跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.34726 · v1

Designing Customer Feedback for Subscription Boxes

首次提交 2026-10-26 10:22
版本更新 2026-10-26 10:22
雷达观测 2026-10-29 01:07
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Problem definition: Subscription box services often ask customers for ratings before choosing what to send. Responses are scarce, and longer questionnaires and finer scales lower completion. We study which candidate items a questionnaire should ask about, and in what format, when the platform then selects a fixed number of them. A design is judged by the expected value lost by not selecting the truly best items. Methodology/results: We approximate each ordinal rating by a Gaussian signal carrying its information at the cutoff between selected and unselected items. As equal numbers of responses per item grow, the ratio of this proxy's loss to the exact loss tends to one. With 1 to 100 responses per item, the two are within about 7 percent. Averaging the information over the prior instead can misstate the loss by about half. For an item far from the cutoff, the value of responses grows slowly at first and then faster, so our envelope rule values responses in blocks. In simulations with a correct prior it lowers the loss by 15 to 81 percent relative to an even spread, and on MovieLens ratings by 6 to 25 percent. Under the proxy, with responses allocated optimally, formats are ranked exactly by one number, the expected information per customer asked. Choosing the format this way comes within about 2 percent of the best on average. Managerial implications: Feedback should go to items whose place in the selection is unclear. Planning helps most when the platform's prior beliefs are informative and right. A platform unsure of its prior should widen it and send the questionnaire in waves. Calibrated on MovieLens ratings, a five-point answer carries about 1.7 times the information of a like/dislike answer, so at equal length the finer scale is better when it cuts completion by less than about 40 percent.

作者备注:47 pages, 4 figures

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-26 10:22 · 最新观测版本

Designing Customer Feedback for Subscription Boxes

Problem definition: Subscription box services often ask customers for ratings before choosing what to send. Responses are scarce, and longer questionnaires and finer scales lower completion. We study which candidate items a questionnaire should ask about, and in what format, when the platform then selects a fixed number of them. A design is judged by the expected value lost by not selecting the truly best items. Methodology/results: We approximate each ordinal rating by a Gaussian signal carrying its information at the cutoff between selected and unselected items. As equal numbers of responses per item grow, the ratio of this proxy's loss to the exact loss tends to one. With 1 to 100 responses per item, the two are within about 7 percent. Averaging the information over the prior instead can misstate the loss by about half. For an item far from the cutoff, the value of responses grows slowly at first and then faster, so our envelope rule values responses in blocks. In simulations with a correct prior it lowers the loss by 15 to 81 percent relative to an even spread, and on MovieLens ratings by 6 to 25 percent. Under the proxy, with responses allocated optimally, formats are ranked exactly by one number, the expected information per customer asked. Choosing the format this way comes within about 2 percent of the best on average. Managerial implications: Feedback should go to items whose place in the selection is unclear. Planning helps most when the platform's prior beliefs are informative and right. A platform unsure of its prior should widen it and send the questionnaire in waves. Calibrated on MovieLens ratings, a five-point answer carries about 1.7 times the information of a like/dislike answer, so at equal length the finer scale is better when it cuts completion by less than about 40 percent.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗