You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 30, 2020. It is now read-only.
Combinatorics associated with a protected reporting (e.g. by differential privacy or k-anonymity) would certainly make most product ids unlikely to appear in reports.
How do you think this proposal should be incorporated within TURTLEDOVE or SPARROW reporting?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In general, I think that creating aggregate reports on the product level (as opposed to the creative level) would be a natural and effective reporting strategy when leveraging product-level mechanisms in Turtledove.
Combinatorics associated with a protected reporting (e.g. by differential privacy or k-anonymity) would certainly make most product ids unlikely to appear in reports.
I was wondering, when you mention combinatorics, do you see a need for reporting aggregates for the collections of products displayed in ads:
"an ad containing product 17, 24, 88 and 113 was shown N times",
as opposed to reporting aggregates for each product separately?
"Product 17 appeared in X impressions, product 24 in Y impressions, ..."
Combinatorics associated with a protected reporting (e.g. by differential privacy or k-anonymity) would certainly make most product ids unlikely to appear in reports.
How do you think this proposal should be incorporated within TURTLEDOVE or SPARROW reporting?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: