ML Interview Q Series: How would you assess an app’s success and isolate engagement from celebrity’s natural interaction tendencies?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
One fundamental aspect is to recognize that “health” of an app involving celebrity-fan interactions can manifest in several dimensions. It is important to identify the right metrics, set up robust experimental or observational frameworks to measure the effect of the app, and then isolate how much of any observed uplift is attributable specifically to the app (Mentions) rather than confounding factors like the celebrity’s intrinsic motivation to interact more with fans at that time.
Key Metrics to Assess Health
App health is a broad concept, and we can capture it through various quantitative signals:
User Engagement Metrics These include daily active users (DAU), weekly active users (WAU), and monthly active users (MAU) among celebrities using the app. For each active user, we can measure how many fan interactions they perform (likes, comments, messages, etc.).
Celebrity Adoption and Retention Track how many new celebrity accounts are created on Mentions over time, and measure how many celebrities continue to use the feature consistently over weeks/months.
Fan Engagement Growth Examine the fan side: Are fans responding more frequently, spending more time engaging with the celebrity? Are there more comments, shares, or session lengths on the fan side?
Frequency and Quality of Interactions Measure how often celebrities post or comment. Also measure the substantive interactions they provide (e.g., replying to fan questions, hosting Q&A sessions) to see if app usage fosters deeper connections.
Referral and Virality Indicators Check if celebrities recommend the app to other public figures. High virality could be a leading indicator of strong app health.
Isolating the Effect of Mentions vs. Intrinsic Celebrity Interest
When a celebrity uses the Mentions app and simultaneously decides to interact more, we encounter a classic problem: how do we know that the Mentions feature is causally responsible for the increase in fan engagement, as opposed to the celebrity simply deciding it’s time to be more active for other reasons?
There are a few high-level ways to tackle this challenge:
Observational Analysis with Appropriate Controls If a celebrity who joins Mentions shows an uptick in engagement, we could compare this individual’s engagement levels (before and after) and also compare to similar celebrities who did not use Mentions in that same period. This can sometimes be structured as a difference-in-differences approach.
Experimental or Quasi-Experimental Methods If feasible, randomly select a subset of celebrities to try Mentions while another similar subset does not. This randomization ensures that the effect of Mentions on engagement is not systematically biased by external factors like a celebrity’s intrinsic motivation.
Difference-in-Differences (DiD) Approach
A common statistical technique for attributing causal impact in these scenarios is the difference-in-differences (DiD) framework. Conceptually, DiD compares two groups over time: one that gets the “treatment” (using Mentions) and one that does not. By looking at changes in engagement before and after the introduction of Mentions in the treated group, while also looking at changes over the same time in the control group, we can isolate the effect of the treatment from general trends.
Below is the prototypical DiD formula, often used to estimate treatment effects:
Here, y is some engagement metric (for instance, average fan likes or total fan comments). T=1 means “treated group” (celebrities who use Mentions). T=0 means “control group” (similar celebrities who do not use Mentions). after=1 indicates the period after Mentions is introduced, and after=0 indicates the period before Mentions is introduced.
The difference (y_{T=1, after=1} - y_{T=1, after=0}) measures how engagement changed over time in the treated group. The difference (y_{T=0, after=1} - y_{T=0, after=0}) measures how engagement changed over time in the control group. Subtracting the latter from the former helps account for time-based trends that might affect both treated and control groups equally. This difference-in-differences is interpreted as the portion of engagement growth uniquely attributable to the introduction of Mentions.
Practical Implementation Details
Data Collection We first define a period before Mentions is introduced (baseline) and a period after. We collect engagement metrics for celebrities in both groups across these time spans.
Choosing a Control Group Ideally, celebrities in the control group should be comparable in fan base size, prior engagement levels, and other relevant attributes (e.g., type of celebrity, region, or content style).
Statistical Checks and Significance We might apply regression-based DiD, which helps control for additional covariates. We measure standard errors to check the statistical significance of the estimated effect. If the confidence interval around the DiD estimate does not include zero, we infer that Mentions usage is significantly impacting engagement.
External Factors and Confounders Celebrities often change their behavior due to media events, album releases, or movie promotions. These externalities can contaminate the DiD measurement if not carefully controlled for (e.g., by ensuring the control group experiences similar seasonal or cyclical factors).
Nuances and Potential Pitfalls
Selection Bias Celebrities deciding to adopt Mentions might already be more inclined to engage. If we don’t account for that, we might overstate the effect of Mentions because that extra engagement is partially intrinsic.
Fan Overlap and Spillover Effects If fans follow multiple celebrities, they might change their own usage patterns if one celebrity starts heavily engaging. This can affect overall platform engagement in unexpected ways.
Post-Treatment Behavior Changes Celebrities might initially adopt Mentions, spike their engagement, then lose interest. Observing a short “novelty spike” can be misleading if we aren’t measuring metrics over a sufficiently long time.
Possible Follow-Up Questions
How would you design an experiment to measure Mentions’ impact if you have full control over which celebrities get access?
You could set up a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Randomly grant access to Mentions to a test group of celebrities, while withholding it from a control group for a fixed period. If the number of celebrities is large enough, you achieve balanced groups in terms of size and engagement profiles, and confounding factors should average out. You then compare engagement changes between the test and control groups. This approach is typically the gold standard in attributing causality because it reduces self-selection bias.
Suppose you only have observational data (no random experiment). How would you still try to address selection bias?
One approach is to use propensity score matching, where you match celebrities who adopt Mentions with those who do not based on similar historical engagement, audience size, or other relevant covariates. This attempts to replicate random assignment by ensuring both groups look similar in all known dimensions. Then a difference-in-differences analysis on matched cohorts can mitigate some forms of selection bias.
Why might a short “novelty spike” in usage be misleading, and how would you adjust for it?
Right after a new app or feature launch, adoption might surge because it’s novel and celebrities might experiment with it. However, the spike can fade quickly, which misrepresents long-term engagement. To adjust for it, track usage over multiple months and watch if metrics stabilize. You might use rolling averages or measure retention at weekly or monthly intervals rather than looking at a single short-term jump.
Could there be a scenario where increased fan engagement is actually driven by other concurrent platform changes?
Yes, if the overall platform introduced new engagement features (for example, improved notification systems) around the same time Mentions launched, that might affect fan behavior independently. A robust difference-in-differences design with a control group that experiences the same platform changes, minus Mentions usage, helps isolate the Mentions effect. Additionally, analyzing trending changes in fans’ overall behavior over a longer period can reveal whether there’s a platform-wide phenomenon at play, unrelated to Mentions.
How can retention metrics for celebrities be specifically tracked in this scenario?
Track the week-over-week or month-over-month usage frequency of Mentions. For instance, define “active usage” as at least one session in the Mentions app per day or per week. Observe the proportion of celebrities who remain above that threshold at each time point (like a survival analysis). A steep decline suggests many tried the app and abandoned it, while a steady retention curve indicates stable usage, a positive sign of app health.
How would you communicate results to stakeholders (e.g., a product team, a marketing team, or the celebrities themselves)?
Break down results into business-friendly terms: • Quantify “extra” engagement attributable to Mentions (for instance, a 15% lift in fan comments). • Emphasize user feedback stories or case studies from celebrities with notably high usage. • Provide confidence intervals or statistical metrics indicating the reliability of the measured impact. • Suggest actionable insights, such as improvements to the Mentions user experience, possible expansions, or follow-up experiments to test additional in-app features.
All these steps not only show the portion of engagement growth caused by Mentions but also validate the overall health and viability of the app as it scales, ensuring confidence in future product decisions.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How would you handle situations where the celebrity’s usage of Mentions is sporadic, making it hard to define “treatment” periods for analysis?
One approach is to break usage into specific “on” and “off” intervals. For instance, you might consider a week with more than X sessions as an “on” period and a week with fewer than X sessions as an “off” period. You can then analyze engagement differences during “on” vs. “off” times. This approach requires consistent tracking of in-app activity, ensuring you accurately capture when a celebrity is actively using Mentions. A potential pitfall is that you might create artificial boundaries if celebrities ramp usage slowly or if usage fluctuates around the threshold. If you set the threshold too low, nearly every week qualifies as “on” time, yielding little variation. Too high a threshold might classify most weeks as “off,” making it difficult to measure differences. Furthermore, external factors (e.g., a celebrity’s touring schedule) can cause irregular usage patterns that do not reflect natural engagement.
What if multiple new features are launched on the platform at the same time, and you want to disentangle the effects of Mentions from the others?
When multiple features roll out simultaneously, it becomes challenging to establish which feature drives a specific engagement change. To disentangle the effects, a multi-variate experiment design can be used if it is feasible to control or stagger feature rollouts. For instance, a fraction of celebrities might receive Mentions first, while another fraction receives a different feature in the same time frame, and some might receive both or neither. A factorial design (e.g., 2x2 experiment) can help estimate separate and combined effects. A key pitfall is the combinatorial explosion of variants. Too many simultaneous features and too many subgroups can dilute the statistical power, making it difficult to obtain precise estimates of each feature’s impact. Another subtlety arises if the features interact (i.e., synergy or cannibalization), which may require advanced analysis of interaction terms in regression models.
In cases where celebrities cross-post content across multiple platforms, how could you isolate the contribution of Mentions to the resulting engagement boost on Facebook?
One strategy is to track data on the volume and timing of posts on other social platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram) to see whether engagement spikes occur only after Mentions usage or whether they correlate with an entire multi-platform campaign. If a celebrity simultaneously increases their activity across all social channels, the rise in Facebook engagement might be partially due to overall fan awareness, not just Mentions. A more robust approach is to use user-level or fan-level data: measure only those fans most active on Facebook relative to other platforms. If the spike in these fans’ engagements correlates closely with Mentions adoption and not with the celebrity’s broader cross-platform push, it indicates a more direct Mentions effect. A pitfall here is that fans often follow the celebrity on multiple platforms. You could inadvertently misassign the engagement source if you ignore overlaps. Detailed tracking and sophisticated attribution models (e.g., multi-touch attribution) can help parse out the contribution from each platform.
If some celebrities have large teams managing their social media, how would that factor into measuring the direct impact of Mentions?
When social media teams manage official accounts, the “celebrity” might not personally interact with fans. The Mentions app could be used by the team on the celebrity’s behalf. This can affect how you interpret engagement metrics because the direct “celebrity-fan” dynamic might be diluted. A potential solution is to look beyond raw engagement numbers and examine the style or authenticity of interactions. For instance, personal Q&A sessions scheduled by the actual celebrity might have higher fan engagement rates than generic, team-created posts. You could define separate metrics for “personal posts” vs. “team-managed posts” by using text or sentiment analysis to classify the nature of content. This classification, however, is error-prone if the team mimics the celebrity’s style. The challenge lies in reliably distinguishing personal vs. managed content without direct labeling from the celebrity.
How do you account for engagement that might shift from non-Mentions content to Mentions content without actually increasing overall fan engagement?
Sometimes, a celebrity’s fans are simply redirected from one type of content to another within Facebook. The raw number of Mentions-related engagements might go up, but if total engagement across the celebrity’s posts remains static, it indicates a redistribution rather than a net gain. To address this, measure net new engagement across all types of posts for each celebrity. If fan interaction with other posts declines significantly at the same time Mentions usage spikes, the effect might be cannibalizing. The key is tracking total user activity for each celebrity account, including older post formats and Mentions-based content. A pitfall is that fans might prefer Mentions-based content, leading to deeper engagement on those posts at the expense of other types of posts. If your goal is strictly to measure Mentions-driven engagement, re-allocation might look beneficial. If your goal is to measure incremental engagement overall, you have to ensure you’re evaluating net gains instead of just shifts.
In what ways could the type of celebrity (e.g., musician, actor, athlete) influence the effectiveness of Mentions, and how would you adjust your analysis?
Different categories of celebrities attract different fan behaviors. Music fans might value short clips or audio previews, while sports fans may crave highlight reels or live commentary. Actors might leverage behind-the-scenes footage. These differences can influence how Mentions performs. You could segment the analysis by celebrity type. For each segment, look at baseline engagement, Mentions adoption rate, and resulting engagement changes. If large disparities emerge (e.g., athletes see far more benefit than actors), you might want to tailor features or marketing strategies accordingly. A potential pitfall is that over-segmentation can reduce sample sizes in each group, lowering statistical power. Another subtlety is that some celebrities might straddle multiple categories (e.g., a musician who also acts in films), complicating the segmentation.
Could there be a seasonal aspect to celebrity engagement that complicates measuring Mentions effectiveness (e.g., award seasons, sports off-seasons)?
Seasonality can introduce systematic engagement variations. Awards season for actors or off-seasons for athletes can either inflate or deflate normal engagement baselines. If Mentions is rolled out in the midst of a seasonal high, you might attribute a normal uptick in engagement to Mentions incorrectly. To handle seasonality, compare a similar seasonal period pre-Mentions to the current season post-Mentions. For example, if an actor’s biggest fan engagement typically occurs during film awards season, measure fan interactions from the same season last year (before Mentions) and compare. Alternatively, use a control group subject to the same seasonal effects but without Mentions adoption. A pitfall is that each year’s events differ (e.g., a new blockbuster film or a canceled show). Perfectly controlling for seasonality can be challenging unless you have multiple years of data and robust modeling techniques.
How could you leverage modern machine learning methods (e.g., causal forest or synthetic controls) to refine your attribution of increased engagement to Mentions?
Machine learning-based causal inference methods, such as causal forests, allow for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. They can identify subgroups of celebrities or fans for whom Mentions might be especially effective. For example, you might discover that mid-tier celebrities with loyal but smaller fan bases see the largest engagement boost. This approach can be more flexible than a single average treatment effect from difference-in-differences. Synthetic control methods, meanwhile, construct a weighted “synthetic” group of celebrities who did not use Mentions but closely match the trajectory of a treated celebrity or group prior to Mentions adoption. The difference in post-adoption engagement between the real and synthetic groups gives an estimate of the Mentions effect. A pitfall is that synthetic controls require high-quality data and enough unaffected celebrities to build a robust synthetic comparison. Also, with numerous confounding events, constructing a synthetic control can be complex or infeasible.
What if there’s a concern about negative fan responses to increased celebrity engagement, such as backlash or perceived overexposure, and how do you measure that?
If celebrities post too frequently or engage too aggressively, fans might feel spammed or disappointed by shallow content. You can measure negative sentiment by monitoring the sentiment of fan comments or direct feedback (e.g., increased unfollow rates, blocked user events, or negative mentions). A subtlety is that negativity might spike temporarily if the celebrity addresses a controversial topic. Disentangling negativity tied to the content of the posts from negativity tied to the frequency or style of engagement is tricky. A possible way is to use natural language processing to label comments or direct feedback as negative, neutral, or positive, then track how that distribution changes after Mentions adoption. If negative sentiment disproportionately rises alongside Mentions usage, you might suspect overexposure or off-putting engagement strategies.
How can you ensure that your metrics and methods for measuring Mentions effectiveness remain robust as the app evolves with new features over time?
Continuously revisit and update the metrics to reflect any new functionality. If Mentions eventually supports media uploads, polls, or live streaming, the existing engagement metrics might not capture these new modes of interaction. You would need to incorporate new metrics (e.g., average poll responses, live viewership) into your overall measurement framework. A key pitfall is that adding new features can change user behavior and the meaning of existing metrics. For example, if live Q&A starts dominating interactions, mere “comment counts” might be less relevant to indicating health. Regularly auditing the measurement framework ensures it aligns with the product’s evolving definition of “meaningful engagement.”