Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix cost benefit matrix doc formatting #2990

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 31, 2021
Merged

Fix cost benefit matrix doc formatting #2990

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 31, 2021

Conversation

angela97lin
Copy link
Contributor

@angela97lin angela97lin commented Oct 29, 2021

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #2990 (397d1ea) into main (c558f56) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #2990   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   99.7%   99.7%           
=====================================
  Files        307     307           
  Lines      29265   29265           
=====================================
  Hits       29174   29174           
  Misses        91      91           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c558f56...397d1ea. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jeremyliweishih jeremyliweishih left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@chukarsten chukarsten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks Angela! This makes me wonder if we need to do a periodic/quarterly full docs read through story just to make sure that everything's good.

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"In this example, let's say that correctly identifying customers who will churn (true positive case) will give us a net profit of \\$400, because it allows us to intervene, incentivize the customer to stay, and sign a new contract. Incorrectly classifying customers who were not going to churn as customers who will churn (false positive case) will cost \\$100 to represent the marketing and effort used to try to retain the user. Not identifying customers who will churn (false negative case) will cost us \\$200 to represent the lost in revenue from losing a customer. Finally, correctly identifying customers who will not churn (true negative case) will not cost us anything (\\$0), as nothing needs to be done for that customer."
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The original formatting reminded me of this:

image

@angela97lin angela97lin merged commit b95f40b into main Oct 31, 2021
@chukarsten chukarsten mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2021
@angela97lin angela97lin deleted the 2988_cbm branch January 11, 2022 17:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Cost Benefit Matrix docs are formatted poorly.
4 participants