| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating | Contradiction-Based_MOY | Contradiction-Based_Ci |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | This course had a profound impact on the procedures I use for data analysis. It provides best practices for documenting the steps of the analysis to ensure accuracy and quality. I highly recommend taking this. | the analysis to ensure accuracy and | Quality | I highly recommend taking this. | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | I've already written a review but it seems to have been removed... This is an awful course, there is very little purpose to it whatsoever, it is basically a module in markdown which will in all honesty not have much application for most learners. In addition, the course is not at all balanced / laid out well, there is a peer assignment in week 1, which you need to have covered week 2's content for. Lastly, the recording quality of some of the lectures is awful, it is clear that they have simply used some recordings of an actual classroom session of a related course instead of recording for Coursera. In all honesty, this entire specialisation is of awful quality, it is not a data science course, it is a "here's a few useful things in R" course, and the instructors should be ashamed that their institution makes money from it. | this entire specialisation is of awful | Quality | it is not a data science | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | In this course, there was a slide presentation with audio recorded in a classroom. This part of the course should be replaced as soon as possible to offer better experience. As it is presented right now, with a loudy environment, it really doesn't match to the quality of the other courses. | it really doesn't match to the | Quality | of the other courses. | Negative | -0.83 | 0.5 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | One of the most useful classes so far! Provides great foundation for creating quality reports! | far! Provides great foundation for creating | Quality | reports! | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Some videos have bad audio quality. | Some videos have bad audio | Quality | | Negative | -0.81 | 1.0 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | To be honest, I couldn't realize why this had to be an entire seminar on its own. Apart from that, in some videos the audio quality was rather poor and the instructor seemed to have caught some cold or something. Although the topic of the course is interesting and significant, I think that do far it is the least engaging of the specialization... | that, in some videos the audio | Quality | was rather poor and the instructor | Negative | -0.99 | 0.0 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Some of the videos has low quality, which make them harder to understand for non native speakers. In my opinion there is also too less tips for second assessment. | Some of the videos has low | Quality | which make them harder to understand | Negative | -0.95 | 0.0 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Covers some important and interesting areas and is generally well taught (although the recording quality on the videos varies). Interesting final project! | generally well taught (although the recording | Quality | on the videos varies). Interesting final | Positive | 0.65 | 0.5 | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| -qKIDPnAEeS1QCIACy-KcQ | You will have to make a Scratch account (free) for this course. Areti is a very clear instructor that explained concepts very well for complete beginners into programming, like myself and I found the course insightful. 1) Presentation - I couldn't help but wonder whether they had a lower target age (teenagers or younger) in mind, which was entertaining at some points but also distracting at other times. // Also, I only realized halfway through the course that it is in fact possible to see what Areti is doing on the Scratch program once the quality of the video is adjusted. 2) Projects/Time Commitment - Going through the lectures and quizzes are not time consuming at all, but the projects (especially the final project) takes a lot of time. It took longer than expected because I felt like much of the practical instructions on how to use Scratch for specific purposes were not provided during the course, leaving me to work by myself. 3) Discussion Forum - When I took the course, the discussion forum was close to being dead (especially compared to some of the other courses that I was taking simultaneously on Coursera). Gerry (mentor) did an amazing job responding to my inquiry, but I noticed that although there were a lot of students talking at the beginning, introducing themselves, there weren't that many discussions concerning the final assignment, making me feel like I was working alone. It would be great if there was more time to work on the final project, and perhaps a way in which students can collaborate and help out others when faced with a bug (ie preliminary project submission and feedback session). I recommend taking this course, but realistically, you won't be program proficient after 5 weeks. You will, however, learn some basic programming theory, understand how programming works, and learn how to make a fun interactive game on Scratch! | on the Scratch program once the | Quality | of the video is adjusted. 2) | Negative | -0.64 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 0.94 |
| -qKIDPnAEeS1QCIACy-KcQ | i was a dot, you molded me in a line.... :) happy to join the course quality of education play create program repeat, Instructor is excellent in explaining everything of the course, thank you Instructor , university of Edinburgh and Coursera | :) happy to join the course | Quality | of education play create program repeat, | Positive | 0.73 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 0.94 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Terrible course compared to all others I've seen on Coursera. Content is scarce, quality is low, maybe okay for college graduates, but being in business, it's just too slim. Video quality is also terrible. Don't waste 35$ | seen on Coursera. Content is scarce, | Quality | is low, maybe okay for college | Negative | -0.84 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.15 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Terrible course compared to all others I've seen on Coursera. Content is scarce, quality is low, maybe okay for college graduates, but being in business, it's just too slim. Video quality is also terrible. Don't waste 35$ | business, it's just too slim. Video | Quality | is also terrible. Don't waste 35$ | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.15 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Unfortunately, without a doubt, the worst und most uninformative course I've ever taken. Apart from stating the obvious nothing new. A lot of repetition of "useless" information. Super disappointed. Can't believe that such a course is offered here and that I really paid for nothing of such quality. | really paid for nothing of such | Quality | | Negative | -0.98 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.15 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | I think the best quality of this course is that it is a short course, which bolds the most important facts in our mind. It is not like that we don't know them at all, It's just we don't pay much or enough attention. I start using this method from today and I hope it goes well ! You should try this course, I think it worth it ! | I think the best | Quality | of this course is that it | Positive | 0.78 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.15 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | done with in few hours; found it's useful for interview preparing, particularly for the multitasking part. have habits of time management, though didn't know how to organise language to show that quality during an interview. | to organise language to show that | Quality | during an interview. | Positive | 0.66 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.15 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | The graded assignments are of varying | Quality | The most disturbing thing about them | Negative | -0.87 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.92 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very good introductory course to probability and data. Very hands-on examples and outstanding explanations. I already had several statistics courses before in my life but not in this quality. I can really recommend this course to anyone who to learn more about statistics. | my life but not in this | Quality | I can really recommend this course | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.92 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | The content of this course is not terribly difficult, I thought, but it's a very good introduction into most aspects of Data Science. You learn to familiarize yourself with R quite well and get a lot of independence to create a final project based on a huge data set. One thing I would've liked is a sample completed project, start to finish, to see what was expected- the things that got produced (which you peer review) varied hugely in quality. | you peer review) varied hugely in | Quality | | Positive | 0.74 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.92 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Provided Unity scripts for projects don't work properly with newer versions of Unity. Quality of video recording is kind of crappy esp. audio. Most of the stuff learned in this course you'd be able to learn straight from the Unity tutorials anyway. Not recommended unless you absolutely need scheduled assignments in order to learn. | properly with newer versions of Unity. | Quality | of video recording is kind of | Positive | 0.77 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | quality of the video-presentations is top! assignments and quizzes are fair | | Quality | of the video-presentations is top! assignments | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Excellent hands-on introduction to the Unity game engine, the development workflow and the many nuances of how these all work together for the artistic as well as the technical designers. I especially appreciate the instructor's careful attention to learner-centered demonstration, and for his respectful use of, as well as frequent nods to, Unity as a top notch engine for quality development. Packed with a great deal of information, and the demonstration of how to apply this knowledge, I would highly recommend this course to anyone who is wanting to break into interactive media development, or is wanting to broaden their methods and application knowledge in this area. | as a top notch engine for | Quality | development. Packed with a great deal | Positive | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Really good course. Very high quality teaching and lectures | Really good course. Very high | Quality | teaching and lectures | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Excellent video content and quality, engaging assignments and helpful resources. | Excellent video content and | Quality | engaging assignments and helpful resources. | Positive | 0.85 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | The only downside is the video | Quality | is not that great its not | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | lot better if it was better | Quality | Its very Blurry even in High | Negative | -0.98 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | Its very Blurry even in High | Quality | Although thats not a problem that | Positive | 0.88 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1.15 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The course content seemed to be rushed out, as a result, the quality is not as good as the first two. | rushed out, as a result, the | Quality | is not as good as the | Positive | 0.92 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.97 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Extremely highlevel, quality of the material is significantly lower than in the previous courses. | Extremely highlevel, | Quality | of the material is significantly lower | Negative | -0.83 | -0.5 | 0.88 | 0.97 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The course provides an overview on classification methods in machine learning. The lectures are clear and easy to understand due to the quality of the slides and of the explanations. The limit of this course lies in the assignments: too easy if done with the provided notebooks and tools. Sometimes impossible to do with different tools (the suggested machine learning package is free for educational purposes, but otherwise it needs a license). | easy to understand due to the | Quality | of the slides and of the | Positive | 0.96 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.97 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | -Made on 10/05/2016- Low quantity of information and resources. For the cost , is not even near to other moocs. Block the sending and sharing of activities, and unable the peer evaluation because of a required payment, really handicap the learning and the quality of the course. If I pay a Mooc, is becouse of a strong quality and substantial learning; this two lacking in this course. I can give you a list of other moocs around this and other subjects (film, writing, mat, entrepreneurship, photography...) for you to make relations and compare structures. Please revise this course, you have nice video edition and the teacher is good, and willing to teach, but the global course is missing several things. I encourage you to take my words. | really handicap the learning and the | Quality | of the course. If I pay | Negative | -0.65 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | -Made on 10/05/2016- Low quantity of information and resources. For the cost , is not even near to other moocs. Block the sending and sharing of activities, and unable the peer evaluation because of a required payment, really handicap the learning and the quality of the course. If I pay a Mooc, is becouse of a strong quality and substantial learning; this two lacking in this course. I can give you a list of other moocs around this and other subjects (film, writing, mat, entrepreneurship, photography...) for you to make relations and compare structures. Please revise this course, you have nice video edition and the teacher is good, and willing to teach, but the global course is missing several things. I encourage you to take my words. | Mooc, is becouse of a strong | Quality | and substantial learning; this two lacking | Positive | 0.81 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | fabulous course with lot of do's and don'ts... and an inspirational guide and techniques for a startup writer or a beginer. course with its full content , quality and knowledge . | course with its full content , | Quality | and knowledge . | Positive | 0.67 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Good quality content and great instructor. I recommend it! It does not cover though a very important feature from angular: directives. | Good | Quality | content and great instructor. I recommend | Positive | 0.98 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 1.02 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Excellent course! All the material was relevant and the exerises were challenging without being impossible. Professor Muppala is a very entertaining instructor. All three courses in the specialization so far have exceeded expectations. The only remark so far is the subpar quality of the subtitles in this course. There were many mistakes in nearly every video. Other than that, great work! | remark so far is the subpar | Quality | of the subtitles in this course. | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 1.02 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | great material and video quality, love it. | great material and video | Quality | love it. | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 1.27 | 1.28 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Not the expected quality | Not the expected | Quality | | Negative | -0.72 | -1.0 | 1.27 | 1.28 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | The course is quite interesting, but I have not given it a 5 star because the quality of some videos is very poor. | it a 5 star because the | Quality | of some videos is very poor. | Negative | -1.0 | 0.5 | 1.03 | 1.03 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | Good: The video lectures cover a nice variety of topics giving you a good introduction of journalism, ethics, and other important considerations for becoming a journalist. Bad: The entire course feels hastily put together. Some of the videos have summarizing points, which is helpful when taking notes, but they flash on the screen briefly, then cut to a closeup of the lecturer, then cut back to the summery points so quickly that you can't copy them down and it becomes super distracting. The quizzes are a joke. They usually consist of 1-3 questions with two answers each and once choice so outrageous that they don't take any thought at all to complete. You could just skip to the quizzes without watching a single lecture and "ace" them easily. The assignments are also a joke. They ask for 1-2 sentence answers max! Some of them ask you to "use more than one word" to respond. I've taken free courses on here than involve 1000 word essays and then at least you're forced to process the information in the lectures. You can pass this course without watching a single lecture and that's a travesty to Michigan State. It is full of typos and oversights that could have been avoided if they had once person run through the course as a quality control. One of the quizzes has the answer included right beneath the question as a typo! The simple assignments are described in 3 different places, sometimes with conflicting instructions. They tell you what to do and how to review your peers in one section and then the actually assignment has different instructions on what to do than the page prior so you end up unsure of what the assignment actually wants you to do. For example: the final assignment at firsts asks you how to engage with your audience, and then you click next and the SAME question is now asking you how you distribute content. Did they even try?? In Summery: The content in the lectures are a good but shallow overview of journalism, but don't expect to be challenged to do anything but fill in ovals and regurgitate questions. Not too much to learn here. | run through the course as a | Quality | control. One of the quizzes has | Positive | 0.79 | -0.5 | 1.03 | 1.03 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | One of the best coursers I have seen on Coursera so far. The video production quality, course structure and content is extra ordinary compared to other courses that I've seen so far. | Coursera so far. The video production | Quality | course structure and content is extra | Negative | -0.76 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Thanks a lot for all the instructors and the team behind this course. The content quality reminds me of some agile principles. Simplicity of the words, the illustrations, the examples Feedback from students through the discussions Technical excellence and good design Welcoming change (I've witnessed commitments of the team to improve some points in the content) I'm thrilled to go on and look at the next courses I say Bravo ! Smail | team behind this course. The content | Quality | reminds me of some agile principles. | Positive | 0.72 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Great course, now i have a really clear idea about the many choices in processes to make a better software in a quality and timely manner. I´m enjoying so much this specialization, Thanks! | make a better software in a | Quality | and timely manner. I´m enjoying so | Negative | -0.85 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Good course! Excellent to reinforce my knowledge on scrum, xp and agile. In the end however I think that the content was somehow repetitive, but this not change the quality of the course. | repetitive, but this not change the | Quality | of the course. | Negative | -0.9 | 0.5 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | It is no surprise that a course that emphasises quality is of the utmost quality. An enjoyable and valuable learning experience. | surprise that a course that emphasises | Quality | is of the utmost quality. An | Positive | 0.74 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | It is no surprise that a course that emphasises quality is of the utmost quality. An enjoyable and valuable learning experience. | emphasises quality is of the utmost | Quality | An enjoyable and valuable learning experience. | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Good introduction to Python, it gets you into the mindset of programming and combining syntax to do something useful. The videos could be more to the point and better quality though. | more to the point and better | Quality | though. | Positive | 0.71 | 0.5 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Comprehensive coverage of the basics and great for getting started with python for beginners.Includes interactive sessions of great quality which helps for better understanding. | beginners. Includes interactive sessions of great | Quality | which helps for better understanding. | Positive | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Excelent course! Excelent professor, great pedagogical methods used, a very accesible language and very good quality information. And the book is awesome! Thanks for uploading it. | very accesible language and very good | Quality | information. And the book is awesome! | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Prof. Severance is a fantastic teacher. I'm so happy to see people like him committed to good quality learning for everyone. I got the print version of the book, which helped me go though the course more easily. | people like him committed to good | Quality | learning for everyone. I got the | Positive | 0.65 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really appreciate and enjoy this high quality classes. I have learned a lot in python programming through this class. | really appreciate and enjoy this high | Quality | classes. I have learned a lot | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | This course is exceptional that comes with quality lecture materials as well as easy and understandable explanation for all level of learners. | course is exceptional that comes with | Quality | lecture materials as well as easy | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Very good one... want to have this quality more :D | . . want to have this | Quality | more :D | Negative | -0.75 | 0.5 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I though that this was a very good beginner course to programming. I have had a introductory course for C programming and it was similar. The quality was good and it had many good ways to reinforce the concepts. Although some of the beginning classes were very basic I still learning some concepts that I did not know. | programming and it was similar. The | Quality | was good and it had many | Positive | 0.74 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great lessons. Appreciate the efforts taken by Professor to gather the data and create a learning material of such high quality. | a learning material of such high | Quality | | Positive | 0.83 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The content inside this course is well tought through. Questions and asignments holds high quality. If you haven't been in contact with Python before, this might be the first step for you, and when I say first step, then I really mean first step. | through. Questions and asignments holds high | Quality | If you haven't been in contact | Positive | 0.98 | 0.0 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The quality of the content is excellent and is presented clearly (although the lecturer drinking various things throughout the lectures was odd...). I plowed through all seven weeks in a day because I had already finished the first three weeks of the Rice University Python course (also on Coursera); I would say this entire course is nearly equivalent to the first three weeks of the Rice course. My reasons for doing this are two-fold: (1) practice, practice, practice, and (2) I plan to take all four courses in this series from U Mich - I am interested in the web and database aspects that do not seem to be covered in the Rice course. I did learn a thing or two from each course that was not presented in the other, but those points were relatively minor and would probably be stumbled across on a future troubleshooting visit to stackoverflow. | The | Quality | of the content is excellent and | Positive | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.47 | 1.17 |
| 7t9y531dEeWKYwric11Hpw | the quality of this course is very low, and the content are not interesting and useful at all. | the | Quality | of this course is very low, | Negative | -0.73 | -1.0 | 1.28 | 1.28 |
| 7t9y531dEeWKYwric11Hpw | This is a very great program full of important and accurate information! Congratulations! I find it very complete inside its category. It's pretty interesting since the first moment you watch the first video lecture. Good design and presentation of the program. In other words: beautiful! Thanks. Keep bringing quality! | other words: beautiful! Thanks. Keep bringing | Quality | | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 | 1.28 | 1.28 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Without a doubt the worst course I have ever taken anywhere. When the instructor, who is supposed to be teaching you how to write iOS apps, takes (no exaggeration) SIX minutes to even figure out how to open XCode, you know you're in for a rocky ride. Still, I stuck with it for three more weeks. To my horror, the course only got worse from there. This course was clearly thrown together with a minimum of effort by someone who is not qualified to teach the subject. It's an insult to Coursera customers, and a major failure of quality control. | customers, and a major failure of | Quality | control. | Negative | -0.66 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.32 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The material and videos are so poor, and low quality, I am happy to not have bought this course | videos are so poor, and low | Quality | I am happy to not have | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 1.19 | 1.32 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Really good information, good quality presentation. The working examples are well chosen and fun to work along with. Thank you! | Really good information, good | Quality | presentation. The working examples are well | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 1.19 | 1.32 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Fantastic! A well presented course filled with high quality information from leading experts in the field. | well presented course filled with high | Quality | information from leading experts in the | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 1.07 | 1.15 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Great subject and some very well presented videos. However there were several which were incomprehensible. Either because of the quality of the video or the very heavy accent of the speaker especially to a non-American viewer. One doesn't always want to read a transcript but to listen and concentrate. If all the videos had been of good listenable quality I would have given the course 5 stars | were incomprehensible. Either because of the | Quality | of the video or the very | Negative | -0.94 | 0.0 | 1.07 | 1.15 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Great subject and some very well presented videos. However there were several which were incomprehensible. Either because of the quality of the video or the very heavy accent of the speaker especially to a non-American viewer. One doesn't always want to read a transcript but to listen and concentrate. If all the videos had been of good listenable quality I would have given the course 5 stars | videos had been of good listenable | Quality | I would have given the course | Negative | -0.95 | 0.0 | 1.07 | 1.15 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | "Gut Check: Exploring Your Microbiome" is a fabulously informative course that contains a significant amount of pertinent information presented in a well-paced, user-friendly manner. The class offers high quality ancillary resources for further research on the topic in the forms of interviews, journal articles, books and website links. I would recommend this course to anyone who might have an interest in the gut microbiome, whether it be for personal reasons or for academic research as it provides a solid foundation for future studies in this arena. | user-friendly manner. The class offers high | Quality | ancillary resources for further research on | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 1.07 | 1.15 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | Enjoyable and informative. The assignments were workable, though they were not always super-well coordinated with the course material. The in-lecture exercises are of uneven quality. The course material is obviously spliced together from other sources in places. All this notwithstanding, the lectures are interesting, and the exercises help a lot to cement in the concepts. As an experienced programmer, but a newcomer to functional techniques, this was satisfying. I'm aware that the other courses in this sequence suffer from similar issues to what I outlined, but I'm moving ahead anyway. | The in-lecture exercises are of uneven | Quality | The course material is obviously spliced | Negative | -0.98 | 0.5 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | Great course and very helpful. The following details prevent me from giving it a 5 stars review: * the explanation of the tools to use during the course is very messy. It may discourage people that are less used to work their way around searching working tools. * The audio of the videos sometimes loses A LOT of quality. * For me it seemed like all the assignments were on spot with the balance between theory and standalone thinking. However, I really noticed the jump of time invested for the last assignment. I think the course would highly benefit from having an assignment on Week 5, instead of having that pause in between. Anyway, the course was greatly structured and interesting. Can't wait to go on with the whole specialization! | videos sometimes loses A LOT of | Quality | * For me it seemed like | Negative | -0.99 | 0.5 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | The course is logical and thorough, flawlessly delivered (well, except maybe the audio quality at times), and challenging just enough to make a seasoned imperative programmer scream in frustration, but not quit. 😀 The only thing standing between this course and perfection are the pop quiz bugs. But even they contribute to the message of the course in a way: if Coursera's platform were written in Scala, there probably would be fewer of them. 🕷 | delivered (well, except maybe the audio | Quality | at times), and challenging just enough | Negative | -0.76 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | The assignments in particular were of very high quality and interesting. I liked the academic approach to teaching. | in particular were of very high | Quality | and interesting. I liked the academic | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | Reviewing process is quite slow, thus you have to wait until someone review your assignment and grade it, even if you complete this course in just 1 week but you can't pursue certificate in just 1 week because review of assignment 3-4 days minimum for each one. Coursera should improve that problem, but overall teaching quality was great. | improve that problem, but overall teaching | Quality | was great. | Positive | 0.78 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | Good quality information, excellent instructor. | Good | Quality | information, excellent instructor. | Positive | 0.88 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | I thought the content was great, but I thought the assignments were too onerous. I did the first one, but I didn't feel like I learned from it and peer feedback was very slow. I looked at the other assignments, but I thought they only asked me to put to paper things I was already thinking about anyway. Given the untimely and low quality of peer feedback on the first assignment, I didn't feel like I'd learn anything from completing and submitting any assignments. I refuse to buy a webcam for Coursera (I have a phone with that capability but the Coursera app doesn't support it for identity verification), so I can't get a certification anyway. I thought the content was interesting, but too basic to pay for. The major value I see in the certification path is extensive feedback on the capstone project, as I thought peer feedback came too late and wasn't extensive enough to be valuable. I do think the instructor does a good job of presenting the content | anyway. Given the untimely and low | Quality | of peer feedback on the first | Negative | -0.97 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | Very well presented material, good production quality. A tad bit sparse on details, but I guess that is apt for an Intro level course. | Very well presented material, good production | Quality | A tad bit sparse on details, | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | I thought the material was presented at an overly high level and was not particularly useful, particularly in the second half of the course. Add more detail. Furthermore, the presentation style of the professor is not engaging, nor does he address interesting archetypes or examples in his lectures. The early material was fine but again presentation could be dramatically improved. Lastly, the assignments were rather interesting early on but once again quality decreased as the course progressed. | interesting early on but once again | Quality | decreased as the course progressed. | Positive | 0.86 | -0.5 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Very well made course. The pace and sound quality of the course is excellent. | made course. The pace and sound | Quality | of the course is excellent. | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.3 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | High quality didactic teaching. | High | Quality | didactic teaching. | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.3 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | is excellent way of learn English . i really learn so many grammar and improve my English. i need your one advise. how i improve my reading skills. and improve my speaking quality. i hope you give me advise. thank you . | reading skills. and improve my speaking | Quality | i hope you give me advise. | Negative | -0.94 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.3 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | For the eager student maybe some more resources should have been shared. I was hoping to learn some production quality environment basics e.g. the ideal editor, best practices etc. That said- I really liked how the 3 components, css, js and html were stitched together to help understand interactive webpages using js. | was hoping to learn some production | Quality | environment basics e. g. the ideal | Negative | -0.96 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.17 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | It was an amazing Course. High quality videos, good practice quiz and interesting assignments. also the idea of final mini-project is very good. Thanks all of you for preparing this course | It was an amazing Course. High | Quality | videos, good practice quiz and interesting | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.17 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Love the succinct quality of the videos. The information was clear, and the assignments easy to follow. I learned a lot, and felt supported by the community. I felt a bit rushed for some assignments, specially the rapid prototyping one. Better understanding of the time that would take me to conceptualize and draw was needed (the 2 hours observed on the time estimate were not realistic on my part - it took me 7 hours give or take for the whole assignment - and apparently other students have the same issue, since 4 assignments I graded were missing sketches or re-using the same ones for different scenarios.) | Love the succinct | Quality | of the videos. The information was | Positive | 0.89 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.01 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Instructor is clearly reading off of cards or a prompter that doesn't face the camera so he's constantly not looking at you which is frustrating. The feeling of each lesson being so scripted takes away from the feeling of a professor teaching material with which he is comfortable. Comparing this to UC San Diego course videos is like night and day and really makes you realize the importance of quality production/natural flow of teaching. | makes you realize the importance of | Quality | production/natural flow of teaching. | Positive | 1.0 | -1.0 | 1.0 | 1.01 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Some of the videos feel a little outdated but otherwise high quality. | a little outdated but otherwise high | Quality | | Positive | 0.71 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.01 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | I think the course covers pretty good range of topics and gives you a good information. I really liked the peer review assignments and I think they put pressure on you to achieve the goals and learn from them. I definitely did not like the multiple answer questions or the last assessment. The questions are not well presented and there is a clear violation of the help and error recovery heuristic for me. I also did not like the video set-up. The quality of the course material is really poor and disappointing. I would like to believe that on a UI course people would have come up with a better and more intuitive set-up. Finally, I would like to have a document in the course resources that students can download and keep that contains all the information we taught like quick reference guide. Again we can download the videos but when you are looking to fins something specific searching in 2-3 videos is not fun at all. | not like the video set-up. The | Quality | of the course material is really | Negative | -0.78 | -0.5 | 1.0 | 1.01 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | The content of this course is good but the production quality of the videos are not vary high. | course is good but the production | Quality | of the videos are not vary | Negative | -0.85 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.01 |
| DYv7azSfEeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | Very useful course and excellent quality content. | Very useful course and excellent | Quality | content. | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.19 |
| DYv7azSfEeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | One of the best coursers I have seen on Coursera so far. The video production quality, course structure and content is extra ordinary compared to other courses that I've seen so far. | Coursera so far. The video production | Quality | course structure and content is extra | Negative | -0.76 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.19 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Very interesting and inspiring course. The material is of very good quality and the teacher is, to my mind, excellent. | The material is of very good | Quality | and the teacher is, to my | Positive | 0.74 | 1.0 | 1.32 | 1.33 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Very bad course. The content can barely be applied outside US, you don't know from which perspective it's explained (for sales or purchasing people), the videos are bad quality, the teacher is babbling, no extra resources, no interaction with the audience outside the assessments. | purchasing people), the videos are bad | Quality | the teacher is babbling, no extra | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 1.32 | 1.33 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A great course in a great specialization. Very high quality content. | in a great specialization. Very high | Quality | content. | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.19 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | One of the best coursers I have seen on Coursera so far. The video production quality, course structure and content is extra ordinary compared to other courses that I've seen so far. | Coursera so far. The video production | Quality | course structure and content is extra | Negative | -0.76 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.19 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | Excellent course because is: Organized, current informed, excelent references, high quality, and deliver for very experience instructors | Organized, current informed, excelent references, high | Quality | and deliver for very experience instructors | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 1.22 | 1.29 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | This is a good course, providing quality information. It has a bit of a financial lean, as the professor has a background in this area; this was stretching for me as an engineer, but ultimately I found it helpful, as the financing of healthcare is an incredibly important issue! Unfortunately, the professor is a bit hard to understand; he does not speak in proper grammatical structure and often rambles or mutters, so even as a native English speaker, I had to turn on subtitles in order to understand the point he was trying to get across. Overall, after taking this course, I feel *much* more versed on the healthcare landscape and all the players involved therein. I recommend this course to students who want to better understand the general workings of the healthcare industry. | This is a good course, providing | Quality | information. It has a bit of | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 1.22 | 1.29 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | the quality of the lecture is poor - slides are dense and full of bullet points which the professor LITERALLY JUST READS OUT on videos. I did a google search, and found almost all of the analytical charts he presented, readily available on the internet. What exactly is the point in the lecture then? Instead, why don't you compress some valuable learning nuggets into half the course time, instead of hearing you ready through your ocean of bullet points, and needlessly underline (in red) the current bullet point your reading. Seriously, this is one the poorest quality lectures I've ever done! The quality of peer assignments to grade are a joke. Classmates are simply copying bits and pieces of the lecture material to make up the 'market sizing memo'. I seriously doubt the learning value in this class, and the quality of instruction. | the | Quality | of the lecture is poor - | Negative | -0.95 | -1.0 | 1.22 | 1.29 |
| 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. | quality lectures I've ever done! The | Quality | of peer assignments to grade are | Negative | -0.81 | -1.0 | 1.22 | 1.29 |
| 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. | value in this class, and the | Quality | of instruction. | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.22 | 1.29 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The initial lessons were rather chaotic. The idea was good, but the execution was not really good. The significantly improved the quality for the second course so I assume that for a new iteration, the it will be better too. | really good. The significantly improved the | Quality | for the second course so I | Positive | 0.87 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The Good: The idea of having the lectures in a Q&A style, two experts in continuous conversation about the topic has a potential The Bad: That potential is wasted on poorly planned lessons and course content The Ugly: Instructors run the Swift code that is written during the lesson and they get a wrong result due to an error in the code. They both agree that the result is weird but then continue to explain that this is how Swift works. In short, they are misleading and confusing you on a topic you are trying to learn. This is of course unintentional but gives you a clue about how the quality check on lecture videos are taken care of. Details here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/swift-programming/discussions/DBk-SJO2EeWNbBIwwhtGwQ | you a clue about how the | Quality | check on lecture videos are taken | Negative | -0.9 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor Quality | Poor | Quality | | Negative | -0.94 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The quality of the course is not as I expected from a Coursera course. | The | Quality | of the course is not as | Positive | 0.74 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I am sure if you are familiar with the content or an expert programmer looking for an overview of a new language then this would be perfect but you do need to understand swift before starting this introduction to swift. The lessons felt very unstructured, unplanned and ad hoc almost like the people presenting didn't know they were being recorded, this meant that the examples given were contrived without consideration to the suitability to present the concept succinctly and would require anyone but an existing swift programmer needing to carry out additional reading which rather defeats the purpose of an "introduction to..." course. A little scripting and lesson planning and preparation of content would have made the difference between this excellently produced and edited course being awkward and an effort to attend into a really useful reference for beginers of swift programming. To summarise, the obviously expert technical knowledge of the speakers and the quality of the editing are let down by rushed lesson content. | knowledge of the speakers and the | Quality | of the editing are let down | Positive | 0.64 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Quality and length of material is mediocre. | | Quality | and length of material is mediocre. | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor video quality, weak, ad hoc examples, not well thought flow. Seems like tutors have not spent time on proper preparation. Free courses on iTunesU (especially those by Stanford University) are far more better. | Poor video | Quality | weak, ad hoc examples, not well | Negative | -0.97 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | No stars for this course, 3 modules I did, and I think is not a valuable course, gives a bad introduction to the language, there are inconsistencies in the theory and knowledge of the language. The preparation of the course is poor, there is no direction, a lot of errors using playground and the instructors hesitate and doubt all the time during the recording of the screen. That's not good point for the prestigious University of Toronto and Coursera. One star for the review is too much, no preparation, lack of security, bad quality. | no preparation, lack of security, bad | Quality | | Negative | -0.98 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I wish I had paid closer attention to the refund policy. The production quality and content did not meet my expectations. | to the refund policy. The production | Quality | and content did not meet my | Negative | -0.78 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Sadly, this course is NOT an Introduction to Swift Programming. As a beginner I found this course was not structured and I was confused about the correct steps to take in order to start programming in Swift. No doubt that these guys are knowledgable but they do not plan the course or teach in a linear fashion. Furthermore the sound and video quality is poor and I have decided to quit this course after the first week and a half. | fashion. Furthermore the sound and video | Quality | is poor and I have decided | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | A resource if your starting with Swift. Video quality is often poor. Examples are a bit too contrived. Generally, presentations should be better prepared, too much figuring things out during the video. Good choice of project for the practical.Many interesting coding practice tidbits along the way but needs polish. | if your starting with Swift. Video | Quality | is often poor. Examples are a | Negative | -0.77 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Bad audio quality Poor presentation Not for professional developers (perhaps can be fine for beginners) | Bad audio | Quality | Poor presentation Not for professional developers | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The material is OK, the video quality is regular and the instructors are childish. I prefer the Android specialization where the instructors are more mature and professional. | The material is OK, the video | Quality | is regular and the instructors are | Negative | -0.99 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I am dropping the course. Suggestions 1) One person talk to the audience...rather than 2 or 3 talking to each other 2) Volume and pic quality poor 3) Its going too slowly.....just not enough "meat" to get me engaged...esp if u compare to the course by Paul Hegarty Stanford | each other 2) Volume and pic | Quality | poor 3) Its going too slowly. | Negative | -0.71 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Very thought provoking course. The online content was well presented, and the supporting reading was highly quality, relevant material that expanded my knowledge on this subject and I am sure it will be really helpful in improving my future research projects and planning. Highly recommended. | and the supporting reading was highly | Quality | relevant material that expanded my knowledge | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.22 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | This course is nicely organized and has manageable readings & videos. The video quality could be better. It's very very basic information about research. It might be useful to someone who does not know anything about it at all. The title might lead one to expect that methods of research such as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method would be explored. Rather, this course is a general overview of what research is. | manageable readings & videos. The video | Quality | could be better. It's very very | Negative | -0.78 | -0.5 | 1.01 | 1.22 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | High quality content. Congratulations to the team! | High | Quality | content. Congratulations to the team! | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.22 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | This course dedicates an entire week to very simple topics. The lectures could use some serious editing too. To help you understand what I expect, I'm taking this at the same time as I'm taking Wharton's Week 1 Entrepreneurship program. I've also taken Wharton's Intro to Marketing course which I highly suggest over this course. The quality is dramatically better. Getting Started: Agile Meets Design Thinking is a University of Virginia course that also is a great example of how these courses should be done. I'm hoping the next courses in the Digital Marketing Capstone are much better so that I'm not watching a lecture and counting how many times the professor pushes his glasses back up. On the plus side, I did like the engagement this course encourages by forcing you to go to other websites & accomplish things as well as review your peers work. I wish your peer reviews had less of an outcome on your grade though. In my experience, many people did not even read the instructions on how to review the assignments. | highly suggest over this course. The | Quality | is dramatically better. Getting Started: Agile | Positive | 0.69 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 1.24 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Very educational course. This was my first MOOC course, and my first actual course on Coursera, and I'm impressed by the quality and programming. I've been in digital marketing for more than a decade, and I still learned important information about this field. | Coursera, and I'm impressed by the | Quality | and programming. I've been in digital | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.24 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | High quality and great insights | High | Quality | and great insights | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.24 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Well prepared videos from quality side. Content is nice. Gave a lot of new insights. Professor is great | Well prepared videos from | Quality | side. Content is nice. Gave a | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.24 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Loved the content. The instructor was great. The assignments were interesting and beneficial. I feel like I learnt a lot. The only aspect I didn't like was the "view from the quad" section. I quality wasn't great, and I didn't learn any new insights. Plus they always had the same 4 people they were interviewing so not a great sample size. | view from the quad" section. I | Quality | wasn't great, and I didn't learn | Negative | -0.99 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.24 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Excellent material with high quality quizzes. Highly recommended. | Excellent material with high | Quality | quizzes. Highly recommended. | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.25 | 1.26 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Low quality slides. Monotone lecturing style. | Low | Quality | slides. Monotone lecturing style. | Negative | -0.99 | -0.5 | 1.25 | 1.26 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course developed by Andrew Ng is quite interesting, going to the essentials in order student get the big picture and the essential tools for building the backbone of future ML applications. Of course, being confident with mathematics principles and notations will be helpful but most of the time, it's not an issue if you have the minimal knowledge. What it lacks on Coursera is the next stage of this course where we could investigate further the technologies presented but in more technical way. Maybe we might see that in the future... Regarding course supports (videos, forums ...), they are of good quality and the fact Andrew used them by drawing on slides helps to have a better understanding. We could notice that there are few minor errors (eg: a "j" index which becomes "i" in J(theta) writing) and I think the technical slides on Back propagation could be improved if a dedicated slide to used mathematical notations / definitions. Sometimes, there are some errors which could induce some confusions. But these minors errors don't hide the impressive work done by Andrew. Regarding assessments, quizzes could be tricky if you don't got the "spirit" (not an exam habit in France) and coding exercises are well structured in order the student will focus on the core modules of the lesson and not on information flow. These exercises are inspiring if you're interesting in teaching and inspiring for Data Scientist Apprentices if you investigate the utils functions developed to support the exercise. Many thanks for this great course and I hope my two cents will help other people to attend it Bruno | . ), they are of good | Quality | and the fact Andrew used them | Positive | 0.65 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Hi, I appreciate this course and the efforts put into it. However, I am unlikely to focus on it or be as much engaged as I'd hope to due to sound quality in your videos. I am really sorry for rating this course 4 stars. I hope that you'd recored your videos with a better microphone so I could enjoy listening to you and be more engaged in the course. I hope that you understand that it is hard to take a course with a bad sound quality, especially, that there is no excuse not to upgrade the microphone. Nowadays, almost everyone is using a respectably good microphone to recored videos. I believe if you use a better microphone many students would be more engaged and willing to take your course. My opinion might change after finishing this course but I don't think I'd be finishing this course anytime soon or at least on time before the next session because of the sound quality. Best regards, | I'd hope to due to sound | Quality | in your videos. I am really | Negative | -0.71 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Hi, I appreciate this course and the efforts put into it. However, I am unlikely to focus on it or be as much engaged as I'd hope to due to sound quality in your videos. I am really sorry for rating this course 4 stars. I hope that you'd recored your videos with a better microphone so I could enjoy listening to you and be more engaged in the course. I hope that you understand that it is hard to take a course with a bad sound quality, especially, that there is no excuse not to upgrade the microphone. Nowadays, almost everyone is using a respectably good microphone to recored videos. I believe if you use a better microphone many students would be more engaged and willing to take your course. My opinion might change after finishing this course but I don't think I'd be finishing this course anytime soon or at least on time before the next session because of the sound quality. Best regards, | a course with a bad sound | Quality | especially, that there is no excuse | Negative | -1.0 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Hi, I appreciate this course and the efforts put into it. However, I am unlikely to focus on it or be as much engaged as I'd hope to due to sound quality in your videos. I am really sorry for rating this course 4 stars. I hope that you'd recored your videos with a better microphone so I could enjoy listening to you and be more engaged in the course. I hope that you understand that it is hard to take a course with a bad sound quality, especially, that there is no excuse not to upgrade the microphone. Nowadays, almost everyone is using a respectably good microphone to recored videos. I believe if you use a better microphone many students would be more engaged and willing to take your course. My opinion might change after finishing this course but I don't think I'd be finishing this course anytime soon or at least on time before the next session because of the sound quality. Best regards, | next session because of the sound | Quality | Best regards, | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | great lessons, with very explained material. the major downside for this course is the terrible sound quality, it just can't be heard with regular speakers, you have to hear it with earspeakers, and it still not that great. | this course is the terrible sound | Quality | it just can't be heard with | Negative | -1.0 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | After completing the Machine Learning Course and after going through all of these videos and assignments, now I can say that I have learnt a lot from this course and content of the course have good quality and helps you expertise this field. Thanks a ton Prof. Andrew NG. | content of the course have good | Quality | and helps you expertise this field. | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is acourse with a very high quality. Insights shared by the teacher and those programming homeworks are the most valuable part for me. There is relatively less material from theoretical aspect, but it's still good. (I use PRML as a complementary resource.) | is acourse with a very high | Quality | Insights shared by the teacher and | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Prof Andew Ng explains concepts and algorithms in a clear way. I'm impressed with the quality of the programming assignments , which was very thoughtful and instructive. | clear way. I'm impressed with the | Quality | of the programming assignments , which | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | One of the best mooc that I have taken till date. Thanks a lot for Andrew Ng and team to make this high quality class accessible to everyone. Learnt a great deal from the lecture videos, assignments, quiz, tutorials & test cases. I highly recommend to people who are just starting to explore ML for learning or to make a career out of it. Thanks again Andrew Ng, Team and Coursera | and team to make this high | Quality | class accessible to everyone. Learnt a | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Despite I guess the course has a pretty good coverage of the ML basics, it is definitely just an introductive class. In particular I was surprised by the low quality of the material. The following are my notes and suggestions: -- I found the lectures highly redundant, with many unnecessary repetitions -- using a vector notation (like an arrow or a simple line on top of the letters) throughout the course would have make formulas much more readable -- too much hand writing on the slides while talking: a better set of slides with blocks of text shown at the right moment would be much smoother and readable -- very, very poor video editing (many times it's clear some parts of the videos were meant to be cut!!) -- the desire to create a format suitable for people with a scarce algebra preparation lead to use not the appropriate terminology, which would be more correct and easier to understand. Just realize that ML is basically applied math, and without a good math knowledge it is almost pointless to approach the subject | I was surprised by the low | Quality | of the material. The following are | Negative | -0.85 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Way of teaching, quality of examples is one of the Best. | Way of teaching, | Quality | of examples is one of the | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The instructor Andrew Ng has put in lot of effort to explain the fundamentals and then the coding assignments take it to the next level. Video length and quality is optimum. Discussion forums are very useful whenever I get stuck with a technical or course related problem. | the next level. Video length and | Quality | is optimum. Discussion forums are very | Positive | 0.65 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course with great quality assignments from a credible and reputed expert in the field. | Great course with great | Quality | assignments from a credible and reputed | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course is very good,throgh taking this course,I have a general picture about machine learning .But ,there still exsists several problems,for example,the quality of the videos are low,and I am really looking forward to new version of the course. | exsists several problems, for example, the | Quality | of the videos are low, and | Negative | -0.69 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The quality of this course is really astonishing. Never in my life had I though that it was possible to get University-Level courses taught by experts not only in such nice format and delivered by an amazing platform like Coursera but also for free (If you don't want to get a certificate). The course on only goes into detail about the math behind machine learning but the instructor (Andrew Ng) also makes hard concepts easy to understand, which is critical in order to apply them later on at the course as it also shows you how to apply what you have learnt. | The | Quality | of this course is really astonishing. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course both with quality content and teaching. Loved the way Prof NG taught this class. Really happy to complete this course. | Excellent course both with | Quality | content and teaching. Loved the way | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It's really impressive that Andrew Ng created this course, which (I believe) was the original Coursera course. And, at the halfway point I am finding it somewhat useful. However, I've been doing the University of Washington Machine Learning Specialization in tandem and I much prefer that course. The videos are clearer, both in terms of audio quality and presentation, and I am able to seamlessly transition from lectures to quiz/homework, whereas with this Stanford course I sometimes find that the lectures do not prepare me for the homework. That may also be because I had not used Matlab prior to this course, but am very fluent in python, which is used in the UW course. Finally, the notation used in the lectures can be quite confusing for me at times. UPDATE: I am now finishing the last week of the course, and I increased my rating to 4 stars. The course got easier and more fun after the halfway point. If you are struggling through the early weeks, I encourage you to stick with it, as it pays off later on. | clearer, both in terms of audio | Quality | and presentation, and I am able | Positive | 0.84 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Good quality, Andrew NG is all the best. | Good | Quality | Andrew NG is all the best. | Positive | 0.89 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It was really an excellent course. It was challenging but feasable with a huge quantity & quality of knowledges. I have learned a lot of things about Machine Learning. Thanks a lot, Mr Andrew Ng | feasable with a huge quantity & | Quality | of knowledges. I have learned a | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Wonder Prof. and coherent informative material, the only minor issue is the bad sound quality, other than that it is excellent and recommended for everyone passionate about the field of Machine Learning. | minor issue is the bad sound | Quality | other than that it is excellent | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I have been really impressed with the quality of this course. The subject of the lecures is undoubtedly fascinating, while the teacher, Andrew Ng, is able to introduce even the most complex topics with clarity and effectiveness. The weekly workload is reasonable and carefully planned, as the difficulty of assignments and tests. Many thanks for making this course available! | have been really impressed with the | Quality | of this course. The subject of | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I saw the date of recording and it was 2011 but boy are these videos great! I am on Week 3 but already know that the quality is top notch. At no point of time would you wonder how to do this extra thing. Prof. Andrew covers everything from statistics to MATLAB/OCTAVE tutorial. Really worthy course. | 3 but already know that the | Quality | is top notch. At no point | Negative | -0.98 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good introduction to machine learning. The only issue I have is quality of video materials which is rather low mostly due to bad mic used. | The only issue I have is | Quality | of video materials which is rather | Negative | -0.82 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Low quality video and audio | Low | Quality | video and audio | Negative | -0.97 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Sound quality could be improved in video. It kind of curbs the understanding of what the teacher is saying :/ Otherwise everything's great! | Sound | Quality | could be improved in video. It | Negative | -0.86 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I'll only mentions things I didn't like: sound/video quality is poor, lack of lecture notes. | mentions things I didn't like: sound/video | Quality | is poor, lack of lecture notes. | Negative | -0.99 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Judging by my three weeks' study, this course is surely high quality and helpful. Hope to learn more from Professor Ng in the following weeks. Five stars! | study, this course is surely high | Quality | and helpful. Hope to learn more | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Highly recommended. Quality lectures, each one with programming assignments which leave you with usable opensource code, with appropriate tutorials for those assignments and adequate test-cases. Well worth the time invested. | Highly recommended. | Quality | lectures, each one with programming assignments | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | High quality content, learned a lot about ML | High | Quality | content, learned a lot about ML | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course content was excellent. Only drawback was voice recording quality. | excellent. Only drawback was voice recording | Quality | | Positive | 0.93 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Quality lessons, good course if you want to start in machine learning. | | Quality | lessons, good course if you want | Negative | -0.84 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Course is designed perfectly and it covers almost everything about supervised and unsupervised learning. Video quality is awesome and examples given are sufficient. Hope to see RStudio codes also in future. Regards, Ritesh Jain | about supervised and unsupervised learning. Video | Quality | is awesome and examples given are | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course. At the beginning, the of this course, I just want to learn something about neural network, but then I was fully attracted by this course. My major is biology but Andrew successfully makes me understand every point here. It is logical and understandable. It does not mean that it is an easy course, but reflects the elaborate work and deep understanding of Andrew. Now previous hard fields like computational biology and bioinformatics became quite easy to me.I can easily find out the algorithms they apply and know their shortages. If only I can know machine learning several years ago! The course covers the underlying mathematical analysis of several famous algorithms like neural network, SVM, PCA and recommendation system. It contains clear instructions to answer 'what', 'why' and 'how' levels of them, and to their actual applications and limits including the workflow to check the quality of my product. It is magic to realize that the advanced technologies like face recognition and auto-driving are just built by such basic blocks. Learners can have a solid understanding of the different fields in machining learning, and decide whether or not to go further. I proceeded to learn probabilistic graphic model, and hopefully it might be my key figure in my research paper on interfering casual relationship and influence of protein interaction during neural stem cell differentiation | including the workflow to check the | Quality | of my product. It is magic | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Lots of great condensed content. I miss a written summary of the videos though. Furthermore, the quality of sound is awful. Well designed quizzes and assignments. Good: In-video quizzes. | of the videos though. Furthermore, the | Quality | of sound is awful. Well designed | Negative | -0.99 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good. Only negative bit is the sound quality of the videos. | Only negative bit is the sound | Quality | of the videos. | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Can't thank enough for offering through this course ! The pace of lessons, insights, brevity of course material and very valuable assignments are right mix for anyone wishing to learn this subject, which one finds often hard to grasp and apply while learning directly from books, even with technical background. This course is an example of how access top quality learning can be democratized and be brought within reach of so many who wish to learn it. Thank again Prof. Ng and team for this enlightenment | an example of how access top | Quality | learning can be democratized and be | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The materials and assignments are of great quality. | materials and assignments are of great | Quality | | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | First of all, this course is a quality product: lectures are clear and effective and exercises are challenging enough. Perhaps the conclusion "now you can consider yourself an expert in machine learning techniques" is a slight exaggeration but, certainly, you are made aware of those techniques enough to think about using them effectively and getting some results. And, as an added bonus, you will learn the basics of Octave/MATLAB, which is not a bad thing since, as stated in the course, they are great prototyping tools. It's certainly a recommended course for whoever deals with data analysis problems, where perhaps a killer machine learning system is not the priority but some solid conclusions about the data are essential. | of all, this course is a | Quality | product: lectures are clear and effective | Positive | 0.89 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good material but sound quality of videos is bad, could use his own machine learning techniques to improve the sound, also no literature which is bad. | good material but sound | Quality | of videos is bad, could use | Negative | -0.99 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Truly amazing quality of study that everyone can get from Coursera. Machine Learning topic got very well explained by the Instructor & He is obviously mastering this topic in all dimensions. I am benefited with enormous confidence into Machine learning topics which I would enhance further with practical experience in my field of study. | Truly amazing | Quality | of study that everyone can get | Positive | 0.83 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Wonderful course! Sound quality requires revision, but content is supreme. | Wonderful course! Sound | Quality | requires revision, but content is supreme. | Positive | 0.81 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The topic is interesting, the course content is presented clearly, and the lectures are informative. While the assignments can be challenging, they really help to reenforce the lessons. From what I gather, the class was recently moved over from an older Coursera model/design. This is frustratingly apparent at times. Some information can be difficult to find, particularly in the Discussion section. I would love to see this class updated to match the quality of some more recent classes I have taken. | this class updated to match the | Quality | of some more recent classes I | Positive | 0.66 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent, informative and fun introduction to machine learning. The programming assignments are carefully designed to incrementally ramp up the difficulty and the nuances of Octave/Matlab relevant to the assignments are explained beforehand. The quality is truly impressive, although I wish there was a little more mathematical depth to some of the lectures. Many derivations and details of linear algebra were kind of glossed over but I understand that there's a lot to cover in a fairly short period of time so it is understandable (and most people probably don't mind it anyway). This is one of the few courses that really keeps me motivated to complete all assignments. Thank you, Prof. Ng. | the assignments are explained beforehand. The | Quality | is truly impressive, although I wish | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Some mistakes on the slides but they are all corrected in the forums. High quality and insightful. | all corrected in the forums. High | Quality | and insightful. | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course. Concepts were explained very well and the hands on exercises helped to gain confidence in implementing some of the algorithms. This course is simply magical in transforming a person who is new to machine learning into an expert. I have already started applying machine learning techniques in real life problems. Thanks to Stanford University and Mr. Andrew for providing such high quality content. | Mr. Andrew for providing such high | Quality | content. | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | High quality human learning :-). Priceless practical advises, wide range of topics, well designed assignments. Highly recommended. | High | Quality | human learning :-). Priceless practical advises, | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Exciting course! Astonishing work to develop all videos and prepared files and guidelines for programming exercices. Andrew Ng make concepts very accessible and very illustrated. The real life exercices immediately give ideas of implementations. We have quickly hands-on thanks to exercices. The diversity of covered fields through the examples taken is quite impressive and useful. I found the difficulty of exercices very subtly tuned to develop really interesting tools thanks to the pre-written codes. These codes also give opportunities to exploit further Octave/Matlab capabilities. I deeply thank the team for granting us access to a such high quality content. | us access to a such high | Quality | content. | Positive | 0.89 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Content of the course was great! Sound quality is a bit lower, but you'll get used to it | of the course was great! Sound | Quality | is a bit lower, but you'll | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Absolutely top quality course - well done Andrew Ng! | Absolutely top | Quality | course - well done Andrew Ng! | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was fantastic. A glimpse of how good quality education could be brought to the millions of people around the world who otherwise would be capable but were not lucky enough to be born in the right place and/or with enough resources to afford world class education. | fantastic. A glimpse of how good | Quality | education could be brought to the | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.23 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The learning process is a complete experience, full of knowledge, good videos and excellent teachers. I think is a 5 stars quality course, because of the amount of tools teachers give. Each one special and necessary. Graphic Design is about making our soul, heart and brain work together. I believe this course is a great way to get this team to complete our expectations. | I think is a 5 stars | Quality | course, because of the amount of | Negative | -0.77 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.27 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Great course! High quality. Good peer review | Great course! High | Quality | Good peer review | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.27 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Fantastic. Amazing quality of teaching, must be one of the top courses. | Fantastic. Amazing | Quality | of teaching, must be one of | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.27 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | The presenter is very confident and extremely passionate about what she is discussing. I have had a change of heart about how to take care of my child's diet. Usually the video presentations are great, very high quality, my only niggle is that sometimes the black screen PPTs go on for a bit too long, and can be repetitive. Overall a very good course. | video presentations are great, very high | Quality | my only niggle is that sometimes | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 0.51 | 1.28 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Excellently done. Easy to follow and well organized. I learned a lot! It was a pleasure to see the professor so excited and passionate about the subject and about her family. I love the plurality of the subtitles. Surprised and pleased by the quality of them (korean is the only one I can vouch for). | subtitles. Surprised and pleased by the | Quality | of them (korean is the only | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.28 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Thank you so much for such a great course Mrs.Adam! Being a mom of a little child is much easier now, at least at the kitchen! Now I can say that quality of the foods I buy will be higher and the quantity of the red meat we eat will be managed. Wish you success in your future project and health and happiness to your family! Best regards, N.U. Kurchakova | kitchen! Now I can say that | Quality | of the foods I buy will | Negative | -0.76 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.28 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Interesting class with great practical tips. The instructor encourages eating only the highest quality food, but is also realistic about what her audience will be able to obtain. The recipes make healthy cooking less intimidating. | instructor encourages eating only the highest | Quality | food, but is also realistic about | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.28 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Very very interesting, and practical in home cooking for working mothers, , give important tips of nutrition about mixing food o all types, speaking of technical issues, video is very good quality, the teacher is clear, and production is very attractive and well created. | technical issues, video is very good | Quality | the teacher is clear, and production | Positive | 0.89 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.28 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Excellent course. The material presented was not difficult to comprehend. I highly recommend this to parents who are in a quandry every night when the question, "what's for dinner?" presents itself. More than the content, I was most impressed by the manner in which the course was taught. Instead of a "talking head" format, the instructor used a variety of techniques to present the material, including teaching the majority of the class from her kitchen, using an interactive "blackboard" to illustrate concepts while she spoke and lots of cooking demonstrations. Kudos to Stanford for producing such high quality content. I have started a lot of Coursera courses and this is the first one that I've been able to complete because the content kept me engaged. | to Stanford for producing such high | Quality | content. I have started a lot | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.51 | 1.28 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | the access to the course and the quality of the material being taught | access to the course and the | Quality | of the material being taught | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | The flash tutorials are helpful. Instructor quality is low, production quality of instructor videos is low. Not on par with the University of Virginia project management course. Pace of course is also extremely slow, though it may be appropriate for novice students. That should be made clear up-front in the course description. | The flash tutorials are helpful. Instructor | Quality | is low, production quality of instructor | Negative | -0.84 | -0.5 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | The flash tutorials are helpful. Instructor quality is low, production quality of instructor videos is low. Not on par with the University of Virginia project management course. Pace of course is also extremely slow, though it may be appropriate for novice students. That should be made clear up-front in the course description. | helpful. Instructor quality is low, production | Quality | of instructor videos is low. Not | Negative | -0.74 | -0.5 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | A fantastic introduction course. It left me craving more, which I think might be the most important quality in an intro-level course. | think might be the most important | Quality | in an intro-level course. | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | ideas. Slides are well designed. Video | Quality | and sound quality is also great. | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | well designed. Video quality and sound | Quality | is also great. You will encounter | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | You will encounter lots of good | Quality | reading materials. Quizzes will help you | Positive | 0.73 | 1.0 | 0.92 | 1.23 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Best in it's Class. Short but so much descriptive with a constant effort to deliver high quality teaching with easy understanding language and concepts! It's highly recommended to those who are new to Data Science, and want to make their Base strong( like me) | a constant effort to deliver high | Quality | teaching with easy understanding language and | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | most part of this course is a duplicate of the "R programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher quality is very bad. not original, boring, dividing this in "4 weeks" is too ridiculously long, this should be done in 1 week to enable users to take more time for the "R programming". this course should be free. don't lose too much time on it, it's doable in a day or a weekend and move on to "R programming". asking for so much money to see how to install R and github is a shame. feels like this course has been added just to have a round number for the specialization. even the survey in the end asking for feedback starts with a question not adapted to moment it's been asked "did you get a certificate?" of course i did not as i've just finish the course and now wait for my peers to review my final submission. | programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher | Quality | is very bad. not original, boring, | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Clean and simple to understand. Hope the rest of the courses in the series are of similar quality. | in the series are of similar | Quality | | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Really poor quality of the material. | Really poor | Quality | of the material. | Negative | -1.0 | -0.5 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Highest quality MOOC I've taken yet. | Highest | Quality | MOOC I've taken yet. | Positive | 0.72 | 1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | A good course with high quality information and good presenters. | A good course with high | Quality | information and good presenters. | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Although the content is correct, quality models videos and materials is very low, wanted to make all the specialization, but I'm not satisfied with the quality of the course. It's a shame, because the JHU is an excellent University | Although the content is correct, | Quality | models videos and materials is very | Positive | 0.86 | -1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Although the content is correct, quality models videos and materials is very low, wanted to make all the specialization, but I'm not satisfied with the quality of the course. It's a shame, because the JHU is an excellent University | but I'm not satisfied with the | Quality | of the course. It's a shame, | Negative | -0.82 | -1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Excellent introduction to Data Science topics. The course material and the hands-on project assignments speak for high quality professors. | hands-on project assignments speak for high | Quality | professors. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.24 | 1.29 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | High quality course that challenging, but not too demanding. The course uses relevant cases and really makes you think about strategy implementation. | High | Quality | course that challenging, but not too | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 1.02 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Video quality had some issues. | Video | Quality | had some issues. | Negative | -0.69 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 1.02 |
| K28H5jJ0EeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | A lot of work writing but the quality of instruction is excellent. | lot of work writing but the | Quality | of instruction is excellent. | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 1.24 | 1.25 |
| K28H5jJ0EeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | Such a boring course. No challenge at all, no meaningful example, and in the end seems that everybody grade without any reason. I don't think I'll finish the specialization, it's too expensive for such a poor quality | too expensive for such a poor | Quality | | Negative | -0.99 | -0.5 | 1.24 | 1.25 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Good overview of HTML/CSS/Javascript. Nice audio/video quality and preparation. Fun homework assignments and examples. Would have liked more CSS touches. | Good overview of HTML/CSS/Javascript. Nice audio/video | Quality | and preparation. Fun homework assignments and | Positive | 0.69 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | One week shorter than other similar courses but the eLearning lectures are of excellent quality and the assignments do stretch you to learn | the eLearning lectures are of excellent | Quality | and the assignments do stretch you | Positive | 0.93 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | A lot of information, easy to understand, good quality of lectures and interesting practical exercises! Thanks! | of information, easy to understand, good | Quality | of lectures and interesting practical exercises! | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I am totally new in this new HTML language, CSS and Java Script. I like the quality of the information provided in the videos. For a new student like me this is really useful but still, I am not able to cope with the speed of the course. But still, the information is good and I am going to continue until the end. Thanks! | and Java Script. I like the | Quality | of the information provided in the | Negative | -0.66 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Pros: A basic introduction to the 3 core front-end technologies. The Professor has structured the course in a logical and easy to follow progressive format. The presentations are professionally done with quality audio and HD video. (The Professor speaks with a clear proper British accent). If watching online, there are helpful short quizzes built into the videos to make sure people are not skipping ahead. (Not sure if these 'video quizzes are graded, but I think they are helpful) Cons: The projects are helpful to reinforce logic and programming concepts, however, they are not real world and may be too simple to be of real value. One will need supplemental resources to fill in the gaps for the projects. I would have liked a real world example, even if it was beyond the scope of the course. | The presentations are professionally done with | Quality | audio and HD video. (The Professor | Negative | -0.87 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Bad teaching quality. | Bad teaching | Quality | | Negative | -0.77 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 1.2 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Excellent quality, loved the quizzes and graded assignments, completely worth the time and money! Highly recommend! | Excellent | Quality | loved the quizzes and graded assignments, | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 1.2 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | professional researchers. But the marketplace for | Quality | online education is definitely becoming a | Positive | 0.9 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 1.2 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I finished the first session of Master Algorithmic Programming Techniques, the Algorithmic Toolbox course. This is an amazing course. To review why this course (and series) is awesome: 1) 25 + programming assignments, ranging from easy to advanced. 2) Unlike many other CS courses, this course allows multiple programming languages. You have choices of C C++, Java, Python2, Python3. They may add more to the list :). 3) Super active forum, the learners come here to debate approaches and share knowledge a lot. There were so many times I'm convinced my algorithm can't be optimized anymore, then another guy came in with another genius idea. 4) Plus, the instructor, Mr. Alex S. Kulikov is a super nice guy, he made 300+ forum posts in the first session alone, to guide learners thoroughly.Comprehensive grader: grades you on correctness, time use, memory use. You have no choice but to optimize all 3 aspects to pass. This course has premium access. However, both the quality and quantity are well worth the price. You can read other learners' comments and many agree with this. | has premium access. However, both the | Quality | and quantity are well worth the | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 1.2 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Very good quality! | Very good | Quality | | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 1.2 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is a solid course. The videos are a bit low quality, and the API's used are sorta derpy, but the content is good. | The videos are a bit low | Quality | and the API's used are sorta | Negative | -0.65 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Love this course, the quality of this course is far beyond to what my current online master degree offers. | Love this course, the | Quality | of this course is far beyond | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.01 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Seems like the quality of this specialization goes down with every course. The instructor is not showing us the way we should think about developing programs in NodeJS, but he insists on using PowerPoint slides to show us how to code! It's 2016, and there are way better mediums for communicating with your students. Simply copying and pasting code and explaining what every line does is not the right way of teaching any concept, especially when you are dealing with a new technology. For the start, the instructor can actually type the code and explain what goes through his mind during each step. That way anyone can follow his problem solving methods and benefit from the course. I had to take other online courses on Code School and Pluralsight just to understand what's going on, and later come back to finish the homework. | Seems like the | Quality | of this specialization goes down with | Negative | -0.83 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 0.9 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great contents as the rest of the courses in the specialization. I'm afraid I need to be a little bit critical with this one though: 1) The contents are really jammed into 4 weeks - The last week's contents are actually some kind of miscellany between mongoose, https, authentication and BaaS 2) Not a single quiz or self-evaluation of sorts along the course - To be completely fair, the exercises shown along the way might make up for it. Still, I think it's important to spread some quizes around so as to make absorb the concepts more effectively 3) The quality of the presentations is somewhat lower than other courses. There's even a video towards the end of the course where a Linkedin notification springs up on top, which even makes the presenter pause for a few seconds. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this course and definitely appreciate the effort put into it - Given the newly introduced Coursera fees, I'd expect much more quality in place to make it 70 buck-worth, though | the concepts more effectively 3) The | Quality | of the presentations is somewhat lower | Positive | 0.66 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.9 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great contents as the rest of the courses in the specialization. I'm afraid I need to be a little bit critical with this one though: 1) The contents are really jammed into 4 weeks - The last week's contents are actually some kind of miscellany between mongoose, https, authentication and BaaS 2) Not a single quiz or self-evaluation of sorts along the course - To be completely fair, the exercises shown along the way might make up for it. Still, I think it's important to spread some quizes around so as to make absorb the concepts more effectively 3) The quality of the presentations is somewhat lower than other courses. There's even a video towards the end of the course where a Linkedin notification springs up on top, which even makes the presenter pause for a few seconds. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this course and definitely appreciate the effort put into it - Given the newly introduced Coursera fees, I'd expect much more quality in place to make it 70 buck-worth, though | Coursera fees, I'd expect much more | Quality | in place to make it 70 | Negative | -0.76 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.9 |
| NpTR4zVwEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | As usual for this specs - a very high quality course. | this specs - a very high | Quality | course. | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.05 |
| NpTR4zVwEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | One of the best coursers I have seen on Coursera so far. The video production quality, course structure and content is extra ordinary compared to other courses that I've seen so far. | Coursera so far. The video production | Quality | course structure and content is extra | Negative | -0.76 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.05 |
| NpTR4zVwEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | I am Krishna Kant Kumar, working as a software quality analyst. Through this course, I learnt, how to estimate an iteration or doing an estimation of project. | Kant Kumar, working as a software | Quality | analyst. Through this course, I learnt, | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.05 |
| Nyq7nXzPEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Thank you very much Mr. White and team. The course is a really jewel. Mr White broadly shows different pathways and amplitudes about our brain and it composition in many aspects: biologic, anatomic, physiologic, cognitive. Indeed it is a complete and unique class. Also Mr White teach all this complex stuff with extraordinary quality in different scenarios: lab, room, his house, in a forest, unfolding new approaches. However the quizzes are very very hard and detailed but they inspire our study. Best regards from Brasil, and thank you again, Mr White, his team and Coursera. | all this complex stuff with extraordinary | Quality | in different scenarios: lab, room, his | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 1.38 | 1.38 |
| Nyq7nXzPEeWb-BLhFdaGww | 13 weeks long? This is basically his class syllabus transferred to a MOOC! The first video was a ridiculous waste of my time. The videography was totally unprofessional. Shaky camera, this long walk and football kicking with a brain on the football field??? The audio is horrible... use a mic. I signed up for a neuro course, not an advertisement of the campus. This guy needed an Instructional Designer to help him condense and build this course into something digestible. This is MOOC, not a college course. I am horribly disappointed at the quality. I needed an overview of the main components of Neuro Medical Science. | I am horribly disappointed at the | Quality | I needed an overview of the | Negative | -0.93 | -1.0 | 1.38 | 1.38 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | I believe the quality of the course is above average. But I have to admit that it can hardly be called a great course, in that the content of the course seems to be loose, inconsistent and sorta unorganized. Martin is no wonder one of the greatest computer scientists in the world, but there is still a long way to go before his course can match his ability as computer scientist. Many thanks for Martin anyway for his great contribution to the world, hope your course will keep growing as Scala does! | I believe the | Quality | of the course is above average. | Positive | 0.91 | 0.0 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | This course is a re-hash of both the excellent "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" and the mediocre "Principles of Reactive Programming in Scala". Unfortunately, in quality it's closer to the latter: mixed quality, lectures that seem unrelated to their corresponding assignments, many errors (both typos and, more seriously, examples that don't type-check!) and a general lack of an in-depth motivation for the principles. Staff participation in my run of the course (2016) was disappointingly low; in some cases there was no response at all to students pointing out glaring errors in the lectures. It's very noticeable that this course is a patchwork of previous courses. In same cases the video lectures even display the wrong title for the course, or mention lectures that no longer exist in this version of the course! The course has interesting parts (I was especially thrilled when I saw there were lectures about FRP), but its quality is way below "Functional Programming Principles in Scala". I'm disappointed. To make this review constructive, my recommendations: 1- Pay attention to quality. Make sure all examples compile and type-check. 2- Make sure you're not repeating content already in other courses, especially if they are part of the same specialization! 3- If you're going to re-use content from other contents, make sure it fits the current course. Do not mention lectures not in the course. | it's closer to the latter: mixed | Quality | lectures that seem unrelated to their | Positive | 0.81 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | This course is a re-hash of both the excellent "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" and the mediocre "Principles of Reactive Programming in Scala". Unfortunately, in quality it's closer to the latter: mixed quality, lectures that seem unrelated to their corresponding assignments, many errors (both typos and, more seriously, examples that don't type-check!) and a general lack of an in-depth motivation for the principles. Staff participation in my run of the course (2016) was disappointingly low; in some cases there was no response at all to students pointing out glaring errors in the lectures. It's very noticeable that this course is a patchwork of previous courses. In same cases the video lectures even display the wrong title for the course, or mention lectures that no longer exist in this version of the course! The course has interesting parts (I was especially thrilled when I saw there were lectures about FRP), but its quality is way below "Functional Programming Principles in Scala". I'm disappointed. To make this review constructive, my recommendations: 1- Pay attention to quality. Make sure all examples compile and type-check. 2- Make sure you're not repeating content already in other courses, especially if they are part of the same specialization! 3- If you're going to re-use content from other contents, make sure it fits the current course. Do not mention lectures not in the course. | were lectures about FRP), but its | Quality | is way below " Functional Programming | Negative | -0.84 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | The content is excellent (as always), however the form leaves a bit to be desired. The video quality kept reverting to "low", and even on "high", the resolution was nothing to be proud of in 2016 (or at any time during this century). Also, the instructors appeared to make references to lectures that are not a part of this edition of the course. But these are small issues – the course is definitely worth taking, small imperfections or not. | bit to be desired. The video | Quality | kept reverting to " low" , | Negative | -0.76 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I will recommend everyone to spend some quality time with Dr. Raj to discover happiness inside you. | will recommend everyone to spend some | Quality | time with Dr. Raj to discover | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | In addition of the very relevant content, all the materials and videos are of very high quality. Além do tema ser muito relevante, todo o material e os vídeos são de alta qualidade. | and videos are of very high | Quality | Além do tema ser muito relevante, | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Good fun & very thought-provoking. Deductions for sometimes lousy sound quality of videos and inane placing of quizzes. | thought-provoking. Deductions for sometimes lousy sound | Quality | of videos and inane placing of | Negative | -0.97 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | A must! I'm sure EVERYBODY can benefit inmensly from taking this course! Excellent content, excellent quality, excellent proffesor! | taking this course! Excellent content, excellent | Quality | excellent proffesor! | Positive | 0.83 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Great for everyone! I recomend! This course will definitly improve que quality of your life! | This course will definitly improve que | Quality | of your life! | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I thoroughly enjoyed this course. I am using the information in it to improve my life. I shared its teachings with friends and family, out of the belief that it is valuable information which will improve their quality of life. | valuable information which will improve their | Quality | of life. | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I am just mid-way through this course but I really can't stop myself from writing this review now, before I even finish it! Definitely it is the best course I have personally taken, despite the large number of courses I have experienced, some of them of excellent quality, in Coursera and elsewhere. Here we have a charismatic professor giving a great teaching performance, offering a vast amount of knowledge, a wealth of positive motivation and a big lesson for life! Obviously there is huge effort and hard work behind these exemplary video lectures. I would give it a 6/5 if I could.. | experienced, some of them of excellent | Quality | in Coursera and elsewhere. Here we | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | This is just a poor sample of a course. Very few material, low quality assignments and grading. | a course. Very few material, low | Quality | assignments and grading. | Negative | -0.96 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The contents and quality of the video lectures are great. The quality of the supplementary materials (like the quizzes and the Matlab code) provided by TAs for the assignments are very poor. The assignment guides are written with very poor grammar. The Matlab code is written using the worst coding and documenting practices. The automatic evaluation system (the system for grade the submissions), doest't provide useful feedback. As people can read in the course discussion forums, students have been asking for months for improvements to the grading systems. | The contents and | Quality | of the video lectures are great. | Positive | 0.76 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The contents and quality of the video lectures are great. The quality of the supplementary materials (like the quizzes and the Matlab code) provided by TAs for the assignments are very poor. The assignment guides are written with very poor grammar. The Matlab code is written using the worst coding and documenting practices. The automatic evaluation system (the system for grade the submissions), doest't provide useful feedback. As people can read in the course discussion forums, students have been asking for months for improvements to the grading systems. | the video lectures are great. The | Quality | of the supplementary materials (like the | Positive | 0.89 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | So I'll start with the positives. The material was appropriate and interesting and well presented. CJ Taylor is an enthusiastic lecturer and the material was presented in an enjoyable easy to understand way and having finished the course, I definitely want to learn more about computational motion planning. The problems I have with this course though are numerous. This is the second part of the Robotics Specialization and compared to the first part, this course was very weak. There was very little lecture material and the course felt thin - as if it were 2 weeks of material stretched over 4. There were many instances where the lectures could have gone in to much more detail and just didn't, I appreciate that you can't cover everything in lectures, but would it have killed you to provide or at least point to some good additional reading resources? The assessments were the worst part. The quizzes barely tested what I had learnt and could mostly be solved by common sense. What I find shocking is that there were so few questions with few multiple choice answer that you could easily brute-force these quizzes if you really wanted to. Compare this to the Aerial Robotics course where the quizzes took time and forced me to think and understand what was discussed in lecture. The programming assignments were shockingly bad. They were hard for completely the wrong reasons. I spent most of my time on them not coding the solution, but trying to figure out what was actually wanted and fixing bugs that were in the provided code that we WEREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO EDIT. The autograder would never tell you why you were wrong, just "I'm sorry, your solution didn't pass all of our test cases." This meant that finding the solution was based on guesswork rather than considered thought. This was made even worse by the fact that some simulations took a long time to run which made iterating guesses very slow - and doing this on a time limit is just pointlessly stressful. One of the assignments had the solution already in the source code as the instructors had forgotten to take it out. The final assignment wouldn't even run out of the box without fixing bugs in the provided code. This would have taken seconds to check had the person who wrote it bothered to check their work beforehand. Thing is, the tasks provided in principle weren't that hard, they were actually kind of too easy. Dijkstra's algorithm isn't that difficult to implement from scratch, and yet all that was asked of us was to implement a small 10 line for-loop. That said, I appreciate that as a software engineer, I might find this sort of thing much easier than most, but even so I don't feel as though the programming assignments helped me learn anything. Overall, regardless of how interesting the material was, this course was very shoddily put together. I appreciate this is the first time the course has been run, but this really felt phoned in and unacceptable. I paid money for this course and the quality of it is notably worse than most free MOOCs I have taken. I feel ripped off and I sincerely hope that the next section is better otherwise I doubt I will bother to continue until the end. I thought Penn University was better than this. | money for this course and the | Quality | of it is notably worse than | Negative | -0.74 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | In this course we will get to know about shortest path algorithm such A*, Dijkstra's, concept of configuration space and path planning in the same, developing Probabilistic road maps and RRT and also a bit about Artificial potenial fields. All the algorithms are neatly explained. The material though very short(in terms of total hours of video lectures) is nicely compiled. The quality of the MATLAB exercises is very good with few issues here and there. We can extract a lot about MATLAB implementation of different simulations by spending time understanding the given code and also implementing missing sections as part of the assignment. Overall, a great course. | video lectures) is nicely compiled. The | Quality | of the MATLAB exercises is very | Positive | 0.79 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | all. In addition, the coded template | Quality | upon which your own code depends | Positive | 0.64 | -1.0 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| 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. | 2 stars is because of the | Quality | of the courses itself. There are | Negative | -0.97 | -0.5 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Poor quality. A disappointing experience. The lectures are very basic, thought for people that have no experience in programming. This might be ok, but the difficulty of assignments should follow; instead, they can be relatively hard; newbie programmers will probably have an extremely hard time solving them, considering that many of the problems they will encounter are not treated at all in the course. The course does not focus enough on what differentiates R from other languages: just a few videos on data types, *apply functions, and a tiny little bit of scoping (very unclear). All these areas should have been expanded, and the course should have had more arguments as well. Finally, the assignments are not enough and their grading system is quite poor: instead of submitting your code and testing it automatically, you should calculate some quantities by hand and select the results out of a few possibilities. All in all, I was disappointed with the course. | Poor | Quality | A disappointing experience. The lectures are | Negative | -0.99 | -0.5 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you are planning to learn R, then go and buy a book. This course is a complete scam. At least don't pay any money. The reasons; 1.) They advertise that you need couple of hours of study per week. That's a lie, you have to study much more than that unless if you know a little R programming. 2.) The quiz questions are totally unrelated from the lessons. They teach you the basic stuff but they expect you to accomplish intermediate quizzes. 3.) The instructor has no idea how to teach. May be he is trying to prove something. I couldn't really understand his motives. If you really want to teach that's simple. You do couple of extra videos and teach whatever you are asking in quizzes, or tell us to read a certain material. He didn't do any of them which means he either doesn't know how to teach or this specialization is a complete scam. 4.) And I don't really understand what coursera is doing by the way? What kind of a business model is this. I was planning to enroll many specializations but now I am not going to do it. So think about how much they are loosing. Where is the quality assurance. Just because one guy comes up to you and say that he teaches this and that do you believe them? MY ADVICE TO YOU: DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS SPECIALIZATION. AND FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE BAD REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | they are loosing. Where is the | Quality | assurance. Just because one guy comes | Negative | -0.95 | -1.0 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Death by power point. If you can learn from essentially listening to a pod cast and reading unix type manual pages, then this course is for you! If you're like the rest of the population, then these lecture videos are useless. The only redeeming quality to this course has been the homework, but you can find them online or come up with them on your own. | videos are useless. The only redeeming | Quality | to this course has been the | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I've seen a general improvement in quality respect to the other about exploratory analysis, nothing else to say! Awesome job! | I've seen a general improvement in | Quality | respect to the other about exploratory | Negative | -0.79 | 1.0 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | A good course with high quality information and good presenters. | A good course with high | Quality | information and good presenters. | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Super satisfied with this course! Lecture videos are top quality, the PDF is available which makes studying and going back to the material more easy. The swirl programming lectures are very well done. I learnt more than I expected, quicker than I thought I would! Thumbs up! | this course! Lecture videos are top | Quality | the PDF is available which makes | Positive | 0.85 | 1.0 | 1.17 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course really helped me to filter out unnecessary and false information and do better quality researches. I always advise this study to people who could merit from it. So far, the best course I have ever done. | and false information and do better | Quality | researches. I always advise this study | Negative | -0.78 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course provided a great experiece of online study. The high quality content of the videos and adequate rithym of assignments and quizzes are features that make it an admirable course. I strongly reccomend doing this course if you are still in doubt. | experiece of online study. The high | Quality | content of the videos and adequate | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The material has a very good quality. The teacher explains the subject very well and the videos are very supportive. The build-up in the course is well-thought and works like a charm, I am excited to continue with the specialization. | The material has a very good | Quality | The teacher explains the subject very | Positive | 0.94 | 0.5 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course is excellent! I found the content of very high quality, the lecture videos are very clear and easy to understand. What I find remarkable however, is the quality of the exams and assignments! The staff have put in a lot of effort in creating questions and assignments which really test your understanding and knowledge with a clever marking system which always works out to give you a fair mark even when the assignments are peer reviewed. Well done to Anne-Marie and the other staff who put together this course :) | found the content of very high | Quality | the lecture videos are very clear | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course is excellent! I found the content of very high quality, the lecture videos are very clear and easy to understand. What I find remarkable however, is the quality of the exams and assignments! The staff have put in a lot of effort in creating questions and assignments which really test your understanding and knowledge with a clever marking system which always works out to give you a fair mark even when the assignments are peer reviewed. Well done to Anne-Marie and the other staff who put together this course :) | I find remarkable however, is the | Quality | of the exams and assignments! The | Positive | 0.83 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I was extremely impressed by this course, its pedagogy, its depth and breadth, the clarity of the lectures, the quality of the material. Well done to all involved. I have signed up for the entire specialization and hope that the rest matches up to this. | the clarity of the lectures, the | Quality | of the material. Well done to | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I had taken 99% of the course last time, but didn't have time to do the assignments or complete it fully. I was pleased to see it was running again. I've followed many many many Courseras and this is by far the highest quality. Well done! What you did right? Illustrations. They perfectly capture the concept without distracting. They are amusing and just-the-right-degree-of-imperfect, which makes the course material feel approachable.The graphic design. The slightly messy, hand-written, crumpled paper background design is perfect. Not pretentious, not overly boring. Just that little touch of individualism and authenticity we need. This is a great way to avoid alienating your students, to keep a connection. Philosophy of science, history of science, research designs, etc. Despite having studied for a BSc, an MSc, and a scientific postgrad, I had to find out about these concepts through on-line courses and podcasts. I was really happy to see these neatly presented to me in a structured way in one spot in the context of a formal Research methods course. When covering these sections, you also did a great job at sticking to the important stuff. I am extremely impressed. In the reality of research, we get sucked in by the nitty gritty and forget about the big picture. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful framework behind the scientific method.You actually bothered spell-checking the transcript, particularly for proper names. I've had Courseras where the transcript seemed more like a onomatopeas than serious text. This is all I remember for now, all that's fresh off my mind, as am just up to week 2 right now, but I wanted to give you all a thumbs up for this great course you've wrapped up. I am seriously considering registering for the entire specialisation because of the quality of this course. | this is by far the highest | Quality | Well done! What you did right? | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I had taken 99% of the course last time, but didn't have time to do the assignments or complete it fully. I was pleased to see it was running again. I've followed many many many Courseras and this is by far the highest quality. Well done! What you did right? Illustrations. They perfectly capture the concept without distracting. They are amusing and just-the-right-degree-of-imperfect, which makes the course material feel approachable.The graphic design. The slightly messy, hand-written, crumpled paper background design is perfect. Not pretentious, not overly boring. Just that little touch of individualism and authenticity we need. This is a great way to avoid alienating your students, to keep a connection. Philosophy of science, history of science, research designs, etc. Despite having studied for a BSc, an MSc, and a scientific postgrad, I had to find out about these concepts through on-line courses and podcasts. I was really happy to see these neatly presented to me in a structured way in one spot in the context of a formal Research methods course. When covering these sections, you also did a great job at sticking to the important stuff. I am extremely impressed. In the reality of research, we get sucked in by the nitty gritty and forget about the big picture. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful framework behind the scientific method.You actually bothered spell-checking the transcript, particularly for proper names. I've had Courseras where the transcript seemed more like a onomatopeas than serious text. This is all I remember for now, all that's fresh off my mind, as am just up to week 2 right now, but I wanted to give you all a thumbs up for this great course you've wrapped up. I am seriously considering registering for the entire specialisation because of the quality of this course. | the entire specialisation because of the | Quality | of this course. | Negative | -0.67 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Excellent course. Very tidy and high quality of the visual presentations. In addition, its objectives are pretty clear from the beginning and the evaluation tasks are closely related to the course's topics. | Excellent course. Very tidy and high | Quality | of the visual presentations. In addition, | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Excellent quality of videos and tasks. | Excellent | Quality | of videos and tasks. | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 1.27 |
| sHs1AyWUEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The content and the assignment were of high quality and I really enjoyed the case I had to work on. So overal the course was very good, but negative was that the course was a bit too long, I understand Coursera needs to finance the course, so it is better to have a long one and earn a lot of subscription fees. Bu the extra review rounds felt redundant, and because the course was so long it was difficult to keep focussed on it. | and the assignment were of high | Quality | and I really enjoyed the case | Positive | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.88 |
| sHs1AyWUEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The course as a whole is excellent (5 stars), however, the Capstone project part of the specialization consists of 3 submissions that are reviewed by other students. Consequently the quality of the reviewers are of the same level as the student itself - which obviously limits the learnings from feedback. | reviewed by other students. Consequently the | Quality | of the reviewers are of the | Negative | -0.66 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.88 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | A very nice experience! Good to review the majority of the lessons that I've learned a few years a go. Some (minor) issues with the quality of the videos but the overall rate of the course is very good! | go. Some (minor) issues with the | Quality | of the videos but the overall | Negative | -0.68 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 1.25 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | An amazing course. The quality of the content and the information given was exceptionally detailed and cohesive. | An amazing course. The | Quality | of the content and the information | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.25 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | Very good introductory course that allowed me to understand key body system. High quality lectures understandable for beginners with desire to get better understanding how body functions. | to understand key body system. High | Quality | lectures understandable for beginners with desire | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.25 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | you very much for such high | Quality | educative course, it helped me a | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.25 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | This is a great course and I recommend it to everyone interested in Cybersecurity. The reading material is of exceptional value and I was amazed at the quality of the links to study material. What was totally new to me was Operational Security or Opsec, a totally intriguing subject, more or less cyber-self-defense! Yes, the videos are short but the reading material is quite large. I have kept the books and websites and will be reading them again, especially the NIST book. To everyone who claims that the course is not useful, I would say that you were probably one of those people who never read the books and the study material. | and I was amazed at the | Quality | of the links to study material. | Positive | 0.71 | 1.0 | 1.15 | 1.22 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | So far I've gone through the first week. Lots of business and technical info. The video quality is AMAZING!! | business and technical info. The video | Quality | is AMAZING! ! | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 1.15 | 1.22 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | I wish they spent more time on the content of videos and less on the silly effects and 30-second intro and outro sequences. Practically every question of the final comes word-for-word from a book not assigned in the module readings and not available for free to students for them to study. I won't be taking any other courses from this school if this course was an indication of quality. | this course was an indication of | Quality | | Negative | -0.68 | -1.0 | 1.15 | 1.22 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The best part about this course was that it made sure you are interested in learning the subject. If not, it is really really difficult to get on with it. It makes sure you understand the subject really well and you have to give back to the community. I liked the fact that you have to read the "Readings for this module" part, otherwise you won't be able to pass the Quizzes at the end of each module. You have to write a short paragraph which it will be reviewed by peers, who will in turn give you ratings. You have to do the same for other peers. This was probably the best aspect of this course. The music was extremely annoying and the quality of the content in the videos was okay, but the most important part is that it guided me in the right direction every time. Sometimes, by the end of the video, the music started in between the lecture itself and played itself for 3-4 seconds. | music was extremely annoying and the | Quality | of the content in the videos | Negative | -0.99 | 0.5 | 1.15 | 1.22 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Unbelievable quality and density of information. Even more so because it is free!! Incredible! Hats off to Jeffery D. Sachs and this revolutionary work for our world. | Unbelievable | Quality | and density of information. Even more | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.33 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Great production and course quality. Highly recommended | Great production and course | Quality | Highly recommended | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.33 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Spectacular course, very informing and inspiring. I've only completed the preview of the course from several months back, but the amount of information that Professor Sachs imparted in just those few chapters was impressive, and honestly has changed my worldview. I'd never been so aware of the influence the Industrial Revolution played on shaping the vast differences in quality of life around the world, and can see now the importance as well as the challenges of ensuring that we focus our efforts equally on economic wellbeing of *all* people in a socially just and inclusive way, and in ways that are environmentally sustainable. Highly recommend this course. | on shaping the vast differences in | Quality | of life around the world, and | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.33 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Learning chapter after chapter ! The videos are amazing and the quality of data and they way it is exposed is really good ! | The videos are amazing and the | Quality | of data and they way it | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.63 | 1.33 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Great course. Everyone should participate to improve one's quality of life. Ernest | Everyone should participate to improve one's | Quality | of life. Ernest | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Short, easy to watch videos fulled with high quality content and good ideias to incorporate healthy habbits in our daily life. | to watch videos fulled with high | Quality | content and good ideias to incorporate | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Very practical and applicable information. Great quality in the videos. | Very practical and applicable information. Great | Quality | in the videos. | Positive | 0.84 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | In the beginning it feels like a course, but from week three on it feels more like a conversation about food. It is more suitable for people with very little background n food science and nutrition, aiming to get some knowl on these fields. But the views are quite one sided and necessarily true when it comes to the understanding of the food chain. Of course, many of their opinions are valid, but I wouldn´t accept those views as solid rock statements because they are not. In any case, I recomend the course for people with obesity problems and those who are too lazy to think about the importance of home cooking. The quality of the videos is outstanding! Congratulations! | the importance of home cooking. The | Quality | of the videos is outstanding! Congratulations! | Positive | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Great quality course! Highly recommend for anyone interested in basic food and nutrition. I thought it would go into a little more depth than it did but the production quality was so amazing I didn't mind. | Great | Quality | course! Highly recommend for anyone interested | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Great quality course! Highly recommend for anyone interested in basic food and nutrition. I thought it would go into a little more depth than it did but the production quality was so amazing I didn't mind. | than it did but the production | Quality | was so amazing I didn't mind. | Negative | -0.67 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Really very basic, anyone with an interest in the subject is likely to know most of this already. nicely presented though, good quality videos. | this already. nicely presented though, good | Quality | videos. | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Quality course with valuable content. Good experience! | | Quality | course with valuable content. Good experience! | Positive | 0.67 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.16 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | Excellent quality assignments. Really the best online writing course I've found. This is a teacher that knows what he's doing, and how to draw out the best of his students' unique ideas and talents. | Excellent | Quality | assignments. Really the best online writing | Positive | 0.92 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 1.03 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | This isn't a CLASS it's a workshop. Thank goodness for fee waivers; I would have been so upset if I had spent my money on this course. As someone who has taken Coursera offerings in the past, I cannot cosign the quality of this course. This class seems to suffer from both a lack of structure and time. I believe if the course was longer (allowing for more space between unguided assignments) the class would be a little better. I understand that the Instructor is barred by time constraints (this is only a five week course, and an opt-in one at that), so I do relate to not wanting to inundate the class with reading assignment and lengthy lectures. That said, the guidance and lessons are lacking-- even if the class was longer, I would still only give it 2.5/5 stars. It appeared that the onus was on the Mentors to provide answers; for example, the professor mentioned that our scripts are meant to feature half hour pilots. This left many students writing dramas rather than comedies at a loss, since they were planning for hour long pilots. (This, again, is partially an issue of the class being so short; more time to review = the option to have longer pilots, rather than only accepting half hour pilots in order to allow students to review five different submissions within three days.) Since half hour dramas are unconventional, I asked one of our mentors, JZ (who is great) for examples. The responsibility should not be on the Mentors to find out-- information like that should be included in the prompt; if not discussed in depth, then at least as a link or list of examples to research on your own if you have the time + desire to do so. Especially since the assignment boils down to "break convention with no examples of successful scripts in this fashion." In a class presumably allowing beginningeres/greenhorns to participate, this is irresponsible and flawed teaching. The same goes of the "hints" that are periodically posted (though again, appreciated!) by mentors in the forums-- those definitions and explanations should be included in the meat of the class, not as supplemental elements. In all honesty, if I didn't have prior experience with writing, I oftentimes wouldn't have any idea what was being discussed by the professor. (And one trip through the forums will illustrate that I am not the only one.) The assignments and due dates are oddly crunched together (another time constraint issue, I understand), but the Instructor's videos seem to imply that we should be receiving feedback before proceeding each time? Maybe in a longer course that would work, but here, I didn't even receive written feedback initially, so it would have been a mistake to wait for some to revise by before forging ahead. If this class isn't going to provide a solid foundation to build on, then it should be made clear, upfront. There is nothing wrong with an experience based / motivation-focused class, but that aspect needs to be transparent. "We will not provide 101 teachings/readings." This isn't a class; it's a workshop. It's a makerspace at best. I expected insight and some level of instruction. In one of the lectures, the Instructor literally says: "I'm not a big fan of some of the classic story structures, defining in what must happen in each act. Or the problem, the twist, the resolution, rising action, denouement, fine action, etc." He does not define these terms, nor allude to them ever again. These are key benchmarks in screenwriting. Definitions would be helpful for someone just starting out, even if the Instructor doesn't strictly want us to abide by them. His students should leave the class more informed than when they came. Unless you're lucky and receive a response from a mentor or someone with visible background in script writing, the reviews don't amount to much, because very few enrollees seem to know what is going on enough to provide a meaty assessment. That is the fault of the course, I think, rather than my peers. Likewise, The grading system here is atrocious because of it; few people understand the foundation, and thusly don't know how to format or structure. So to then be graded on a purely pass or fail basis (that, looking through the forums, many students weren't even AWARE of until the first review grades rolled in) is ridiculous. And I am saying that as someone that scored 100% on both assignments that I did stay to complete, so this is not a case of sour grapes, but an observation of inefficiency. I understand that the class is based around "Active Learning", but for active learning to work and bear fruit, students should be able to engage with/analyze/synthesize/evaluate/build upon class content. Which necessitates actual, meaningful content. Content beyond my fellow confused peers, and 2 minute videos illustrating various ways of saying "Write Something Interesting and if it isn't Interesting, people won't care." Not exactly an astute observation that we couldn't glean anywhere but this course. Honestly, my 4th Edition copy of "The Screenwriters Bible" is five times more helpful than this course, and it is about six years out of date. | the past, I cannot cosign the | Quality | of this course. This class seems | Negative | -0.74 | -0.5 | 0.93 | 1.03 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | I should suggest my fellow Coursera students not to waste their money and time for this course. You'll learn a lot more than this course has to offer if you consult some websites with screenwriting tutorial blogs, read books and write on your own. I am a PhD student of theoretical film studies and and a fan of Coursera courses. I was eager to learn screenwriting as an interesting hands-on course. Well, it's project-based alright, but where's the real guidance?? This is a lazily designed course with poor content and almost zero guidance. The videos are very short and feels like a layman is trying to motivate you to write something, that's all. No methods explained other than some terminologies like bible, acts, outline being thrown at you. No examples, no comparisons, no detailed approaches. Lastly, scriptwriting has a significant difference with other humanities course. Being peer-reviewed doesn't help here -- a total novice can not effectively judge another newbie's work nor give them quality feedback. | another newbie's work nor give them | Quality | feedback. | Negative | -0.63 | -1.0 | 0.93 | 1.03 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Quality of the video and sound are bad; a few minutes after starting a lesson, sound goes off or picture holds and moves no more... This made me stop the course. | | Quality | of the video and sound are | Negative | -0.69 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.95 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | The course is a good introduction to Organic Photovoltaics. The instructors have done a good job to present a rather complicated topic in a manner that is accessible to a common audience. However, there are a few areas of improvement that can be noted for future versions of this course: First, All material is given equal priority in the course. I think what the instructor can do is to summarize the important "take aways" at the end of each video lesson. This helps the learner grasp the concept better Second, The explanation can be a little clearer - especially the topic of polymerization. Someone without an organic chemistry background, can find it frustratingly hard. Third, the tests are sometimes not in line with the previous video lessons and the reading material. The tests should be much much sharper. Fourth, the reading material should be improved vastly in terms of English quality, structure and presentation of key points. Sometimes, the learner can find it hard to understand some topics (ex: stability and materials) because it is inadequately explained. These topics should be explained better. Overall, a great start - but can be better. Well done and Thank You! | improved vastly in terms of English | Quality | structure and presentation of key points. | Positive | 0.73 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.95 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Lots to learn and it's fun to learn from different teachers. Very heavy (and high quality) course if one wants to do proper justice to all the materials presented (especially hashing and trees... Week 3 onwards). A worthy investment . Enjoyed it immensely. | different teachers. Very heavy (and high | Quality | course if one wants to do | Positive | 0.63 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Pros: Effort has been taken in putting up the assignments. Cons: Quality of teaching is very poor and too fast to follow through . Instructors have rushed to present course material . I would not recommend this course . Princeton and Stanford offer much higher quality and presentation on the same topics. | in putting up the assignments. Cons: | Quality | of teaching is very poor and | Negative | -1.0 | -0.5 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Pros: Effort has been taken in putting up the assignments. Cons: Quality of teaching is very poor and too fast to follow through . Instructors have rushed to present course material . I would not recommend this course . Princeton and Stanford offer much higher quality and presentation on the same topics. | Princeton and Stanford offer much higher | Quality | and presentation on the same topics. | Positive | 0.66 | -0.5 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | [Slightly updated according to Michael's questions] The course is fine, but comparing to the previous one - Algorithmic Toolbox - this one is weaker and with lesser quality. Pros: the course contains some interesting data structures and valuable observations. The starter files for assignments are in place. Related books are given after each video session. All the tasks have automatic grader. There is a couple of interesting tasks to do. Cons: the material is mostly lectures, and there is even a video where lecturer just reads the article from Wiki (Splay tree - has the same information with same lack of some proofs). Expected: add quizzes as it was in the first course. The course has less weeks - only 4 as comparing to 5 in AT. So various important data structures are not discussed. The course has less homework - 3 tasks each week as comparing to 5 in AT. And all 3 are usually just implementations of some basic algos seen in lectures. I consider the course valuable due to a number of good videos and a couple of good tasks to do. But in general, this course has the area for improvement. | one is weaker and with lesser | Quality | Pros: the course contains some interesting | Positive | 0.85 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Recently the instructors updated the course and implemented a solution to all my past complains. In my opinion the team is really taking the quality serious. However I just want to mention, that there are regular session for each course so that everybody can avoid having two overlapping courses in this specialization at the same time. I did not know that and worked on two courses at the same time, until the instructor informed me about the short interval between sessions of a given course. | the team is really taking the | Quality | serious. However I just want to | Negative | -0.67 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |