, particularly in the Discussion section. I would love to see this class updated to match the quality of some more recent classes I have taken. | this class updated to match the | Quality | of some more recent classes I | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent and challenging course. It would be great if you could improve the quality of the audio. | great if you could improve the | Quality | of the audio. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent, informative and fun introduction to machine learning. The programming assignments are carefully designed to incrementally ramp up the difficulty and the nuances of Octave/Matlab relevant to the assignments are explained beforehand. The quality is truly impressive, although I wish there was a little more mathematical depth to some of the lectures. Many derivations and details of linear algebra were kind of glossed over but I understand that there's a lot to cover in a fairly short period of time so it is understandable (and most people probably don't mind it anyway). This is one of the few courses that really keeps me motivated to complete all assignments. Thank you, Prof. Ng. | the assignments are explained beforehand. The | Quality | is truly impressive, although I wish | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Some mistakes on the slides but they are all corrected in the forums. High quality and insightful. | all corrected in the forums. High | Quality | and insightful. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course. Concepts were explained very well and the hands on exercises helped to gain confidence in implementing some of the algorithms. This course is simply magical in transforming a person who is new to machine learning into an expert. I have already started applying machine learning techniques in real life problems. Thanks to Stanford University and Mr. Andrew for providing such high quality content. | Mr. Andrew for providing such high | Quality | content. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | High quality human learning :-). Priceless practical advises, wide range of topics, well designed assignments. Highly recommended. | High | Quality | human learning :-). Priceless practical advises, | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Exciting course! Astonishing work to develop all videos and prepared files and guidelines for programming exercices. Andrew Ng make concepts very accessible and very illustrated. The real life exercices immediately give ideas of implementations. We have quickly hands-on thanks to exercices. The diversity of covered fields through the examples taken is quite impressive and useful. I found the difficulty of exercices very subtly tuned to develop really interesting tools thanks to the pre-written codes. These codes also give opportunities to exploit further Octave/Matlab capabilities. I deeply thank the team for granting us access to a such high quality content. | us access to a such high | Quality | content. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The educational quality of this course is, without a doubt, incomparable | The educational | Quality | of this course is, without a | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Content of the course was great! Sound quality is a bit lower, but you'll get used to it | of the course was great! Sound | Quality | is a bit lower, but you'll | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Absolutely top quality course - well done Andrew Ng! | Absolutely top | Quality | course - well done Andrew Ng! | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was fantastic. A glimpse of how good quality education could be brought to the millions of people around the world who otherwise would be capable but were not lucky enough to be born in the right place and/or with enough resources to afford world class education. | fantastic. A glimpse of how good | Quality | education could be brought to the | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.08 |
| hESqA3EhEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | I found a number of the lessons were light on content, but I have guilty knowledge having used ArcMap on and off for the past few years. A lot of the meat of this course is replicated in similar or only slightly more detail in the follow-on class in the specialization. If you have experience with GIS or Arc I would strongly recommend skipping this class and moving directly to GIS Data Formats, Design and Quality. | to GIS Data Formats, Design and | Quality | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 1.07 |
| hESqA3EhEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | very good and hight quality video , more exemple step by step i like this cousre | very good and hight | Quality | video , more exemple step by | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.07 |
| hESqA3EhEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Thank you for providing such quality courses, simple and great explanation Nick !! :D | Thank you for providing such | Quality | courses, simple and great explanation Nick | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.07 |
| hESqA3EhEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Excellent modules, excellent teaching, excellent moderation and responsiveness from the tutor. I was not expecting this quality. Really good! | tutor. I was not expecting this | Quality | Really good! | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.07 |
| hhFDsQ72EeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Teaching quality is good, but more example needed. | Teaching | Quality | is good, but more example needed. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.96 |
| hhFDsQ72EeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Excellent course and introduction to game theory. Some parts were difficult, but quality teaching needs to be challenging. I think there are areas for improvement, but I would overall recommend the course. | theory. Some parts were difficult, but | Quality | teaching needs to be challenging. I | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.96 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | The flash tutorials are helpful. Instructor quality is low, production quality of instructor videos is low. Not on par with the University of Virginia project management course. Pace of course is also extremely slow, though it may be appropriate for novice students. That should be made clear up-front in the course description. | helpful. Instructor quality is low, production | Quality | of instructor videos is low. Not | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 1.13 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | A fantastic introduction course. It left me craving more, which I think might be the most important quality in an intro-level course. | think might be the most important | Quality | in an intro-level course. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.13 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | ideas. Slides are well designed. Video | Quality | and sound quality is also great. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.13 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | well designed. Video quality and sound | Quality | is also great. You will encounter | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.13 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | You will encounter lots of good | Quality | reading materials. Quizzes will help you | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.13 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Best in it's Class. Short but so much descriptive with a constant effort to deliver high quality teaching with easy understanding language and concepts! It's highly recommended to those who are new to Data Science, and want to make their Base strong( like me) | a constant effort to deliver high | Quality | teaching with easy understanding language and | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | most part of this course is a duplicate of the "R programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher quality is very bad. not original, boring, dividing this in "4 weeks" is too ridiculously long, this should be done in 1 week to enable users to take more time for the "R programming". this course should be free. don't lose too much time on it, it's doable in a day or a weekend and move on to "R programming". asking for so much money to see how to install R and github is a shame. feels like this course has been added just to have a round number for the specialization. even the survey in the end asking for feedback starts with a question not adapted to moment it's been asked "did you get a certificate?" of course i did not as i've just finish the course and now wait for my peers to review my final submission. | programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher | Quality | is very bad. not original, boring, | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Really poor quality of the material. | Really poor | Quality | of the material. | Negative | -0.9 | -0.5 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Highest quality MOOC I've taken yet. | Highest | Quality | MOOC I've taken yet. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | A good course with high quality information and good presenters. | A good course with high | Quality | information and good presenters. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Although the content is correct, quality models videos and materials is very low, wanted to make all the specialization, but I'm not satisfied with the quality of the course. It's a shame, because the JHU is an excellent University | Although the content is correct, | Quality | models videos and materials is very | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Although the content is correct, quality models videos and materials is very low, wanted to make all the specialization, but I'm not satisfied with the quality of the course. It's a shame, because the JHU is an excellent University | but I'm not satisfied with the | Quality | of the course. It's a shame, | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.2 |
| K28H5jJ0EeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | A lot of work writing but the quality of instruction is excellent. | lot of work writing but the | Quality | of instruction is excellent. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.06 | 1.08 |
| K28H5jJ0EeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | Such a boring course. No challenge at all, no meaningful example, and in the end seems that everybody grade without any reason. I don't think I'll finish the specialization, it's too expensive for such a poor quality | too expensive for such a poor | Quality | | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 1.06 | 1.08 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Good overview of HTML/CSS/Javascript. Nice audio/video quality and preparation. Fun homework assignments and examples. Would have liked more CSS touches. | Good overview of HTML/CSS/Javascript. Nice audio/video | Quality | and preparation. Fun homework assignments and | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 0.89 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | One week shorter than other similar courses but the eLearning lectures are of excellent quality and the assignments do stretch you to learn | the eLearning lectures are of excellent | Quality | and the assignments do stretch you | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 0.89 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Not happy with the quality of the material. Dropped the whole specialization halfway through this class. | Not happy with the | Quality | of the material. Dropped the whole | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.77 | 0.89 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | A lot of information, easy to understand, good quality of lectures and interesting practical exercises! Thanks! | of information, easy to understand, good | Quality | of lectures and interesting practical exercises! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 0.89 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Pros: A basic introduction to the 3 core front-end technologies. The Professor has structured the course in a logical and easy to follow progressive format. The presentations are professionally done with quality audio and HD video. (The Professor speaks with a clear proper British accent). If watching online, there are helpful short quizzes built into the videos to make sure people are not skipping ahead. (Not sure if these 'video quizzes are graded, but I think they are helpful) Cons: The projects are helpful to reinforce logic and programming concepts, however, they are not real world and may be too simple to be of real value. One will need supplemental resources to fill in the gaps for the projects. I would have liked a real world example, even if it was beyond the scope of the course. | The presentations are professionally done with | Quality | audio and HD video. (The Professor | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 0.89 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Bad teaching quality. | Bad teaching | Quality | | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Excellent quality, loved the quizzes and graded assignments, completely worth the time and money! Highly recommend! | Excellent | Quality | loved the quizzes and graded assignments, | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | professional researchers. But the marketplace for | Quality | online education is definitely becoming a | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I finished the first session of Master Algorithmic Programming Techniques, the Algorithmic Toolbox course. This is an amazing course. To review why this course (and series) is awesome: 1) 25 + programming assignments, ranging from easy to advanced. 2) Unlike many other CS courses, this course allows multiple programming languages. You have choices of C C++, Java, Python2, Python3. They may add more to the list :). 3) Super active forum, the learners come here to debate approaches and share knowledge a lot. There were so many times I'm convinced my algorithm can't be optimized anymore, then another guy came in with another genius idea. 4) Plus, the instructor, Mr. Alex S. Kulikov is a super nice guy, he made 300+ forum posts in the first session alone, to guide learners thoroughly.Comprehensive grader: grades you on correctness, time use, memory use. You have no choice but to optimize all 3 aspects to pass. This course has premium access. However, both the quality and quantity are well worth the price. You can read other learners' comments and many agree with this. | has premium access. However, both the | Quality | and quantity are well worth the | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Very good quality! | Very good | Quality | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Seems like the quality of this specialization goes down with every course. The instructor is not showing us the way we should think about developing programs in NodeJS, but he insists on using PowerPoint slides to show us how to code! It's 2016, and there are way better mediums for communicating with your students. Simply copying and pasting code and explaining what every line does is not the right way of teaching any concept, especially when you are dealing with a new technology. For the start, the instructor can actually type the code and explain what goes through his mind during each step. That way anyone can follow his problem solving methods and benefit from the course. I had to take other online courses on Code School and Pluralsight just to understand what's going on, and later come back to finish the homework. | Seems like the | Quality | of this specialization goes down with | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.75 | 0.82 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great contents as the rest of the courses in the specialization. I'm afraid I need to be a little bit critical with this one though: 1) The contents are really jammed into 4 weeks - The last week's contents are actually some kind of miscellany between mongoose, https, authentication and BaaS 2) Not a single quiz or self-evaluation of sorts along the course - To be completely fair, the exercises shown along the way might make up for it. Still, I think it's important to spread some quizes around so as to make absorb the concepts more effectively 3) The quality of the presentations is somewhat lower than other courses. There's even a video towards the end of the course where a Linkedin notification springs up on top, which even makes the presenter pause for a few seconds. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this course and definitely appreciate the effort put into it - Given the newly introduced Coursera fees, I'd expect much more quality in place to make it 70 buck-worth, though | the concepts more effectively 3) The | Quality | of the presentations is somewhat lower | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 0.82 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great contents as the rest of the courses in the specialization. I'm afraid I need to be a little bit critical with this one though: 1) The contents are really jammed into 4 weeks - The last week's contents are actually some kind of miscellany between mongoose, https, authentication and BaaS 2) Not a single quiz or self-evaluation of sorts along the course - To be completely fair, the exercises shown along the way might make up for it. Still, I think it's important to spread some quizes around so as to make absorb the concepts more effectively 3) The quality of the presentations is somewhat lower than other courses. There's even a video towards the end of the course where a Linkedin notification springs up on top, which even makes the presenter pause for a few seconds. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this course and definitely appreciate the effort put into it - Given the newly introduced Coursera fees, I'd expect much more quality in place to make it 70 buck-worth, though | Coursera fees, I'd expect much more | Quality | in place to make it 70 | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 0.82 |
| NpTR4zVwEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | As usual for this specs - a very high quality course. | this specs - a very high | Quality | course. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.91 |
| NpTR4zVwEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | I am Krishna Kant Kumar, working as a software quality analyst. Through this course, I learnt, how to estimate an iteration or doing an estimation of project. | Kant Kumar, working as a software | Quality | analyst. Through this course, I learnt, | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.91 |
| OrpXgQt0EeS5diIACoo5jQ | Matt, thanks a lot for very useful and interesting course! It's exceeded all my expectations. I apply new knowledge on a daily basis at my work and it has helped me a lot already to imporve the quality of my communication on all levels (colleagues, management, subordinates). Thanks a lot! p.s. I´ve understood that it´s better not to start a course if there are X-mas holidays in the middle. For me the course took a bit longer because of that:) Thanks a lot again! Public speaking course should be a mandatory part of all high schools program | a lot already to imporve the | Quality | of my communication on all levels | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.56 | 1.08 |
| OrpXgQt0EeS5diIACoo5jQ | Great course. I just loved the way Matt McGarrity developes his lectures, he provides a wide variety of resources for us to understand and practice public speaking. I feel so happy and grateful that Coursera is providing this high quality courses. | that Coursera is providing this high | Quality | courses. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.56 | 1.08 |
| OrpXgQt0EeS5diIACoo5jQ | This was one of the better courses I've taken on Coursera. Simply put, I learned a lot. It was information dense, well thought out material, and presented by someone with the quality of ethos indicating a true educator. Also it tackled challenges like how to practice public speaking in a MOOC context with the creative application of video technology. Thank you Dr. McGarrity. | and presented by someone with the | Quality | of ethos indicating a true educator. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.56 | 1.08 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | I believe the quality of the course is above average. But I have to admit that it can hardly be called a great course, in that the content of the course seems to be loose, inconsistent and sorta unorganized. Martin is no wonder one of the greatest computer scientists in the world, but there is still a long way to go before his course can match his ability as computer scientist. Many thanks for Martin anyway for his great contribution to the world, hope your course will keep growing as Scala does! | I believe the | Quality | of the course is above average. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | This course is a re-hash of both the excellent "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" and the mediocre "Principles of Reactive Programming in Scala". Unfortunately, in quality it's closer to the latter: mixed quality, lectures that seem unrelated to their corresponding assignments, many errors (both typos and, more seriously, examples that don't type-check!) and a general lack of an in-depth motivation for the principles. Staff participation in my run of the course (2016) was disappointingly low; in some cases there was no response at all to students pointing out glaring errors in the lectures. It's very noticeable that this course is a patchwork of previous courses. In same cases the video lectures even display the wrong title for the course, or mention lectures that no longer exist in this version of the course! The course has interesting parts (I was especially thrilled when I saw there were lectures about FRP), but its quality is way below "Functional Programming Principles in Scala". I'm disappointed. To make this review constructive, my recommendations: 1- Pay attention to quality. Make sure all examples compile and type-check. 2- Make sure you're not repeating content already in other courses, especially if they are part of the same specialization! 3- If you're going to re-use content from other contents, make sure it fits the current course. Do not mention lectures not in the course. | Programming in Scala" . Unfortunately, in | Quality | it's closer to the latter: mixed | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | This course is a re-hash of both the excellent "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" and the mediocre "Principles of Reactive Programming in Scala". Unfortunately, in quality it's closer to the latter: mixed quality, lectures that seem unrelated to their corresponding assignments, many errors (both typos and, more seriously, examples that don't type-check!) and a general lack of an in-depth motivation for the principles. Staff participation in my run of the course (2016) was disappointingly low; in some cases there was no response at all to students pointing out glaring errors in the lectures. It's very noticeable that this course is a patchwork of previous courses. In same cases the video lectures even display the wrong title for the course, or mention lectures that no longer exist in this version of the course! The course has interesting parts (I was especially thrilled when I saw there were lectures about FRP), but its quality is way below "Functional Programming Principles in Scala". I'm disappointed. To make this review constructive, my recommendations: 1- Pay attention to quality. Make sure all examples compile and type-check. 2- Make sure you're not repeating content already in other courses, especially if they are part of the same specialization! 3- If you're going to re-use content from other contents, make sure it fits the current course. Do not mention lectures not in the course. | it's closer to the latter: mixed | Quality | lectures that seem unrelated to their | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | This course is a re-hash of both the excellent "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" and the mediocre "Principles of Reactive Programming in Scala". Unfortunately, in quality it's closer to the latter: mixed quality, lectures that seem unrelated to their corresponding assignments, many errors (both typos and, more seriously, examples that don't type-check!) and a general lack of an in-depth motivation for the principles. Staff participation in my run of the course (2016) was disappointingly low; in some cases there was no response at all to students pointing out glaring errors in the lectures. It's very noticeable that this course is a patchwork of previous courses. In same cases the video lectures even display the wrong title for the course, or mention lectures that no longer exist in this version of the course! The course has interesting parts (I was especially thrilled when I saw there were lectures about FRP), but its quality is way below "Functional Programming Principles in Scala". I'm disappointed. To make this review constructive, my recommendations: 1- Pay attention to quality. Make sure all examples compile and type-check. 2- Make sure you're not repeating content already in other courses, especially if they are part of the same specialization! 3- If you're going to re-use content from other contents, make sure it fits the current course. Do not mention lectures not in the course. | were lectures about FRP), but its | Quality | is way below " Functional Programming | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | The content is excellent (as always), however the form leaves a bit to be desired. The video quality kept reverting to "low", and even on "high", the resolution was nothing to be proud of in 2016 (or at any time during this century). Also, the instructors appeared to make references to lectures that are not a part of this edition of the course. But these are small issues – the course is definitely worth taking, small imperfections or not. | bit to be desired. The video | Quality | kept reverting to " low" , | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | I'm unimpressed with the quality of the material and uninspired by the professor's video presentations. Out of the dozen or more courses here that I have taken, this one ranks at the bottom. I'm not going to disenroll at this time, but I have lost interest without even progressing beyond the first week. Maybe if I get inspired later, I will try again. | I'm unimpressed with the | Quality | of the material and uninspired by | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.74 | 0.97 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | First of all, thank you for the course, as it enables students to get a bit more up-to-date and knowledgeable in the topic. On the other hand, unfortunately it's not worth one's time as it didn't deliver very good quality, nor on its promise regarding "The Big Picture". Pros: Easy to understand. Self-paced. Objectivity and positive overall message. Cons: Overall quality and clarity of the lectures is not very good. Lectures are a bit hard to follow, not because of the complexity of the topic, but because of some controversial and outdated data, and the speaking and presentation style of the lecturer. Assignments contain too many trivial questions, but also some mistakes which makes some questions impossible to answer correctly, based on the lectures, or at all. No staff engagement or feedback on the forums, which is especially problematic regarding to aforementioned mistakes. The title and description of the course don't inform students that it is completely US-centric, and mostly concentrating on petroleum/oil. So along with a lot of important topics, "The Big Picture" is missing. | and positive overall message. Cons: Overall | Quality | and clarity of the lectures is | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 0.97 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I will recommend everyone to spend some quality time with Dr. Raj to discover happiness inside you. | will recommend everyone to spend some | Quality | time with Dr. Raj to discover | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | thank you for this course and the professional way it has been set up. the enthusiasm, quality and learning I got out of this are way beyond anything I could I have imagi | has been set up. the enthusiasm, | Quality | and learning I got out of | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Good fun & very thought-provoking. Deductions for sometimes lousy sound quality of videos and inane placing of quizzes. | thought-provoking. Deductions for sometimes lousy sound | Quality | of videos and inane placing of | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | A must! I'm sure EVERYBODY can benefit inmensly from taking this course! Excellent content, excellent quality, excellent proffesor! | taking this course! Excellent content, excellent | Quality | excellent proffesor! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Great for everyone! I recomend! This course will definitly improve que quality of your life! | This course will definitly improve que | Quality | of your life! | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I thoroughly enjoyed this course. I am using the information in it to improve my life. I shared its teachings with friends and family, out of the belief that it is valuable information which will improve their quality of life. | valuable information which will improve their | Quality | of life. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I am just mid-way through this course but I really can't stop myself from writing this review now, before I even finish it! Definitely it is the best course I have personally taken, despite the large number of courses I have experienced, some of them of excellent quality, in Coursera and elsewhere. Here we have a charismatic professor giving a great teaching performance, offering a vast amount of knowledge, a wealth of positive motivation and a big lesson for life! Obviously there is huge effort and hard work behind these exemplary video lectures. I would give it a 6/5 if I could.. | experienced, some of them of excellent | Quality | in Coursera and elsewhere. Here we | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.1 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Wonderful course. As an Electronic Engineer, I've always have a lack of Knowledge in Data Base structures. Nowadays, not only software applications but software based hardware solutions depend on this infra structure to warehouse data and information. Moreover, we live today in an Analytic world, deep mining knowledge to make decisions every day. This Course met all expectation I had and I want to get trough specialization track. By the way, professor Mannino is a great mentor and quality of support material (book, slides, assignment, etc.) is totally above the line. | Mannino is a great mentor and | Quality | of support material (book, slides, assignment, | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.96 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The lecture videos have a format that is a bit over structured. It feels like the instructor takes as much time asking and answering an often contrived "motivation" question as he does teaching relevant material. The slides are of sufficient quality however to make viewing the lectures optional. . I would have appreciated having all the courses documents in single zip file. | material. The slides are of sufficient | Quality | however to make viewing the lectures | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.96 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | The teaching quality is very average and mediocre at best. The assignments are merely implementation of lectures . The Stanford and Princeton courses on Algorithms are better courses to take for one to pursue a serious study of Algorithms. | The teaching | Quality | is very average and mediocre at | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | Really Good Course , Problems are of good quality , the content is time saving and easy to understand. | Course , Problems are of good | Quality | , the content is time saving | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | This is just a poor sample of a course. Very few material, low quality assignments and grading. | a course. Very few material, low | Quality | assignments and grading. | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The contents and quality of the video lectures are great. The quality of the supplementary materials (like the quizzes and the Matlab code) provided by TAs for the assignments are very poor. The assignment guides are written with very poor grammar. The Matlab code is written using the worst coding and documenting practices. The automatic evaluation system (the system for grade the submissions), doest't provide useful feedback. As people can read in the course discussion forums, students have been asking for months for improvements to the grading systems. | The contents and | Quality | of the video lectures are great. | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The topic is interesting and the lectures itself were good. The explanations of the algorithms and concepts was clear and easy to understand. However, the amount of material covered is very little. I think there should either be more concepts thought or they should be covered in more depth. Quizzes: The quizzes were very weak. They didn't really tell you weather you understood the concept or not. If one of the answers was wrong there was no information which one it was. So you have no idea which lecture you should watch again. Assignments: The assignments were very bad prepared. In some assignments there were bugs in the provided code, we weren't supposed to edit. The assignments itself are rather easy and can be completed quite quickly, if there wasn't the grader. From the grading you got no information what was wrong or which tests passed or failed. Most of the time it wasn't the case that the algorithm failed, instead the output was not as expected by the grader, although it was as described in the assignment. But you never knew. This part has to be improved a lot. Overall I have to say that I expected much more from University of Pennsylvania, especially after taking the first part of the Specialization which was of good quality. | the Specialization which was of good | Quality | | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | So I'll start with the positives. The material was appropriate and interesting and well presented. CJ Taylor is an enthusiastic lecturer and the material was presented in an enjoyable easy to understand way and having finished the course, I definitely want to learn more about computational motion planning. The problems I have with this course though are numerous. This is the second part of the Robotics Specialization and compared to the first part, this course was very weak. There was very little lecture material and the course felt thin - as if it were 2 weeks of material stretched over 4. There were many instances where the lectures could have gone in to much more detail and just didn't, I appreciate that you can't cover everything in lectures, but would it have killed you to provide or at least point to some good additional reading resources? The assessments were the worst part. The quizzes barely tested what I had learnt and could mostly be solved by common sense. What I find shocking is that there were so few questions with few multiple choice answer that you could easily brute-force these quizzes if you really wanted to. Compare this to the Aerial Robotics course where the quizzes took time and forced me to think and understand what was discussed in lecture. The programming assignments were shockingly bad. They were hard for completely the wrong reasons. I spent most of my time on them not coding the solution, but trying to figure out what was actually wanted and fixing bugs that were in the provided code that we WEREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO EDIT. The autograder would never tell you why you were wrong, just "I'm sorry, your solution didn't pass all of our test cases." This meant that finding the solution was based on guesswork rather than considered thought. This was made even worse by the fact that some simulations took a long time to run which made iterating guesses very slow - and doing this on a time limit is just pointlessly stressful. One of the assignments had the solution already in the source code as the instructors had forgotten to take it out. The final assignment wouldn't even run out of the box without fixing bugs in the provided code. This would have taken seconds to check had the person who wrote it bothered to check their work beforehand. Thing is, the tasks provided in principle weren't that hard, they were actually kind of too easy. Dijkstra's algorithm isn't that difficult to implement from scratch, and yet all that was asked of us was to implement a small 10 line for-loop. That said, I appreciate that as a software engineer, I might find this sort of thing much easier than most, but even so I don't feel as though the programming assignments helped me learn anything. Overall, regardless of how interesting the material was, this course was very shoddily put together. I appreciate this is the first time the course has been run, but this really felt phoned in and unacceptable. I paid money for this course and the quality of it is notably worse than most free MOOCs I have taken. I feel ripped off and I sincerely hope that the next section is better otherwise I doubt I will bother to continue until the end. I thought Penn University was better than this. | money for this course and the | Quality | of it is notably worse than | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | In this course we will get to know about shortest path algorithm such A*, Dijkstra's, concept of configuration space and path planning in the same, developing Probabilistic road maps and RRT and also a bit about Artificial potenial fields. All the algorithms are neatly explained. The material though very short(in terms of total hours of video lectures) is nicely compiled. The quality of the MATLAB exercises is very good with few issues here and there. We can extract a lot about MATLAB implementation of different simulations by spending time understanding the given code and also implementing missing sections as part of the assignment. Overall, a great course. | video lectures) is nicely compiled. The | Quality | of the MATLAB exercises is very | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | all. In addition, the coded template | Quality | upon which your own code depends | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Poor quality. A disappointing experience. The lectures are very basic, thought for people that have no experience in programming. This might be ok, but the difficulty of assignments should follow; instead, they can be relatively hard; newbie programmers will probably have an extremely hard time solving them, considering that many of the problems they will encounter are not treated at all in the course. The course does not focus enough on what differentiates R from other languages: just a few videos on data types, *apply functions, and a tiny little bit of scoping (very unclear). All these areas should have been expanded, and the course should have had more arguments as well. Finally, the assignments are not enough and their grading system is quite poor: instead of submitting your code and testing it automatically, you should calculate some quantities by hand and select the results out of a few possibilities. All in all, I was disappointed with the course. | Poor | Quality | A disappointing experience. The lectures are | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you are planning to learn R, then go and buy a book. This course is a complete scam. At least don't pay any money. The reasons; 1.) They advertise that you need couple of hours of study per week. That's a lie, you have to study much more than that unless if you know a little R programming. 2.) The quiz questions are totally unrelated from the lessons. They teach you the basic stuff but they expect you to accomplish intermediate quizzes. 3.) The instructor has no idea how to teach. May be he is trying to prove something. I couldn't really understand his motives. If you really want to teach that's simple. You do couple of extra videos and teach whatever you are asking in quizzes, or tell us to read a certain material. He didn't do any of them which means he either doesn't know how to teach or this specialization is a complete scam. 4.) And I don't really understand what coursera is doing by the way? What kind of a business model is this. I was planning to enroll many specializations but now I am not going to do it. So think about how much they are loosing. Where is the quality assurance. Just because one guy comes up to you and say that he teaches this and that do you believe them? MY ADVICE TO YOU: DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS SPECIALIZATION. AND FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE BAD REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | they are loosing. Where is the | Quality | assurance. Just because one guy comes | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Death by power point. If you can learn from essentially listening to a pod cast and reading unix type manual pages, then this course is for you! If you're like the rest of the population, then these lecture videos are useless. The only redeeming quality to this course has been the homework, but you can find them online or come up with them on your own. | videos are useless. The only redeeming | Quality | to this course has been the | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I've seen a general improvement in quality respect to the other about exploratory analysis, nothing else to say! Awesome job! | I've seen a general improvement in | Quality | respect to the other about exploratory | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | A good course with high quality information and good presenters. | A good course with high | Quality | information and good presenters. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Super satisfied with this course! Lecture videos are top quality, the PDF is available which makes studying and going back to the material more easy. The swirl programming lectures are very well done. I learnt more than I expected, quicker than I thought I would! Thumbs up! | this course! Lecture videos are top | Quality | the PDF is available which makes | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | Excellent course, great professor and very good quality content. Thank you | course, great professor and very good | Quality | content. Thank you | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 1.18 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | This Course is very helpful, and healthy for our daily life of living as well to others that are around us. Thanks to Dr Barbara F, and everyone to contribute with their knowledge to improve quality of life. I have enjoyed this course since the beginning. Thanks very much ! | contribute with their knowledge to improve | Quality | of life. I have enjoyed this | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 1.18 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | the course is interesting and challenging. it presents the positive psychology paradigm in a broad and exhaustive way. the loving kindness meditation is a special gift that will be with me forever. I especially appreciate how the lessons were managed, with the small group of four "students" who were then interviewed as experts in their fields of study or practice. I only have to complain about the video quality. especially long videos used to interrupt after the first 5 minutes, both image and sound or image only. the only way to go further was refreshing continuously. so I hadn't any chance to do all the embedded activities. my general review is: excellent course to have a first glance at positive psychology and a good platform to dive in from. | have to complain about the video | Quality | especially long videos used to interrupt | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 1.18 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course really helped me to filter out unnecessary and false information and do better quality researches. I always advise this study to people who could merit from it. So far, the best course I have ever done. | and false information and do better | Quality | researches. I always advise this study | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course provided a great experiece of online study. The high quality content of the videos and adequate rithym of assignments and quizzes are features that make it an admirable course. I strongly reccomend doing this course if you are still in doubt. | experiece of online study. The high | Quality | content of the videos and adequate | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The material has a very good quality. The teacher explains the subject very well and the videos are very supportive. The build-up in the course is well-thought and works like a charm, I am excited to continue with the specialization. | The material has a very good | Quality | The teacher explains the subject very | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I was extremely impressed by this course, its pedagogy, its depth and breadth, the clarity of the lectures, the quality of the material. Well done to all involved. I have signed up for the entire specialization and hope that the rest matches up to this. | the clarity of the lectures, the | Quality | of the material. Well done to | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I had taken 99% of the course last time, but didn't have time to do the assignments or complete it fully. I was pleased to see it was running again. I've followed many many many Courseras and this is by far the highest quality. Well done! What you did right? Illustrations. They perfectly capture the concept without distracting. They are amusing and just-the-right-degree-of-imperfect, which makes the course material feel approachable.The graphic design. The slightly messy, hand-written, crumpled paper background design is perfect. Not pretentious, not overly boring. Just that little touch of individualism and authenticity we need. This is a great way to avoid alienating your students, to keep a connection. Philosophy of science, history of science, research designs, etc. Despite having studied for a BSc, an MSc, and a scientific postgrad, I had to find out about these concepts through on-line courses and podcasts. I was really happy to see these neatly presented to me in a structured way in one spot in the context of a formal Research methods course. When covering these sections, you also did a great job at sticking to the important stuff. I am extremely impressed. In the reality of research, we get sucked in by the nitty gritty and forget about the big picture. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful framework behind the scientific method.You actually bothered spell-checking the transcript, particularly for proper names. I've had Courseras where the transcript seemed more like a onomatopeas than serious text. This is all I remember for now, all that's fresh off my mind, as am just up to week 2 right now, but I wanted to give you all a thumbs up for this great course you've wrapped up. I am seriously considering registering for the entire specialisation because of the quality of this course. | this is by far the highest | Quality | Well done! What you did right? | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I had taken 99% of the course last time, but didn't have time to do the assignments or complete it fully. I was pleased to see it was running again. I've followed many many many Courseras and this is by far the highest quality. Well done! What you did right? Illustrations. They perfectly capture the concept without distracting. They are amusing and just-the-right-degree-of-imperfect, which makes the course material feel approachable.The graphic design. The slightly messy, hand-written, crumpled paper background design is perfect. Not pretentious, not overly boring. Just that little touch of individualism and authenticity we need. This is a great way to avoid alienating your students, to keep a connection. Philosophy of science, history of science, research designs, etc. Despite having studied for a BSc, an MSc, and a scientific postgrad, I had to find out about these concepts through on-line courses and podcasts. I was really happy to see these neatly presented to me in a structured way in one spot in the context of a formal Research methods course. When covering these sections, you also did a great job at sticking to the important stuff. I am extremely impressed. In the reality of research, we get sucked in by the nitty gritty and forget about the big picture. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful framework behind the scientific method.You actually bothered spell-checking the transcript, particularly for proper names. I've had Courseras where the transcript seemed more like a onomatopeas than serious text. This is all I remember for now, all that's fresh off my mind, as am just up to week 2 right now, but I wanted to give you all a thumbs up for this great course you've wrapped up. I am seriously considering registering for the entire specialisation because of the quality of this course. | the entire specialisation because of the | Quality | of this course. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Excellent course. Very tidy and high quality of the visual presentations. In addition, its objectives are pretty clear from the beginning and the evaluation tasks are closely related to the course's topics. | Excellent course. Very tidy and high | Quality | of the visual presentations. In addition, | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Excellent quality of videos and tasks. | Excellent | Quality | of videos and tasks. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 1.14 |
| sHs1AyWUEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The content and the assignment were of high quality and I really enjoyed the case I had to work on. So overal the course was very good, but negative was that the course was a bit too long, I understand Coursera needs to finance the course, so it is better to have a long one and earn a lot of subscription fees. Bu the extra review rounds felt redundant, and because the course was so long it was difficult to keep focussed on it. | and the assignment were of high | Quality | and I really enjoyed the case | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.68 |
| sHs1AyWUEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The course as a whole is excellent (5 stars), however, the Capstone project part of the specialization consists of 3 submissions that are reviewed by other students. Consequently the quality of the reviewers are of the same level as the student itself - which obviously limits the learnings from feedback. | reviewed by other students. Consequently the | Quality | of the reviewers are of the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.68 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | This is a great course and I recommend it to everyone interested in Cybersecurity. The reading material is of exceptional value and I was amazed at the quality of the links to study material. What was totally new to me was Operational Security or Opsec, a totally intriguing subject, more or less cyber-self-defense! Yes, the videos are short but the reading material is quite large. I have kept the books and websites and will be reading them again, especially the NIST book. To everyone who claims that the course is not useful, I would say that you were probably one of those people who never read the books and the study material. | and I was amazed at the | Quality | of the links to study material. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 1.08 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | So far I've gone through the first week. Lots of business and technical info. The video quality is AMAZING!! | business and technical info. The video | Quality | is AMAZING! ! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 1.08 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | I wish they spent more time on the content of videos and less on the silly effects and 30-second intro and outro sequences. Practically every question of the final comes word-for-word from a book not assigned in the module readings and not available for free to students for them to study. I won't be taking any other courses from this school if this course was an indication of quality. | this course was an indication of | Quality | | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.08 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The best part about this course was that it made sure you are interested in learning the subject. If not, it is really really difficult to get on with it. It makes sure you understand the subject really well and you have to give back to the community. I liked the fact that you have to read the "Readings for this module" part, otherwise you won't be able to pass the Quizzes at the end of each module. You have to write a short paragraph which it will be reviewed by peers, who will in turn give you ratings. You have to do the same for other peers. This was probably the best aspect of this course. The music was extremely annoying and the quality of the content in the videos was okay, but the most important part is that it guided me in the right direction every time. Sometimes, by the end of the video, the music started in between the lecture itself and played itself for 3-4 seconds. | music was extremely annoying and the | Quality | of the content in the videos | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.08 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Unbelievable quality and density of information. Even more so because it is free!! Incredible! Hats off to Jeffery D. Sachs and this revolutionary work for our world. | Unbelievable | Quality | and density of information. Even more | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.14 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Lots of quality conversational information on sustainable development, but I wish there were more interactive projects to apply the concepts. Without an application, much of the information remained abstract and hard to remember. | Lots of | Quality | conversational information on sustainable development, but | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.46 | 1.14 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Great production and course quality. Highly recommended | Great production and course | Quality | Highly recommended | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.14 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Spectacular course, very informing and inspiring. I've only completed the preview of the course from several months back, but the amount of information that Professor Sachs imparted in just those few chapters was impressive, and honestly has changed my worldview. I'd never been so aware of the influence the Industrial Revolution played on shaping the vast differences in quality of life around the world, and can see now the importance as well as the challenges of ensuring that we focus our efforts equally on economic wellbeing of *all* people in a socially just and inclusive way, and in ways that are environmentally sustainable. Highly recommend this course. | on shaping the vast differences in | Quality | of life around the world, and | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.14 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Learning chapter after chapter ! The videos are amazing and the quality of data and they way it is exposed is really good ! | The videos are amazing and the | Quality | of data and they way it | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.14 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | This is an exceptional course. The quality of the lectures – course content, lecturing approach, and audiovisual production – is top-notch. Randy Picker provides a fascinating, engaging look at various devices and platforms, starting with their history and then integrating legal considerations, particularly under antitrust and copyright law. He presents the material in an easily comprehensible and digestible way, and explores subjects (and objects) that are very relevant in the modern, connected, digitized, and (borrowing a word from this class) mediated world. I learned a lot, enjoyed the lectures, and can see the application of what I learned outside the virtual classroom. Thank you! | This is an exceptional course. The | Quality | of the lectures – course content, | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.13 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Excellent presentation of material - high video and audio quality was greatly appreciated! | material - high video and audio | Quality | was greatly appreciated! | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.13 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Great course. A very solid and current approach to media. The content has high quality and is well balanced. Value added for sure. | to media. The content has high | Quality | and is well balanced. Value added | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.13 |
| VxTqEC8iEeWUWxIOAnoaFQ | Challenging course offered balance of study and testing: 3 essays, 6 short tests and one final exam. The quality of interviews, study sources and presentation by professionals was second-to-none by Coursera standards. This course is demanding. If you take the course you need to have a background in tax or be prepared to study over 10 hours per week. If you follow the guidelines and substantial source documents and presentations you should be able to pass the course. More importantly, focusing on the issues, ways and means that global enterprises have benefited from weak tax treaties and domestic laws is an eye-opener. Every politician elected to public office should take this course. Very done! Leiden's Centre for International Tax Law is clearly a world leader in tax law study and assessment. | tests and one final exam. The | Quality | of interviews, study sources and presentation | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| VxTqEC8iEeWUWxIOAnoaFQ | Top quality course from top University in the area of taxation | Top | Quality | course from top University in the | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Great course. Everyone should participate to improve one's quality of life. Ernest | Everyone should participate to improve one's | Quality | of life. Ernest | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Good quality introductory course | Good | Quality | introductory course | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Short, easy to watch videos fulled with high quality content and good ideias to incorporate healthy habbits in our daily life. | to watch videos fulled with high | Quality | content and good ideias to incorporate | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Very practical and applicable information. Great quality in the videos. | Very practical and applicable information. Great | Quality | in the videos. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | In the beginning it feels like a course, but from week three on it feels more like a conversation about food. It is more suitable for people with very little background n food science and nutrition, aiming to get some knowl on these fields. But the views are quite one sided and necessarily true when it comes to the understanding of the food chain. Of course, many of their opinions are valid, but I wouldn´t accept those views as solid rock statements because they are not. In any case, I recomend the course for people with obesity problems and those who are too lazy to think about the importance of home cooking. The quality of the videos is outstanding! Congratulations! | the importance of home cooking. The | Quality | of the videos is outstanding! Congratulations! | Positive | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Great quality course! Highly recommend for anyone interested in basic food and nutrition. I thought it would go into a little more depth than it did but the production quality was so amazing I didn't mind. | Great | Quality | course! Highly recommend for anyone interested | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Great quality course! Highly recommend for anyone interested in basic food and nutrition. I thought it would go into a little more depth than it did but the production quality was so amazing I didn't mind. | than it did but the production | Quality | was so amazing I didn't mind. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | The course is essentially a self-help guide focusing on the idea that cooking real food promotes health. This is certainly a message that many people need to hear. Unfortunately, the advice concerning what to eat is less sound. Let me illustrate this with a historical counterexample. Around 75 years ago, a Canadian dentist visited my home country of Switzerland, where he examined the health and diet of a population in a secluded mountain valley. He found them to be of exceptional health. Their diet? breakfast: rye sourdough bread, butter and cheese lunch: rye sourdough bread, butter and cheese dinner: rye sourdough bread, butter, cheese and potatoes, along with some vegetables in the warmer half of the year, and small amounts of meat on Sundays Contrary to four fundamental recommendations in the course, these people ate a lot of saturated fat (butter) and animal protein (cheese), but few vegetables and had hardly any variation in their diet. They did prepare their own food, grown or pastured locally, in very mineral-rich soil, which imparted their butter and cheese with very high amounts of fat-soluble vitamins A, D and K2. Perhaps animal foods are not as unhealthy as the course suggests, and food (and soil) quality is paramount. Instead of taking this course, watch Maya Adam's TEDx talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gyIkA-crM) and browse the recommendations of the Weston A. Price Foundation (http://www.westonaprice.org/) to learn what to cook, in particular their Healthy4Life dietary guidelines (http://www.westonaprice.org/wp-content/uploads/Healthy4LifeEnglish.pdf). If you still need a self-help guide to actually start cooking your own food then by all means, take this course. It'll only take you about an hour. | course suggests, and food (and soil) | Quality | is paramount. Instead of taking this | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Quality course with valuable content. Good experience! | | Quality | course with valuable content. Good experience! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | Very well-organized, high quality materials... Good job guys!!! | Very well-organized, high | Quality | materials. . . Good job guys! | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 0.85 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | exceptional quality! | exceptional | Quality | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 0.85 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | Unfortunetly I can only give a 3/5. There were more things that I didn't like and think that should be improved. What I liked: Positive to see Illinois keep presenting specializations on Coursera. The material was ok, with clean presentation style. The case studies is a very positive resource to have in the course to think critically. What I didn't like: The course is excessivelly short, with only 30-40 minutes of videos per module. Previous courses in both specialization - digital marketing and improving videos have at least 1.5 to 3 hours of video materials. A huge gap. Also if I benchmark against the top specializations from Wharton and U. Michigan (Business Foundations, Business Analytics, Leading People and Teams and Finance: Valuation and Investing) all of them pack a 1.5 to 3 hours of video lectures. There is a huge gap. Also I didn't found the quizzes challeging. In a digital world content is king - both in quality and quantity. You have quality, but are missing the quantity. Unfortunetly I see a trend - the other course of the managerial economics specialization also is very short. A minor thing that I also didn't like was the form that the slides were presented. As in previous specializations - in my opinion all of the module slides should be in the readings section in only one document, instead of divided in small pieces per video lecture. I hope that yu accept my critic as constructive because I have liked most of Illinois courses and was very impressed by the quality and extensive set of videos in the Improving Business speciaization. | content is king - both in | Quality | and quantity. You have quality, but | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.85 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | Unfortunetly I can only give a 3/5. There were more things that I didn't like and think that should be improved. What I liked: Positive to see Illinois keep presenting specializations on Coursera. The material was ok, with clean presentation style. The case studies is a very positive resource to have in the course to think critically. What I didn't like: The course is excessivelly short, with only 30-40 minutes of videos per module. Previous courses in both specialization - digital marketing and improving videos have at least 1.5 to 3 hours of video materials. A huge gap. Also if I benchmark against the top specializations from Wharton and U. Michigan (Business Foundations, Business Analytics, Leading People and Teams and Finance: Valuation and Investing) all of them pack a 1.5 to 3 hours of video lectures. There is a huge gap. Also I didn't found the quizzes challeging. In a digital world content is king - both in quality and quantity. You have quality, but are missing the quantity. Unfortunetly I see a trend - the other course of the managerial economics specialization also is very short. A minor thing that I also didn't like was the form that the slides were presented. As in previous specializations - in my opinion all of the module slides should be in the readings section in only one document, instead of divided in small pieces per video lecture. I hope that yu accept my critic as constructive because I have liked most of Illinois courses and was very impressed by the quality and extensive set of videos in the Improving Business speciaization. | in quality and quantity. You have | Quality | but are missing the quantity. Unfortunetly | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.85 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | Unfortunetly I can only give a 3/5. There were more things that I didn't like and think that should be improved. What I liked: Positive to see Illinois keep presenting specializations on Coursera. The material was ok, with clean presentation style. The case studies is a very positive resource to have in the course to think critically. What I didn't like: The course is excessivelly short, with only 30-40 minutes of videos per module. Previous courses in both specialization - digital marketing and improving videos have at least 1.5 to 3 hours of video materials. A huge gap. Also if I benchmark against the top specializations from Wharton and U. Michigan (Business Foundations, Business Analytics, Leading People and Teams and Finance: Valuation and Investing) all of them pack a 1.5 to 3 hours of video lectures. There is a huge gap. Also I didn't found the quizzes challeging. In a digital world content is king - both in quality and quantity. You have quality, but are missing the quantity. Unfortunetly I see a trend - the other course of the managerial economics specialization also is very short. A minor thing that I also didn't like was the form that the slides were presented. As in previous specializations - in my opinion all of the module slides should be in the readings section in only one document, instead of divided in small pieces per video lecture. I hope that yu accept my critic as constructive because I have liked most of Illinois courses and was very impressed by the quality and extensive set of videos in the Improving Business speciaization. | and was very impressed by the | Quality | and extensive set of videos in | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.85 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | Excellent quality assignments. Really the best online writing course I've found. This is a teacher that knows what he's doing, and how to draw out the best of his students' unique ideas and talents. | Excellent | Quality | assignments. Really the best online writing | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | This isn't a CLASS it's a workshop. Thank goodness for fee waivers; I would have been so upset if I had spent my money on this course. As someone who has taken Coursera offerings in the past, I cannot cosign the quality of this course. This class seems to suffer from both a lack of structure and time. I believe if the course was longer (allowing for more space between unguided assignments) the class would be a little better. I understand that the Instructor is barred by time constraints (this is only a five week course, and an opt-in one at that), so I do relate to not wanting to inundate the class with reading assignment and lengthy lectures. That said, the guidance and lessons are lacking-- even if the class was longer, I would still only give it 2.5/5 stars. It appeared that the onus was on the Mentors to provide answers; for example, the professor mentioned that our scripts are meant to feature half hour pilots. This left many students writing dramas rather than comedies at a loss, since they were planning for hour long pilots. (This, again, is partially an issue of the class being so short; more time to review = the option to have longer pilots, rather than only accepting half hour pilots in order to allow students to review five different submissions within three days.) Since half hour dramas are unconventional, I asked one of our mentors, JZ (who is great) for examples. The responsibility should not be on the Mentors to find out-- information like that should be included in the prompt; if not discussed in depth, then at least as a link or list of examples to research on your own if you have the time + desire to do so. Especially since the assignment boils down to "break convention with no examples of successful scripts in this fashion." In a class presumably allowing beginningeres/greenhorns to participate, this is irresponsible and flawed teaching. The same goes of the "hints" that are periodically posted (though again, appreciated!) by mentors in the forums-- those definitions and explanations should be included in the meat of the class, not as supplemental elements. In all honesty, if I didn't have prior experience with writing, I oftentimes wouldn't have any idea what was being discussed by the professor. (And one trip through the forums will illustrate that I am not the only one.) The assignments and due dates are oddly crunched together (another time constraint issue, I understand), but the Instructor's videos seem to imply that we should be receiving feedback before proceeding each time? Maybe in a longer course that would work, but here, I didn't even receive written feedback initially, so it would have been a mistake to wait for some to revise by before forging ahead. If this class isn't going to provide a solid foundation to build on, then it should be made clear, upfront. There is nothing wrong with an experience based / motivation-focused class, but that aspect needs to be transparent. "We will not provide 101 teachings/readings." This isn't a class; it's a workshop. It's a makerspace at best. I expected insight and some level of instruction. In one of the lectures, the Instructor literally says: "I'm not a big fan of some of the classic story structures, defining in what must happen in each act. Or the problem, the twist, the resolution, rising action, denouement, fine action, etc." He does not define these terms, nor allude to them ever again. These are key benchmarks in screenwriting. Definitions would be helpful for someone just starting out, even if the Instructor doesn't strictly want us to abide by them. His students should leave the class more informed than when they came. Unless you're lucky and receive a response from a mentor or someone with visible background in script writing, the reviews don't amount to much, because very few enrollees seem to know what is going on enough to provide a meaty assessment. That is the fault of the course, I think, rather than my peers. Likewise, The grading system here is atrocious because of it; few people understand the foundation, and thusly don't know how to format or structure. So to then be graded on a purely pass or fail basis (that, looking through the forums, many students weren't even AWARE of until the first review grades rolled in) is ridiculous. And I am saying that as someone that scored 100% on both assignments that I did stay to complete, so this is not a case of sour grapes, but an observation of inefficiency. I understand that the class is based around "Active Learning", but for active learning to work and bear fruit, students should be able to engage with/analyze/synthesize/evaluate/build upon class content. Which necessitates actual, meaningful content. Content beyond my fellow confused peers, and 2 minute videos illustrating various ways of saying "Write Something Interesting and if it isn't Interesting, people won't care." Not exactly an astute observation that we couldn't glean anywhere but this course. Honestly, my 4th Edition copy of "The Screenwriters Bible" is five times more helpful than this course, and it is about six years out of date. | the past, I cannot cosign the | Quality | of this course. This class seems | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Quality of the video and sound are bad; a few minutes after starting a lesson, sound goes off or picture holds and moves no more... This made me stop the course. | | Quality | of the video and sound are | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | The course is a good introduction to Organic Photovoltaics. The instructors have done a good job to present a rather complicated topic in a manner that is accessible to a common audience. However, there are a few areas of improvement that can be noted for future versions of this course: First, All material is given equal priority in the course. I think what the instructor can do is to summarize the important "take aways" at the end of each video lesson. This helps the learner grasp the concept better Second, The explanation can be a little clearer - especially the topic of polymerization. Someone without an organic chemistry background, can find it frustratingly hard. Third, the tests are sometimes not in line with the previous video lessons and the reading material. The tests should be much much sharper. Fourth, the reading material should be improved vastly in terms of English quality, structure and presentation of key points. Sometimes, the learner can find it hard to understand some topics (ex: stability and materials) because it is inadequately explained. These topics should be explained better. Overall, a great start - but can be better. Well done and Thank You! | improved vastly in terms of English | Quality | structure and presentation of key points. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Lots to learn and it's fun to learn from different teachers. Very heavy (and high quality) course if one wants to do proper justice to all the materials presented (especially hashing and trees... Week 3 onwards). A worthy investment . Enjoyed it immensely. | different teachers. Very heavy (and high | Quality | course if one wants to do | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Pros: Effort has been taken in putting up the assignments. Cons: Quality of teaching is very poor and too fast to follow through . Instructors have rushed to present course material . I would not recommend this course . Princeton and Stanford offer much higher quality and presentation on the same topics. | in putting up the assignments. Cons: | Quality | of teaching is very poor and | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Pros: Effort has been taken in putting up the assignments. Cons: Quality of teaching is very poor and too fast to follow through . Instructors have rushed to present course material . I would not recommend this course . Princeton and Stanford offer much higher quality and presentation on the same topics. | Princeton and Stanford offer much higher | Quality | and presentation on the same topics. | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | [Slightly updated according to Michael's questions] The course is fine, but comparing to the previous one - Algorithmic Toolbox - this one is weaker and with lesser quality. Pros: the course contains some interesting data structures and valuable observations. The starter files for assignments are in place. Related books are given after each video session. All the tasks have automatic grader. There is a couple of interesting tasks to do. Cons: the material is mostly lectures, and there is even a video where lecturer just reads the article from Wiki (Splay tree - has the same information with same lack of some proofs). Expected: add quizzes as it was in the first course. The course has less weeks - only 4 as comparing to 5 in AT. So various important data structures are not discussed. The course has less homework - 3 tasks each week as comparing to 5 in AT. And all 3 are usually just implementations of some basic algos seen in lectures. I consider the course valuable due to a number of good videos and a couple of good tasks to do. But in general, this course has the area for improvement. | one is weaker and with lesser | Quality | Pros: the course contains some interesting | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Recently the instructors updated the course and implemented a solution to all my past complains. In my opinion the team is really taking the quality serious. However I just want to mention, that there are regular session for each course so that everybody can avoid having two overlapping courses in this specialization at the same time. I did not know that and worked on two courses at the same time, until the instructor informed me about the short interval between sessions of a given course. | the team is really taking the | Quality | serious. However I just want to | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| ypgDPuPQEeSyBSIAC9REKg | The course itself and the content of it is great, the only suggestions would be: 1) It could be reviewed, how the evaluations of each submission are made. For example, 1st assignment - descriptive analysis was asked to evaluate based on if the 3 "most important" things - if they have been mentioned in the description. The thing is that in real you can not tell, which are the most important because people think differently and could focus more on other details. It was easy to add also those "important" points by resubmitting work, but the problem is that only with that the analysis of a student is not getting better, thus the evaluation is not precise. For tasks like that I would suggest at lease to make a list of 20 things to mention and then count how many are there - thus making the quality assessment more precise. 2) Some topics could have been explained more detailed in the videos, e.g., about guide tones and lines 3) The requirements for the submissions could have been more clear. I also got the impression that in if switching the sessions the requirements could be slightly different (As I got the case when somebody pointed out a particular thing that he thought was required and I have not done. I checked the page but nothing about that. Also other classmates mentioned nothing about that and thought all was perfectly fine). I hope this helps. Thank you so much, Regards, Ance | are there - thus making the | Quality | assessment more precise. 2) Some topics | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| ypgDPuPQEeSyBSIAC9REKg | Absolutley great to give everybody access to information of this quality and on this subject! Paul Kovacs | everybody access to information of this | Quality | and on this subject! Paul Kovacs | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Totally excellent and enthralling! The subject matter is well treated and easy to follow. The quality of the videos are top as well. I fell the the mix of lecture, reading and quiz at the end of the week was just right. | treated and easy to follow. The | Quality | of the videos are top as | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.58 | 1.11 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Quality Qu | | Quality | Qu | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.58 | 1.11 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | The course is very well structured for a diverse range of learners. You could get a very deep knowledge and understanding through the readings (Greek tragedies, Herodotus, Thucydides etc) and the lectures, or a broad survey of the Ancient Greeks by just watching the videos. The professor also combines the narrative, the methods used to study those narratives and the limits to our knowledge in an erudite yet engaging manner. Definitely recommended as a top quality resource for anyone who wants to learn about Ancient Greece. | manner. Definitely recommended as a top | Quality | resource for anyone who wants to | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.58 | 1.11 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | This is an amazingly eye-opening course. It is a challenging and informative course, which is a great thing. I am very grateful to have participated in such a high quality course and to have had the privilege of encountering this great professor a second time (Finance fof Non Finance....MBA Insights). Thank you. | have participated in such a high | Quality | course and to have had the | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | I am currently at the beginning, but what I have seen so far is lectures and material of exceptional quality! | is lectures and material of exceptional | Quality | | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |