| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Rating |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | I was really disappointed in this "course" for several reasons. I did not complete it, because it was really not worth spending time on. The organizer impressed me as only wanting to sell copies of his book on dog behavior and used the course as his vehicle. Then there were games to "purchase" online to facilitate teaching my dog cognitive skills. The videos were lacking in creativity. I was really disappointed with this, especially since its a cool topic that could easily be presented in a very exciting way. The artistic level, the videos, slides, etc were something a high school student could pull together. After taking solid courses like ModPo and Positive Psychology, I was amazed at the lack of effort that was put into this. | 1) I was really | Disappoint | 1) in this " course" for several | 1.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | I was really disappointed in this "course" for several reasons. I did not complete it, because it was really not worth spending time on. The organizer impressed me as only wanting to sell copies of his book on dog behavior and used the course as his vehicle. Then there were games to "purchase" online to facilitate teaching my dog cognitive skills. The videos were lacking in creativity. I was really disappointed with this, especially since its a cool topic that could easily be presented in a very exciting way. The artistic level, the videos, slides, etc were something a high school student could pull together. After taking solid courses like ModPo and Positive Psychology, I was amazed at the lack of effort that was put into this. | 2) lacking in creativity. I was really | Disappoint | 2) with this, especially since its a | 1.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | I enjoyed a lot of this course, especially the parts about evolution and social intelligence. Very interesting!! However, as a professional dog trainer and having studied through the Karen Pryor Academy, I was VERY disappointed to see Brian Hare's misunderstanding of clicker training. I would be happy to chat with him about the realities of clicker training and how an event marker works, if he'd be interested ;) Futhermore, I bought the book and paid for a certificate, but because I took over 180 days to complete the course (despite the course being "self-paced, with suggested deadlines to help you keep on track), I did not get my certificate and was informed that to get it I'd have to pay again for the same product. | 1) Karen Pryor Academy, I was VERY | Disappoint | 1) to see Brian Hare's misunderstanding of | 3.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | This is basically just one giant commercial for the web site. A whole lot of talk, but not a lot of information. I was going to finish the course anyway, to pick up what is in there, but I just cannot stand any more plugs. Very disappointed. | 1) cannot stand any more plugs. Very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | For me, this course was disappointing. Here is why: First, the level, at which the course material is presented, is very low. It might be freshman level, but certainly not more. There are many buzzwords but no real explanations. The programming assignments are only doable because most of the work has been done by the people designing the assignments. There is very little left for the students. Furthermore, the procedures, that are already given, are not very well documented. Hence, a lot of guess work is required to figure out how things should work. Furthermore, little effort has been spent to structure the procedures that are already given. Altogether, this makes doing the programming assignments very unsatisfying. Finally, the professor presenting the materials does not take part in the discussion forums. Contrary to other courses that I have attended at Coursera, this time the discussion forum was no help at all. | 1) For me, this course was | Disappoint | 1) Here is why: First, the level, | 1.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The retrieval part of this course is great, it deserve five starts. The clustering part was going well until it reached LDA. The LDA module is very poorly covered, and also very hard to understand. I had to watch the videos more than two times to try to figure out what was LDA, and a Quora article posted in the Forum could explain it much better. Then we get to the Hierarchical Clustering module, which was the most poorly module in all this specialization. There is only one video talking about HMM models, and Markov Chains deserve at least one week to even get started with it. And to complete, there is just one Assignment with only 3 questions. The specialization was going perfect until now. I am very disappointed with this course. I hope the last two courses are much better covered and not just ran over like this this one was. | 1) perfect until now. I am very | Disappoint | 1) with this course. I hope the | 3.0 |
| 1b9VUDu6EeWdUgozVKt3nw | Actually, I am quite disappointed by this course. The language is so slow that it is terribly difficult to make sense of each sentence. The content barely scratches the surface and there is neither a forum, nor an exchange with other learners. I miss interactivity and I am glad that I decided to preview the course and not pay for it as it definitely is not worth the money. | 1) Actually, I am quite | Disappoint | 1) by this course. The language is | 1.0 |
| 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. | 1) repetition of " useless" information. Super | Disappoint | 1) Can't believe that such a course | 1.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | I liked the course, however I'd like to give some feedback that might be useful to you: I was surprised a bit how short the course is. When I read this "4-8 hours of videos, readings, and quizzes" I thought that there will be 4-8 hours of videos _besides_ readings and quizzes. So this one is a bit misleading. Despite of this I liked the course. It gave me a lot of tricks and tips. However I don't understand the final 96.4% either. Maybe I missed something because after the last assignment the result has gone away in less then 1 second. As far as I know all my assignments were 100%. The design of the videos is a bit "spartan" :) I finished a couple of other Coursera courses (HCI, Gamification etc.) where the videos were much more delightful. This white background, black text is very disappointing. Anyway: Thanks! | 1) white background, black text is very | Disappoint | 1) Anyway: Thanks! | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Very disappointed that the assignments are not part of the f | 1) Very | Disappoint | 1) that the assignments are not part | 2.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | thanks for your effort to make videos, but this is the first time find a class that i can not submit my answer to check if it is correct or not before my account is upgraded. Disappoint to Coursera and Duke. | 1) not before my account is upgraded. | Disappoint | 1) to Coursera and Duke. | 1.0 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | This course was amazing. I learnt a ton about about Unity and making games. I can give you a long review, but in short, it is challenging to understand, and there are slight loopholes which are hard to figure out sometimes. It was slightly disappointing that the course does not go into coding specifically, like the official tutorials do, but the official tutorials rush learning - these are much better. And when you see those official tutorials, you will see why you don't do much of your own coding - C# is not the easiest language. So, what does that mean? It means that this course is very much worth it for beginners. It is relatively easy to understand, but expect to do a lot of work! | 1) figure out sometimes. It was slightly | Disappoint | 1) that the course does not go | 5.0 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Didactically I was a little disappointed since, as so often, allegedly innovative e-learning is based on a conventional transmission pedagogy, with the instructur delivering frontal-teaching-style lectures and the learner imitating the instructions. As a comparative novice in the field, I'm not sure that I am now able to apply independently what I imitated for the assignments. Scripting went right over my head. Rhetorically, many of the lectures were preformulated written texts rattled off, sometimes quite fast, in spite of the complexity of some of the information. Where the instructor formulated freely, the excessive Uuuhms and "go ahead's" nearly drove me bonkers. On the whole, a useful course, though. | 1) Didactically I was a little | Disappoint | 1) since, as so often, allegedly innovative | 3.0 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | While I enjoyed the projects and found the instructor easy to follow and understand, I was disappointed in how little coding we did. The code walkthroughs were rushed and I barely learned enough to scratch the surface of some of the scripts we used in the basic projects. Since scripting is such a huge part of game development, I feel like there should have been more focus on it. Maybe a new term in each video or something? And I understand that the course was only four weeks, which doesn't allow much time for deep scripting analysis, but maybe the course should be longer than four weeks. Overall a fun class and I now have two games to show off to people. | 1) to follow and understand, I was | Disappoint | 1) in how little coding we did. | 3.0 |
| 2y_2_3REEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | Very disappointed with this final course. Little to no support. Discussion Forum provides some level of help but you are basically on your own. Very challenging to come up to speed with Natural Language Processing techniques if you have never taken any class about it. My recommendation to JHU and Coursera is to add a separate course for NLP where you cover all the basics and then have the Capstone. | 1) Very | Disappoint | 1) with this final course. Little to | 2.0 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | Too simplistic and not enough real world examples. It was clear instructor regurgitated material directly off of the screen, offered zero highlights to real world experience or issues. Rather than wasting a couple hours listening to presentations, download the slides and read them yourself. Disappointing. | 1) the slides and read them yourself. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | I was pretty disappointed with this course. Firstly, the course did not seem well balanced meaning that some weeks--particularly week 2--had A LOT of materials to watch and really felt like it was two weeks crammed into one, and then other weeks barely had anything. Secondly, the exercises seemed unclear, poorly thought out and not really helpful. There were many errata that really should have been fixed in the beta iterations of this course. Thirdly, I really would like to see more application and less discussion of implementing algorithms. Fourthly, the "scaling" section was also a major disappointment. While it is mildly interesting to learn about stochastic gradient descent, I think it would have been more interesting to have a discussion about how classifiers work in a parallelized computing environment or actually to try one out using Spark. Finally, given that GraphLab/Dato/Turi was just acquired by Apple, I question whether it is worthwhile to take this course as ALL the materials are taught using a library that in all likelihood will cease to exist. | 1) I was pretty | Disappoint | 1) with this course. Firstly, the course | 1.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | After 2 great courses this one is really disappointing! | 1) great courses this one is really | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | This "Craft of Plot" class--taught by Mr. Skyhorse--covers the ABDCE method, the 21 point checklist, etc. Stories written in this class must have dialogue, at least ten points of rising action, and must begin with an action sequence. No, this is not an "organic" story writing method. This class teaches students how to use formulaic writing to artificially engineer stories efficiently and effectively. I was very disappointed with this class. I enjoy reading literary fiction, especially stories in The New Yorker. So it is no surprise that I was appalled by Mr. Skyhorse's strong focus on, and praise of, the Harry Potter book series. If you plan on writing formulaic genre fiction, then perhaps this class is for you. Even though I disliked the class, I must admit it was well taught, hence the 4/5 star review. | 1) efficiently and effectively. I was very | Disappoint | 1) with this class. I enjoy reading | 4.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | A good introductory course designed to be effective for people of a basic background and beginning skill level. As a course from Wesleyan I was hoping for something a little more robust or actually at a college-level, so I was a little disappointed at how rudimentary this course was. Still, I did learn some new things about plot and would recommend for the new or beginning writer. | 1) college-level, so I was a little | Disappoint | 1) at how rudimentary this course was. | 4.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | Unrelated and incohesive lectures. Disappointed. Lots of random topics talked about .but nothing in depth. | 1) Unrelated and incohesive lectures. | Disappoint | 1) Lots of random topics talked about | 2.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | The lectures in this course were very good but I would have preferred much, much more homework to practice the concepts covered in the lectures. Also, I was somewhat disappointed when a certain issue with the course that I asked about in the forums was never addressed by the course staff. Of course, I could have been wrong about it but, but based on the response from other students I was not the only one having this problem. | 1) the lectures. Also, I was somewhat | Disappoint | 1) when a certain issue with the | 3.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | Hands down the worst course on Coursera. I thought it might be beneficial to take this course but it doesn't cover anything in details. Wherever algorithms are explained, a really lousy job is done. To be specific, first and second weeks are covered badly. I am still trying to understand the material by reading external articles on the course topics. I think that first course of this specialization was pretty great and this one is disappointing. | 1) pretty great and this one is | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| 3r_VmUhHEeWk9g4dP2hYVQ | I requested for a refund and I did not receive it. I guess I won't get it until about 2 weeks. I want a refund because it's too easy, this is stuff I learned in freshman biology. It's nice that it offers resources and links however, I wanted to take a course and get a certificate in one at my level to prove that I can learn beyond a high school biology level. And the course says it's for educators but it doesn't go into much detail on how to actually teach the information. I guess this is good if you want to be a substitute at a middle school or high school, but it's not for me. I was looking for something that was more so at a college level. Also on the important information, they sort of skim over sometimes. I'm 19, I'm not in school because I don't want to waste thousands of dollars on stuff that's elementary so I don't think I could get any special benefits and get courses for free, but that's also the reason why I'm on here, but I'm disappointed to have wasted 50 dollars if they aren't going to refund me. I can barely afford 50 dollars, I'm unemployed and no one will hire. I wanted to take a course in something that would at least get me some kind of job or volunteer work within my field of interest. Seriously, not even these minimum wage jobs will hire you if you didn't go or aren't going to college. Just wanted to feel like I accomplished something suited to my level. | 1) why I'm on here, but I'm | Disappoint | 1) to have wasted 50 dollars if | 1.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Learning materials are poorly delivered. Codes given are bug-ridden this in turn makes it incredibly difficult to follow on. Disappointing | 1) it incredibly difficult to follow on. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I am a bit disappointed by this course. I was expecting a more fast paced course with more information regarding Angular. Unfortunately in the videos there is a lot of time spent on unnecessary details and reading out loud the source code. The exercises are quite basic and they did not pose real challenges - except for errors coming from mismatched packages or mistakes in configuration files. Also I think that the level of support provided by the mentors of this course is lacking. Mentors are quite absent and very late in providing any help in the forums so the students have to kind of counsel one another - that is sometimes good but a proper class also requires a good level of supervision. All in all I think this is an OK course that is mostly geared to the uninitiated. It needs some serious work to make it a great course. | 1) I am a bit | Disappoint | 1) by this course. I was expecting | 3.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Angular 1 not Angular 2 which is disappointing but worse still, it teaches use of scope which is no longer recommended by the angular team themselves. Could be vastly improved by using modern angular best practice such as "Controller As" syntax and teaching you to write code that is more "compatible" with Angular 2 | 1) 1 not Angular 2 which is | Disappoint | 1) but worse still, it teaches use | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The instructor is very bad. She made the lectures so boring with her lack of preparation that I switched to just reading the transcript. The assignments were lacking in case studies and were very textbooky. I could have skipped this course and simply read from the E-book. Tried to get a refund but its too late so I will have to force through this one and the next. I hope it doesn't adversely affected my grades as I have scored above 96% in the previous 3 courses in this specialisation. Very disappointed and frustrated. I came to Coursera to avoid teachers and teaching styles like this. This really shakes my confidence in Coursera for future courses. Im definitely not going to pay for any courses in the future. | 1) 3 courses in this specialisation. Very | Disappoint | 1) and frustrated. I came to Coursera | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | all video lectures feel like they are just read from a paper and it takes a lot of effort to follow and engage. It is the 4th course I'm taking to get ma digital marketing specialisation and is far off the poorest. The slides don't make much sense and a lot of times I have to research stuff again on other websites to actually get the point. The quiz questions are sometimes not related to the topic. It seems like, the professor does not know enough about the subject to speak freely and engaging about the topics. I'm quite disappointed about this course and can not recommend it. I think the course should be worked over. A great example of how to do it right is Aric Rindfleischs lecture, which was engaging, challenging and very well structured | 1) engaging about the topics. I'm quite | Disappoint | 1) about this course and can not | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Disappointing... | 1) | Disappoint | 1) . . | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Terrible course.... the instructor just read out of the power point. No examples or case studies or insights. very disappointed in the class. | 1) or case studies or insights. very | Disappoint | 1) in the class. | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | based on impressions after module 1: -quality of lectures: just dry material from books. not engaging - repetitions (videos in reading materials and in lecture) sometimes feeling that it is waste of time -quizz questions are hardly connected to lectures disappointed and discouraged. give a try to module 2 and will see. | 1) questions are hardly connected to lectures | Disappoint | 1) and discouraged. give a try to | 2.0 |
| 6DwzaCw7EeWGvAojQA48rw | The course was quite helpful. I've been trying to make games already, but never knew where to start designing the game. Unfortunately it's quite short which was disappointing. I would never pay 80$ for a couple hours of video with basics | 1) Unfortunately it's quite short which was | Disappoint | 1) I would never pay 80$ for | 4.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Very disappointed about this course. The topic is very interesting, for me at least, but the course organization is horrible. Lectures do not provide enough information to complete the assignments. Zero interaction from course staff. Issues with getting assignments graded. In previous session the staff just refered you to the coursera helpdesk, but you cannot easily contact coursera directly. Main focus of course seems to be earning money and not educating. Be warned and don't pay for this course! I really don't get why this course has so many good reviews. | 1) Very | Disappoint | 1) about this course. The topic is | 1.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I am very disappointed with this programming course. The course lacks detail and deepth and could be taught in 45 to 60 minutes instead of 7 weeks. The quizzes and assignments were to easy and basic (solved in less than 5 minutes) and definitely not enough. Annoying was the overuse of colours in almost every video (almost everything was coloured - highlighting everything is just as usefull as highlighting nothing, green box with white text inside - did you try to read that on a different monitor than yours?), the pointless and useless doodles, smilies and whatsoever, wasting my time by watching you dispose your teabag/drinking tea or coffee/talking about your mug/etc., why do you even need to drink in a 20 minute-or-less video. The Tutor tried to loosen a dry topic. Mostly it wasn't my humor but I can live with that. I had hoped for more :( | 1) I am very | Disappoint | 1) with this programming course. The course | 1.0 |
| 7gLccRnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | this course is great in concept. but the reality was disappointing and will have to improve. the professor gave lots of links to interesting external materials. but his prepared lectures were much briefer and consisted mostly of presenting bullet-point lists. as a result, i found myself studying just to pass the quizes and not to actually enhance my knowledge. :( given the high standard of the other courses in this specialization, i'm sure it will be better next time.... | 1) in concept. but the reality was | Disappoint | 1) and will have to improve. the | 3.0 |
| 7_kA050XEeWIXgpWJNgyEw | There are no lectures on Services, and Content Providers which are two key components of the Android system. It really disappointed me. | 1) of the Android system. It really | Disappoint | 1) me. | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Few thoughts: The very first videos describing Java For Android were containing really too many keywords/concepts, and it might be discouraging for someone new to programmation who just started the class, try to make it less dense. That's my point of view as someone who already had a good programming background. The lessons were okay. However the slides could be really improved and make things concise for someone who is new to Java. Finally I was really disappointed by the assignments. I often spent more time reading and trying to understand a long assignment (which could be reduced to a few lines), than writing the solution. Also, the frequent use of "rand" seems to be leading a lot of people to "almost correct" solutions, and they spend a long time debugging (that's what I understood reading the forums). | 1) to Java. Finally I was really | Disappoint | 1) by the assignments. I often spent | 2.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | I feel this course was severely misrepresented. This clearly not a beginner level class by any measurement. And the "4-6 hours" of expected student involvement is ridiculous. A beginner (NO programming experience) should expect to spend 15 to 20 hours on the first week alone and at least 10 hours for each of the remaining weeks. I have over 25 years of programming experience in Assembly language, Visual Basic, C and C++. I am clearly NOT at the beginner level yet I spent more than 11 hours on the first week, mostly due to trying to download and setup properly for the course. Also, there are over 3 hours of videos in the 1st week plus 3 quizzes and a programming assignment. If anyone spent less than 6 hours on week 1, then that was NOT the first time they took this class. I also am keenly disappointed in the restrictive nature of the assignments/quizzes. Having to type "-1*1+11" instead of "-i+11" (and you better not have any leading or lagging spaces!!) for instance. Bottom line, I would not recommend this course for anyone wanting to Learn Java for Android Programming unless you already know Java and just want some intro on Android development with Android Studio. And if you are indeed at the beginner level, do yourself a favor and start with introductory courses in Computer Science. | 1) this class. I also am keenly | Disappoint | 1) in the restrictive nature of the | 1.0 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Very disappointed in this course. It is more of an infomercial for American Gut than an actual course. Additional knowledge gained was very little. | 1) Very | Disappoint | 1) in this course. It is more | 2.0 |
| 9zXfqf2IEeSnBSIACi-PoQ | if you are looking for a killer course on this topic , then this course will disappoint you . best suited for very beginner and some refresher for the older guys . | 1) topic , then this course will | Disappoint | 1) you . best suited for very | 3.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I am very disappointed about the content. It is not a course. Pr David Germano is just reading text. No design no learning experience. I would learn much better with just reading a book. It is a shame I was very interested in the subject. | 1) I am very | Disappoint | 1) about the content. It is not | 1.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I enjoyed and benefitted from some of this course. In particular I would highly recommend the Meditation Labs, the Science of Meditation videos and the short presentations from the Tibetan Buddhist monks . But I think the creators of this course need to be a lot clearer about what their aims are in that part of the course which Dr Germano presented. Since this was he was presenting the main overview of Buddhist content it was particularly disappointing that his presentations were so bad. I understand that there were difficulties in getting the course up and running from the various delays in its starting date and the change to its title and perhaps Dr Germano's role was more affected than the other lecturers. However it's pretty damning when he manages to to be so off-putting to so many of the students, going on the discussion comments. For my own part, I've studied and practiced Buddhism for more than 30 years and I am left with little sense of what his aims were for his lectures. To be more specific Dr Germano's Presentation: -he read from what I presume were lecture notes but more likely he was reading from an academic paper. the language was pretty turgid. -he could have just provided a PDF of his paper / notes for us to download. That would have been much more helpful as presumably it would have had some structure to it. doing that would have enabled him to use his video time in a more creative way. -MOOCs are wonderful audio-visual opportunities but he had no slides or illustrations at all. The few text headers which appeared then disappeared in only a very few seconds and sometimes did not relate directly to what he was saying at that time. Dr Germano's content: the amended title was Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. This is a complex subject which encompasses many layers of meditation practice culled from historically earlier Buddhist traditions. Can I suggest that any future version of this course includes the following: -include a video which presents the main aspects of the historical development of Buddhism. There was some mention of this in Germano's material but he did it from the Tibetan point of view. Surely what a modern day presentation needs is a modern impartial historical analysis of the subject. It's not as if there aren't plenty of academics and practitioners who are active in this field. -it's confusing to describe Tibetan Lesser Vehicle practices but then illustrate them with Pali text sources, modern Mindfulness practice, and modern Brahma Vihara practice all of which have emerged from the modern Theravadin tradition. -it's also perplexing to include information about many modern Theravadin teachers (Sayadaw, Goenka) in a course apparently not about them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the videos about Sayadaw and the interview with Sharon Saltzberg, but I am left in the dark about just what differences, if any, there are between them and Tibetan meditation. Overall I think this course was offered prematurely. Much of its content was enthralling, inspiring and very useful practically. However much of it was not. | 1) of Buddhist content it was particularly | Disappoint | 1) that his presentations were so bad. | 2.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This was the first MOOC I ever signed for and I wasn't disappointed. Far more complex, detailed and demanding than I had expected.... which suited me perfectly. Although brilliantly researched and scripted, Professor Germano's detailed input is spoiled by his unecessarily academic style. I found that his tendency to accumulate endless lists of adjectives had an unfortunate hypnotic effect. I very much like the material presented by Kurtis Schaeffer, especially his contribution on the development of Buddhism in the US. His interviews were well-conducted and his remarks always to the point. Interesting - and again complex material from Clifford Saron who managed to caputre the attention of my rather non-scientific brain. Very well presented material and a pleasure to listen to him. The input from the Tibetan participants was more accessible to non-specialists, straight to the point and very refreshing. The work done by the meditators was brilliant and probably what I had been looking for when I registered for the course. I feel that I now know just enough to pursue the practices on my own. It all feels very new, a little bit scary, quite exhilarating and luminous. Some of the interviews were more interesting than others but they all contributed to broaden the scope of the course. I only give 4/5 to the MOOC because of the poor quality of the subtitles. Not being a native speaker and not used to hear American English, I had to rely on them. They were so bad that, at times, what was written was exactly the contrary to what was being said. Hardly any proper names or foreign words were spelt correctly either. Beware ! The course has introduced me to a new world and I will definitely pursue my new-born interest in Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. I will also sign up for more MOOCs in the future. Overall an extremely positive experience indeed. I am looking forward to seing you again for the 'Greater Vehicle'. | 1) ever signed for and I wasn't | Disappoint | 1) Far more complex, detailed and demanding | 4.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | I was disappointed by this Course maybe because I had a great expectations for it. Months of delay and poor content. | 1) I was | Disappoint | 1) by this Course maybe because I | 2.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | A bit of a mess. If you are going in expecting to learn nuances of creating effective wireframes and mockups, you will be disappointed. Assignments are good and thought-provoking, but not clearly written. You will get out of the course what you invest in it. Take your assignments seriously and invest a lot of time, even if you know that you are able to pass with a lesser effort. | 1) wireframes and mockups, you will be | Disappoint | 1) Assignments are good and thought-provoking, but | 3.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | I was quite disappointed by this course, after several delays the course stated months later than originally planned. The videos are badly edited, and there did not seem to be a lot of content within this course. | 1) I was quite | Disappoint | 1) by this course, after several delays | 2.0 |
| AMBr8zelEeWJaxK5AT4frw | I am disappointed with the course because of its only focus on Apple TV and smartwatch apps. The course structure is a bit messy and the content is quite technical. Don't call it "App Design" since it's more App Development! | 1) I am | Disappoint | 1) with the course because of its | 1.0 |
| aPvqvZlYEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | This course was very disappointing and much of the content in the tests and course did not show up in the course project. I felt like the course project was far more advanced than all the other detail. In addition, there was minimal to NO detail on instruction. VERY poor development here and I would not recommend it to anyone. All you need to do is look at all the threads of complaints. I am looking forward to the next Python course and h | 1) This course was very | Disappoint | 1) and much of the content in | 1.0 |
| aZysaaT7EeWiJhIfkgG__w | This course on software security was very informative . This is the best place to start off for a beginner as it not only covers the technical aspects of security ,but also talks about modelling threats and identifying adversaries and their capabilities.I however was slightly disappointed with the testing methods of this course.I feel that most of the testing should have been on the basis of projects and a project should have been included every week .But, all in all taking the course was a very pleasant experience and I thoroughly enjoyed all the projects that were given. Looking forward to taking the next course in the specialization!! | 1) their capabilities. I however was slightly | Disappoint | 1) with the testing methods of this | 4.0 |
| aZysaaT7EeWiJhIfkgG__w | The first half of the course was great but 2nd half was a bit disappointing. | 1) but 2nd half was a bit | Disappoint | 1) | 3.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | I was really disappointed with this course. I took the other courses from Brian Caffo and truly enjoyed them. For the previous courses, I've always used the books and they helped me tremendously to be able to comprehend the material. There is a book for Regression Models but but it's a real mess. It feels like a draft that no one cared to take a second look. There is a bunch of wrong code and typos. The explanation doesn't go as far as it should. I had to resort to many different sources just to be able to get by the course. I hope the instructors review this course soon because it does not have the same quality as others. If they don't review it, don't bother paying for it. Try learning Regression Models elsewhere. | 1) I was really | Disappoint | 1) with this course. I took the | 1.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | This course goes on a very fast pace and simply does not have the charm of all the other courses in the specialization. I understand that a lot of content is covered within a month, but there should be supplementary course material available. Moreover, TAs should be more active on the forums. I have seen most of the questions just being discussed among the students. A little disappointed. Will probably have to watch all the material again to have confidence with it. | 1) discussed among the students. A little | Disappoint | 1) Will probably have to watch all | 3.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | I was somewhat disappointed in this course as I expected much more "practice". The assignments did not have you actually perform any analytics activities. The course materials seem very out of date considering how much things change in the digital age. Reading Blogger posts from 2006 on a Blogger blog that hasn't been updated since 2012 is not forward thinking in my view. Yes, things don't always change, but the face of analytics changes daily. | 1) I was somewhat | Disappoint | 1) in this course as I expected | 3.0 |
| bIkXsq9HEeSmzyIAC0yFng | I was disappointed because the name is misleading. The course provides a good introduction & overview of the responsibilities of the CTO, but has very little specifically digital content. It deals with two-speed IT in a single short lecture, so of course the treatment is superficial. It is easy to find more in-depth material freely available, on the McKinsey website for example. | 1) I was | Disappoint | 1) because the name is misleading. The | 3.0 |
| BK2bam0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | This course is very good because it is very clear. Nonetheless, I'm a bit disappointed that one have to purchase the course in order to complete it. | 1) very clear. Nonetheless, I'm a bit | Disappoint | 1) that one have to purchase the | 4.0 |
| BK2bam0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | Sadly, this course is at the high school level at the most. Very disappointing to see it listet here as a university course. | 1) school level at the most. Very | Disappoint | 1) to see it listet here as | 1.0 |
| bu-bs9_HEeSNQCIAC2-J5Q | This is a very unevenly paced and constructed course - not at all delivered to the standard of the previous Coursera courses I have followed. Some lectures are clear and guide the learner step by step - and then others suddenly assume a level of knowledge and sophistication that is at a significantly higher level and includes concepts that have either not been introduced or have been dealt with in minimal detail. It also ends up focusing more on music analysis than music theory - while there is a relationship between these 2 approaches I did not embark on this course to become an analyst - as a practising musician I wanted to understand more of the concepts behind what I do and hear. Very disappointed - I will now look elsewhere to satisfy my learning. | 1) what I do and hear. Very | Disappoint | 1) - I will now look elsewhere | 2.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Kinda disappointed that in a course about Communication, Margaret can be such a "so-so" communicator herself. Except that, the course is good and offers some cool tips on how to deal with that new ways of communication that we must deal of. | 1) Kinda | Disappoint | 1) that in a course about Communication, | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Margaret Meloni was constantly looking down to read directly from a poorly-rehearsed script while trying to stumble through phrasing and lecture points. Considering this is a course about communication, this was very disappointing. The quizzes were vague and either didn't have clear correct answers or didn't feel applicable to the module to which it was assigned. After reviewing the material, I had to complete the quizzes by trial-and-error since the answers were not reflected in the lectures. | 1) course about communication, this was very | Disappoint | 1) The quizzes were vague and either | 1.0 |
| c9w_wD0cEeS9XCIAC0GF3g | The effort put for explanation by Dr. Fowler is extraordinary. However the course needs to show more of the 'connection between steps' when stating a theorem for convergence tests. This current version of calculus is a bit disappointing, earlier the practice problems were solved in steps. | 1) version of calculus is a bit | Disappoint | 1) earlier the practice problems were solved | 3.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Really disappointed you have to pay to be able to do the quizzes. I thought the whole point of Coursera is to enhance our skills for free and chose to pay for a certificate if we wanted to. | 1) Really | Disappoint | 1) you have to pay to be | 1.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | The course is great, but I am very disappointed that after spend 3 hours watching the videos and practicing, I can only submit my answer if I upgrade. This should be said before I enrolled in this course. | 1) is great, but I am very | Disappoint | 1) that after spend 3 hours watching | 1.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I was very disappointed in this course which held much promise. Too much of it has to do with the changing of colours. I got bogged down by hex colour requirements and other ancillary requirements. I did not want to learn such things. I wanted to learn the methodologies of programming and how the statements in HTML, CSS and Javascript interact. All of these areas were only touched on in very minor ways and with little learned. I got more out of the books I borrowed from the library in the same timeframe. | 1) I was very | Disappoint | 1) in this course which held much | 2.0 |
| D5GKj_UHEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | As a long-time animal rights activist, I took this course with high hopes, and was not disappointed. The lessons are interesting, well prepared and balanced. Although I might not completely agree with some of the activities that happen in real life, giving people a new perspective on how non-human animals should be treated is a great way to start. Putting the animal's experience and welfare first is key to achieving a more humane and fair society for all. Violence against those who cannot defend themselves (be it human or non-human) escalates until it affects all of us. This is new look on pets, production, research and captive wildlife should be mandatory in all levels of our educational systems. Thank you very much for a great experience. | 1) with high hopes, and was not | Disappoint | 1) The lessons are interesting, well prepared | 5.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The course content is perfect, however the rating system is kind of disappointing. First, the rating is very subjective, thus I might pay great efforts to my submission but get a grade below my expectation. Second, sometimes I can be busy on weekends thus I want to finish the peer review earlier on Friday, however, there might often be not enough submission to be reviewed, thus I am very pressured to do this with a exhausted mind and body in the evening on Sundays. Could I just pass if there's no other submission to review? | 1) the rating system is kind of | Disappoint | 1) First, the rating is very subjective, | 2.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | The quality of the lectures and teaching was the lowest i have ever seen on Coursera. I wanted to do the whole specialty, but after this first one i was so disappointed that i will stop. The assignments were overly complicated and demanding for no real reason. I have used Coursera for years and this is the first time I have wanted a refund. | 1) this first one i was so | Disappoint | 1) that i will stop. The assignments | 1.0 |
| 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. | 1) course material is really poor and | Disappoint | 1) I would like to believe that | 2.0 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | This was really disappointing. There is almost no connection between the experience of the lectures (and that's all the videos are - lectures that track a PowerPoint presentation) and the assignments, quizzes, etc. Reference and source materials are frequently mentioned in passing, but there is no comprehensive list of works cited anywhere. The assignments are often vaguely described and, in more than one case, were described entirely differently in different places. I have nothing good to say about this experience. You're watching a fundamentally disconnected series of mostly ad-hoc discussions of vague concepts. A simple list of books to read would be much more valuable. This is by far the worst MOOC I've taken, from any source, in any discipline. The fact that it actually costs money simply adds to the pain. | 1) This was really | Disappoint | 1) There is almost no connection between | 1.0 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | This was an extremely elementary and thus disappointing course. While the importance of "Usability" was rightly emphasized, the representation in terms of examples, case studies, etc. was simplistic. I appreciated having my attention drawn to the pitfalls of HCI design and the consequent failure of the corresponding systems. However, the solutions were presented as if: 1.) there are always "correct" interface/usability choices; 2.) the "correct" choice is all that's needed for the system to be optimally functional; and 3.) there is never a tension between usability and effective functioning of a system (that can't be resolved with correcting the usability). It is irresponsible to suggest, for example, that a user selected memorable password is generally adequately secure without also covering ways that an interface can guide/nudge the user to create a secure password. Wide recognition of the importance of this may be more recent than the studies covered in the course. There is nothing wrong with studying old, seminal research, even in this age of "Internet time," but I wish I wasn't left wondering what, if any, developments had occurred in the decade or so since that research took place. As for tension between usability and security, it absolutely exists. For instance, PGP encryption is a reliable way to secure information, yet making it usable remains a challenge. This is not even mentioned in the entire course. In fact, this course would leave an otherwise uninformed student believing that there are usability solutions waiting to be applied to every cause of info insecurity if the techies would just look. I wish the course had at least acknowledged that there are cases where a slight compromise on usability might be necessary for the sake of appropriate security. Lastly, for those designing an HCI for security, it is important to understand threat models. This concept is also missing from the course. === I reviewed this course (above) immediately after I finished it. I am now in the 3rd week of Software Security, the 2nd course in the Cybersecurity specialization, and am realizing that 2 stars was a generous assessment. Based on the prerequisites of the Software Security course, the Usable Security course, in its current form, is too elementary to be appropriate for people who have the experience/knowledge required for the rest of the courses in this specialization. As I explained above, the course relies heavily on decade-old research but does not cover any developments since. For instance, the usability issues covered in the studies are for ancient versions of browsers with no discussion of how the browsers and our infosec vulnerabilities have changed since those studies were published. Another example is the instructor's eschewing of password managers while many knowledgeable folks in the infosec community today recommend their use. The usability challenges of password managers and a discussion of how they might be mitigated would have been more appropriate. | 1) was an extremely elementary and thus | Disappoint | 1) course. While the importance of " | 1.0 |
| DYv7azSfEeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | A little disappointed in this course, it would have been better suited for the first part to a larger course other than a week long introduction to th subject. | 1) A little | Disappoint | 1) in this course, it would have | 2.0 |
| DYv7azSfEeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | Dry principles without real life examples and exercises. You can passed the quiz by just reading online or have basic project management experience. Disappointed. | 1) or have basic project management experience. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | The instructor kept referring to different authors and books as if she wasn't sure what she was saying was true. She was just reading off a screen and not actually teaching. Might have been easier, and a bit more beneficial, to just read a well prepared set of slides on my own. The first set of quiz questions also weren't really relevant to what was in the actual lesson. Quite disappointed in this part of the specialization as the other sections had in depth presentations, clear information, lots of examples and great slides. | 1) was in the actual lesson. Quite | Disappoint | 1) in this part of the specialization | 2.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | disappointing | 1) | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| EfvjN5XvEeSqQiIACyEY7w | I really like the teacher and the course content. I feel very engaged in the video lectures and feel disappointed when one ends to quickly. Definitely an eye opener, with strategies that I can employ right away. Thank you. | 1) in the video lectures and feel | Disappoint | 1) when one ends to quickly. Definitely | 5.0 |
| EjtfHZq7EeSB9CIACxCU6A | Really far from the courses by NTU...quite disappointed. | 1) courses by NTU. . . quite | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| emCu12atEeW2DA58V0Z6GQ | At first I though it was a very poor course but certain parts of it were gold for me and I got a lot out of it. I particularly appreciated the advice on how to improvise through out the course. I was less keen on the parts on modes and pentatonics but on the other hand for someone further along in their musical journey it may be just the thing. Although the course is ostensibly on the blues it also covers a lot of material relevant to Jazz. Pedagogically there were some problems.I think the course has way too much material and could be split into 2 parts each part maybe a bit slower.The presenter need to sharpen up his game a little as regards presentation skills, reading material of an IPad is not very inspiring. His English is not very idiomatic but that's not really a big problem. Written sheets with the changes and summarizing the lectures would have made the course better. Finally there are no peer reviews and all quizzes are theoretical - rather disappointing. I prefer a hands on approach with peer based reviews as in Gary Burton's course also on Coursera. | 1) all quizzes are theoretical - rather | Disappoint | 1) I prefer a hands on approach | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | 1) to help with questions which is | Disappoint | 1) since it is a paid course | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | 2) bad experience with the course, just | Disappoint | 2) that it was really bear bones, | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very disappointed. Having coding assignments weekly would have been very helpful. The quizzes often asked for information that was never presented in the lessons. The instructors were never present in the forums to answer questions. The final project asked us to do things that hadn't even been mentioned in the course materials. I would not recommend this course to anyone. The only reason it got 2 stars instead of 1 was because I did learn some Swift. | 1) Very | Disappoint | 1) Having coding assignments weekly would have | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Having completed the assignment after many hours of trial & error; here are some suggestions for improving the class for future sessions. Increase the length and depth of the lectures so that more of the materials needed for the assignment are covered. For each week, have an optional programming exercise (not graded) but with a model answer (with explanations of why) so that students have a concrete example on which to practice key concepts on. As classes & structs are very important to completing the assignment (instead of just including the SWIFT manual chapter on classes & structs in the Follow Up Reading), include an actual lecture about this topic. Improve the description of the assignment to be completed. Be specific about what is required (e.g.; what does interface mean? Is is a User interface or is just a specified variable which can be changed in the program code? What do you mean by order of applying filters? Do you mean a variable which lets you decide order of filters and executes the filters accordingly or does the ability to manually rearranging the order of the calling of functions in the code suffice?) Improve the alignment between the assignment and the review criteria. The assignment asks for FIVE filters but there is no matching criterion in the review criteria. Based on the current review criteria, creating two filters would suffice to demonstrate ability to order and get full points for varying intensity for more than 1 filter. I hope the remainder of the modules are better otherwise I will be extremely disappointed ! | 1) better otherwise I will be extremely | Disappoint | 1) ! | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course needs major improvement. Lectures included errors in the code. While showing code in video lectures instructor was quick to delete code, not giving time for students to view and understand what had just been shown. On Dec 15, two weeks before due date of final project, large portions of all weeks of the course were changed, requiring going back through to complete these new lectures. No adjustment was made to the due date. Requirements for the final project are vague and confusing and I am not able to submit the final project by the due date in about 2 hours. If this issue is not addressed I will need to consider adjusting my star rating. This experience casts a negative impression for me on the Coursera platform and University of Toronto teaching staff. I'm disappointed. | 1) University of Toronto teaching staff. I'm | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Basically a couple of guys have an unorganized discussion about swift. Little to no organization with poor coordination between lectures and quizzes.. Appears that there is no TA or course staff monitoring discussion boards... I am glad I didn't pay for the class... Disappointed though because I really wanted to learn Swift. | 1) pay for the class. . . | Disappoint | 1) though because I really wanted to | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course is poorly designed. What course on a programming language jumps first into how to use the debugger and what went wrong with a program? You are not introducing Swift, you are introducing xcode (and doing a terrible job of it). Also, I have been using xcode and Swift for 8 months now and producing some really good work, but I could only get 3/7 on your quiz because you have written questions with the purpose of tricking people instead of reinforcing or checking knowledge of the content. When you teach a new application, consider introducing the interface first. Explain what the various areas are, what they are needed for, and how to control them. This orients the user in the application and helps them to find their way around when they are trying to reinforce your teachings later. The presentation for this course is so unprofessional. It's like a running commentary on a movie instead of an educational presentation. I felt like I was listening to two geeks stuffing around and having a good time, instead of people who are professional teachers! I'm so incredibly disappointed with this course. Back to the wonderful work of Paul Hegarty from Stanford University on iTunes University and YouTube for me. University of Toronto - you should really consider what your teaching staff are doing before you unleash them on the world. | 1) are professional teachers! I'm so incredibly | Disappoint | 1) with this course. Back to the | 1.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Too much time required. The first Quiz had almost nothing covered in the video lectures. I saved all transcripts and was unable to answer the questions. The Sim's... I have never seen anything like that and again - it most certainly wasn't covered in the lectures. Disappointed in this course. It took 3 hours for each segment of the first week... not 3 to 4 as was stated. Leaving this course. | 1) certainly wasn't covered in the lectures. | Disappoint | 1) in this course. It took 3 | 2.0 |
| eV-OTCTuEeWCGRL6mLoB5w | I really enjoy this course. As a classical music lover for more than 20 years, I can still learn quite a lot for this course. Highly recommended for people who like classical music or who want to know about classical music. In either case, you won't be disappointed. | 1) In either case, you won't be | Disappoint | 1) | 5.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An unexpectedly disappointing, and in fact, downright awful course. The lectures waste a good share of time as in places they barely scratch the surface of what is further required to be implemented in the assignments. The assignments themselves inherit the nice modular spec-test driven spirit of the first two classes. However, the instructions are mostly quite vague or even misleading, occasionally dropping some “hints”, which are often either not helpful, or just offer to copy-paste a quarter page of code. The tasks are very (and by “very" I mean EXTREMELY) long, tedious, boring to tears and to the point when you start to wonder if the authors are trolling the students. How about a 53 (yes, that is fifty three!) pages of assignment for the 3d week? To be fair, not all of this is the task statement, there is a lot of test code as well, but you know.. even one third of 53 is an impressive volume for a 4 weeks course (you get re-enrolled if you fail to be fair). Took me 44 hours of pure coding time (according to WakaTime) to finish the course. I have passed tens of courses on Coursera, and this one is by far the worst. That is taking into consideration that I would not rather call any other course (of those I have taken) “a bad one”. I suggest saving time and money by buying a book on Mongo and another one on Rails instead. I do believe though that the course is very green and certainly has to undergo some refinements and I will be happy to see future reviews shadow this one as obsolete. | 1) An unexpectedly | Disappoint | 1) and in fact, downright awful course. | 2.0 |
| EZVzungdEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Great follow-up course to "The Craft of Plot." As a side note, those auditing this creative writing series from Wesleyan University must choose one of their paid routes of they desire to turn in assignments and get feedback from classmates. I guess this is the new course structure for specialized topics on the Coursera platform. The inability to turn in assignments was of little concern to me, but it may disappoint some, so I thought I'd mention it. Otherwise, at the very least, you'll have a firmer understanding and appreciation for crafting detailed settings and descriptions after auditing this course. | 1) concern to me, but it may | Disappoint | 1) some, so I thought I'd mention | 5.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Disappointing | 1) | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | This Course needs a Update, im really disappointed of Week 4 and the Assignments are Outdated and nothing new | 1) Course needs a Update, im really | Disappoint | 1) of Week 4 and the Assignments | 3.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I think the content was quite interesting; as someone new to marketing, I was really looking forward to the lectures and exercises. However, the content was simply too much for me to complete. It's a bit ironic that a course about marketing missed its market. To give a bit more detail: there were 12 video lectures, 3 assignments that had to be done days before the end of the week to be peer-reviewed, and then I had to peer review others work, while also going through all the assigned reading. It seemed more like a courseload for a full time student or perhaps a part-time student. As online students typically are neither, I'm surprised the course content wasn't better managed. I take a lot of notes, so perhaps that's what slowed me down, but I also have a full time job and I intern on the weekends. I was hoping this course could easily be done in the evening hours. Other coursera courses provided an excellent balance of content and courseload, I'm disappointed that this course wasn't one of them. It seemed very useful and interesting. | 1) balance of content and courseload, I'm | Disappoint | 1) that this course wasn't one of | 2.0 |
| Fo72zMekEeWrYA6c7hw6vQ | This course SEEMS to be a great course. But personally I think it's not. It talks about so many things but none of them are explained clearly. I can't get the picture of this field clearly. The assignment looks nice. But it's not. First, it's not well-organized. Sometimes you need to look at next week's course to do this week's quiz. The programming assignment is VERY VERY unsatisfying. It's not explained clearly; there's no helpful instruction; and it is very confusing. You need to spend hours and hours just UNDERSTANDING what you need to do. And some algorithms are not even told in the course and you need to implement them! I know this could be a good exercise but I would hope it at least provide some useful resources. Generally, I am very disappointed. I feel like I'm spending hours and hours but learning nothing. Just confusion. Please consider reformat the homework; make it more doable for new learners in this field. | 1) useful resources. Generally, I am very | Disappoint | 1) I feel like I'm spending hours | 2.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | disappointed! | 1) | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | I give this 4 out of 5 stars mostly due to some technical video/audio issues with the material and its presentation and editing. Also, there didn't seem to be anyone moderating and only a few other people taking the class so not enough forum discussions to help us out. Additionally, I'm also disappointed there isn't a part II that continues into ML approaches to the subject. Finally, I think a bit more rigor and theory could be introduced into the videos before just pointing to the accompanying textbooks. But I understand the tradeoffs. Looking forward to part II (please Dr. Balch!) | 1) help us out. Additionally, I'm also | Disappoint | 1) there isn't a part II that | 4.0 |
| fZN4SVfiEeWsGQ6fKrurvQ | I am hopeful that the information I've learned in this course will show its usefulness in the future. I feel that the course could've been organized a little better (and if I had it to do over I would check out the Reading a Case very early on in the course.) As a teacher, I am disappointed at the rubric that is given because students are grading each other and may not know what an "average" response is I feel that the rubric should be better structured to help give a more objective grade. | 1) ) As a teacher, I am | Disappoint | 1) at the rubric that is given | 3.0 |
| gh5rVEd3EeW2ZBIIl17oPw | expected more programs to be taught and more experiments to be shown, disappointing | 1) and more experiments to be shown, | Disappoint | 1) | 3.0 |
| GNr7-GFfEeW5iQpSR8Sfhw | I was disappointed with the treatment of the main concepts. They were cursorily dealt with. Examples from the real world and a more graphic explanation esp. of the crystal defects would have helped. Otherwise, all the main points were covered. | 1) I was | Disappoint | 1) with the treatment of the main | 2.0 |
| gttJnUtZEeW4rRLEP0z9Bw | The course can be informative, but the presentation needs some work. All of the instructional videos were merely a person reading a Power Point presentation to the viewer. The "in class" examples appeared to be completely hypothetical and were also read to the viewer without any video demonstration of how the presented information works in an actual class. In addition, the written information in the videos was confusingly organized and had not been fully edited. In multiple videos, there were typos. In at least one video, the instructors had not fully deleted the sentences from a previous version of a slide. When the revised slide was presented to the viewer, a word from a previous version was in the middle of the sentence. In addition, the previous version was obviously about a different subject. I was disappointed and continually frustrated with this course, especially since the instructors required me to pay fifty dollars in order to take the module quizzes and the final assessment. I have no problem paying for a good product. However, the professionalism displayed in the course was incredibly lacking. | 1) about a different subject. I was | Disappoint | 1) and continually frustrated with this course, | 2.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course, the basics of Machine Learning are explained efficiently. At first I was disappointed that homework needs to be done in Matlab/Octave instead of something more widely used like R/Python, but it occurred to be a nice language. | 1) explained efficiently. At first I was | Disappoint | 1) that homework needs to be done | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Highly recommend this course to anyone interested in machine learning. Dr. Andrew Ng does an excellent job covering the fundamentals of various supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms as well as their practical applications. He also covers error analysis and provides programming assignments. Why should you choose this course over the other machine learning courses? Dr. Andrew Ng helped lead Google's AI efforts and now doing the same for Baidu. In 2008, he was named to the MIT Technology Review TR35 as one of the top 35 innovators in the world under the age of 35. Definitely give it a go; you won't be disappointed. | 1) it a go; you won't be | Disappoint | 1) | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course introduces some basic concepts of machine learning. Particularly, neural networks and regularized regression are given a decent coverage. Some popular techniques such as decision trees and ensemble learning are not touched at all. It's a very well thought out course. The only reason I didn't give it 5 because it's in archival mode, i.e. Professor Ng doesn't support it anymore, doesn't participate in discussions, for instance. It was disappointing. Also, the assignments were too easy, in my opinion. I'd like them to be more challenging. | 1) in discussions, for instance. It was | Disappoint | 1) Also, the assignments were too easy, | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is an excellent introduction to ML. Coming from a mathematical background, I felt that at times the course was a bit slow (e.g. Professor Ng would spend time performing steps on every element of a matrix, when a couple of examples would have sufficed), but jumping ahead in the video solved this problem easily. I was a bit more frustrated, however, with the few instances of, "here's the formula, you don't need to know the derivation." I guess those who want to understand the math behind the techniques can always look elsewhere, but Professor Ng obviously knows a great deal and is able to clearly and concisely explain difficult subjects, and so I was a bit disappointed to not be getting his instruction in the more difficult aspects. But, overall this course is great. In particular, I found the programming assignments to be excellent. They are a good level of difficulty, and manage to be quite interesting, as well. I will definitely hold onto the code I wrote for this course for reference as I move forward. Professor Ng, please create a more advanced course next! | 1) and so I was a bit | Disappoint | 1) to not be getting his instruction | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing course! Content is easy to follow. Material that seems daunting on first inspection is dissected and presented in a very intuitive way. The quizzes and especially the Octave/Matlab practice problems are extremely helpful to check your understanding. The scripts are organized very clearly and provides insight on how all the modelling steps should be structured. Mentors for the course are exceptionally helpful. I cannot think of a single criticism. It is hard for me to imagine anyone who is interested in machine learning and is new to the subject walking away disappointed. Thank you Andrew Ng! | 1) new to the subject walking away | Disappoint | 1) Thank you Andrew Ng! | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent (but sadly non-certificated) course, well organised, great videos, excellent Community TA posts in discussion forums, you'll learn a lot and won't be disappointed. | 1) learn a lot and won't be | Disappoint | 1) | 5.0 |
| GY2Yx6DxEeSt6SIACzgCKw | Course is overwhelming. How can you put a 30 minute video for a class? Can you divide it or make it simpler? Tutor is not explaning, he only reads; he reads sort of teleprompter and that's it. Boring. Very disappointed. And this is not my first course in Coursera. I feel I'm about to quit, and this is the second week... | 1) teleprompter and that's it. Boring. Very | Disappoint | 1) And this is not my first | 1.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I want to learn ML in R so I go straight to this course without taking any other course in this specialization, and it doesn't disappoint me. Thanks for a great course! | 1) in this specialization, and it doesn't | Disappoint | 1) me. Thanks for a great course! | 5.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | incomplete and not clear. extremely disappointed. | 1) incomplete and not clear. extremely | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I'm somewhat disappointed. I attend almost all other courses in this specialization (except of "data product") and this one is, on my opinion, the weakest one. A lot of links to useful information though. This is more reference guide rather than a real training course. I can say even more, initially I start other courses of this specialization just because they were marked as strong prerequisite to this one. For now, I think all other courses of the specialization were much more valuable for me than this one. I've also took Andrew Ng course on Machine Learning in the past, and my learning experience was much better. In lectures on some concepts (like regularization) I'm pretty sure I would not understand anything if I had not been familiar with the subject before.. | 1) I'm somewhat | Disappoint | 1) I attend almost all other courses | 3.0 |
| HFhDw-STEeWYOBIRup69HQ | Given the quality of the first 2 courses for the "Cloud Computing Specialisation", I think that this course fell short of my expectations. I think that the instructors attempted to cover the whole range of existing technologies in the field of Cloud Computing. However, since it has become a quite expanded domain, the instructors were only able to cover the topics superficially due to time constraints. In the same way, the assignments were not really demanding, they were repetitions of the lecture videos to some extent. There was no practical assignment, which was a bit disappointing. I believe that the instructors should consider reformatting this and the second part of this course to make them more similar to the "Cloud Computing Concepts" course. Thus, I would prefer this course to cover fewer topics, but to a greater extent. Ideally, the learners should have to complete a full deployment of one sample technology of those presented (and possibly developing some features). That would require more time, but it would also provide more knowledge to the learners. Sincerely. | 1) practical assignment, which was a bit | Disappoint | 1) I believe that the instructors should | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Totally disappointed! | 1) Totally | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I am really disappointed, to be honest! Course covers mostly trivial stuff; lectures are just presenting code snippets; many inaccuracies; nothing about HTML5; entire 4-week-class can easily be completed in one week. Definitely not near the quality I am used to from Coursera. Udacity’s "Intro to HTML and CSS" and "JavaScript Basics" are way better. | 1) I am really | Disappoint | 1) to be honest! Course covers mostly | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | really basic course. The second lecturer is disappointing..... | 1) basic course. The second lecturer is | Disappoint | 1) . . . . | 2.0 |
| HIUPOchIEeSA1yIACye2oA | An engaging and educational tour of art education! This course was informational and entertaining, I am disappointed for it to end. | 1) was informational and entertaining, I am | Disappoint | 1) for it to end. | 5.0 |
| HIUPOchIEeSA1yIACye2oA | The teachers there do not do what they teach: they rattle down their text as fast as they can speak and do not emphasize the content with movement or even change of expression. I was disappointed. | 1) even change of expression. I was | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| HIUPOchIEeSA1yIACye2oA | I found the presentations to be very clear and focused. In addition, the readings were a good introduction to the foundation and current thinking in the field. I was disappointed in the difficulty in connecting with other students. That would have enhanced the learning experience for me. I am new to Coursera, and understand thismay be a difficult aspect of the programs to control, but it's worth a try. | 1) thinking in the field. I was | Disappoint | 1) in the difficulty in connecting with | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Course seems fundamentally sound. Prof is enthusiatic and obvioulsy highly qualified. Really appreciate the proofs he provides such as the geometric development of the trig derivatives, the chain rule, and the fundamental theorem. I'd give it 5 stars for content and clarity. I am disappointed that some of the lectures were out of sequence with the quizzes and I really found that entering the answers to quizz questions was difficult. In some cases the tool misled me i.e. when the question indicated E should be entered for Euler's constant but the grading tool required e. Also in one instance the grading tool didn't recognize the right answer and I believe the correct answer wasn't even available as one of the choices. | 1) for content and clarity. I am | Disappoint | 1) that some of the lectures were | 4.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I joined to learn outstanding experience but ... disappointed | 1) outstanding experience but . . . | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I think this course was great- it really got you exploring and experimenting. I do think that there should be more REQUIRED briefs. Two of the modules out of the four were quiz's which was a little disappointing. I also think there needs to be some online help. In the last brief there was a large discussion as a lot of students were confused about the task and nobody stepped up to help clear the air- this is the reason I gave this course 4 not 5 stars. | 1) were quiz's which was a little | Disappoint | 1) I also think there needs to | 4.0 |
| iN8yoSWdEeWCGRL6mLoB5w | I was quite disappointed with this class. The videos and instructions are very short and the information is lacking. When reviewing other classmates material it was quite clear that people were confused with the assignments because I saw such a huge range of submissions that were very different from each other. I found the material to be very similar to the first course in this specialization; both asked very similar things but this class didn't add much to the process. | 1) I was quite | Disappoint | 1) with this class. The videos and | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | First, I would like to say that with the exception of ONE exam, I was able to take all the tests WITHOUT WATCHING THE VIDEOS. That shows that this is a poorly put together course. Secondly, this course did NOT cover CHILD NUTRITION, it covered general nutrition. There was nothing helpful in regards to meal planning with children (although there was useful information in the Lunch Packing Video.) Although it claims the project at the end of the course is optional, it will not let me complete the course without doing the project. I find that extremely frustrating. This course offered a lot of great information (even if it was a weird combo of factual/opinionated) I was frustrated by the fact that this course is OBVIOUSLY geared towards the upper middle class/rich instead of the the everyday blue-collar family. I will do the project to complete the course but was very disappointed in my first course through Coursera. | 1) complete the course but was very | Disappoint | 1) in my first course through Coursera. | 2.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | I am really disappointed with the content of this course. If what you're looking for is the most basic of information on making better choices and remembering to wash your cutting board after handling raw meat, maybe this course is for you. If, however, you come to this course wanting specific information about how to build great meals for babies, toddlers, and young children, or you'd like to know how their needs change over time, this course is not for you. I was hoping for information like how to teach your toddler to chew/eat difficult things (ex: whole apples). I wanted to know at what age/weight you switch to 2% milk. I wanted to know how many calories a meal should be based on height and weight and how that changes over time. I wanted to know medically verified tips on getting the right amount of each nutrient into a toddler's diet and what, if any, extra vitamins should be added. I wanted tips on weaning if you're still nursing a toddler... I guess I just wanted more. In addition, the quizzes are so easy as to be silly. Actual quiz question and correct answer: Which is NOT a good way to approach grocery shopping if healthy choices are desired? Answer: Visit the supermarket hungry and walk through the candy aisle first. COME ON! Did I need a Stanford University course to tell me that one?!?!? While the instructor is knowledgeable, this course is geared toward someone with NO knowledge, not someone who wants to gain a deeper understanding. The videos are painfully slow (am I waiting for a doodle here???) and I could read the entire course worth of transcripts in under a half hour rather than go through all of the videos. And the recipes... good god! I don't think that someone interested in learning more about child nutrition is needing a slow tutorial on how to make basic oatmeal on the stove top. If she'd upped the game- showed basics and then talked about the benefits of adding, say, chia seeds, different fruits, flax, etc. and how best to make a basic bowl of oatmeal into a complete breakfast, that would have been a useful topic. I'm just hugely disappointed. This course is best suited to perhaps a health department; not to someone seeking college level information about a topic that matters to their children's lives. | 1) I am really | Disappoint | 1) with the content of this course. | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | I am really disappointed with the content of this course. If what you're looking for is the most basic of information on making better choices and remembering to wash your cutting board after handling raw meat, maybe this course is for you. If, however, you come to this course wanting specific information about how to build great meals for babies, toddlers, and young children, or you'd like to know how their needs change over time, this course is not for you. I was hoping for information like how to teach your toddler to chew/eat difficult things (ex: whole apples). I wanted to know at what age/weight you switch to 2% milk. I wanted to know how many calories a meal should be based on height and weight and how that changes over time. I wanted to know medically verified tips on getting the right amount of each nutrient into a toddler's diet and what, if any, extra vitamins should be added. I wanted tips on weaning if you're still nursing a toddler... I guess I just wanted more. In addition, the quizzes are so easy as to be silly. Actual quiz question and correct answer: Which is NOT a good way to approach grocery shopping if healthy choices are desired? Answer: Visit the supermarket hungry and walk through the candy aisle first. COME ON! Did I need a Stanford University course to tell me that one?!?!? While the instructor is knowledgeable, this course is geared toward someone with NO knowledge, not someone who wants to gain a deeper understanding. The videos are painfully slow (am I waiting for a doodle here???) and I could read the entire course worth of transcripts in under a half hour rather than go through all of the videos. And the recipes... good god! I don't think that someone interested in learning more about child nutrition is needing a slow tutorial on how to make basic oatmeal on the stove top. If she'd upped the game- showed basics and then talked about the benefits of adding, say, chia seeds, different fruits, flax, etc. and how best to make a basic bowl of oatmeal into a complete breakfast, that would have been a useful topic. I'm just hugely disappointed. This course is best suited to perhaps a health department; not to someone seeking college level information about a topic that matters to their children's lives. | 2) a useful topic. I'm just hugely | Disappoint | 2) This course is best suited to | 1.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I found this course disappointing. Whilst the presenter, Margaret Meloni, was enthusiastic and pleasant to listen to, the content was very sparse indeed. A large part of the content each week was simply reading a presentation which you could get from a book. I would expect an online course to be more interactive, have more videos, and more varied content. I found the case studies (where you had to imagine a real life situation and select a decision) useful - there was one of these per week when I think there could have been more, perhaps three a week. The course would also have been improved by the use of peer assessment on the assignments. This would have made them feel more worthwhile and that someone else was actually reading them. | 1) I found this course | Disappoint | 1) Whilst the presenter, Margaret Meloni, was | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | A good but brief introduction to a number of useful skills. I learned a lot in a short amount of time but I still have a long way to go. I was somewhat disappointed in the lack of communication with a TA or instructor. The message boards were desolate and could not support any kind of a robust discussion of the conceptual issues involved with data science. | 1) way to go. I was somewhat | Disappoint | 1) in the lack of communication with | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | So far this course is given at a pace that is just perfect. The instructors explain concepts in ways that make the subject matter easy to learn, particularly for someone who loves data, but is terrified of heavy mathematical concepts. I've taken similar courses at local community colleges where class size is much smaller, and have been very disappointed. So f | 1) much smaller, and have been very | Disappoint | 1) So f | 5.0 |
| J0igZhzvEeSGAiIACxMEjA | I was terribly disappointed in this course. Mr. Onuf spends the majority of these lectures implying what Jefferson thinks without discussing much in the way of actual history. Further, the course seems more of a commercial for the University of Virginia than anything else. Overall, a waste of time. | 1) I was terribly | Disappoint | 1) in this course. Mr. Onuf spends | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | Despite all the bad reviews this course got I told myself to give it a try to refresh my antic prior knowledge and since it is for my personal usage and not a career I m not interested in a certificate. So I went through all the open sites which were extremely disappointing. Since I was warned by the reviews, I was not even tempted to pay to unlock further pages. I attended many interesting courses on Coursera, but this one is simply a waste of time from the very first moment. | 1) the open sites which were extremely | Disappoint | 1) Since I was warned by the | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I was very disappointed because in order for me to move to the next module I have to pay to unlock some of the course materials. Coursera is changing. I understand that in order to maintain such a big structure is expensive; however it wasn't clear to me from the beginning that I have to pay to unlock the 2nd module courses. | 1) I was very | Disappoint | 1) because in order for me to | 1.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Thank you for the course. I don't like the absolute assumption that mankind evolved from a non human life form. Natural selection and how it is discussed in this course is allright to do, but not to make scholarly assumptions as to how mankind came to be. The professor can clearly describe natural selection processes without the assumption that human evolution from supposed beings in a very scant fossil record is a proven fact. That is the only part of the course that I did not like. The constant assumption that evolution is correct takes a lot away from this course. My concern is that this assumption is taken because there seems to be no particular Creator in the Buddhist relgious tradition. That does not mean that evolution should be given additional weight. I do not consider it a hard science such as mathematics, physics, even climate change science is far more concrete than supposed human evolutionary origins. Professors should focus upon clearly explaining that evolution is a theory. Buddhism and Pschology are more concerned with the present and consciousness and what IS...not upon weak theories like evolution. I was disappointed with the Professors consistent referrral to Natural Selection as though there is no human control over what we are doing, no moral standard the religion helps to set us apart from the animal evolutionary view of humanity. It simply is not fact, not hard science. However, what we can observe and see is hard science, including the effects of Meditation upon our brains and this is a very positive part of the course and for Buddhism. | 1) weak theories like evolution. I was | Disappoint | 1) with the Professors consistent referrral to | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | I have just completed this course. This is my first attempt to understand Buddhism and have approached this with all the biases inherent in having lived my whole life as a Westerner who has spent very little time trying to understand mysticism or meditation. The abstract concepts of Buddhist thought stretched my mind greatly and at times I had to stop the video just to reflect on some concept so abstract I had to play segments of the video lecture over and over again. Dr Wright seems to labor greatly on getting his explanations as plain and straightforward as he could. He held my attention without gimmicks and if I didn't get the point the first time, the video playback format made it possible for me to go over one point or another as I needed. If you come with all the usual Western bias and baggage toward Eastern (in this case Buddhist) concept and thought and would like to learn. This is the place to start. You won't be disappointed. | 1) place to start. You won't be | Disappoint | 1) | 5.0 |
| kbmiwPT-EeSW1SIAC3oCCQ | too much theory and not nearly enough practical models that I can use in my life or work. Disappointed so much of the class was spent on describing many different models instead of focusing on ones that can be applied readily. | 1) use in my life or work. | Disappoint | 1) so much of the class was | 1.0 |
| kcW15H3JEeWKYwric11Hpw | Contents are excellent. The only disappointing is that It costs to submit assignments. | 1) Contents are excellent. The only | Disappoint | 1) is that It costs to submit | 3.0 |
| knivtHEHEeSfpCIACzWBZw | Really disappointing course. Content is shallow, despite the impressive credentials of the Professor. Quizzes are ridiculously easy. | 1) Really | Disappoint | 1) course. Content is shallow, despite the | 1.0 |
| KqKtbzXyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This class was so boring I could not stand it. Social Media Marketing is such a fun + interesting subject that I could not BELIEVE they could make it so dull. Disappointed! | 1) they could make it so dull. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| KqKtbzXyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I wished it to be more hands on, more practical but unfortunately is like reading a book about social marketing. I am disappointed... | 1) book about social marketing. I am | Disappoint | 1) . . | 2.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course is way too basic, so basic it doesn't even cover some of the essential basics, like explaining what the Box Model is in CSS. The only reason I gave 2 stars is because you can still learn SOMETHING with it if you are a complete newbie, but it is very far to be reliable if you are aiming to be a professional. There is a long road to go after you finish this course, which makes me think the certificate is almost pointless and worthless. It also uses things that are generally considered a bad practice (like using DOM event attributes in the HTML). It is okay to present that to the students, but you should also mention that while they are there, it is usually not recommended to use them and explain what would be the recommended practice. I have taken courses from other sites like Codeschools, Codecademy and Treehouse and left Coursera for later because I believed that getting a certificate would require me to have some expertise, but so far I feel kind of disappointed with the Full Stack package. I am hoping it will get better with the next modules. | 1) so far I feel kind of | Disappoint | 1) with the Full Stack package. I | 2.0 |
| loAmvxJgEea8fxLSgUgxeQ | I was very disappointed with the course. There was not enough substance to move one toward being productive with Machine Learning. | 1) I was very | Disappoint | 1) with the course. There was not | 1.0 |
| lXG8rtQ9EeS4NCIAC7KEDw | Lacks of subtitles. Very disappointed | 1) Lacks of subtitles. Very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| lYw3nxuGEeWo5g5SXpDA8Q | I took the course in 2014, whether you are a beginner in cryptography or a regular practitioner, the course won't disappoint you. Another master class from Stanford. The problem sets and programming assignments are of reasonable difficulty. So if you are planning to take a course on cryptography, this is just the one- comprehensive and up to the expectations. | 1) a regular practitioner, the course won't | Disappoint | 1) you. Another master class from Stanford. | 5.0 |
| lYw3nxuGEeWo5g5SXpDA8Q | Great course, but a bit disappointed by the fact that I'll have to do it all over again to get a certificate. | 1) Great course, but a bit | Disappoint | 1) by the fact that I'll have | 4.0 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | I am highly disappointed with the policy of providing the homework only to the paid participants. It seems this is gearing towards another means of making bussiness when it comes to education. I understand that grading and providing feedback requires effort and the fees charged is required to the cover those cost, but like before we must have an option to get access to the homework, allowing us to apply our learning while it maybe be acceptable not to have any feedback or certificate on the course completion. Currently, the closed homework policy goes against the basic objectives of MOOC and I hope it is reconsidered. | 1) I am highly | Disappoint | 1) with the policy of providing the | 1.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | i was very excited at the beginning of the course but when i figure out that i must paid for unlock some important lecture i really felt disappointed i thought i should only paid if i want to took the Certificate i had been wasted some time at this course now i have to search for another course but complete one this time. | 1) some important lecture i really felt | Disappoint | 1) i thought i should only paid | 1.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | You really need prior coding experience to understand the training. I also was very disappointed in the teaching. We have an incredible opportunity to improve education, and I feel that this course is merely an extension of current learning techniques. It was extremely difficult for me to fully participate without paying. I was using this course to make a specific android app to control my wheelchair. I act as an analyst for my programmer husband. So I fully understand code architecture, but absolutely hate coding by hand. This course glossed over coding however it is far more code intensive then I was led to believe. | 1) the training. I also was very | Disappoint | 1) in the teaching. We have an | 1.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | Terrible. Had to verify multiple times. Audio quiz had no sound (struck-thru speaker icon I couldn't fix.) I'd be disappointed with Cousera for foisting this trash if I hadn't taken "Learning How to Learn," much less buggy. Would disenroll if there was any way to do so. | 1) I couldn't fix. ) I'd be | Disappoint | 1) with Cousera for foisting this trash | 1.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | If you want to learn some Mandarin and you are not sure where to start...just start here with this Course. It is all verbal and conversational. You do not have to learn Chinese characters and if you have been thinking, "No, Chinese is too hard to pronounce, its a "tonal ;language", blah blah whine whine "...please believe me, Professor Liu Xiaoyu is going to turn that entire generalization on its head and kick it out of the room. She speaks slow and patiently and if you can pronounce the words "seesaw, Jane Eyre, washer-dryer, car, how, why, and maybe" , then, you can pronounce Mandarin. Whats more...you will be understood. Its a seven week course at your own pace and it covers a lot of ground. You will not be disappointed and you will be amazed what you can learn from her. Try it. | 1) of ground. You will not be | Disappoint | 1) and you will be amazed what | 5.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | 1) Very frustrating and | Disappoint | 1) experience. The lectures were hard to | 1.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I was not aible to complete this course for free. That was very disappointing! Universities like Stanford and John Hopkins find the opportunity to offer similar courses free of charge to peoople who want to learn. From University of Washington I have expected the same. Your bad! Best regards Konstantin | 1) course for free. That was very | Disappoint | 1) Universities like Stanford and John Hopkins | 1.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I really like the learning approach in this course: at first you learn how to use the algorithm and after that you learn how to implement it yourself. That way it's never disappointing. | 1) it yourself. That way it's never | Disappoint | 1) | 5.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | gets way too in-depth with the math behind regression, to the point that it deters from the learning process. was hoping to learn better methods of interpreting or enacting regression, not the inner workings of the algorithms. assignments got overly complex with confusing instructions. there are definitely some leaps made in the assumptions of what students' python capabilities are. vague instructions caused more frustration than desire to continue learning. will continue in the specialization, but will not hesitate to drop out if instruction continues like this. very disappointed. | 1) if instruction continues like this. very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| NDBJAUWDEeWbNhIvIryYow | The videos did cover the basic theories behind all the methods for portfolio management however they were just basic theories with no explanation on how to practically implement them and then asking us who only understand the theories from the videos to suddenly try to solve the calculation quizzes especially those excel calculations without any practice on how to implement them beforehand. Besides the videos only showed the formulas with no example at all! Very disappointed with the course... This course is not recommended for those who have zero or little experience in the field.. | 1) with no example at all! Very | Disappoint | 1) with the course. . . This | 2.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Very informative, fantastically organized ....though video quality(even high) is a bit disappointing :( but is is so enjoyable!!!!!! Enjoying it greatly :D :D | 1) video quality(even high) is a bit | Disappoint | 1) :( but is is so enjoyable! | 5.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is one of the best series of courses I came along in online MOOC platform, such a brilliant course, this whole specialization is brilliant, such a interesting projects, I'm disappointed that I live in country that isn't that much wealthy to help this Specialization and to be able to do Capstone Project , but I wish all the best hope to finish all in time, this is in my top 3 online MOOC Courses and I saw a lot of them. I wish all the best to this team and people that made this possible. | 1) brilliant, such a interesting projects, I'm | Disappoint | 1) that I live in country that | 5.0 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Not a very good course. The assignments are not very clear. Could have done much more like integrating front-end etc in place of that loopback module. Was really disappointed with this one. Should have given 0 stars but gave 3 stars for Jogesh Muppala as he is my favourite teacher when it comes to MOOC | 1) of that loopback module. Was really | Disappoint | 1) with this one. Should have given | 3.0 |
| NiK99anHEeS88iIAC1WehA | This is the third Coursera course I have completed. I am nearing completion on two others. I had high expectations for this one but it was the only one I have been disappointed in. In comparison with other MOOCs I've participated in which have clearly been designed with online delivery and audience in mind, the format of this MOOC was not engaging. It's also baffling that they would spend nine weeks on public policy in the 21st century and only include one female speaker and not a single person of colour. The 21st century at the University of Virginia must look quite different from the 21st century where I am. There was also a lot institutional promoting of the University of Virginia / Batten School itself which I haven't experienced in other courses. While I did find some of the speakers and subject matter to be of interest, I had hoped for more from this MOOC. | 1) the only one I have been | Disappoint | 1) in. In comparison with other MOOCs | 2.0 |
| NNe5CEW4EeW8ow5lHOiKYQ | As others have said, the first four courses were good - I learned a lot from the videos and materials. However, the capstone project was a waste of time. Why a company failing in its industry was chosen as the focus is beyond me. In addition, the concepts learned in the previous four courses were only about 1/3 of the requirements of this capstone project - the problem statement and strategy portions could have been done without having taken the four previous courses at all. This seemed like a very generic project with almost no collaboration between the professors who taught the previous four courses. I expected a lot more from a Wharton-led course - very disappointing. | 1) from a Wharton-led course - very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| NNe5CEW4EeW8ow5lHOiKYQ | This course was terribly underwhelming. There is no interaction from the Wharton staff, nothing that connects this to anything learned in the specialization, and nothing that even resembles a case study. Grades are subjectively assigned on a very narrow grading scale by peers and the format of the assignment doesn't allow for enough explanation to develop a thesis. of Any information given to the student is from magazine/newspaper/journal articles without data and we are tasked with identifying a business solution to a problem with little context. Very disappointed in this offering. After taking the Data Analysis specialization offered through Duke University I know what a capstone course should be and this course is so far from that it should be removed from the course catalog. | 1) a problem with little context. Very | Disappoint | 1) in this offering. After taking the | 1.0 |
| NNe5CEW4EeW8ow5lHOiKYQ | I was disappointed by the Capstone. I expected we would get some data set we would use to apply the analytics skills we learned. Instead we got an "open-ended" problem description with few if any input on Yahoo's operations. The only data available was public data (e.g. annual report, executive interviews, etc.). | 1) I was | Disappoint | 1) by the Capstone. I expected we | 2.0 |
| NNe5CEW4EeW8ow5lHOiKYQ | From my perspective, the individual courses that made up the "Capstone" (people, customer, accounting, and operations analytics) were both educative and interactive. These individual courses contained data focused problems and gave a general overview of the specific field. However, the final "Capstone" project was entirely disappointing and something I even plan to complain to Coursera about. After having a two month delay, the course not only lacked any direction, but seemed to be put together last minute without any real thought or plan. The entire "Capstone" was driven by hypotheticals, almost all of which did not have any relevance to the past four courses. An educated individual could easily complete this "Capstone", without any knowledge whatsoever from the previous four courses. The "Capstone" provided a few articles and videos related to the issue (Yahoo Ad Blocker) to help us solve the problem, but clearly the course heavily lacked content. I was expecting the course to contain hypothetical data for us to interact with and predict how the Ad blocker problem and our proposed solutions would drive the data of Yahoo's business. However, the course merely was driven by complete hypotheticals that only required one to be educated about general business functions. This "Capstone" hardly related to the previous four courses, and it is a scam that this course cost $99. | 1) final " Capstone" project was entirely | Disappoint | 1) and something I even plan to | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | 1) Everyone" , but I ended up | Disappoint | 1) My suggestion for the instructor: redo | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | While I was disappointed that HTML forms weren't discussed, this course provided very solid information. A lot of slide and code typos were distracting though and it felt like the instructor was talking less to me (and more reading from a hidden screen), which dampened the overall experience a bit. But the way the instructor explained the course material was very approachable and easy for a beginner like me to understand. After taking this course, I feel like I'm one step closer to thoroughly understanding HTML5. | 1) While I was | Disappoint | 1) that HTML forms weren't discussed, this | 3.0 |
| 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. | 1) a college course. I am horribly | Disappoint | 1) at the quality. I needed an | 1.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | I had rated this course 4 star earlier but, I am downgrading it to 2 star now as the course managers - coursera + CBS seem to have abandoned the coursera while the program is still running and being charged upwards of hundreds of dollars. The final peer assignment date has passed by close to 2 weeks and the grading process is not completed, neither there is any communication from course managers about the same. Very disappointing from Coursera and CBS. For free, the course may be still useful as early introduction to strategy but as paid course, refrain for the time being. My earlier review below. ----- Delivery of the course - presentation, videos, sequencing and articles for each video are very well organized and executed. Referring cases studies is good as well. However, the material seems simplified and is very much a basic course and not intermediate or advanced course. Additionally, the quizzes are very simple and have ample room to increase the difficulty level in order to make the course more challenging. | 1) course managers about the same. Very | Disappoint | 1) from Coursera and CBS. For free, | 2.0 |
| ofcUj5MCEeWI6BJRAK7IKQ | I found this course lacking in providing sufficient coverage of the basics in the course videos and lacking a useful and directed reading list. I spent far too much time researching command syntax and using try and error to find what worked with the provided code. Disappointing as topics covered are good. | 1) what worked with the provided code. | Disappoint | 1) as topics covered are good. | 2.0 |
| ofcUj5MCEeWI6BJRAK7IKQ | I was disappointed in the lack of explanation for the tools. Since everything depends on the IDE, and there was no instruction about the IDE, I found it difficult to do the labs. In the course of trying to, the IDE somehow managed to corrupt my hard drive. After that I pretty much lost interest in the course. | 1) I was | Disappoint | 1) in the lack of explanation for | 1.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Content is fairly good with weak story line and connection across the various modules. Also the lack of in session quiz modules or weekly quiz module to re-inforce learning is disappointing. It's also possible that i was expecting a lot from a course on design thinking and what it turned out to be was just a scratching of the surface of what the definition of Design Thinking is all about. Having read numerous books on Lean Thinking, Agile development, Minimum Viable Propositions, etc. I was really expecting a solid rigorous approach to the world of design thinking. This course let me down and I just managed to scrape through at the end...almost gave up. | 1) quiz module to re-inforce learning is | Disappoint | 1) It's also possible that i was | 3.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | I'am disappointed because the assignments are too much easy | 1) I'am | Disappoint | 1) because the assignments are too much | 4.0 |
| 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. | 1) Programming Principles in Scala" . I'm | Disappoint | 1) To make this review constructive, my | 2.0 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | If you're new to Scala and/or functional programming, then the material covered here will be very valuable. However, I was fairly disappointed. Much of the coursework was pulled from the original "Functional Programming in Scala" course, as well as the "Principles of Reactive Programming" course. Indeed, there are references to material from those courses that are not actually included here, which must be a little confusing for anyone who hasn't taken those courses. The first two assignments came, respectively, from those two courses also. There wasn't as much emphasis on architecting a functional program as I might have expected from the title. Instead, the course focused more on using functional principles when implementing computations. The coverage of functional reactive programming (FRP) was very good, but again, I would have expected more of a 30,000ft overview of how to design an application using FRP. In short, I felt this course to be a little incoherent and disjointed. | 1) very valuable. However, I was fairly | Disappoint | 1) Much of the coursework was pulled | 3.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | Very interesting, but I was really hoping more. For example, the professor does not teah us directly, like all the other courses on Coursera. It is only texts and archive videos.....Youtube would have done the same. Disappointed. | 1) Youtube would have done the same. | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Awesome, I've learn so much and understand more from this course. But the only problem; is that I cannot get verify certificates. Because my webcam not working and this course must have your photo taking to get the course certificates and no other option. that was disappointing . | 1) and no other option. that was | Disappoint | 1) . | 4.0 |
| q78Cq1x8EeW9BBKT5ztNhQ | Well-structured course, Dr. Pienta and his fellow team-members are passionate in what they do, and that's evident during the course, but I can't help to think that they have barely scratched the surface here... The lectures are good, they provide a lot of information, but the quizzes offer no challenge whatsoever. That was somewhat disappointing, it felt like I was cheating. All in all, I don't regret buying and completing the course, but I really hope that Dr. Pienta's team will be back soon with a more challenging and advanced course. | 1) no challenge whatsoever. That was somewhat | Disappoint | 1) it felt like I was cheating. | 4.0 |
| q78Cq1x8EeW9BBKT5ztNhQ | I found this course useful and appropriate in the material offered and the assessed questions as an introduction and an update in cancer biology for CPD purposes. It is rather disappointing that the final grade achieved is not printed on the certificate. For A$65 to join the course and not have the full information such as the hours involved and the final grade achieved makes it very disappointing not to reflect the effort I put in as well as tricky to include this course as part of a CPD program. | 1) for CPD purposes. It is rather | Disappoint | 1) that the final grade achieved is | 3.0 |
| q78Cq1x8EeW9BBKT5ztNhQ | I found this course useful and appropriate in the material offered and the assessed questions as an introduction and an update in cancer biology for CPD purposes. It is rather disappointing that the final grade achieved is not printed on the certificate. For A$65 to join the course and not have the full information such as the hours involved and the final grade achieved makes it very disappointing not to reflect the effort I put in as well as tricky to include this course as part of a CPD program. | 2) final grade achieved makes it very | Disappoint | 2) not to reflect the effort I | 3.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | The material used for this course is so old that makes me feel I'm taking a course in the 90's. The narration is very dull and therefore hard to follow. Really disappointing. | 1) and therefore hard to follow. Really | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | The quality of the slides, video, and presentation in this course is much lower than those offered by this Speciality or coursera in general. Very disappointed in this. | 1) Speciality or coursera in general. Very | Disappoint | 1) in this. | 1.0 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | I must say I feel disappointed especially when the whole Data Structures and Algorithms series take this course as the selling point ( "you'll learn how to compute the fastest route between New York and Mountain View thousands of times faster than classic algorithms and close to those used in Google Maps", blablabla), but it turns out to be the least challenging course with only elementary introduction to the big topic. Perhaps the preparing time for this course is too short? I still miss the teaching style and assignment design of the first course of the series though. It would seem to be unwise to pay for the following courses if this continues on. (FYI I was the among the first ones who take this series, and I have got 100% grade for each course ever since then.) | 1) I must say I feel | Disappoint | 1) especially when the whole Data Structures | 3.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | First course of this specialization was really GREAT, but this course disappoints. Of course, there are some interesting topics, but the form of the course is way lazier. Videos are short, there is small amount of additional materials, | 1) was really GREAT, but this course | Disappoint | 1) Of course, there are some interesting | 3.0 |
| 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. | 1) in this specialization. That is very | Disappoint | 1) as I really am passionate about | 1.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Sorry to say but among the four courses of this specialization, this one really disappointed me. Not the fault of teachers or institute, i think the only mistake they made is try to fit too many topics in one course. Anyway this is only my opinion! | 1) of this specialization, this one really | Disappoint | 1) me. Not the fault of teachers | 3.0 |
| RFyNbG0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | In my opinion this course does not teach you to 'speak English professionally', but it teaches you to 'learn how to speak English'. I was looking for a course that would teach me how to write professional emails and have professional phone conversations, like which words I should use, what common sentences are or how to build up professional sentences. I am a bit disappointed and think this course was a waste of time for me. This is really meant for people that are learning to speak English and don't know how to pronounce words or how to respond to people in a really easy way. | 1) professional sentences. I am a bit | Disappoint | 1) and think this course was a | 1.0 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Pace was slow and I was disappointed by the content level. From the title I thought this would give information about the "global energy business" but the focus is generally on the US, except for portions that discussed location/ use of global resources and demand and supply levels globally. The class begins with analyzing Supply & Demand curves for energy use and production which was interesting to me and I thought meant we'd be taking an economic view throughout. Then the large middle section covers very basic info about the types of energy production (coal, oil, NG, renewables) in the world -- low in factual content considering the time spent on each topic. The final section about political considerations was very basic and only focused on the US. I am amazed that the 3 branches of US government were explained on the simplest level; this is a middle school & high school topic in the US. I expected a more in-depth class with details and analysis about the global energy business. I am glad I did not choose to pay for the certificate. | 1) Pace was slow and I was | Disappoint | 1) by the content level. From the | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | From my past experience, I know it’s not easy for people to take suggestions. But I still want to have a try this time. I had high hopes for this course, but I am quite disappointed. I think Dr. Peng needs to improve his teaching skills. 1. Good teaching is clear, concise, and right to the point. So please slow down, speak. Don’t mumble. 2. Programming is a practical skill. So the best method to learn programming is to use step-by-step demos. You can talk about a concept for 5 to 10 minutes but I still can’t get it. Use a demo and I can get it right away. 3. Don’t just try to cover the materials so you think you have done the teaching, try to understand how your students learn and make sure they really get it. 4. If you haven’t covered some concept, don’t assume your students will understand it by magic. A good teacher can make the learning experience effortless and fun, a poor teacher makes it like a torture. | 1) this course, but I am quite | Disappoint | 1) I think Dr. Peng needs to | 2.0 |
| 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. | 1) Poor quality. A | Disappoint | 1) experience. The lectures are very basic, | 2.0 |
| 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. | 2) possibilities. All in all, I was | Disappoint | 2) with the course. | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | It feels like this course was abandoned by the instructors. The Programming Assignments are practically impossible to be done unless you have previous programming experience. Other than swirl, it would be very helpful if there were basic optional exercises for those who have never programmed before. I worked hard to be able to follow it, but if I knew how uninvolved the instructors were, I would have saved my money and spent it on a course with active involvement from those who developed it. Disappointing. | 1) involvement from those who developed it. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | there is a huge distance between what you teach in the videos, which is fine, and the programming assingments which seem to be apt at an expert audience. to solve these problems I have to spend hours and hours on the internet looking at other people doing similar projects or asking for help. I agree that by looking you can get insight into what you are doing, but the lessons need to be built little by little and supported by practice. You can't slam me with these cache problems giving me an example that is hard to understand (much harder than anything seen during class) and expect me to do it in 5 hours per week. Maybe 5 hours per day. Disappointed. I wanted to use the whole course to learn about rprogramming but I will most likely try to get back the money I spent on this and let it go. | 1) week. Maybe 5 hours per day. | Disappoint | 1) I wanted to use the whole | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | BEWARE. If you are someone who is new to more advanced math or to any sort of coding, this course will be very confusing, totally unpractical, and you'll walk away not feeling like you've really learned how to use R in a real way. I was incredibly disappointed. | 1) a real way. I was incredibly | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The gap between the lecture materials and programming assignment is enormous. So much of lecture seem to be on the history and theoretical of R programming that it completely fails to cover the material needed to actually completed the programming assignments. Incredibly disappointing! | 1) actually completed the programming assignments. Incredibly | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | I just finished this course. I want to give a frank feedback since I see a lot of untapped possibilities in this course. On the strengths, it began with a high note and got me glued with expectations and promises. The instructor sounded extremely comfortable and confident with her subject, and had a very calming and pleasant presence which helped establish a kind of "remote" trust. On the improvement areas, I however have a few to list. For one, the intensity, rigour and to-the-pointedness of the content sharply fell after the first week. Having known about mindfulness, Metta meditations, gratitude, it became personally disappointing to me how this course conveyed so little about them and impacted so less than can be possible with the time and space alloted. The framework which initially looked hopeful is perhaps not the best framework, as much as is said about this not being "spectator course". Because this format diluted the intensity and possibility of the course, making it drag and bore towards the end. I wish there were guest interviews of more experienced academicians than what happened here as interviews from which there was little to learn. Honestly, this is my 4th of 5th course on positive psychology and this one will have to make many a fixes to any other that I've taken on coursera. The course ended and I find myself not a tad upbeater or nourished, or knowing something useful that I did not know already other than about vegas nerves which really did not make sense to end user who are here to know what and how to do things and feel better. | 1) Metta meditations, gratitude, it became personally | Disappoint | 1) to me how this course conveyed | 2.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | The material here is good, especially for a MOOC, and it seemed like they tried to make it dynamic with the use of questions, discussion, interviews, and extension activities. I'm disappointed, however, that the course focused so heavily on Frederickson's work to the exclusion of others. While I understand that this is where she would feel the most comfortable and familiar, to start with her broaden-and-build theory and continually reference her lab's work, with the additional readings often being her books, it felt limited. I would have liked more of a discussion of the contributions of other psychologists like Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, Peterson, Diener, Lyubomirsky, etc. Along with that, it could have addressed topics other than emotions (or been titled The Positive Psychology of Emotions), like character strengths, flow, or institution change. I love the fact that this course exists, and it's a good foundation to build on, but it still feels too narrow to claim the title Positive Psychology. | 1) discussion, interviews, and extension activities. I'm | Disappoint | 1) however, that the course focused so | 3.0 |
| RO728xoIEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | This is one of the best series of courses I came along in online MOOC platform, such a brilliant course, this whole specialization is brilliant, such a interesting projects, I'm disappointed that I live in country that isn't that much wealthy to help this Specialization and to be able to do Capstone Project , but I wish all the best hope to finish all in time, this is in my top 3 online MOOC Courses and I saw a lot of them. I wish all the best to this team and people that made this possible. | 1) brilliant, such a interesting projects, I'm | Disappoint | 1) that I live in country that | 5.0 |
| RUyctXVFEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | It has nothing to do with widening network. It is completely misleading. This is just a very short course about office etiquette. That's it. I was very much looking forward to this course. Sadly I got very disappointed. | 1) this course. Sadly I got very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| rwRs6Tn9EeWJaxK5AT4frw | As a captstonse course I expected this to be more challenging than other courses in the specialisation, especially the assignments which should have required to put in some real effort rather than simply executing pre-written scripts and uploading screenshots. Rest of the courses in the specialisation were superb, combined with the awesome teaching skills of Dr. Chuck but capstone was quite disappointing unfortunately. | 1) Dr. Chuck but capstone was quite | Disappoint | 1) unfortunately. | 2.0 |
| rwRs6Tn9EeWJaxK5AT4frw | If this entire specialization were a bag of potato chips, the Capstone would be that bland chip that didn't get any salt. The introduction to the Capstone promises that we'll "build applications" utilizing what we've learned so far with optional assignments for delving deeper. However, none of the required assignments involve even the most primitive of problem solving skills or code writing abilities. If you can download a file and take a screenshot then you've got what it takes to pass this class. The optional assignments are far too focused around a new piece of video sharing technology that the instructor and associates have developed. Unfortunately, the technology adds almost nothing beneficial to the class and is probably to blame for the sheer lack of quality in the rest of the class. In fact, the entire Capstone feels like it was so haphazardly put together that it can only be described as the most contrived beta-test I've ever been a part of. Such a disappointing ending to what was otherwise an enjoyable specialization. | 1) been a part of. Such a | Disappoint | 1) ending to what was otherwise an | 1.0 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | Really nice introduction course. I am however a bit disappointed it did not went deeper in how the models of diseases spreading are built, and that the course overall does not go into much detail. A bit more technical detail (maths, biology etc.) would make this nice course a awesome course. | 1) course. I am however a bit | Disappoint | 1) it did not went deeper in | 4.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Really wanted to take this class. Unfortunately, I believe it is more about advanced statistics then excel. It was advertised as a beginners class and that is not the case. I recommend having a significant knowledge of statistics before taking this course. I'm a 15 year senior level accounting executive and I was easily spending 10 to 15 hours a week plus watching the videos 3 or 4 times each in order to understand the content. It was very difficult to understand. Disappointing. | 1) It was very difficult to understand. | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Concepts are fantastic but the material developed to deliver the course is short of expectations, especially from a university. Excel sheets do not match what is demonstrated in video lectures, lots of confusion around how to complete tasks, quiz answer options not being correct, and missing Excel spreadsheets (e.g. video lecture says to refer to accompanying excel spreadsheet, but no spreadsheet available). Also, judging from past discussions by students, some inconsistencies around formulas being presented in video lectures versus assignment questions. could have been a great course, but the inconsistencies have made is very disappointing. | 1) the inconsistencies have made is very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | the course neither explains statistics properly, nor teaches how to use excel effectively, disappointed | 1) teaches how to use excel effectively, | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | So many equations presented without explaining why these things work or how they are derived. I'm having a hard time seeing the relevance. Also, I learned a lot of these statistics in college and the explanations provided in these lessons actually confused me about things I already know. Very disappointed in this course. Especially since part 1 of the specialization was so good. | 1) about things I already know. Very | Disappoint | 1) in this course. Especially since part | 2.0 |
| svzDI2FSEeW6DxKCi866Kw | As usually Johns Hopkins offers very disappointing courses because of their boring lectures and senseless quizzes. | 1) As usually Johns Hopkins offers very | Disappoint | 1) courses because of their boring lectures | 1.0 |
| SxjkGailEeSy_SIAC49HnA | I personally enjoyed the course. However I was disappointed when I was told after week (3 or 5?) that I'd completed the course, when I in fact hadn't gotten to the end and had not done the final two assignments...? Regardless, I went ahead and finished the course, but I was also disturbed to see that some of the students did their assignments in a mockery fashion e.g. wrote song lyrics, or stated "I don't know what else to say so I will tell you about my day..." That was very irritating. The class wasn't described clearly in the catalog, I thought it would be more of a history of the periods plus literature, but it wasn't exactly that... Instead it was a discussion of techniques and prose, and exhibiting truly talented authors. I liked the class, just not what I expected. | 1) enjoyed the course. However I was | Disappoint | 1) when I was told after week | 4.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course does not belong to this specialization. Poor content, poor assessment quiz, and felt quite disappointed. It is way below par. I never thought I would have to rate it this bad. If not for specialization that I am aiming for, I would never take it. Period. | 1) poor assessment quiz, and felt quite | Disappoint | 1) It is way below par. I | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Frankly speaking, it should be the most disappointing MOOC I have ever enrolled so far. The Professor's teaching is clear and comprehensible but the depth of the course content cannot meet the university level, especially from a worldwide renowned school like Wharton. Quiz is the most terrible part which seems like nobody could get it because of the ambiguous questions and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, like many other mates, am really grateful to Coursera for offering everyone this equal opportunity. But courses with that kind of quality but staggering price will destroy the company's brand. We all want Coursera to go further and better, but few people prefer monopoly businessman rather than prestigious professors and diligent intellectuals. | 1) speaking, it should be the most | Disappoint | 1) MOOC I have ever enrolled so | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This was very disappointing, especially considering it's a Wharton product. The "course" was little more than an afternoon's worth of seminars. Since I am not a paying participant, I could not take the quizzes, so I finished watching the videos in less than a day. In addition, there are NO collateral or supporting materials provided. None of the spreadsheets or workbooks illustrated in the videos are available anywhere on the course site, despite their being advertised in the videos. All in all, it was consistent with the first course in this "specialization". Again, very disappointing. I'm glad I didn't spend any money on this. | 1) This was very | Disappoint | 1) especially considering it's a Wharton product. | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This was very disappointing, especially considering it's a Wharton product. The "course" was little more than an afternoon's worth of seminars. Since I am not a paying participant, I could not take the quizzes, so I finished watching the videos in less than a day. In addition, there are NO collateral or supporting materials provided. None of the spreadsheets or workbooks illustrated in the videos are available anywhere on the course site, despite their being advertised in the videos. All in all, it was consistent with the first course in this "specialization". Again, very disappointing. I'm glad I didn't spend any money on this. | 2) this " specialization" . Again, very | Disappoint | 2) I'm glad I didn't spend any | 1.0 |
| tEqImn2kEeWb-BLhFdaGww | For a course with the name "Pro Tool Basics", I was expecting some specific knowledge about this particular software but what the course really teaches is basic music production things (samples, synthesizers, how to create tracks, how to record audio, compressors, EQs, etc). As I am already a music producer using Logic Pro, I was hoping to learn more about the software itself and its differences in comparison with other DAWs in the market, so I was a little bit disappointed in the end! | 1) so I was a little bit | Disappoint | 1) in the end! | 2.0 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | In short, I am somewhat disappointed with the course overall. Of course both speakers have amazing experiences and that is valuable in itself but I do believe the structure of the lectures is not envolving as it should be. It seems that the basic rationale is being 'fired' in a not so much 'educative fashion'. Still there is much to learn from these contents. | 1) In short, I am somewhat | Disappoint | 1) with the course overall. Of course | 3.0 |
| TN6htXEnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I learned a lot from this course, but was disappointed that some of the information and downloads referenced were missing. | 1) lot from this course, but was | Disappoint | 1) that some of the information and | 4.0 |
| TN6htXEnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Generally a good course. I was disappointed with the instructions in the Week 3 assignment. In past courses within the certification, the instructions have noted specifically what was required. Here, the instructions around the Google Business Page part of the assignment did not include some specific elements we were being evaluated one. | 1) Generally a good course. I was | Disappoint | 1) with the instructions in the Week | 4.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | I expected much more. The course material is really weak, did not improve my knowledge about Cyber Security. I am very disappointed, also cos I payed 30 dollars to a certificate. I do not recommend this course | 1) about Cyber Security. I am very | Disappoint | 1) also cos I payed 30 dollars | 1.0 |
| TYSbV73jEeW1WAr3aepXuw | I find this to be very very basic advice on how to write a scientific paper. I can't even see where the "project" is coming, plus the strong accent of instructors makes it really hard to follow sometimes -- even with the subtitles. To make things even better, accessing the quizzes is imposible unless you pay for the certificate. I found the course disappointing. | 1) the certificate. I found the course | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Nice course. I learnt so much but I am disappointed there's no certificate after all. | 1) learnt so much but I am | Disappoint | 1) there's no certificate after all. | 4.0 |
| U-SKLJVlEeWF6gpQJiw6hQ | I have to say, I am disappointed in that I feel there is little to no interaction here between students and instructors/aides. Additionally, the assignments are not functioning properly and it creates much confusion. The instructors videos are great and have been helpful but the rest is lacking! There is no way to view other's bodies of work and critiques are very vague, etc. This is photography... where is the photography from learners (other than the assignments)? Why is there no gallery here? | 1) I have to say, I am | Disappoint | 1) in that I feel there is | 2.0 |
| uiT8U5oIEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | The worst course I've ever take in Coursera. I can pass the course all because I have some background of this topic. The lecture taught me NOTHING! Consider I just finish the previous course "algorithm for DNA sequencing" which might be the best course I toke in the Coursera, this course makes me very disappointed! If the previous course gives me the faith to continue learning something in Coursera, this course must be the reason that let me leave the Coursera left. I can't even understand why there are some guys give this course 5 stars. If there is -5 stars option, I'll put this score in front of the lecturer and tell her WHAT A BAD COURSE her give us. | 1) Coursera, this course makes me very | Disappoint | 1) If the previous course gives me | 1.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | It is odd that a course that concentrates so vehemently on speech tone, as a segue to music would be taught by a monotone and mostly unenthused professor. Often verbose, but never succinct, I had to listen to his drone twice to glean anything of value. His tests were wrought with "gotcha" questions, having nothing to do with the important material of the course. As a physicist, I was very disappointed in his treatment of the important equations associated with the mathematics of music (mentioned as "too hard" to understand). There was nearly no mention of rhythm and its importance in music, as relates to biology and/or emotion, and no mention of how those rhythms relate to heartbeat. I am deeply disappointed, but I do hope this critique is seen as an opportunity to create a better course. | 1) As a physicist, I was very | Disappoint | 1) in his treatment of the important | 2.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | It is odd that a course that concentrates so vehemently on speech tone, as a segue to music would be taught by a monotone and mostly unenthused professor. Often verbose, but never succinct, I had to listen to his drone twice to glean anything of value. His tests were wrought with "gotcha" questions, having nothing to do with the important material of the course. As a physicist, I was very disappointed in his treatment of the important equations associated with the mathematics of music (mentioned as "too hard" to understand). There was nearly no mention of rhythm and its importance in music, as relates to biology and/or emotion, and no mention of how those rhythms relate to heartbeat. I am deeply disappointed, but I do hope this critique is seen as an opportunity to create a better course. | 2) relate to heartbeat. I am deeply | Disappoint | 2) but I do hope this critique | 2.0 |
| UShq4HPgEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | The course material was good but the lectures being in Spanish with English translations was difficult to follow. I was disappointed in the short videos with subtitles. | 1) was difficult to follow. I was | Disappoint | 1) in the short videos with subtitles. | 3.0 |
| UYzGkJfFEeWqkw5zNB248Q | The course started really well and followed on nicely from the first course in the series but I'm really disappointed and frustrated with the video editing issues. Many were fixed but there are still some errors/omissions and the second half of the course was very short of content compared to the rest. Such a shame as I'm sure the writers really know their material and conveyed so well when the content was there. I'm looking forward to the next course and hope the material is all ready to go! | 1) in the series but I'm really | Disappoint | 1) and frustrated with the video editing | 2.0 |
| UYzGkJfFEeWqkw5zNB248Q | I think this course gives me the most fundamental knowledge of photography, which consists of many new words and ideas. Thanks to this series of courses, I began to work better on my photograph skills, and I found it really interesting and amazing. The only thing I'm not quite pleased with is the payment of the full course, without the upgrades, I just can't review others' works and that's disappointing. But anyway, I will continue this specialism and I hope it's the right choice. | 1) can't review others' works and that's | Disappoint | 1) But anyway, I will continue this | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | This course disappointed me. I expected to receive knowledge about negotiation. But it's more advertisement for the book. I did every step in the course until the quiz and the quiz asks for knowledge which wasn't in the course. I assume that i should have read the book to be prepared to do the quiz. That's not why i registered on coursera. | 1) This course | Disappoint | 1) me. I expected to receive knowledge | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | 1) learning: a robot. I am really | Disappoint | 1) with this course. | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Despite the arguments of this module are extremely interesting and very useful for Robotics, I think the way they are treated is very poor. In my opinion lectures are so superficial that it is almost a waste of time to follow them. Lectures are completely useless and most of the time quizzes are note related with them. In order to solve quizzes you have not only to recover prior knowledge, that it is obvious, but also to search for new arguments somwhere in the web, in some other courses where contents are better treated and explained. In that contest what are the quizzes, what should quizzes have to test if no content is given? Moreover it often happen that without a clear support from the lectures, questions are confused and ambiguous. It is quite difficult to follow the teaching path and to enrich my knowledge. I think it is a very bad way to make a course and often the pleasure to follow disappears leaving a sense of frustration and futility. I arrived at the end of the course just because I'm doing the specialization otherwise I would have left in the middle of the first week. I'm very disappointed. | 1) of the first week. I'm very | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | 1) I have to admit I was | Disappoint | 1) with this one, despite having a | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | 2) people can get when they are | Disappoint | 2) with their grade, I am not | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | This course is solely for teachers, on how to tech art to elementary school pupils. Very basic. Most of the content is available on the MoMA's website. Disappointing. | 1) is available on the MoMA's website. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | Bad teacher. extremely disappointing ! | 1) Bad teacher. extremely | Disappoint | 1) ! | 1.0 |
| vGGtBxVGEeW_mxLPrCkAqw | Quite disappointed, I thought we'd have something more structured or at least different from the previous courses. The content is here and good, but I was expecting reviews from pro U.X and not student like the previous courses. The good upgrade though is that we have clear examples of submission before we send ours. | 1) Quite | Disappoint | 1) I thought we'd have something more | 3.0 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | While I love Dr. van Lent's teaching style, I was somewhat disappointed in the course as a whole. After about the first week the instructor was not heard from again on the forums. It wasn't until about the last week that some official teaching staff started to make an appearance. This was an issue as, especially in the first week, as there was a good deal of discrepancy between what was on the grading rubric, what was provided in description for the homework, and what was in an optional video that described the homework. All with no official direction as to what was correct, or how things should be properly graded. The students were just left to themselves to try and interpret what the instructor meant, and what was the proper thing to do in regards to the peer grading. This continued, albeit to a far lesser extent, through the remainder of the course. While I don't expect instructors to be in the forums all that often, I do expect them to clear up obvious issues, and to make some type of official statement as to how students should proceed. I believe this was the first offering of this course, and I hope as it offered again those discrepancies are fixed, and perhaps more official teaching staff are able to monitor the forums. As far as the material itself, it is pretty good, and covers most of the basics well. As I said at the start, I really love Dr. van Lent's teaching style. She is very encouraging, and easy to understand. She is also very human, making mistakes as she goes along, and correcting them. I feel this gives the student a good experience of the real world iterative process that coding is, that even with experience mistakes are still made, and to be expected, and how to go about doing some debugging to correct those mistakes. | 1) Lent's teaching style, I was somewhat | Disappoint | 1) in the course as a whole. | 2.0 |
| w8XFGTVyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | disappointing... | 1) | Disappoint | 1) . . | 1.0 |
| Wa2LIymGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | I really enjoyed the intellectual challenge of the course but I was a little bit disappointed by the set of problems for Homework #4. In my view, the whole set should be reviewed in order to make | 1) but I was a little bit | Disappoint | 1) by the set of problems for | 4.0 |
| we5nljlYEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Two of the weeks' content was not based on specific, cited research, which was disappointing. Inspiring and Motivating Individuals did an excellent job of that, as did two of the four weeks of this course. | 1) on specific, cited research, which was | Disappoint | 1) Inspiring and Motivating Individuals did an | 3.0 |
| wEl1EleDEeWTbwotamPtlQ | This is a great introduction to Israel and Middle Eastern politics. It's not too tough- everything is broken down into very manageable 7 or 8 minute lessons, so it's easy to acquire a general understanding of the factors that led to the formation of Israel. Students looking for an in-depth examination may be disappointed, but if you're curious about this fascinating and very relevant chapter of history, this course will give you a good overview, and leave you hungry to learn more. | 1) for an in-depth examination may be | Disappoint | 1) but if you're curious about this | 4.0 |
| Wl5ych5kEeWFIxLDnS6_kQ | I am a bit disappointed. The main concepts would require more explanation. There are too many requests for essay writting and it sometimes feels an infomercial for the school. | 1) I am a bit | Disappoint | 1) The main concepts would require more | 3.0 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | This course is addressing a critical subject matter. The material is great. I love the math. But these are my personal metrics: A 4-star course has a high level of student collaboration and teaching staff participation, a 5-star course has very responsive teaching staff. I love learning the material but the learning environment is disappointing. As the course progresses to the later weeks, the inconsistency between quizzes and lectures grows. Not greatly but enough to frustrate. Some quiz questions, with multiple choice options with only one correct answer, will not accept any answer. There are a few questions which are not covered in the video lecture (or covered in later weeks). Some answers can be found in the book (but the book supposedly is not required). Some answers can be googled but the answers vary wildly between sources. Mathematical Thinking from Stanford is the gold standard. | 1) material but the learning environment is | Disappoint | 1) As the course progresses to the | 3.0 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Good course but not good from coursera to not give honor certificate like it used to give. edx still gives..very disappointed with coursera. | 1) give. edx still gives. . very | Disappoint | 1) with coursera. | 1.0 |
| X8YjHDowEeWnxw5wP_KHTw | Very bad learner experience. I'm disappointed. I don't know if what I have learnt is correct or not. All quizzes and some lectures have errors, impossible to get a 10/10. There're few characters to learn. -- Muy mala experiencia de aprendizaje. Estoy decepcionada con éste curso. He aprendido pero no sé si lo que he aprendido es correcto! Casi todos los test y algunas presentaciones tienen errores (y no son pocos), es imposible sacar un 10 ni con diccionario. Además hay muy pocos caracteres y no se explica la relación de cada carácter con el significado de las palabras. | 1) Very bad learner experience. I'm | Disappoint | 1) I don't know if what I | 1.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I am disappointed by not being able to do the assignments unless I pay for the course. | 1) I am | Disappoint | 1) by not being able to do | 3.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | I am disappointed, from a place like Stanford I was expecting a real course in nutrition. This course doesn't teach anything. It's a mere half an hour a week of advice we should all already know, if we are interested in nutrition. I am quitting this course, unfortunately it's a waste of time. | 1) I am | Disappoint | 1) from a place like Stanford I | 1.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Utterly disappointing. I hoped for a fact-based education on current scientific thinking in nutrition. Instead, this course consists of a couple of people's opinions on eating, without cited evidence, presented in a feel-good documentary-lite format with good camerawork and cute children. This is a high school public service announcement, not a university course; not what I'd expect from Stanford or Coursera. | 1) Utterly | Disappoint | 1) I hoped for a fact-based education | 1.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Good "basics" course. Great for beginners and reminders! I was hoping for something more advanced & was a bit disappointed. I am probably more knowledgeable than most however. The statement made regarding "eating fruits & veggies regardless of whether they have pesticides or not" was a bit tough for me as I became ill in part due to pesticides and still am. I might always be. I understand eating veggies in place of other foods (i. e. - processed foods) as I eat very little meat anymore. But coming from Stanford and someone as educated as he is, that was shocking. It makes me wonder who funded this course. | 1) more advanced & was a bit | Disappoint | 1) I am probably more knowledgeable than | 3.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Hi, I was looking for a good introduction course to food and nutrition and, alas, this is not it. I knew 90% of the things discussed in this course, and I was expecting more, but all I got was very basic advices ("eat less", "don't eat crap", etc.), all with videoclips and music which got annoying really quick. Disappointing. Take care. | 1) music which got annoying really quick. | Disappoint | 1) Take care. | 1.0 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | Good course, but I was disappointed that clips of some of the music weren't played. | 1) Good course, but I was | Disappoint | 1) that clips of some of the | 4.0 |
| xRA5cxnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | I am very disappointed in this specilization/course. I am working as a business analyst in a data warehouse consulting firm, so I was highly motivated to take all the courses! However, lecturer's poor delivery has taked me aback! It is really hard to grasp the information when it has simply been read to you! The lecturer is always reading and it makes me sick (sorry!). Anyway, I would not continue with the courses if nothing changed. In my opinion, if the lecturer respects students and his field of study, he does not READ from the script and lack motivation... | 1) I am very | Disappoint | 1) in this specilization/course. I am working | 1.0 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | There is no instruction with this course. If you've never written a script before you're not going to get a lot of help here other than researching things yourself, which you can do without this course. Not to mention, the feedback is minimal and not all that helpful. For example. if i've never written a script, what value am I to someone else who has also never written a script. And what value is their feedback to me. I signed up to get some experience and to also get feedback from those more experienced than I. I'm less interested in what my peers have to say and more interested in the feedback of the instructor who has years more experience than most of us. To pass assignments off of 4 or 5 peer reviews is worthless. There's no value in that. What does the instructor think??? Would HE pass us? He occasionally drops a line in the discussion forum, but no direct feedback to the students. I think this class should have a cap on enrollment so that the instructor can actually review and provide feedback to the students. Joke's on anyone paying $49 to essentially teach yourself. This guys just sits back and "moderates" when he can. The best thing about this class is that it does force you to write, but beyond that, it's not helpful at all. Truly disappointing. | 1) it's not helpful at all. Truly | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | No significant instruction/teaching provided. Appears to function only as a self-directed workshop, which doesn't teach the craft itself. Disappointing. | 1) which doesn't teach the craft itself. | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| X_ZG4rVzEeWq2A7HIftJ6w | I had high expectations of this course, but must admit I'm pretty disappointed. Navigating the course feels unintuitive and clunky. Not sure if that's just a Coursera thing though. The actual content (video) looks great, but is unfortunately exceedingly brief, so much so, that it feels like this entire course could have just been a single article. In fact, there's not much presented that really benefits from the video format. Most 'instruction' in the course is centered around brief talks, or artist interviews, and thus you're often just looking at two people talking, or an artist showing you their work while they talk. You never even see anyone draw to my recollection. The 'work' in the course feels rather 'phoned in' at times too. Questions such as "What did you find interesting about the video you just watched?" seem unnecessary, and too elementary to contain any real value, especially when the videos are so brief. Having said all that, I DO think the people who made it are genuine, and have passion for comics, and comics education, and I'll continue to follow their efforts on that front. | 1) course, but must admit I'm pretty | Disappoint | 1) Navigating the course feels unintuitive and | 2.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | If you're expecting a decent tutorial on Bootstrap, this is the course for you. If you're expecting a course on fundamental UI design and implementation concepts, you might be a little disappointed. Overall, well presented with a fun restaurant mock web site as the final project. | 1) concepts, you might be a little | Disappoint | 1) Overall, well presented with a fun | 4.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Fairly disappointing compared to the first week of this course. The balance of instruction to exercise was very low. I also resent being sent to raw Bootstrap documentation; if I could have read that, I likely wouldn't be taking the course. It makes it frustrating to jump into the exercises when the course had 5-7 minutes of lectures, 15 minutes on the exercise and then an assignment on something new. Update: I'm also impressed by Mr. Muppala taking feedback like a boss and blaming students for low reviews. | 1) Fairly | Disappoint | 1) compared to the first week of | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Despite the pertinent content, the way the instructor gave the classes could have been way more intuitive. You'll find videos on the web that can help you with the subjects covered and do a better job explaining the concepts. Disappointing. | 1) a better job explaining the concepts. | Disappoint | 1) | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | The worst professor in this specialization. The subject really interesting, and I have been studying for a while in my Master's and PhD in engineering, so I could understand the bulk of the course. This is a very important subject in data analysis and these poor explained classes could make lot of people give up the specialization. Statistics involves much of mathematics and calculus which make it a natural challenge for most of the people. Please, improve these classes in order not to disappoint the student who want to become data scientists. | 1) these classes in order not to | Disappoint | 1) the student who want to become | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | I really wanted to learn this stuff. I have almost no background in statistics. But the lectures didn't cover stuff with enough rigor and repetition for me to pick up much. So I pretty much gamed the quizzes and project enough to get through the class. Rather disappointing. | 1) to get through the class. Rather | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This course goes on a very fast pace and simply does not have the charm of all the other courses in the specialization. I understand that a lot of content is covered within a month, but there should be supplementary course material available. Moreover, TAs should be more active on the forums. I have seen most of the questions just being discussed among the students. A little disappointed. Will probably have to watch all the material again to have confidence with it. | 1) discussed among the students. A little | Disappoint | 1) Will probably have to watch all | 3.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very disappointed with how the transition from the old Coursera platform to the new platform has been handled: lots of instances of the "see lecture X" in the quizzes where the reference is now just wrong because the lectures got renumbered, an almost complete lack of community TA/mentors, and no explanations from anyone as to how the new platform works. Perhaps the worst of all has been the almost complete lack of acknowledgement of any problems from the folks at JHU. This feels like it's just been dumped on the students without any real testing or any appropriate resources to sort out any problems. | 1) Very | Disappoint | 1) with how the transition from the | 1.0 |
| yO13mkySEeW_MgoxMAgbMQ | I was somewhat disappointed with the content of this course. It seems shallow and disintegrated to me. Its difficult to say that this course provides some practical knowledge. | 1) I was somewhat | Disappoint | 1) with the content of this course. | 1.0 |
| yVldYUd5EeWb5ArkqfgJBw | Good lecture and content. However, disappointing that even when I audit the course, I cannot take the exams. This is contrary to most of the other Coursera courses where you can. If you cannot afford to participate you have limited access to the testing material. I'm not impressed. | 1) Good lecture and content. However, | Disappoint | 1) that even when I audit the | 2.0 |
| Z3yHdBVBEeWvmQrN_lODCw | Unfortunately I found this course to be the least enjoyable so far in the specialization. I'm not sure if I was just jarred by the change in instructor, but I found her manner of lecture to be almost belittling. I'm not sure if she's a mother or not, but that's the way she comes across--like she's trying to squeeze massive and advanced theory into a pill designed for ten year-olds. A majority of this class simply glossed over things we already learned in the intro class, and she would often list things she was going to talk about, and then ignore one of those items entirely. In fact, one of the most challenging assignments in this course was building a journey map, something that was mentioned in the lectures, but not gone into in depth at all. I tackled this challenge by sort of haphazardly googling journey maps and praying my submission would come across as somewhat logical. Ultimately I'm very disappointed with this part of the specialization. I don't feel like it was worth my $39, and would love to see this class completely redesigned for future learners. Research and prototyping is arguably one of the most important things for a burgeoning UX designer to learn, and this class could stand to be a lot more in depth. | 1) as somewhat logical. Ultimately I'm very | Disappoint | 1) with this part of the specialization. | 2.0 |
| zKZY59dlEeSQOCIAC0ELFw | Disappointing, not different from a class presentation, poor in content, lousy instructor | 1) | Disappoint | 1) not different from a class presentation, | 2.0 |
| ZQDT5AS2EeWmBSIAC9UI2A | This is an interesting course but I'm disappointed at the lack of female lecturers/interviews. I'm a female and would appreciate leadership/encouragement via role models from educators in this traditionally male-dominated field. | 1) is an interesting course but I'm | Disappoint | 1) at the lack of female lecturers/interviews. | 3.0 |
| _j_95QpWEeWoRw4pD4cXmw | Much less technical than I had anticipated. Much more policy-driven. Disappointing. | 1) I had anticipated. Much more policy-driven. | Disappoint | 1) | 1.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | I have to admit, this course greatly disappointed me from the beginning. The main reason is its title; it should have been "Macroeconomics of the USA". The instructor focuses too heavily on the US economy, which is partially understandable due to its significance, but I personally got tired of the endless supply of facts (and opinions) about US Presidents and their choices on US Macroeconomic Policy over the last 80 years. Other than that, the main concepts of Macroeconomics are presented with adequate detail. I had very little background in Economics but managed to grasp them rather easily. The presentations are pretty dull, however, with the professor mainly reading through the slides (which mind you are NOT in downloadable form). All in all, it's not a bad course, but there is great room for improvement. | 1) have to admit, this course greatly | Disappoint | 1) me from the beginning. The main | 3.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | I wish I could rate this course higher but I didn't enjoy it and despite being 10/12 weeks into it, I'm going to stop now. The videos are hard to follow, the examples are few and far in between, some explanations (eg. exchange rates) are really poorly explained. I'm disappointed, I don't feel like I learned much! | 1) rates) are really poorly explained. I'm | Disappoint | 1) I don't feel like I learned | 2.0 |
| __JK5M3TEeSa0iIAC9RQCQ | This course contained good information and it was discussed in a clear and easily understandable fashion. I was a bit disappointed though that the level was pitched quite low and so didn't answer a lot of the questions I have. If you have next to no financial literacy, however, this would be an invaluable course. | 1) understandable fashion. I was a bit | Disappoint | 1) though that the level was pitched | 3.0 |