| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating | Contradiction-Based_MOY | Contradiction-Based_Ci |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | It was fast with lots to memorize but I could quickly obtain the basic knowledge of the genre I was not familiar with. The clear speech and the slides of the instructor helped me a lot to understand and the price was pretty reasonable. Very satisfied!!! Thank you very much!!! | with. The clear speech and the | Slide | of the instructor helped me a | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.96 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | I found the course really useful and informative and the teacher was very enigmatic and engaging. My only comment would be that perhaps the teacher goes through the slides slightly too quickly at times,as I found myself often pausing to read them. Excellent course though. | perhaps the teacher goes through the | Slide | slightly too quickly at times, as | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.96 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | I find this course excellent. It is a well balanced course in combining econometric theory and its application. The fact is that to apply econometric theory one needs to understand fair bit of econometric method (that includes matrix algebra, some properties of inner product space etc.) as well as how to apply those concepts in practice. In this respect this course does serve its purpose very well. Overall, this course focuses some fundamental aspects and properties of cross-sectional data and time series data. Therefore, it provides one a good foundation (over 8 weeks) so that one can carry out one's future quest regarding any empirical topic by oneself ! I admit that modern econometric theory develops more sophisticated techniques but all of them share one common aspect i.e. they are based on more or less the same fundamentals or properties. Indeed, this course has been designed carefully by targeting those fundamentals and properties. Thus it might be very helpful to follow the modern econometric techniques. However, this course does not talk about the panel data analysis, which share both the cross-sectional and time series properties (more or less). In my opinion it might be better to have at least additional one week session on panel data. In particular, when the data set shares both cross-sectional and time series properties, which set of properties will be dominant or how the estimation technique incorporates the variation of two dimensions (i.e. cross-sectional and time ) etc. Finally, I like to thank all the teaching members and moderators of this course. I have enjoyed the lecture slides and videos very much. | course. I have enjoyed the lecture | Slide | and videos very much. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.94 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | One thing I regret from this course is the content of the video lectures. Having watch the first week's videos, I found that the professor mostly just read the slides - and did it in a very faithful and careful manner, not to miss a subscript .... This is quite devastating for me. I can read the slides myself (although I have to download it first, since the fonts on the screen are very small). What I need is the professor to explain the logic behind the formulas, the *why* behind what is written, instead of just reading *what* is written on the slides. I find it amusing that with an expected learning of 8 hours a week, the total duration of the first week's videos add up to a mere 36 minutes. A couple of weeks ago I have just finished a course that subjectively is comparable in its difficulty level. That course is also rich in mathematical content and also requires a commitment of 4-8 hours per week. Each week, the duration of the lecture videos amount to somewhere between 120-150 minutes - and the lecturer didn't read slides; instead, he would explain the logic behind the concepts and provided papers for learners to read on our own time. That approach really helped scaffold my learning. I hope you'd consider revisiting this course's learning plan - or probably just state on the course info page that this course is more suitable for a refresher course rather than an introductory one. | the professor mostly just read the | Slide | - and did it in a | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.94 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | One thing I regret from this course is the content of the video lectures. Having watch the first week's videos, I found that the professor mostly just read the slides - and did it in a very faithful and careful manner, not to miss a subscript .... This is quite devastating for me. I can read the slides myself (although I have to download it first, since the fonts on the screen are very small). What I need is the professor to explain the logic behind the formulas, the *why* behind what is written, instead of just reading *what* is written on the slides. I find it amusing that with an expected learning of 8 hours a week, the total duration of the first week's videos add up to a mere 36 minutes. A couple of weeks ago I have just finished a course that subjectively is comparable in its difficulty level. That course is also rich in mathematical content and also requires a commitment of 4-8 hours per week. Each week, the duration of the lecture videos amount to somewhere between 120-150 minutes - and the lecturer didn't read slides; instead, he would explain the logic behind the concepts and provided papers for learners to read on our own time. That approach really helped scaffold my learning. I hope you'd consider revisiting this course's learning plan - or probably just state on the course info page that this course is more suitable for a refresher course rather than an introductory one. | for me. I can read the | Slide | myself (although I have to download | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.94 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | A BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT COURSE, the teachers put A LOT of effort into making the lecture slides and videos. Everything was explained multiple times such that the student understands it better. Also, computer vision, especially geometric vision is difficult to understand without a proper background in linear algebra, but the teachers' explanation was enough to fill the gaps so that even someone with only a minimalistic knowledge of linear algebra was able to consume the content. The exercises were a class apart, they were very well structured with tangible results at the end of each, And each of the exercises brought together the key points of the lectures, so that the student could easily implement them in code and test out the algorithm. Last but the not the least, the community was very active with the teaching assistants pitching in wherever necessary, in particular, Stephen did a great job of understanding the issues students were facing and taking appropriate action. All in All, a very well structured course to jump start one's career into computer vision. | of effort into making the lecture | Slide | and videos. Everything was explained multiple | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | This course is great! There is a lot of information available, a wide range of topics are covered, some complex subjects are explained quite well and especially the Chinese professor makes it easy to understand them. Still, there is room for improvement. Considering this is a 4-week course and the coverage of the material, sometimes it feels too squeezed and cramped together. This could be improved by providing access to more references to other materials to complement the studies. A bibliography for instance would be much welcome. Also there are some annoying typos in the slides in the formulas and its derivations that can cost you some precious time to figure out, especially during the Matlab assignments. These are the only reasons I don't give this course 5 stars, but it's definitely worthwhile. You will not regret it! | are some annoying typos in the | Slide | in the formulas and its derivations | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | It is certainly the most comprehensive course in computer vision that can be provided in a span of four weeks. It is much time consuming compared to the other four courses (I have done this at the end); however, each and every bit of it is worth it. The teaching is incredible, especially, Prof. Shi's teaching includes intuition and physical interpretation which helps in appreciating the equations much more. The assignments equally match with the lecture content. Trust me, by the end of four weeks you will be comfortable in reading and understanding papers in visual SLAM, pose estimation, etc. A small suggestion: in a few lectures, for instance in SIFT lecture, Prof. Daniilidis is not shown in the screen whereas his actions are necessary to better understand the content in the slides. The Professors and the TAs have done a commendable job and thank you all for this course. | better understand the content in the | Slide | The Professors and the TAs have | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | I really loved the dense collection of relevant information, this course is a great introduction to computer vision-related algorithms. Unfortunately the lecture videos are poorly edited and subtitles are inaccurate, however the slides are quite good and verbose enough to understand every topic. Assignments are quite good, however formula derivation explanations could be better. | and subtitles are inaccurate, however the | Slide | are quite good and verbose enough | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | The course is a very good overall description of the Perception field. The part I really liked is that there was no haste or a concept just superficially discussed - lectures are long and detailed. The presentation of lectures especially from Prof. Jianbo Shi are excellent - to represent Matrices in colours and give a intuitive sense of every formula(especially the Jacobians and treating the image blending process as painting) . The bad part of this course is that pronunciations of faculties could be a little unclear and hence a very good transcript is required - which in this course is not upto the mark. There were few mistakes on the slides and should be rectified atleast in the pdf of the slides. What this means is that we have to go through some frustration while watching the video first time which gradually improves on second or third view. Also, there is absolutely no participation of teaching staff. A good content should be supplemented with assistance to further enhance learning experience. Few doubts because of this remains unclear and I wish I could have got this sorted in this class. | There were few mistakes on the | Slide | and should be rectified atleast in | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | The additional resources provided add that extra edge to your learning from this course and the provision of slides recapitulating what the videos covered is a great support. | this course and the provision of | Slide | recapitulating what the videos covered is | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | It was an excellent course and I have learned a lot out of it. The presenter style was very nice and clear. The slides were properly designed. It was a very pleasant experience indeed. | was very nice and clear. The | Slide | were properly designed. It was a | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | 4/5 for content, 2/5 for presentation. Compared to other courses, the lecturer is slow and often reads from slides. Nevertheless thanks for the course. | is slow and often reads from | Slide | Nevertheless thanks for the course. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 0.78 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | Too simplistic and not enough real world examples. It was clear instructor regurgitated material directly off of the screen, offered zero highlights to real world experience or issues. Rather than wasting a couple hours listening to presentations, download the slides and read them yourself. Disappointing. | hours listening to presentations, download the | Slide | and read them yourself. Disappointing. | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.78 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | Really simple and easy to follow along. I learned things that will definitely help me work more efficiently in my business. I found it faster to just go over the slides instead of watching the videos. | faster to just go over the | Slide | instead of watching the videos. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.78 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The good: -Good examples to learn the concepts -Good organization of the material -The assignments were well-explained and easy to follow-up -The good humor and attitude of the professor makes the lectures very engaging -All videolectures are small and this makes them easy to digest and follow (optional videos were large compared with the rest of the lectures but the material covered on those was pretty advanced and its length is justifiable) Things that can be improved: -In some of the videos the professor seemed to cruise through some of the concepts. I understand that it is recommended to take the series of courses in certain order but sometimes I felt we were rushing through the material covered -I may be nitpicking here but I wish the professor used a different color to write on the slides (the red he used clashed horribly with some of the slides' backgrounds and made it difficult to read his observations) Overall, a good course to take and very easy to follow if taken together with the other courses in the series. | different color to write on the | Slide | (the red he used clashed horribly | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.71 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Compared with the regression course, this course was a slight disappointment. 1. there is less material compared to the regression course. Maybe this is because classification concepts are more intuitive. 2. the slides are much less prepared. Some of the sides even re-use earlier lesson slides in the beginning as a "review", much like soap operas re-use scenes from earlier episodes as "memory recall" to fill air time. 3. the math is more handwavy compared to the regression course. Neither course are supposed to go in depth with proofs, but I felt the regression course was at the right level and this course degraded too far. Do note it's very possible that I'm biased because I have seen more of the material from this course than the regression course. | concepts are more intuitive. 2. the | Slide | are much less prepared. Some of | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.71 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Compared with the regression course, this course was a slight disappointment. 1. there is less material compared to the regression course. Maybe this is because classification concepts are more intuitive. 2. the slides are much less prepared. Some of the sides even re-use earlier lesson slides in the beginning as a "review", much like soap operas re-use scenes from earlier episodes as "memory recall" to fill air time. 3. the math is more handwavy compared to the regression course. Neither course are supposed to go in depth with proofs, but I felt the regression course was at the right level and this course degraded too far. Do note it's very possible that I'm biased because I have seen more of the material from this course than the regression course. | the sides even re-use earlier lesson | Slide | in the beginning as a " | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.71 |
| 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). | due to the quality of the | Slide | and of the explanations. The limit | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.71 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The contents are very interesting and well explained. Nevertheless, unlike the Regression module, the current one suffers of some technical problem, like slides not well formatted, noisy audio in some video, weekly work load not perfectly calibrated. Despite all this, if you are interested in the subject, you will definitely love this course!!! | suffers of some technical problem, like | Slide | not well formatted, noisy audio in | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.71 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The course is fine in the content. As usual, the presentation from Brian Caffo is rather rushed and stumbling. A better presenting style would improve the course no end, but ultimately, what is covered is what you need. I generally just avoid the videos and read the slides. | avoid the videos and read the | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | This review does not reflect the course content. The new Coursera UI makes it impossible to download transcripts or slides of the videos. Without these features, following the lectures is significantly more difficult, and I can't rate this course any higher than 1 star. I would rate it zero stars if that was possible. | it impossible to download transcripts or | Slide | of the videos. Without these features, | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | In general, an excellent course, taught by competent professors. I believe that in the main this course does very well in achieving its objective of knowledge transfer. However, having experienced it, there were parts where the professor was demonstrating a topic using a video presentation showing him operate a process or screen sequence on his computer. These aspects, like virtually all the material on this course, are of a technical nature and contain many important details. As such, to help complete and re-enforce their learning, students require something like a sequence of slides that they can print out and retain for revision and future reference. In certain parts, the provision of the printable screenshots in the form of slides was absent. An important theme of the course and Data Science in general is "Reproducible Research". What I'm arguing for here is, "Reproducible Learning Materials" covering a complete course, not only parts of it. Admittedly, it was only a very small proportion of the course that suffers from this defect. But I would not like it to become the norm in the future. As a suggestion, it could be possible to author a lecture using HTML so as to combine the verbatum lecture text with every slide/screenshot image embedded in its right position within the lecture. I notice Coursera courses have also moved away from the weekly lists of individual lectures together with their links to .txt, .mp4, etc. files. The new presentation keeps you submerged within the flow within each week's series of lectures. One has to 'click out' in order to watch your progress and then re-enter the lectures at a resumption point. I prefer the previous navigation structure in order to access lectures and materials. Printed learning materials are also important for me, in addition to the video lectures. The latter are of course vital as the medium for the initial exposure of the material. | require something like a sequence of | Slide | that they can print out and | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | In general, an excellent course, taught by competent professors. I believe that in the main this course does very well in achieving its objective of knowledge transfer. However, having experienced it, there were parts where the professor was demonstrating a topic using a video presentation showing him operate a process or screen sequence on his computer. These aspects, like virtually all the material on this course, are of a technical nature and contain many important details. As such, to help complete and re-enforce their learning, students require something like a sequence of slides that they can print out and retain for revision and future reference. In certain parts, the provision of the printable screenshots in the form of slides was absent. An important theme of the course and Data Science in general is "Reproducible Research". What I'm arguing for here is, "Reproducible Learning Materials" covering a complete course, not only parts of it. Admittedly, it was only a very small proportion of the course that suffers from this defect. But I would not like it to become the norm in the future. As a suggestion, it could be possible to author a lecture using HTML so as to combine the verbatum lecture text with every slide/screenshot image embedded in its right position within the lecture. I notice Coursera courses have also moved away from the weekly lists of individual lectures together with their links to .txt, .mp4, etc. files. The new presentation keeps you submerged within the flow within each week's series of lectures. One has to 'click out' in order to watch your progress and then re-enter the lectures at a resumption point. I prefer the previous navigation structure in order to access lectures and materials. Printed learning materials are also important for me, in addition to the video lectures. The latter are of course vital as the medium for the initial exposure of the material. | printable screenshots in the form of | Slide | was absent. An important theme of | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | After finishing week 1, I have decided to stick with Duke university's Medical neuroscience which is starting up again. I also highly recommend "Understanding the Brain The Neurobiology of Everyday Life" which I believe was taught by the University of Chicago. I found them to be far more engaging the viewer and the format to be much easier to follow. I found it visually disturbing and also have to keep pausing to read the slide before it switches.It's too bad because I was really looking forward to this course. It also seemed she had trouble pronouncing many of the words and I do not want to learn how to pronounce many of them incorrectly also many of the slides did not have an English translation on them. | to keep pausing to read the | Slide | before it switches. It's too bad | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | I find this to be a very nice and stimulating course. The teachers are enthusiastic and entertaining. The course material (slides, quizzes, captions) needs to be polished, but the general organization of the course is logical, clear, and systematic. The course presents an experimentalist's view of the subject, which I find very good considering that much related Coursera material is quite theoretical. There are plenty of historical notes and introductions of general neurobiology research viewpoints (don't miss the excellent bonus material interviews!). In particular, I enjoyed the "cherry picking" metaphor. Some students have had problems with the instructors' accent, but perhaps because English is not my first language, this has not been a problem for me at all. I'm looking forward to part two of the course! | enthusiastic and entertaining. The course material | Slide | quizzes, captions) needs to be polished, | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | all video lectures feel like they are just read from a paper and it takes a lot of effort to follow and engage. It is the 4th course I'm taking to get ma digital marketing specialisation and is far off the poorest. The slides don't make much sense and a lot of times I have to research stuff again on other websites to actually get the point. The quiz questions are sometimes not related to the topic. It seems like, the professor does not know enough about the subject to speak freely and engaging about the topics. I'm quite disappointed about this course and can not recommend it. I think the course should be worked over. A great example of how to do it right is Aric Rindfleischs lecture, which was engaging, challenging and very well structured | is far off the poorest. The | Slide | don't make much sense and a | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The presenter in this course is hard to follow and does not have good slides. She often does not put her bullet points or lists on the slides ( I am a visual learner and she does not provide enough on screen info) She is really uncomfortable and makes it really hard to listen to her talk. She struggles through the entire presentation which is just super distracting. Content is good though. | follow and does not have good | Slide | She often does not put her | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The content of this course is very good. However I feel it is unfortunate that the lecturer did not make an effort in preparing the presentation of the material. This makes a huge difference. Especially when it is an online course, the lecturer needs to bring the story to life rather than simply reading with hesitation from the slides in most instances. | simply reading with hesitation from the | Slide | in most instances. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The lessons on presentation skills and traditional media should have taken just one one or two minutes, and one or two slides, at most. The details and time invested really had little to do with digital marketing or the digital landscape. The use of the hand-written pros and cons was an unnecessary novelty. Regular bullet text are more readable and technically more reliable. Most of all, the presenter's style was distracting. It seemed that she was unsure of her subject matter and script. I recommend re-scripting and rehearsing the presentation -- before re-shooting it. Finally, with the rapid pace of change in digital, we should not be using reading material more than two or three years old. Five years is tantamount to a generation in the digital world. | two minutes, and one or two | Slide | at most. The details and time | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The instructor needs improvement on her presentation skills. She is just reading off the slides instead of providing more examples and scenarios to help student comprehend the material. I have to retake almost every quiz under her courses. In previous courses, I passed quizzes in one try. Please improve material or get a better instructor. | She is just reading off the | Slide | instead of providing more examples and | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Very good course, professor, slides, interviews ..... everything was excelent. Thanks alot | Very good course, professor, | Slide | interviews . . . . . | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | really good, great for beginners, need to get rid of slides with white text on green background | beginners, need to get rid of | Slide | with white text on green background | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I used to do a lot of very simple programming when I was younger, but let it slide over the past decade or so. Being a total newcomer to Python, I really appreciated the solid foundation that this course provides, and I'm looking forward to furthering my knowledge of Python with the other related courses. | I was younger, but let it | Slide | over the past decade or so. | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | This is something really great and I appreciate all the efforts of the creators of that course, especially Dr. Charles Severance, who has an amazing ability of imparting his knowledge in a very colourful and enjoyable way, while fully substantively and clearly. This is my first ever on-line course, and if the remaining parts are conducted in similar way, I am more than impatient to start it immediately. It is a pity, it is 3:54 AM... :) And one more thing - this course as well as the book is indeed for the very beginners however with some ability of logical thinking (if you are not such a very beginner it will take just couple of days to finish it, as it was in my case). So listen carefully what Dr. Chuck is saying, read the book, take look at the slides, and other available stuff and don't hesitate to start and don't give up if something goes wrong. | the book, take look at the | Slide | and other available stuff and don't | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Really good course, very clear and well put together. If you have some previous coding experience, you might find the pace a bit slow, but the slides are very good also and it's really great that Dr Chuck has made the textbook freely available. | pace a bit slow, but the | Slide | are very good also and it's | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Never thought I would enjoy programming as I just believed my brain didn't work that way, but how wrong was I. I am simply amazed at how well the instructor subtly but quickly builds on previous slides to increase your understanding so that after six weeks you thoroughly grasp the very basic fundamentals. | subtly but quickly builds on previous | Slide | to increase your understanding so that | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | colours in the slides are not clear and disturb the eyes especially when using purple, yellow and light green. Other than that this course is terrific and the instructor rocks :) | colours in the | Slide | are not clear and disturb the | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course materials such as the lecture videos, slides , assignments and pdf helped me to grasp and implement the basics of Python very well. I have recommended this course to my colleagues who are interested in learning Python | materials such as the lecture videos, | Slide | , assignments and pdf helped me | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Dr. Chuck makes the course quite simple. At the beginning of the course, he patiently introduces some preparing steps such as python installation and screenshot tools, which is quite useful for students with little computer knowledge. During the course, Dr. Chuck manages to use the simplest language to explain the concepts. The slides use different colors to differentiate different elements in a script, indicating Dr. Chuck's consideration for the students. The course reminds me of the sentence from The Zen of Python, "simple is better than complex." The course is a beginning course for python. I studied Visual Basic in my freshman year, and now, three years after VB, I found the assignments quite easy. So I advise that if you have prior knowledge of other languages, you can use the book provided by Dr. Chuck to quickly understand the concepts and view some example code. Then you can directly jump to the assignments and I suppose that it would not be too hard for you. I heard MOOC one year ago and enrolled several courses at Coursera. However, this is my first finished course. Sometimes the network speed of the school was too slow to view the videos and this really slowed me down. I also had some school work and exams. Now I am at the end of my undergraduate study and have enough time to take MOOCs. $310 is quite expensive for me but I hope I can accomplish the five courses of this specialization and some day I'll come back to pay for the certification. Thanks to Dr. Chuck and mentors. Tao.Zheng Huazhong University of Science&Technology, P.R.China | language to explain the concepts. The | Slide | use different colors to differentiate different | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course was very basic. It was nicely taught and the examples and the lectures were really enjoyable. However, some shortcomings I felt were that the colors in the slides could have been a bit clearer. Another thing was that some concepts were introduced in the lectures which were not explained completely. A real beginner would not be able to understand them which would in some parts defeat the purpose of the course. Other than that, I felt the course was really structured well. The assignments were easy and the quizzes did test the knowledge about the subject taught so far. It was such that any new person would not feel discouraged. Keep up the good job people. | were that the colors in the | Slide | could have been a bit clearer. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Useful course if you don't know programming. If you do, it's a bit simplistic. Love that all of the slides are available for download. | simplistic. Love that all of the | Slide | are available for download. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Our Mentor , he is just mind blowing . I really like the way of teaching.Also the study material and slides are really very helpful. Coursera really took teaching to a very higher level. | teaching. Also the study material and | Slide | are really very helpful. Coursera really | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.02 |
| 7O843CBJEeWcQw5YiljpGw | Love the downloadable videos, slides & transcript files. Suggestion: better to add "answer model' file after every quiz as a downloadable one. | Love the downloadable videos, | Slide | & transcript files. Suggestion: better to | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.91 |
| 7O843CBJEeWcQw5YiljpGw | Excellent course. I suggest that in a few quizzes you were asking to get the numbers off the slides in the video. It is very difficult to read the numbers off the video. Can you instead add the slides in the quiz PDF file? All the information required to answer the quizzes should be in the PDF file. The course material was very good. The problem sets were very good too because of real life data. The rigor of courses was average. I can understand why you do not want to make the course more rigorous. However, it would help advanced engineering students to go through a more rigorous course. | to get the numbers off the | Slide | in the video. It is very | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.91 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | The lectures are very well-organized. The topics are also cover in this field. However, the lectures are very dry and boring. The main professor were reading the scripts on the monitor. From my perspective, with his knowledge in this field as being described on his personal web site, he should be able to talk comfortably by looking at the topic on the slide then discuss about it in detail. I would suggest to change the environment to be at the wide open space, like coffee shop, to make this course more attractive. I'm sorry, it is not what I expected. | looking at the topic on the | Slide | then discuss about it in detail. | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.78 | 0.79 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | On the positive side I emphasise the importance of bringing this topic to a Coursera course. Also the readings were important and added value to the learning experience. On the other hand there are - in my opinion some aspects that made this course a not so rich experience. First, there are some audio issues in the videos. Second, the quizzes are excessively easy and the in video quizzes should not appear in the weekly assignments. If there are required readings, some of the quiz questions should relate to those readings. This way students had an incentive to go over those readings. But the most salient thing that made my experience very limited was the fact that one of the instructors - the one that presented most of the videos, was excessively nervous and all that he did was read the slides, in most cases not doing so naturally and committing errors, rephrasing, stopping, changing speed. I found it very, very difficult to follow along what he was saying. I had to focus only on the slides, otherwise I would get distracted. I think it is ok to be nervous or at ease, but the team should alerted him to this, and shoot the videos again and again until they had acceptable and balanced quality. A minor thing, I would like to had available the weekly slides to further reflection. I think the video issues that I've mentioned should been carefully planned before this course made it mainstream. This is my opinion. Hope it will help you for future improvements of the course and/or other offerings. Ricardo Oliveira | that he did was read the | Slide | in most cases not doing so | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.79 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | On the positive side I emphasise the importance of bringing this topic to a Coursera course. Also the readings were important and added value to the learning experience. On the other hand there are - in my opinion some aspects that made this course a not so rich experience. First, there are some audio issues in the videos. Second, the quizzes are excessively easy and the in video quizzes should not appear in the weekly assignments. If there are required readings, some of the quiz questions should relate to those readings. This way students had an incentive to go over those readings. But the most salient thing that made my experience very limited was the fact that one of the instructors - the one that presented most of the videos, was excessively nervous and all that he did was read the slides, in most cases not doing so naturally and committing errors, rephrasing, stopping, changing speed. I found it very, very difficult to follow along what he was saying. I had to focus only on the slides, otherwise I would get distracted. I think it is ok to be nervous or at ease, but the team should alerted him to this, and shoot the videos again and again until they had acceptable and balanced quality. A minor thing, I would like to had available the weekly slides to further reflection. I think the video issues that I've mentioned should been carefully planned before this course made it mainstream. This is my opinion. Hope it will help you for future improvements of the course and/or other offerings. Ricardo Oliveira | had to focus only on the | Slide | otherwise I would get distracted. I | Negative | -0.8 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.79 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | On the positive side I emphasise the importance of bringing this topic to a Coursera course. Also the readings were important and added value to the learning experience. On the other hand there are - in my opinion some aspects that made this course a not so rich experience. First, there are some audio issues in the videos. Second, the quizzes are excessively easy and the in video quizzes should not appear in the weekly assignments. If there are required readings, some of the quiz questions should relate to those readings. This way students had an incentive to go over those readings. But the most salient thing that made my experience very limited was the fact that one of the instructors - the one that presented most of the videos, was excessively nervous and all that he did was read the slides, in most cases not doing so naturally and committing errors, rephrasing, stopping, changing speed. I found it very, very difficult to follow along what he was saying. I had to focus only on the slides, otherwise I would get distracted. I think it is ok to be nervous or at ease, but the team should alerted him to this, and shoot the videos again and again until they had acceptable and balanced quality. A minor thing, I would like to had available the weekly slides to further reflection. I think the video issues that I've mentioned should been carefully planned before this course made it mainstream. This is my opinion. Hope it will help you for future improvements of the course and/or other offerings. Ricardo Oliveira | like to had available the weekly | Slide | to further reflection. I think the | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.79 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Basing on the first videos, I would not recommend this course to anyone believing that "You are expected have basic computer literacy skills, such as knowing how to send & receive emails and browse the web". The lector is robotic, the slides look outdated, listener is bored after 10 min of watching. I definitely WOULD NOT pay for this course. I will change the rate after I watch more videos, but this course is a big no-no for me. | . The lector is robotic, the | Slide | look outdated, listener is bored after | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.86 | 0.94 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | I liked the course contents, but in my opinion the slides should be more modern, and the main idea in each lesson should get more highlight, and the ideas to retain too. | contents, but in my opinion the | Slide | should be more modern, and the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.86 | 0.94 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The positive. What a wealth of material! This is a very worthy attempt to integrate the history, philosophical underpinnings and modern transformations of Tibetan Buddhist meditation. Clifford Saron’s Week 2 lectures on neuroscience and neuroplasticity were fascinating and intriguing introductions to the topic - very engaging. The negative. Too academic for an introductory course. David Germano’s lectures are full of information but he doesn’t help the learner to make sense of it. His ‘academic speak’ obfuscates meaning rather than making it accessible. More diagrammatic slides at the start would give learners a framework of the overarching concepts. Because of the many perspectives presented each week, this course needs A LOT of time. I personally would have leaned better if the course were broken into smaller weekly segments. | than making it accessible. More diagrammatic | Slide | at the start would give learners | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I enjoyed and benefitted from some of this course. In particular I would highly recommend the Meditation Labs, the Science of Meditation videos and the short presentations from the Tibetan Buddhist monks . But I think the creators of this course need to be a lot clearer about what their aims are in that part of the course which Dr Germano presented. Since this was he was presenting the main overview of Buddhist content it was particularly disappointing that his presentations were so bad. I understand that there were difficulties in getting the course up and running from the various delays in its starting date and the change to its title and perhaps Dr Germano's role was more affected than the other lecturers. However it's pretty damning when he manages to to be so off-putting to so many of the students, going on the discussion comments. For my own part, I've studied and practiced Buddhism for more than 30 years and I am left with little sense of what his aims were for his lectures. To be more specific Dr Germano's Presentation: -he read from what I presume were lecture notes but more likely he was reading from an academic paper. the language was pretty turgid. -he could have just provided a PDF of his paper / notes for us to download. That would have been much more helpful as presumably it would have had some structure to it. doing that would have enabled him to use his video time in a more creative way. -MOOCs are wonderful audio-visual opportunities but he had no slides or illustrations at all. The few text headers which appeared then disappeared in only a very few seconds and sometimes did not relate directly to what he was saying at that time. Dr Germano's content: the amended title was Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. This is a complex subject which encompasses many layers of meditation practice culled from historically earlier Buddhist traditions. Can I suggest that any future version of this course includes the following: -include a video which presents the main aspects of the historical development of Buddhism. There was some mention of this in Germano's material but he did it from the Tibetan point of view. Surely what a modern day presentation needs is a modern impartial historical analysis of the subject. It's not as if there aren't plenty of academics and practitioners who are active in this field. -it's confusing to describe Tibetan Lesser Vehicle practices but then illustrate them with Pali text sources, modern Mindfulness practice, and modern Brahma Vihara practice all of which have emerged from the modern Theravadin tradition. -it's also perplexing to include information about many modern Theravadin teachers (Sayadaw, Goenka) in a course apparently not about them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the videos about Sayadaw and the interview with Sharon Saltzberg, but I am left in the dark about just what differences, if any, there are between them and Tibetan meditation. Overall I think this course was offered prematurely. Much of its content was enthralling, inspiring and very useful practically. However much of it was not. | audio-visual opportunities but he had no | Slide | or illustrations at all. The few | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | He talks to0o00o fast and His slides are too wordy and I feel so sleepy When I was watching these videos! (I don't know why)! However As a PhD biomedical Eng, I'm learning alot from this specialization and I highly appreciate them for creating such amazing Idea. I'm Canadian and I know we have lots of similarities with you and I think I should make it for Canada and our university. Sincerely, Azadeh | He talks to0o00o fast and His | Slide | are too wordy and I feel | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.98 | 1.04 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | I thought this course would be kinda boring, but I have been pleasantly surprised at how interesting it is. Steve Parenti has a dry and sly sense of humor and the content gives me great historical and current perspective on the way healthcare works in the U.S. and to a lesser degree, in the rest of the world. Only quibble: There are lots of typos on the slides. Sometimes these are pretty amusing, but sometimes confusing. Also, some of the listed handouts seem to be relevant to the next course in the series, rather than to this one. All said, I think Dr. Parenti would be someone fun to go and have a beer with. | are lots of typos on the | Slide | Sometimes these are pretty amusing, but | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.98 | 1.04 |
| 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. | of the lecture is poor - | Slide | are dense and full of bullet | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.98 | 1.04 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Its very boring. Just someone reading off slides. One could read from a book instead. No examples or explanation to the information on the slides. | very boring. Just someone reading off | Slide | One could read from a book | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Its very boring. Just someone reading off slides. One could read from a book instead. No examples or explanation to the information on the slides. | explanation to the information on the | Slide | | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Presenter is reading the slides. I feel I would have been able to learn as much by just reading the slides. CDN course is a bit more visual, with some maps and charts used during the course | Presenter is reading the | Slide | I feel I would have been | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Good job on the explaining CDN concepts! In the two first modules, the lecturer just read from the slides. | the lecturer just read from the | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Poor context, no real examples. The guy just reads what is written on the slides without further explanations. | reads what is written on the | Slide | without further explanations. | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Great Slides! The slides were good enough to pass the exam. | Great | Slide | The slides were good enough to | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | The course was very basic and there was nothing new in the videos compared to the document(PDF) . Instructor was only reading the slides. | . Instructor was only reading the | Slide | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Map Reduce needs more crisp explanation. Too much content explained in short slides. Scope for improvement | Too much content explained in short | Slide | Scope for improvement | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | It is a good short course to get an idea about Cloud Computing, Big Data and CDN. 2 Points to the gentle instructor, Please try to elaborate more outside what is written in the slides. and the other point, please revise the Cloud Computing quiz as it focused on dates and history rather than focusing on the core of the subject. | outside what is written in the | Slide | and the other point, please revise | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I have just started with the course and the introductory slides I found are perfectly designed. Thanks. | with the course and the introductory | Slide | I found are perfectly designed. Thanks. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.86 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Great course, the slides and classes are clear and didactic. Recommended for anyone interested in public health. | Great course, the | Slide | and classes are clear and didactic. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.86 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I enjoyed hearing about epidemiology, but didn't find the quizzes very useful. I was expecting more practice doing computation or examining case studies. The lectures also had no time in between slides to pause, write notes, and make sure I understood what was just said. I liked that the lectures were well organized and the review questions in between the topics of discussion. | also had no time in between | Slide | to pause, write notes, and make | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 0.86 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The teacher in the first few weeks is hard to follow; it sounds like he reads from a paper and he barely writes anything on the slides. It sounds like every sentence he says is crucial to understand, which is hard to follow. The other teacher does a much better job at this. The course would also greatly benefit with exercise material so you get a better feeling of calculating these things. | he barely writes anything on the | Slide | It sounds like every sentence he | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.9 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | I find far too theoretical, too dry; no examples, no exercise guidelines. It's almost having someone reading the slides to you. Still useful for someone like me that never done financial engineering, to find all the concepts in one place. Hence the two stars as oppose to one. | It's almost having someone reading the | Slide | to you. Still useful for someone | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.9 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The content of the course looked promising. But then I took a first look: the instructor is reading formulas from a slide. This is missing the whole point of a online class. There is no motivation for the formulars, no context why they are important. And from a learning point of view the course is very hard to follow. No real advantage compared to reading a book on that matter. I just took the "Economics of Money and Banking course", which is one of the best courses I ever attended (personally in class or online). There are other great courses on Coursera. And for easy introduction to some of the concepts Khan University courses are unmatched in accessability. Too bad that this course doesn't match up to the above examples. The topics would deserve that they are presented in a way that they can be understood by a wide audience. | instructor is reading formulas from a | Slide | This is missing the whole point | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.61 | 0.9 |
| 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 | Andrew used them by drawing on | Slide | helps to have a better understanding. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| 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 | writing) and I think the technical | Slide | on Back propagation could be improved | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| 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 | while talking: a better set of | Slide | with blocks of text shown at | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course was great. Thanks! It would be wonderful if you could make the slides available. | wonderful if you could make the | Slide | available. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Nice introductory course on ML. A few typos in the slides could/should be corrected. Test submission (though Octave) should definitely be improved. | ML. A few typos in the | Slide | could/should be corrected. Test submission (though | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very Good course. Good examples Excellent quiz and exercises Slides are also very clear and easy-understanding | Good examples Excellent quiz and exercises | Slide | are also very clear and easy-understanding | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | very good!! hope can download slides. | very good! ! hope can download | Slide | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing Instructor. Every MOOC instructor should watch a few videos of Andrew teaching ML.Sharing Personal experiences, providing industry insights and making the course fun and real life oriented. Using a pen along with slides is very important. Just reading out and explaining slides makes lectures boring and many students drop out of courses for this reason. | oriented. Using a pen along with | Slide | is very important. Just reading out | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing Instructor. Every MOOC instructor should watch a few videos of Andrew teaching ML.Sharing Personal experiences, providing industry insights and making the course fun and real life oriented. Using a pen along with slides is very important. Just reading out and explaining slides makes lectures boring and many students drop out of courses for this reason. | important. Just reading out and explaining | Slide | makes lectures boring and many students | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I really enjoyed learning this course! All the course material, including the slides, quizzes, programming problem descriptions, are so well prepared. I like those subtle animations used in those examples in the teaching slides. They just simply help! | All the course material, including the | Slide | quizzes, programming problem descriptions, are so | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I really enjoyed learning this course! All the course material, including the slides, quizzes, programming problem descriptions, are so well prepared. I like those subtle animations used in those examples in the teaching slides. They just simply help! | in those examples in the teaching | Slide | They just simply help! | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course is absolute garbage. You get no feedback on your quizzes or assignments and the professor is one of the most boring I've ever seen. It's absurdly frustrating to repeatedly fail without any feedback as to why you're failing. The lectures are clearly from a math perspective, as the prof simply draws what he's talking about on the slides. His hand writing is poor, and he does a lackluster job of explaining what exactly he's doing. Finally, pure lecture with no notes is almost impossible to learn, as there's nothing to read and study. I'd rate this course a 1/10, take the course on iTunes from Caltech instead. | what he's talking about on the | Slide | His hand writing is poor, and | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Really really great course. Went to machine learning meetup where this course was constantly mentioned, so I decided to do it. Very happy I did. As a senior developer, I can now have a conversation with the data guys, and can even bring some ideas to the table. The way Andrew Ng teaches is also awesome: he has slides on which he draws with a pen which keep things interesting and make things easy to understand. The Matlab/Octave practical provides extra insight in the course material and is very well set up. | teaches is also awesome: he has | Slide | on which he draws with a | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.14 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful slides for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy questions and exams. Not challenging at all | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful | Slide | for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Good as overview, but pretty shallow. Only some slides to read through, no real exercises but constant reference to the standard project management book. Pretty fast click-through as start into project management. | overview, but pretty shallow. Only some | Slide | to read through, no real exercises | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | O curso é ótimo, a única que coisa que faz falta é não poder ver as lições em slides no dispositivo móvel. | não poder ver as lições em | Slide | no dispositivo móvel. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I love this course. I love how I can slow down the video for the professor to speak slowly and she actually does so I can take notes. I also like how she provides you with a slide deck on the lecture so you can also go over that as well to learn (or re-learn) the information. Thank you! | how she provides you with a | Slide | deck on the lecture so you | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | test questions far too easy slide show lessons not well structured and too focussed on repetetive concepts | test questions far too easy | Slide | show lessons not well structured and | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | The course is well organized and useful. The slide is illustrative and clear. | is well organized and useful. The | Slide | is illustrative and clear. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Well basically tutors only providing slides, speech, forums and ebook in this course...rest is self-learning, self-understanding, self-asking... if not, then you'll not pass this course i think.. | Well basically tutors only providing | Slide | speech, forums and ebook in this | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course was a great intro to these concepts and helpful guide to getting things set up and getting used to the MOOC format, as well! A few times it seemed like the slides jumped right in while skipping over a bit of context, but was able to orient myself with some googling and asking friends some basic questions to figure things out. | few times it seemed like the | Slide | jumped right in while skipping over | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's ok. After the first lesson, I should be able to provide a clear elevator pitch with a high level understanding of what I can expect to accomplish (4 or 5 steps) as a Data Scientist. Instead, there was one slide that touched on this quickly, somewhere in the middle. What are the problems, how do I solve them, give samples. | Data Scientist. Instead, there was one | Slide | that touched on this quickly, somewhere | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Good Introductory Class, all though I think some of the videos were too fast. Need to provide more explanation on some of the slides. | more explanation on some of the | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is a good first into to the topic. I think that the additional reading from the book and the Git manual will supplement it very well. My only complain is that in the first quiz, there was a question regarding some R packages used in Machine Learning that were not covered in the slides. It took me a while to find those so I had to take the first quiz 3 times. I think this question should be revised to guide the student as to how to find these packages. Another alternative would be that in the slides there some guidance in this matter. Otherwise, I liked to course and the final assignments. | that were not covered in the | Slide | It took me a while to | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Nice course for Beginners, No complains regarding course material, however there is little bit audio issue in some slides as it is bit low. | little bit audio issue in some | Slide | as it is bit low. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Basically if you take this course you are paying money to create an account on a website and download some software (both of which you can do for free). The rest of it is a preview of the other courses in the series. The quiz questions don't correspond to the information on the slides. I successfully passed the course, but I didn't really learn anything. Now I am debating on whether or not to continue to the R programming course after reading through the reviews of that course. | correspond to the information on the | Slide | I successfully passed the course, but | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Slides and videos are a bit insufficient in order to finish course projects. Apart from that, this course is awesome! | | Slide | and videos are a bit insufficient | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The Data Scientist’s Toolbox is a great way to dip into Data Science and the methodology behind it. The course is very general, and makes an effort to cover the bigger scope of things without delving deep in any. More than anything, it's a great way to learn the components and uses of data science and set a framework for all that will be coming after. The materials are very well laid-out and almost feel like attending college classes. The visuals and slides are a little dry, but the pace is lively enough to maintain momentum at all times. | attending college classes. The visuals and | Slide | are a little dry, but the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Quite simple. It could be more engaging. When downloading PDF slides, links in them should be clickable. | be more engaging. When downloading PDF | Slide | links in them should be clickable. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The introduction was very precise and straight to the core concepts of data science. Please include a slide with the road map of becoming a data scientist. | of data science. Please include a | Slide | with the road map of becoming | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Hard to follow with a lot of technical intructions right off the bat with inadequate explanation, a lot of "read more about this at <insert URL>." Videos were boring and the instructor was invisible just reading off the slides. Not very engaging. | was invisible just reading off the | Slide | Not very engaging. | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I would like to report some major issues with the new interface. 1) We don't have access to the slides anymore. This is a major issues since some of the slides content important links. These links are not shown in the transcript (I've double checked). 2) When we try to download the videos, subtitles or transcript, the resulting file name is the same for all content of the same type. More specifically, all videos are named "index.mp4", all subtitle files are named "subtitles.vtt" and all transcript files are named "subtitle.txt". This makes it more difficult for the student to save the files. In the previous version I would only right-click and saved in the right directory. Now, I have to right click, type the right name (which could be long sometimes) and then save the file. 3) In the previous interface, it was possible to see all the threads we were subscribed to. It is no more the case. It is not a problem right now, because there is not a lot of posts, but in cases where the number of post increase, it will be a pain to go through the list of threads and find the ones of interest. Please ignore the review for now, I couldn't submit my comments without reviewing the course. More comments may follow later... | We don't have access to the | Slide | anymore. This is a major issues | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I would like to report some major issues with the new interface. 1) We don't have access to the slides anymore. This is a major issues since some of the slides content important links. These links are not shown in the transcript (I've double checked). 2) When we try to download the videos, subtitles or transcript, the resulting file name is the same for all content of the same type. More specifically, all videos are named "index.mp4", all subtitle files are named "subtitles.vtt" and all transcript files are named "subtitle.txt". This makes it more difficult for the student to save the files. In the previous version I would only right-click and saved in the right directory. Now, I have to right click, type the right name (which could be long sometimes) and then save the file. 3) In the previous interface, it was possible to see all the threads we were subscribed to. It is no more the case. It is not a problem right now, because there is not a lot of posts, but in cases where the number of post increase, it will be a pain to go through the list of threads and find the ones of interest. Please ignore the review for now, I couldn't submit my comments without reviewing the course. More comments may follow later... | major issues since some of the | Slide | content important links. These links are | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.84 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I'm sorry to say this is a poor course. The audio is bad, the sound editing is bad, the "videos" are mainly static slides that sometimes aren't even showing what the audio is talking about. There are no worked examples or annotated slides. As an example, there's no discussion of the difference between WordPress.org and WordPress.com. The only time that is mentioned is when they touch on plugins, where they say you can't use them if you started with WordPress.com! The additional lectures by guest website designers were the most interesting part, but they were supposed to be after the final project. I just gave up after less than an hour and went and played with WordPress myself. Created a website in 2 days, but with no help from this course. | the " videos" are mainly static | Slide | that sometimes aren't even showing what | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I'm sorry to say this is a poor course. The audio is bad, the sound editing is bad, the "videos" are mainly static slides that sometimes aren't even showing what the audio is talking about. There are no worked examples or annotated slides. As an example, there's no discussion of the difference between WordPress.org and WordPress.com. The only time that is mentioned is when they touch on plugins, where they say you can't use them if you started with WordPress.com! The additional lectures by guest website designers were the most interesting part, but they were supposed to be after the final project. I just gave up after less than an hour and went and played with WordPress myself. Created a website in 2 days, but with no help from this course. | are no worked examples or annotated | Slide | As an example, there's no discussion | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | out mid-word as they switch between | Slide | I found it difficult to make | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | star because the links underneath the | Slide | contain some valuable information, so if | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | can be bothered trawling through the | Slide | you can gleam some knowledge there. | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | Not enough teaching from the professors , just presentation slides. Which kind of reduced the human component of learning. | from the professors , just presentation | Slide | Which kind of reduced the human | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I can't believe this course is aimed at people with no experience in building a website. The videos are actually slide shows and use too few screenshots. Had this been my very first introduction to how a website was built I would never have progressed any further than these lessons. Much more in-depth information is necessary, including step by step screenshots of various processes. Terrible course. | a website. The videos are actually | Slide | shows and use too few screenshots. | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | So close but yet so far ... Course concepts are interesting and the programming assignments are fun but the presentation can be greatly improved. Criticisms include: (i) The course isn't self contained. Physical concepts like 'resultant moment', 'inertial and body-fixed frame' and 'torque' are used without definition. Mechanics is not listed as a prerequisite but it should be. (ii) Lectures are very mathematical but proofs, intuition and good problem sets are all missing. Listening to a math lecture without doing challenging problems or deriving mathematical results to build intuition can be a waste of time. Check out John Cochrane's Asset Pricing 1 and 2 or Tim Roughgarden's Algo 1 and 2 for great examples of thoughtful problem sets and intuitive derivations. (iii) Way too much powerpoint! Speed reading a static powerpoint slide overloaded with dense mathematical formulas without using pointers or animations to focus the students attention is a recipe for confusion and frustration. I find hand written derivations, even when the handwriting is a little sloppy, much easier to follow than a static page of formulas plus a sound track. Hand written derivations impose a natural pace and focal point to the content. Check out Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra, Sebastian Thrun's Artificial Intelligence for Robotics and Andrew Ng's Machine Learning for examples of good derivations of mathematically sophisticated material. (iv) The programming assignments while fun were somewhat ad hoc and disconnected from the lecture material, specifically, the main task of every single assignment was to hand tune a pd controller. No systematic approach was ever described for performing this task. | powerpoint! Speed reading a static powerpoint | Slide | overloaded with dense mathematical formulas without | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | All in all the material, videos and assignments were very interesting and they made up an exciting course. However, some of the slides lacked sufficient information on notions or did not make references to supplementary sources. The assignment material (mainly pdfs) sometimes had typos which made solving them a bit confusing and more time consuming without actually being very difficult. Also for both slides and assignments the notations were not always consistent and/or variables disappeared from equations without clear explanations. I hope in the next offering of this course there will be improvements on these aspects. | being very difficult. Also for both | Slide | and assignments the notations were not | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | not explained, just dropped in the | Slide | -there are many inconsistencies in notations | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | tool -supplementary notes are not available | Slide | for the main lectures are available | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | the presenter to break down the | Slide | pack into parts corresponding to the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This is a pretty good course for learning basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. I already had some experience with these three languages, so consider that when reading this review. I found that the amount of information they cram into this three week course was pretty substantial, which I think is a positive aspect of the course. They don't just teach you what you need to complete the exercises, they teach you a lot of things that even more experienced users of this language may have forgotten. That being said, I don't think the amount of information covered is realistically anyone could retain in three weeks. I would instead see this course as a crash course as to what features are available with these three languages, then save the course slides as sort of a reference for when you go off on your own. My favorite part of this course is that the exercises are unique and fun. The HTML assignment is sort of boring, but that's because HTML is boring, but the exercises that use javascript are a lot of fun. To conclude, I think this course would be great for brand new web developers and also for people who just need a refresher. Good luck! | three languages, then save the course | Slide | as sort of a reference for | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 0.93 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I liked a lot that there are many short topic-specific videos and that I could download the self-explanatory slides. The concept of reviewing other participants' assignment worked well. | that I could download the self-explanatory | Slide | The concept of reviewing other participants' | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 0.93 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course is for the absolute beginner who has never heard of programming before, yet it makes an easy slide into web development for experienced software developer as well. The professor is simply awesome, lectures are perfectly organized (although a bit lengthy more than needed sometimes) and assignments are totally on point for beginners as well. I wish it was a bit more complicated and challenging, but for the targeted level, I guess it was ok. | before, yet it makes an easy | Slide | into web development for experienced software | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 0.93 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The course content is good. But it needs some polishing... Major comment: The assignment submission/review process should be improved. Grading system is not clearly defined at the time of submission. Some grading question are inherently subjective "Is the code at least somewhat efficient?". But even for inherently objective questions "Is the code correct?" (as does it give the correct answer" the staff does not provide the correct answer... I think the staff should create some automated review for what is objective: does the code compile? does it yield the correct answer? is it efficient enough? (Just like many other courses on Coursera) And only when it passes the automatic review, use peer grading for coding style. Finally there a lot of confusion with the deadlines. Minor comments: Lucky Coursera has an option to play twice faster! Not that the content is too easy, but the talking ... pace ... is ... hum... very ... ... slow. Also how come for a programming course the slides with code are so poorly formated??? | come for a programming course the | Slide | with code are so poorly formated? | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 0.83 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very good course, the content is great and well organized. The slides with code are a bit of an embarrassment for the University of California. The code is presented on what looks like a power point slide with bullets so the formatting and alignment is totally messed up, and then there are no shortage of typo's and code errors. But, the material is very good and Ira Pohl does an excellent job presenting it. All in all a great course and exactly what I was looking for. | is great and well organized. The | Slide | with code are a bit of | Positive | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.83 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very good course, the content is great and well organized. The slides with code are a bit of an embarrassment for the University of California. The code is presented on what looks like a power point slide with bullets so the formatting and alignment is totally messed up, and then there are no shortage of typo's and code errors. But, the material is very good and Ira Pohl does an excellent job presenting it. All in all a great course and exactly what I was looking for. | what looks like a power point | Slide | with bullets so the formatting and | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.83 |
| maX993EhEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Unfortunately, didn`t enjoy this course at all. I have gone through 7 courses on Coursera and finished them with the biggest pleasure and great results. This time I had to leave the course before finishing because: 1st: content is organized awfully (for example "HTML overview" - I knew all the material so I have an idea how it should look like, but lecturer started from the middle of all concepts, than moved to the beginning and together it looked like an unlinked content. I have simply lost a logic inside this. 2nd: Very difficult to get an idea: lecturer doesn`t try to simplify the content, even opposite - I had a feeling, that he makes easy things complicated for a reason. My husbend is a programmer with 10 years experience and when he watched the lecture he said, that even for him it was difficult to understand all the thing (things he actually knows). All these terms used, no relevant examples, too complex words and so on - I lost concentration, I had to google a lot of unknown terms, I had to stop lecture every 30 seconds to reread or repeat the peace of lecture, because I could not understand it. As I mentioned, I know HTML well, but it was described so complex, that it was difficult to link my actual knowledge to lecturer words. 3rd: not international student friendly. Use of complex words in places where they were not necessary, complex structures, too fast language... I am pretty good in English, but had to stop video and to google translate some "smart" words lecturer used without particular need - I don`t mean definitions, just some epithets to make his speech "smarter". I completed Coursera specialization by Michigan University and it was completely easy with plain text, short sentences, so well made for international student. 4th: this is boring. I am sorry, but this is true. I am interested in all these questions, but for some reasons I lose my attention every time. Maybe the reason is in all points I have just mentioned, but I didn`t enjoy this course at all and it was the first time I didn`t enjoy something connected with web app development. Please, don`t be mad at me - lecturer is a very charming and charismatic person, but I simply don`t like how the material is presented. 5th: I have a feeling like all slides are taken from some scientific books and lecturer reads comments from some science articles, it is not like described with own words, simplified for better comprehension, cleared with own real-life examples and in atmosphere of friendly conversation with some emotions and humor. Please, take my feedback just as my personal opinion and hope other students will enjoy it more. | I have a feeling like all | Slide | are taken from some scientific books | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.96 | 0.97 |
| maX993EhEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | This course deserves more attention and love from learners. Despite the late launch, it is evident that a lot of efforts have gone into producing this course with engaging slides and comprehensive programming assignments with autograders included. | into producing this course with engaging | Slide | and comprehensive programming assignments with autograders | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.96 | 0.97 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | The course has a very important content. But I believe that it could improve it's quality, develop better slides, the teacher could be more dynamic. Other features like innovative assignments based on real life, partnerships with companies to provide content, and everything that could be a differential to the course will be awesome. | could improve it's quality, develop better | Slide | the teacher could be more dynamic. | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.96 | 0.97 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | A disconnect between Video Lecture - Transcript (horrid form !) - Slides - Test questions. Information flow should be more fluent. | Transcript (horrid form ! ) - | Slide | - Test questions. Information flow should | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.96 | 0.97 |
| MEgKOpw3EeWILQ7D3uPEMw | Great course! The content was produced very well. The course offers the slides as PDFs & makes other materials available for download as well. The information was extremely good & informative. I say this as someone who has taken multiple business classes already on entrepreneurship, as well as reading several books, & listening to many podcasts. The only things I would suggest as improvements are to in some of the optional content interviews at the end of the course it appears that they used a stereo recording which seems great but is a pain when you listen with headphones. You'll have only one headphone speaker with any sound. Also it would be great if the optional audio recordings at the end would be available for download or some other method. | very well. The course offers the | Slide | as PDFs & makes other materials | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| MEgKOpw3EeWILQ7D3uPEMw | Overall good course. The slides should've been presented in only one document per module - like almost all previous courses of Wharton. All of the optional videos with interviews had audio problems (I could only hear them from the left speaker). | Overall good course. The | Slide | should've been presented in only one | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Excellent combination of conceptual and practical quizzes. Providing the presentation slides is a great note-taking aid, as well as use of "ride-along" notebooks. The progressive use of the same dataset throughout the modules greatly aided focus on learning the algorithms. | and practical quizzes. Providing the presentation | Slide | is a great note-taking aid, as | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | An excellent and quite extensive foray into regression analyses from single-variable linear regression to nearest-neighbor and kernel regression techniques, including how to use gradient vs. coordinate descent for optimization and proper L1 and L2 regularization methods. The lecture slides have some questionable pedagogical and aesthetic qualities, and they could use some more polish from someone who specializes in teaching presentation methods, but the meat of the course comes from its quizzes and programming assignments, which are well split between practical use (via Graphlab Create and SFrame) and a nuts-and-bolts assignment that have you implement these methods from scratch. An extremely valuable course for someone who wants to use these for a data science application but also wants to understand the mathematics and statistics behind them to an appreciable degree. | and L2 regularization methods. The lecture | Slide | have some questionable pedagogical and aesthetic | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | (Beta-Test review) Status: Still on the first week. The content is an easy follow, though it might seem to be a slight difficulty for those without a heavy background in calculus. So far, all the links (to the downloadable csv's and ipynb files) work well. All the videos have no apparent bugs and/or problems. I would also suggest to have the slides available for download as in the previous module. I don't think writing over the animation is a bad thing as long as it's still understandable. As an aside, I suggest editing out the swallowing sound you might occasionally hear whenever either instructor is speaking. To some, it seems a bit off-putting. Great course, overall. Thanks, Marvin | would also suggest to have the | Slide | available for download as in the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Def a useful skills to have when starting to interview for jobs. This is a hard course to teach to begin with. I found the lectures really boring, too long, hard to understand and just not really motivated well. I think the homework problem are good, but they are very time consuming. You need to use various methods to find edges cases and though that might be a good skill to have as well, it's just too much to get done in one week and somewhat frustrating when you're only stuck in one test case. I think this could be an excellent course with a few modification on the slides and adding more motivations and making shorter homework problems that focuses on the main part of the material for that as oppose to things we've already covered in the previous week. At the moment, I don't think I'll continue this specialization the way it's designed. | with a few modification on the | Slide | and adding more motivations and making | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| 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. | Toolbox consists of a series of | Slide | containing slimmed down explanations on introductory | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| 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. | the presenters read verbatim from the | Slide | and motion with their hands to | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| 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. | scribble in the corner of a | Slide | lacking the clarity I've come to | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I agree with some of the reviews here. It's fantastic at the beginning of the course. Towards the end, unfortunately the professor's accent is heavy and sometimes difficult to understand. The subtitles don't help either because they were auto-generated. My brain had to take extra cognitive workload to decipher what was actually said before trying to understand the materials on the slides and everything else. I also didn't like the way index 0 and 1 is mixed in different lectures. Why shouldn't we stay consistent in pseudocode using index starting with either 0 or 1? The slides are confusing regarding this matter especially when you translate algorithms into code. Nonetheless, I liked the assignments overall. The course's instructors included some of very interesting problems and indeed helped understand the lessons better. I also liked the course structure and the carefully prepared slides. | to understand the materials on the | Slide | and everything else. I also didn't | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I agree with some of the reviews here. It's fantastic at the beginning of the course. Towards the end, unfortunately the professor's accent is heavy and sometimes difficult to understand. The subtitles don't help either because they were auto-generated. My brain had to take extra cognitive workload to decipher what was actually said before trying to understand the materials on the slides and everything else. I also didn't like the way index 0 and 1 is mixed in different lectures. Why shouldn't we stay consistent in pseudocode using index starting with either 0 or 1? The slides are confusing regarding this matter especially when you translate algorithms into code. Nonetheless, I liked the assignments overall. The course's instructors included some of very interesting problems and indeed helped understand the lessons better. I also liked the course structure and the carefully prepared slides. | course structure and the carefully prepared | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The course starts very promising, but it gets worse week after week, culminating on a barely understandable week about dynamic programming. That’s when I gave up and decided to write this review instead, with just one assignment missing to complete the course. Some of the teachers aren’t native english speakers, which is fine, but their english is very hard to understand. I found myself having to watch some portions of the videos over and over again in order to understand what was being said. I tried reading the transcripts instead, but the they’re even worse! It seems that they were automatically generated from the videos, thus suffering with the poor pronunciation. The teachers use mathematical sophistication that feels unnecessary, but to be fair, they do mention it on the FAQ as part of the necessary background. However, even though it’s an online course, they barely use any teaching method besides very raw slides, some dry mathematical proofs and someone speaking about the content. The only resources offered to help learning are a few open source visualizations. I expected much more. The only good aspect from this course are the assignment checkers, which allow you to write your solutions in multiple languages. I deeply regret the money and time I spent on this course. | any teaching method besides very raw | Slide | some dry mathematical proofs and someone | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Overall, it is very helpful, though there are some typos in the slides, and more practice would be better. | there are some typos in the | Slide | and more practice would be better. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Excellent teaching and concise material on the slides!! ideal for beginners | teaching and concise material on the | Slide | ! ideal for beginners | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | all of the errors in the | Slide | It is not acceptable for you | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | out to one error in the | Slide | by the way. Also, I personally | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | While I was disappointed that HTML forms weren't discussed, this course provided very solid information. A lot of slide and code typos were distracting though and it felt like the instructor was talking less to me (and more reading from a hidden screen), which dampened the overall experience a bit. But the way the instructor explained the course material was very approachable and easy for a beginner like me to understand. After taking this course, I feel like I'm one step closer to thoroughly understanding HTML5. | very solid information. A lot of | Slide | and code typos were distracting though | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Colleen is a great instructor and her slides work with well the content. Very helpful way to get a beginning | is a great instructor and her | Slide | work with well the content. Very | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course information was fairly useful, but the execution not so much. The material spent more time on somewhat repetitive examples than it did on explaining the actual concepts those examples were illustrating, and the videos were primarily just lecturers reading parts of the slides that you had already read, but in their own words. The tests, sadly, were poorly-designed for the subject matter of the course. Behavioral biases - like many psychological phenomena - overlap to some degree, and the frequently-used format of 'choose all that apply' - or worse 'choose all that might apply' - resulted in trying to guess what the test-setter was looking for rather than trying to apply the information that had been learned. When you find yourself trying to decide between the best answer based on what you have learned and a conceptually worse answer that happens to meet the wording of the question - and trying to guess whether the test-setter is looking to prove your understanding or catch you in a mistake - then you start to suspect that the course has been designed more as a way to earn grades than to actually learn. | just lecturers reading parts of the | Slide | that you had already read, but | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Duke.... Coursera... guys, come on! I'd like to contrast this with the Wharton Business Analytics specialization that I'm completing. It was like night and day. I mean, professors in that course are presenting their own research! Cade Massey presents research he did with Dick Thaler! None of that happens here. The information shared doesn't even flow smoothly. This course relies mainly on PDF slides (if I wanted to read, I would've bought a book). At one point, it even links to 6 articles on another website (and that's in the quiz as well). It seems like very little effort was put into this online class by the professors. The slides themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking questions that are never even answered. It was almost as if someone took already prepared slides from a course and just kind of mashed them with a very little bit of video to make an "online" course. Even the answers to quizzes seemed extremely vague (it often felt like there were several right answers... or none -- to me, this is sloppy quiz writing). I honestly expected better from both Coursera and Duke! The only redeeming part about this course is that behavioral economics is honestly compelling, despite the shortcomings pointed out. | This course relies mainly on PDF | Slide | (if I wanted to read, I | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Duke.... Coursera... guys, come on! I'd like to contrast this with the Wharton Business Analytics specialization that I'm completing. It was like night and day. I mean, professors in that course are presenting their own research! Cade Massey presents research he did with Dick Thaler! None of that happens here. The information shared doesn't even flow smoothly. This course relies mainly on PDF slides (if I wanted to read, I would've bought a book). At one point, it even links to 6 articles on another website (and that's in the quiz as well). It seems like very little effort was put into this online class by the professors. The slides themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking questions that are never even answered. It was almost as if someone took already prepared slides from a course and just kind of mashed them with a very little bit of video to make an "online" course. Even the answers to quizzes seemed extremely vague (it often felt like there were several right answers... or none -- to me, this is sloppy quiz writing). I honestly expected better from both Coursera and Duke! The only redeeming part about this course is that behavioral economics is honestly compelling, despite the shortcomings pointed out. | online class by the professors. The | Slide | themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Duke.... Coursera... guys, come on! I'd like to contrast this with the Wharton Business Analytics specialization that I'm completing. It was like night and day. I mean, professors in that course are presenting their own research! Cade Massey presents research he did with Dick Thaler! None of that happens here. The information shared doesn't even flow smoothly. This course relies mainly on PDF slides (if I wanted to read, I would've bought a book). At one point, it even links to 6 articles on another website (and that's in the quiz as well). It seems like very little effort was put into this online class by the professors. The slides themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking questions that are never even answered. It was almost as if someone took already prepared slides from a course and just kind of mashed them with a very little bit of video to make an "online" course. Even the answers to quizzes seemed extremely vague (it often felt like there were several right answers... or none -- to me, this is sloppy quiz writing). I honestly expected better from both Coursera and Duke! The only redeeming part about this course is that behavioral economics is honestly compelling, despite the shortcomings pointed out. | as if someone took already prepared | Slide | from a course and just kind | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course covers the basic foundations of behavioral finance, especially prospect theory and various cognitive biases that negatively influence our decision making in financial affairs. The topics covered are definitely very interesting and the lecturers frequently prove that they know what they are talking about and explain some topics in adequate depth and breadth. For a valuable Coursera course I am expecting that most of the material is covered with video lectures (otherwise I read a book on that matter) and I am expecting thought-through slides with clear definitions, clear practical examples and exercises, and the presentation of experimental proofs for the given statements. Regrettably, most of this course is comprised of simple slides with limited structuring, as definitions, exercises, and proofs are often intermingled. More importantly, only a very limited subset of the course is covered with the suitable and valuable video lectures. Especially the last of the three-week course consist mostly of reading material from an external website. The exercises after each of the three weeks are at the lower end of what I have seen on Coursera and the lecturers should consider putting more effort in creating useful questions for formative and summative evaluations of the learning progress. In summary, smart lecturers present a very interesting and highly relevant topic, but they put to little effort in creating a compellingly online course. | matter) and I am expecting thought-through | Slide | with clear definitions, clear practical examples | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course covers the basic foundations of behavioral finance, especially prospect theory and various cognitive biases that negatively influence our decision making in financial affairs. The topics covered are definitely very interesting and the lecturers frequently prove that they know what they are talking about and explain some topics in adequate depth and breadth. For a valuable Coursera course I am expecting that most of the material is covered with video lectures (otherwise I read a book on that matter) and I am expecting thought-through slides with clear definitions, clear practical examples and exercises, and the presentation of experimental proofs for the given statements. Regrettably, most of this course is comprised of simple slides with limited structuring, as definitions, exercises, and proofs are often intermingled. More importantly, only a very limited subset of the course is covered with the suitable and valuable video lectures. Especially the last of the three-week course consist mostly of reading material from an external website. The exercises after each of the three weeks are at the lower end of what I have seen on Coursera and the lecturers should consider putting more effort in creating useful questions for formative and summative evaluations of the learning progress. In summary, smart lecturers present a very interesting and highly relevant topic, but they put to little effort in creating a compellingly online course. | this course is comprised of simple | Slide | with limited structuring, as definitions, exercises, | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Accelerated course but really concentrated. Practical and clearly explained. Perfect alternance of slides/lecture videos. Easily understandable by with economics background and by other as well with thehelo of the slides. Definitely the best among similar classes on Coursera. | as well with thehelo of the | Slide | Definitely the best among similar classes | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very animated and enthusiastic instructor. Providing the lecture slides was very helpful. | and enthusiastic instructor. Providing the lecture | Slide | was very helpful. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 0.83 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Good, but it lacks proper materials to come back to - slides are very heavy and not clear and transcript is missing connections to slides. | materials to come back to - | Slide | are very heavy and not clear | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.83 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Good, but it lacks proper materials to come back to - slides are very heavy and not clear and transcript is missing connections to slides. | and transcript is missing connections to | Slide | | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.83 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | I love the way the slides and material is available. The examples of Design Thinking helped me understand more of every step. | I love the way the | Slide | and material is available. The examples | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Good course! The flow of the modules fit perfectly. But I wished they uploaded the lecture slides and the templates for the design thinking process. | I wished they uploaded the lecture | Slide | and the templates for the design | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Thanks a lot Jeanne for making available this course on Design Thinking. It was a clear materialisation of the process for exploring opportunities for innovation. i also love the slides with great formalisations of some concepts. Maybe one more thing, it was very useful to have a short overview of previous week at the beginning of a new module. it is coherent with how we manage our MOOC learning behavior, with sometime a lack of time and long periods away from tje course. Joel. | for innovation. i also love the | Slide | with great formalisations of some concepts. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.05 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent pace and great course material. I like having both the videos and slides to refer to, as it allows me to continue studying in environments where I can't play a video. The content turned out to be unexpectedly useful in my work, too. | like having both the videos and | Slide | to refer to, as it allows | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very good BASIC course to get familiar with python data structures. Teaching slides and video clear and pleasant. | familiar with python data structures. Teaching | Slide | and video clear and pleasant. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very basic if you have some programming experience. You can finish it in 2 days without a sweat. Very clear, great slides, not boring due to Professor's great sense of humor. | without a sweat. Very clear, great | Slide | not boring due to Professor's great | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Great content for starters!! Slides are easy to follow. Lectures are never boring mainly due to the witty professor!! Love this course!! | Great content for starters! ! | Slide | are easy to follow. Lectures are | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent for beginners. Many a thanks to Dr Chuck, boy he really makes it easier to learn. Quiz and Assignment reiterates the slides taking out revision pain. Personally I liked the extra videos and Dr Chuck singing "I got my Mojo.." ya.. | learn. Quiz and Assignment reiterates the | Slide | taking out revision pain. Personally I | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Brilliant lecturer. Good and not boring lectures, clear explanations and excellent lecture slides. Highly recommended. | lectures, clear explanations and excellent lecture | Slide | Highly recommended. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Course was great for helping me understand the various elements of the project I'm currently involved in. I do think the course could benefit from providing handouts that elaborate on what the instructor says and for the instructor to elaborate a bit more (he mostly seems to read or skim through slides...). | seems to read or skim through | Slide | . . ). | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This course seemed to me the most un-interesting course. The content though important was not taught in a way to engage the student. The professor basically read everything. I could have easily done with slides than a lecture. Hopefully, this course can be revised to make it more exciting, interesting and engaging. | I could have easily done with | Slide | than a lecture. Hopefully, this course | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This is a great introduction to Project Management, clear language and examples with PMI concepts and definitions. I would just improve the slides PDF files, there is no need to put one slide for each action, if there is a list, each element of the list generates a new slide. Anyway content is great. Thanks a lot! | definitions. I would just improve the | Slide | PDF files, there is no need | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This is a great introduction to Project Management, clear language and examples with PMI concepts and definitions. I would just improve the slides PDF files, there is no need to put one slide for each action, if there is a list, each element of the list generates a new slide. Anyway content is great. Thanks a lot! | is no need to put one | Slide | for each action, if there is | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This is a great introduction to Project Management, clear language and examples with PMI concepts and definitions. I would just improve the slides PDF files, there is no need to put one slide for each action, if there is a list, each element of the list generates a new slide. Anyway content is great. Thanks a lot! | of the list generates a new | Slide | Anyway content is great. Thanks a | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | (really) basic keys, the teacher's speech has interesting tips not included in the slides. | interesting tips not included in the | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Instructor seems uninterested or bored. Sometimes he only reads the slides without adding anything else to the content. Others, he goes quickly through a slide without any time to digest the information. Overall, intro level concepts are ok, but specifics about creation or handling of tools is left without deeper explanation | bored. Sometimes he only reads the | Slide | without adding anything else to the | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Instructor seems uninterested or bored. Sometimes he only reads the slides without adding anything else to the content. Others, he goes quickly through a slide without any time to digest the information. Overall, intro level concepts are ok, but specifics about creation or handling of tools is left without deeper explanation | Others, he goes quickly through a | Slide | without any time to digest the | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.97 | 1.05 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Excellent course, with good video lectures. However, the written course materials, especially in terms of slides and assignment instructions, suffer from poor grammar and an occasional lack of clarity. | course materials, especially in terms of | Slide | and assignment instructions, suffer from poor | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Do not be fooled by the course description. You do need to know some basics before attempting the course. Be prepared to look a lot of things up independently or purchase the "optional" text book. There is virtually no moderator in this course and the instructor does not grade or comment on the discussions. Basically he is reading you PowerPoint slides and adding very little to the lesson by watching and listening to him do so. Your grades are based on what your peers (who are also trying to learn) think or interpret the correct answer to be based on their limited knowledge and discretion. I would not recommend this course for someone wishing to learn SQL as it is not the main focus, it is only a small part of the lessons. | Basically he is reading you PowerPoint | Slide | and adding very little to the | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: Information is perfect for anyone looking at Business Intelligence as a career field, or already in the career field itself. I found the first week to challenge my on-the-job knowledge of a fuller set of concepts and general terminology. Cons: The wording on the quiz questions, in some cases, seems much different than the PPT slides and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The wording is a significant challenge, even when advancing into the more complex topics. I have had many differences of opinions on the solutions based on wording in the requirements. | seems much different than the PPT | Slide | and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The specialization is great, and the course breadth and topics described in each is equally good. For this course, however, I felt like I could have covered what was taught by myself with a book, i.e. I didn't feel like it was class room level engaging with the explanations. I realized this is a one way MOOC, but I've taken courses off and on since they came out, and some others felt more interactive. This was more of here's a slide, I will read what's on the slide and explain some topics. The assignments were not bad, but definitely took more time than stated (just keep that in mind). The other thing that would help immensely is having TAs in the course. It's possible that they may get some later, but I've felt I learned/got feedback a lot more in courses with TAs. That said, this is an excellent introduction to databases course, and there's not many of them out there. If I had to go it again, I would, and I also paid for getting the cert - if anything for career advancement and having it on your LinkedIn profile as a starter DB course. | I will read what's on the | Slide | and explain some topics. The assignments | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| 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. | and quality of support material (book, | Slide | assignment, etc. ) is totally above | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This is a good overview to R Programming, though the lectures leave much to be desired, at least for a programming beginner. Watching the videos left me confused about key concepts, which I absorbed much better through the Swirl interactive exercises, the discussion forums and other examples online. Of course we are supposed to be "hackers," but I enjoyed this course much more once I just turned off the video, read through the slides and focused on other areas where I could learn the concepts. Also, the discussion forums were great for helping with key issues, and the homework assignments were also outstanding for making sure you absorb and apply concepts. So it's worth taking - just keep in mind the videos may not be for everyone... | off the video, read through the | Slide | and focused on other areas where | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | More examples are expected to give. Please don't write too much explanations in PPT during the speech. It is hard to focus on the talking and the slides at the same time. More pictures or graphs are recommended to replace the sentences. | focus on the talking and the | Slide | at the same time. More pictures | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course is not set up right, the assignments ask you to do things that aren't explained until the next weeks content, its kind of discouraging. In the end, it does teach you the basics of R, its just too bad that the way to get there is aggravating. The reason I still only give it 2 stars is because of the quality of the courses itself. There are many, many 1 and 2 minute videos, these could've easily been combined. The teacher seems unprepared in his lectures, he stutters and repeats a lot and makes a weird noise between slides. This shouldn't be necessary with pre-recorded lectures. The assignments and quizzes are also poorly written and contain spelling and sloppy mistakes, which doesn't make sense because the material isn't new. It all just makes it seem like the teacher doesn't really care and just wants to sell the course to a lot of people without putting in much effort. If you are not following the specialization I would not advise this course for beginners. I'm quite surprised to see the course get such high ratings. | and makes a weird noise between | Slide | This shouldn't be necessary with pre-recorded | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Teaching R programming can't be with reading from slides, the swirl library was helpful but not enough to grasp R, interactive learning with programming should be the way to go. I spend a lot of time learning from tutorials online.. Note: I am an experienced programmer with Python C#, and I found it difficult to learn this way. | programming can't be with reading from | Slide | the swirl library was helpful but | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Quiz and especially assignments were poorly written. Spelling mistakes in slides is simply unacceptable in high-level academia, in my opinion. Especially for a course designed for a global audience. | were poorly written. Spelling mistakes in | Slide | is simply unacceptable in high-level academia, | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | this course. I went through the | Slide | and I didn't really feel like | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | they had an hour worth of | Slide | talking about different trees and how | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | the many gaps left by the | Slide | They were definitely more helpful than | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | were definitely more helpful than the | Slide | show, but I still felt like | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | in starting going good .hope for next slide i am not good in programming please make for easy for new student .. | going good . hope for next | Slide | i am not good in programming | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | not the model of learning that is encouraging or sticks. hard for a student (even one who has a programming background) to sit through hours of slides explaining what the functions and definitions in the language do without a layer of use context upfront. The content jumps from specific examples to unrelated specific definitions without carrying a sense of integrating the new knowledge with any past knowledge in the course. the whole course seems disjointed. would have been much more effective as learning through examples and to be taught functions and definitions as they come up in problem solving. | background) to sit through hours of | Slide | explaining what the functions and definitions | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | To many text on the slides. Video resolution is not adopted for smartphone (Asus zenfone 5) | To many text on the | Slide | Video resolution is not adopted for | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | 1) This course is NOT for beginners in R programming. Huge gap between lectures and assignments. Swirl lessons are cool, but anyway they don't explain enough. 2) I understand that studying is not always a joy, but lectures of this course are boring. First, slides come with brief comments of instructor. And second, it seems like the instructor speaks with no preparation as there are a lot of stammers, tongue slips, "sort of", "kind of" etc. It annoys a lot... | of this course are boring. First, | Slide | come with brief comments of instructor. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | It was a good class to begin with however it would have helped to tailor it more towards newcomers to programming language in general. I also would have like it if Roger would have highlighted or circled, or something to specify where in the slide he was talking about. I felt that at times it was hard to follow where exactly he was talking about and what part of the code/function he was mentioning. Im a visual learner and that would have been greatly beneficial. | something to specify where in the | Slide | he was talking about. I felt | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Slides and videos are a bit insufficient in order to finish course projects. Apart from that, this course is awesome! | | Slide | and videos are a bit insufficient | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Reading quickly slides | Reading quickly | Slide | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.92 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I dislike this course because I have to complete so many assignment in one week. Instructions could have improved and slides could have improved rather than using chalkboard. Sorry there are a number of times I have to rewatch the videos and still dont understand. Hence I even have to place myself in another slot because I could not finish the assignment. Please improve on this module so that it is more enjoyable for learners who really want to learn. Thank you. | week. Instructions could have improved and | Slide | could have improved rather than using | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.95 | 1.04 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I did learn a few helpful tips for analyzing data with excel - particularly how to do a regression analysis in excel which is something I didn't know and is not intuitive. But for a course that is supposed to teach you how to analyze data in excel, there are actually very few lectures that actually show you how to do anything in excel. So much time is spent on how to calculate stuff by hand, without even mentioning how it translates to excel. Also the lectures have a lot of errors that were not corrected in a professional way. Just a random slide put in as an afterthought. The lectures got a bit disorganized towards the end, like the professor was in a rush and then forgot to relate everything to actual business analysis. The final project was especially difficult as not much was explained - I had to read the forums to figure out what I was actually supposed to do. | a professional way. Just a random | Slide | put in as an afterthought. The | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.95 | 1.04 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | very useful, but hopefully, there will be some slides for learning. | but hopefully, there will be some | Slide | for learning. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.95 | 1.04 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | I feel that I wasted my time and money on this course to be very honest. Should have requested a refund when I could. The professor really doesn't put in the effort like other professors on Coursera. He is literally reading out the content on each slide. The content isn't very enlightening either, it's just facts about mobile technology and their release dates. One can read that up on wikipedia I honestly think this course should be taken off this platform so no one else falls for it as I did. If you're reading this before you enroll, don't do it, don't waste your time and money on this. | reading out the content on each | Slide | The content isn't very enlightening either, | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | There's a lot of detailed information here, but it's surface level at best. I don't feel I have a better understanding of how smartphones work. Although I am now more familiar with the tech components of a few smartphone models and the timeline of iOS/Android OS development, I am not able to connect this information outside of base facts. I'm not even sure how the smartphone components fit together, or what they actually do. It would be a really interesting course if there were more examples, such as how smartphone components work together or a deeper comparison between the iOS and Android systems is used when discussing the development timeline of each model, instead of pure cognitive knowledge being read from a slide. Maybe these concepts are explored further in the other courses for this certificate, but as a stand alone introduction to smartphone technologies the information is poorly imparted. | cognitive knowledge being read from a | Slide | Maybe these concepts are explored further | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Information in this course is thorough and comprehensive. The material is entirely composed of the specifications, release and feature development, and comparison of Android OS and iOS. The instructor shows slides and reads the slides in their entirety. There is no additional information the instructor provides that is not already included in the slide content. The teaching is not very stimulating. But the instructor does cover the material completely. | OS and iOS. The instructor shows | Slide | and reads the slides in their | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Information in this course is thorough and comprehensive. The material is entirely composed of the specifications, release and feature development, and comparison of Android OS and iOS. The instructor shows slides and reads the slides in their entirety. There is no additional information the instructor provides that is not already included in the slide content. The teaching is not very stimulating. But the instructor does cover the material completely. | instructor shows slides and reads the | Slide | in their entirety. There is no | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Information in this course is thorough and comprehensive. The material is entirely composed of the specifications, release and feature development, and comparison of Android OS and iOS. The instructor shows slides and reads the slides in their entirety. There is no additional information the instructor provides that is not already included in the slide content. The teaching is not very stimulating. But the instructor does cover the material completely. | is not already included in the | Slide | content. The teaching is not very | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | Course was great. I wish there was more coding and more examples as well as the videos showing more examples rather then slides with text of the properties. | videos showing more examples rather then | Slide | with text of the properties. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.89 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | Quite easy to follow and with access to course slides easy to review when needed. | follow and with access to course | Slide | easy to review when needed. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 0.89 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Pros: Excellent material, great that slides are available for download Cons: The videos are much too long and have too much detail that could just be added as footnotes in the slides. | Pros: Excellent material, great that | Slide | are available for download Cons: The | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Pros: Excellent material, great that slides are available for download Cons: The videos are much too long and have too much detail that could just be added as footnotes in the slides. | be added as footnotes in the | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Bad quality slides and presentation. not possible to use headphone since it was on mono not stereo. Interesting topic but not well executed to fit online learning | Bad quality | Slide | and presentation. not possible to use | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | It is too hard to understand what he is saying, his accent is impossible to follow. Besides, the lectures are not dynamic, it is just him reading the slides with the most monotonous and boring voice ever. I took the first course of the specialization with David and this is the complete opposite. I would love to see the whole 5 courses with David and not only the first one. | it is just him reading the | Slide | with the most monotonous and boring | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.21 | 1.21 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I audited this course and did the assignments independently. This course focuses on examining Bootstrap's CSS and Javascript components in much detail. Towards the end one is introduced to NPM and Bower. Concepts are explained through a project. Nearly all major components of Bootstrap were covered, many of which are often ignored in other courses I have taken. The course materials (the slides) are very well made. I like the pace at which this course goes and the instructors are very active and helpful on the discussion forums. | have taken. The course materials (the | Slide | are very well made. I like | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.21 | 1.21 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | -I like the teacher a lot. He speaks understandable, at the right speed and he explains well in my opinion. -The slides contain just the right information. I like the practical approach especially. -Assigment was a bit easy, but still covered the essentials. | explains well in my opinion. -The | Slide | contain just the right information. I | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.21 | 1.21 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The lecture is well organized, slides are very clear and easy to follow. After each class, there is a clear instruction on exercises available both in PDF format and video format, which is very helpful for beginner like me. | The lecture is well organized, | Slide | are very clear and easy to | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.21 | 1.21 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | So many powerpoint slides.. It's very boring course. The tutor just read slides without deep explanations, wikipedia much more interesting. It's just observing course, theoretical 95%. | So many powerpoint | Slide | . It's very boring course. The | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.21 | 1.21 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | So many powerpoint slides.. It's very boring course. The tutor just read slides without deep explanations, wikipedia much more interesting. It's just observing course, theoretical 95%. | boring course. The tutor just read | Slide | without deep explanations, wikipedia much more | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 1.21 | 1.21 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Many videos lacked associated pdf slides so confusing to watch. Some topics on slides were not covered in videos. A supplemental video for those would be great even of optional. Brian Cato is a good presenter, however, more examples needed to be done showing how to work out various statistical problems both by traditional method and using R. | Many videos lacked associated pdf | Slide | so confusing to watch. Some topics | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.41 | 1.11 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Many videos lacked associated pdf slides so confusing to watch. Some topics on slides were not covered in videos. A supplemental video for those would be great even of optional. Brian Cato is a good presenter, however, more examples needed to be done showing how to work out various statistical problems both by traditional method and using R. | confusing to watch. Some topics on | Slide | were not covered in videos. A | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.41 | 1.11 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very poor lessons: a lot of theory for a brief period like a one-month course. The material (both on the slides and on swirl) is not explained in a clear way and so it results as very confusing mess of concepts. LOTS of typos, especially in the LittleBookInference. This course needs a careful revision by the authors. | course. The material (both on the | Slide | and on swirl) is not explained | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.41 | 1.11 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This is 3rd time I a trying this course. Labeling someone just reading the slides out loud as a course is ridiculous. I have to express that this is horrible, Please don't callout a course. Call it Audio Slides. I have a Master's degree in engineering and have won scholarship all my life. This is the first time I am trying out on-line course. The courses were okay till I came to this sections mostly done by Brian Jaffe. Knowing and teaching is two different things, Brian! I will continue, with help from other materials outside the course. But I have ti rate this as 1 star. | course. Labeling someone just reading the | Slide | out loud as a course is | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.41 | 1.11 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This is 3rd time I a trying this course. Labeling someone just reading the slides out loud as a course is ridiculous. I have to express that this is horrible, Please don't callout a course. Call it Audio Slides. I have a Master's degree in engineering and have won scholarship all my life. This is the first time I am trying out on-line course. The courses were okay till I came to this sections mostly done by Brian Jaffe. Knowing and teaching is two different things, Brian! I will continue, with help from other materials outside the course. But I have ti rate this as 1 star. | callout a course. Call it Audio | Slide | I have a Master's degree in | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.41 | 1.11 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | I am left feeling this course needs work. I don't know if it's the pain of switching to the new platform or what, but the total lack of any support from the TA/instructor team is frustrating. Add to that the fact that Brian skips from slide to slide very quickly often not providing adequate explanations and you'll be re-watching the videos many times over. Several of the videos have blatant errors in them, like the fast that the fourth video of a week also contains the entire third video... again. Such things should not have passed a half decent QA test. More than anything this specialization should not be marketed as "no previous experience needed". You need to know some statistics. And by some, I mean do the whole thing on Khan Academy first. | the fact that Brian skips from | Slide | to slide very quickly often not | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.41 | 1.11 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | Wonderful course. It was very well written with all major topics covered. Bonus video and Panelists Interview were also very helpful. However I would like to mention a small mistake in the week 4th's lesson, slide no. 3.23 has a network diagram, which has last activity written A instead of I. It changes the calculation for complete forward and backward pass. Also, Margaret explained the network forward and backward pass with the value of first day as 1. However in the lesson it was taken as 0, which again changes the formulas she described in the video. It's not difficult to understand the difference but it somehow breaks the harmony. | mistake in the week 4th's lesson, | Slide | no. 3. 23 has a network | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 0.85 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | I don't really like the format. I want lectures from the instructor, not animation and slides. | from the instructor, not animation and | Slide | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.85 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | Doing this course 'Budgeting and Scheduling projects' gives learners, a practical approach to Project management based on PMBOK methodology. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp and clear communication of 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. | crisp and clear communication of ideas. | Slide | are well designed. Video quality and | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 0.85 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | A very engaging approach to online teaching, that is very effective at keeping you from zoning out while staring at boring slides of text with someone speaking over top of it. I wish more online learning courses would follow this example. | zoning out while staring at boring | Slide | of text with someone speaking over | Negative | -0.9 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.13 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I found this course very helpful and understandable ...The slides are very beautiful designed ..I had never learnt Statistics in this way! The examples are related to our daily life! It makes everything easier to learn... Thank you very much all who works on this course from University of Amsterdam | and understandable . . . The | Slide | are very beautiful designed . . | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.13 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Engaging presentation; maybe slides resolution could be improved | Engaging presentation; maybe | Slide | resolution could be improved | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 0.77 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Great course. Very easy to understand, effective slides, somewhat challenging tests, clear voice by the professor, professionally done. The only gripe I have is feeling like I did not learn as much as I wanted to. I do not think this is reflective of the professor or his style, it may have to do more with the subject. Macroeconomics is a social science, not much intense, groundbreaking material. Overall good, I would suggest it if you want a broad understanding of macroeconomic theories, the history, and its implications. | course. Very easy to understand, effective | Slide | somewhat challenging tests, clear voice by | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 0.77 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Presentation slides could've been better prepared. The quiz could've thrown the right answers after finishing. But it was very informative overall | Presentation | Slide | could've been better prepared. The quiz | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.68 | 0.77 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Although the course cover everything there can be in Macro-economics, the course is tightly bound with US economy. Also the questions, some of them, in quiz are exact from the slides. I think there could have been changes. None the less, it was best thing i have learnt in past 6-12 months. Awesome going through it. | in quiz are exact from the | Slide | I think there could have been | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 0.77 |