ML Interview Q Series: How would you evaluate a feed-ranking algorithm if some metrics improve while others decline?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

Measuring the success of a feed-ranking algorithm often involves multiple metrics that capture different aspects of user engagement and satisfaction. The underlying goal is to optimize for both quantitative and qualitative signals. For instance, you might be tracking click-through rate (CTR), dwell time, social interactions such as likes, comments, or shares, and possibly user sentiment. When some metrics go up while others go down, it indicates potential trade-offs in user experience. This scenario typically calls for deeper analysis of which outcomes are most beneficial in the long run and which user segments are most affected.

A critical approach is to define an overarching objective or a weighted set of objectives that align with business goals and user satisfaction. One method is to use ranking metrics designed specifically for ordered lists. Examples include DCG (Discounted Cumulative Gain), NDCG (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain), and MRR (Mean Reciprocal Rank). These can be valuable when your goal is to ensure highly relevant content appears at the top of each user’s feed.

Here is a key formula for NDCG at position K, which highlights a common way to evaluate ranking algorithms:

The rel_i is the relevance score of the item at position i (in text, you might use integer relevance judgments such as 0, 1, 2, etc.), i refers to the rank position in the list, and Z_K is a normalization term ensuring the values are scaled between 0 and 1. This normalization is typically the value of the same summation but for the ideal ordering. This metric penalizes highly relevant items if they appear at lower positions in the feed and rewards the correct ordering of the most relevant items near the top.

In a scenario where some success metrics show improvement while others go down, analyzing the root cause requires looking at user behavior in detail. You can segment users by their demographics or activity level. For one segment, you might observe an increase in CTR due to more clickable content, but for another segment, you might see a drop in session duration because the content is less relevant to them overall. You could also explore how short-term engagement metrics correlate with long-term user satisfaction metrics, such as whether users remain active on the platform or their overall session frequency.

Additionally, you might conduct A/B tests that systematically vary the algorithm’s parameters. By randomly assigning users to different ranking strategies, you can compare which strategy yields the better trade-off among competing metrics. For instance, you might discover that emphasizing dwell time strongly can inadvertently reduce overall consumption if the feed starts ranking only longer posts, which may not always be what users want. Balancing the system to optimize for multiple signals can be done by using multi-objective optimization techniques, or by building a single composite objective that combines different metrics in a way that aligns with overarching product goals.

There is also a human-centric angle to consider. Even if some purely quantitative metrics dip, you might run a user survey or gather explicit user feedback to see if their perceived satisfaction has improved. In some cases, a short-term drop in clicks might be acceptable if you expect a better long-term user retention or a healthier community environment. Understanding the overarching business objective and the long-term vision guides how to interpret these metric fluctuations.

Example Code Snippet for Evaluating NDCG in Python

Below is a short example of how you might compute NDCG for a list of user interactions in Python. Although it’s a simplified example, it shows how you can measure the ranking quality:

import numpy as np

def dcg_at_k(relevances, k):
    relevances = np.asfarray(relevances)[:k]
    return np.sum((2**relevances - 1) / np.log2(np.arange(2, relevances.size + 2)))

def ndcg_at_k(relevances, k):
    ideal_relevances = sorted(relevances, reverse=True)
    actual_dcg = dcg_at_k(relevances, k)
    ideal_dcg = dcg_at_k(ideal_relevances, k)
    return actual_dcg / ideal_dcg if ideal_dcg > 0 else 0.0

# Example usage:
relevances_example = [3, 2, 3, 0, 1]  # Suppose these are relevance scores
k = 3
score_ndcg = ndcg_at_k(relevances_example, k)
print("NDCG at k=3:", score_ndcg)

This snippet first calculates the DCG for the actual ranking, then calculates it for the ideal ordering, and finally divides them to get NDCG. By carefully comparing such metrics across different algorithm variants and user segments, you can gain insight into how well the system is performing for each population.

Why Some Metrics Might Conflict

When certain engagement metrics rise while others fall, it often reveals trade-offs. For example, you might optimize for time-on-feed, which leads to more extended viewing sessions but lowers the number of clicks if the user is immersed in reading a single post. Another scenario might be that focusing heavily on a quick click-through measure can reduce dwell time if the algorithm starts showing more clickbait. The key is identifying which metrics correlate most strongly with your primary goals—sometimes short-term metrics conflict with long-term user satisfaction.

Handling Trade-Offs

A practical approach includes experimenting with different weighting schemes or objective functions. You can create a composite metric that blends short-term and long-term goals. For instance, you might combine CTR with dwell time and weight them based on their importance to the business. Continuous monitoring and iterative experimentation (A/B testing or multi-armed bandits) help refine the balance.

When you notice diverging trends in metrics, you might also perform a deeper funnel analysis. For instance, look at the overall distribution: maybe the average session duration is up, but the median is down, indicating a small set of power users have become more active while casual users are dropping off more quickly. Such insights can guide you to adjust the algorithm for better overall consistency.

Follow-Up Question

How do you ensure that your ranking algorithm does not unfairly penalize new or less popular items?

An algorithm that relies heavily on historical engagement signals may amplify the popularity of already-popular items and reduce the exposure for less popular content. To address this, you can introduce an exploration mechanism that occasionally tests new or less-engaged items. Techniques such as multi-armed bandits can help balance the exploitation of known popular items with the exploration of newer content. You could also incorporate diversity constraints or novelty factors in the ranking function to ensure a variety of content surfaces. This approach helps maintain a healthier content ecosystem and avoids “rich-get-richer” scenarios. By measuring how often new or niche items get shown and subsequently interacted with, you can ensure the algorithm remains fair and inclusive of emerging content.

Follow-Up Question

How do you handle situations where users might express satisfaction with the feed in surveys but simultaneously reduce their active usage?

User satisfaction can be nuanced. It’s possible for users to indicate in a survey that they enjoy the feed content, yet over time they might open the app less frequently due to other factors—perhaps the content is indeed good when they see it, but they no longer have a compelling reason to return frequently. These discrepancies might indicate that while the feed experience is subjectively pleasant, it’s not necessarily driving habitual engagement. To resolve this, you could:

• Study long-term behavioral metrics such as retention, churn rate, or session frequency alongside survey-based sentiment. • Experiment with notifications or ways to remind users to revisit, checking if that changes their usage pattern. • Examine how the ranking algorithm might be adjusted to provide a balance of immediate satisfaction (showing content that resonates in surveys) with “pull factors” that keep users returning.

In essence, combining subjective feedback with objective engagement data often yields a more holistic picture of the feed’s performance.

Follow-Up Question

How do you reconcile short-term engagement metrics with the longer-term platform health?

Short-term metrics like CTR or immediate likes and comments are useful for quick feedback loops, but they might not always align with the platform’s long-term health. To address this challenge, you can track metrics such as churn, user retention, or the lifetime value of user cohorts. Sometimes, it’s acceptable to sacrifice a bit of short-term engagement if it fosters a more meaningful and positive user experience over time. Monitoring these metrics side by side helps you measure whether improvements in short-term engagement come at the cost of long-term user satisfaction. A balanced, multi-objective optimization that allocates weight to both short-term and long-term metrics is a common and effective strategy.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How do you measure user dissatisfaction or negative signals?

User dissatisfaction often manifests in subtle ways—such as abruptly closing the app, quickly scrolling past certain posts, or even abandoning specific content topics. Traditional engagement metrics like CTR and dwell time alone might not capture frustration or disinterest. One technique is to track “bounce-like” behaviors, including rapid exits or immediate scroll-aways. Another approach is to measure negative feedback signals explicitly: for instance, let users hide a post, mark content as irrelevant, or report spam.

A potential pitfall is assuming that absence of engagement means user dissatisfaction. Some users might be content just passively reading and do not click or interact; this behavior shouldn’t automatically be labeled as negative. Conversely, simply counting the number of negative feedback clicks can be misleading if the interface makes it too easy or confusing for users to hit the “hide” button accidentally. It’s also possible for certain user segments, such as older or less tech-savvy individuals, to never use explicit feedback mechanisms, so you may miss out on important signals.

A robust strategy might combine explicit signals (e.g., reporting a post) with implicit signals (fast-scroll or time to next item) and glean deeper insights through periodic surveys. Such a multi-dimensional view helps ensure the algorithm accounts for both active and passive dissatisfaction indicators.

How do you handle anomalies or unexpected spikes in usage data?

Feed-ranking algorithms often rely on stable assumptions about user behavior. However, real-world applications face anomalies, such as viral content, seasonal events (like holidays), or external crises that can cause abrupt spikes or dips in engagement. If your system is not prepared to detect and handle these anomalies, it may overfit to short-term trends or degrade user experience.

A practical approach is to implement anomaly detection layers—these can be statistical thresholds, time-series decomposition methods, or machine learning models specialized in outlier detection. When an anomaly is flagged (e.g., extremely high CTR for a new category of posts), the system might temporarily adjust the weighting of certain features or revert to a fallback model.

Edge cases arise when an anomaly proves to be the “new normal,” like a permanent shift in user interests triggered by major cultural shifts. Overly aggressive filtering could mean missing genuine trends. Hence, the system should incorporate adaptive learning mechanisms that gradually incorporate validated anomalies into future model iterations, balancing responsiveness with stability.

What if the ranking algorithm begins to homogenize the content over time, reducing content diversity?

An overemphasis on engagement metrics like CTR can lead the system to surface similar types of content repeatedly, eventually creating a filter bubble. This not only reduces the diversity of content that users see but can also lead to fatigue or boredom if the feed seems repetitive. Over time, the algorithm might isolate users into narrow interest pockets and fail to expose them to content that could broaden their perspective.

To handle this, you can introduce explicit diversity constraints, such as requiring the feed to contain posts with different topics, content formats, or from different connection clusters. Another approach is to inject a small amount of random exploration or “serendipity” content to see if users might be interested in something unexpected. Balancing engagement optimization with exploration requires careful tuning. If diversity is pushed too aggressively, users might be shown irrelevant items, harming short-term satisfaction.

A potential pitfall arises if the algorithm is not continuously monitored for drift in content categories. Over time, some categories might vanish from the feed entirely if they perform sub-optimally in short-term metrics. Regular auditing of content distribution can help detect and correct such biases early.

How do you manage content “cold starts” for brand-new posts or creators?

Brand-new posts or content creators lack historical engagement data, making it difficult to estimate relevance. If the algorithm is strongly biased towards known high-engagement items, new creators might never gain traction. To address this, many platforms use an exploration mechanism—temporarily boosting or giving special prominence to new content so it has a fair chance to gather initial engagement signals.

One potential pitfall is that naive boosting can lead to feed clutter if an excessive number of new posts flood the top positions. Another concern is “creator spam,” where malicious actors keep posting fresh but low-quality content to exploit the boost effect. To mitigate these scenarios, you might cap the number of newly boosted posts per user session and incorporate trust signals (e.g., whether the creator has a history of spam).

Once these new items collect enough engagement data, the algorithm reverts to its standard ranking. Monitoring how quickly new items reach a baseline significance threshold ensures a consistent user experience and fair exposure to new voices.

How do you keep track of changing user preferences over time?

Users’ interests can shift for many reasons—career changes, evolving hobbies, or even external trends. A feed-ranking algorithm that predominantly relies on older interaction histories risks becoming stale. One strategy is to employ time decay on user interactions, gradually reducing the weight of signals from several months ago. Another tactic is real-time or near-real-time updates to user profiles whenever a user indicates interest in new areas.

Potential pitfalls include reacting too quickly to fleeting shifts—if the system is overly sensitive, short-term engagement spikes can overshadow stable, long-term interests. Conversely, if the decay is too slow, users may feel stuck with content they no longer find relevant. Designing a well-calibrated memory window, possibly weighted by recency, helps ensure you capture genuine interest changes while filtering out noise.

How do you address user privacy concerns while collecting the data needed for feed ranking?

Ranking algorithms typically need user interaction data—clicks, dwell time, profile information, or even device signals. However, collecting and storing this data can raise user privacy concerns, particularly as regulations like GDPR or CCPA enforce strict guidelines on how personal data is handled and how transparent you must be about its usage.

A common solution is differential privacy or federated learning, where sensitive data never leaves a user’s device, yet aggregated insights still train the model. Another approach is anonymization—removing or hashing personally identifiable information. A crucial pitfall is the risk of “re-identification” if multiple data points are combined. Ensuring each data source is carefully handled, and implementing data governance frameworks is key to preventing inadvertent leaks. Moreover, user trust can be compromised if data usage is not transparent, so it’s advisable to maintain clear privacy policies and give users control over their data-sharing preferences.

How do you handle contradictory feedback from different types of users within the same platform?

Not all users have the same objectives or tastes. For example, job seekers on a professional network might care about industry insights, while casual users might prefer lighthearted social updates. These distinct goals can create contradictory feedback if your feed is trying to optimize a single set of engagement metrics across a broad user base.

One solution is to segment users by interest or usage intent—clustering them into cohorts and tailoring ranking models per cohort. Another approach is to incorporate personalization signals that weigh user-specific behaviors more heavily than global behaviors. A pitfall arises if segmentation is done too rigidly, causing the system to pigeonhole users or ignore cross-segment content that might be beneficial. Continuous user re-segmentation or dynamic user profiles can ensure people are assigned to relevant cohorts as their behavior evolves.

How do you plan for large-scale user interface changes that might temporarily shift interaction patterns?

Major UI overhauls—such as redesigning the feed layout, adding new buttons, or changing how posts are displayed—can temporarily distort engagement metrics. Users might click less frequently simply because the button is in a new location, not because they dislike the content. During these transition periods, historical data might not accurately reflect the new user behavior patterns.

A robust method is to run a controlled experiment (A/B test) with a smaller subset of users to see how the new interface impacts engagement, collecting enough data to recalibrate the ranking model in the new environment. You might also freeze certain model features or give them a reduced weight during the transition to prevent abrupt performance drops. The main pitfall is failing to isolate UI-driven changes from changes in the content or user base. Thorough experiment design and incremental rollouts help prevent widespread disruption to the user experience.