Predicting Content Decay in High-Volume Search Environments
Author: Syed Muhammad Ibrahim Ali
1. Introduction & Problem Statement
[Insert your explanation here: Why is content decay a problem? Why is it expensive to have editors blindly guess what to update?]
2. Data & Exclusions
[Insert data details: Mention you used the public release, state the date windows, and explain what rows/columns were excluded to ensure public safety and prevent leakage.]
3. Methodology
[Detail your assumptions, engineered features, how you defined the target label, your baseline metric, and how you designed your validation split to prevent temporal leakage.]
4. Results
[Explain how your model performed against the baseline on the exact same split. Reference your metrics.]
5. Limitations & Honest Framing
[Be ruthlessly honest: What can't this model do? Mention that it identifies *that* a page is decaying, not *why* it's decaying.]
6. Ranked Recommendations (Action Playbook)
- R1 (Urgent Refresh): High decay risk on high-volume content. Action: Full editorial review.
- R2 (Metadata Tweak): Moderate decay risk. Action: A/B test titles/meta descriptions.
- R3 (Monitor): Evergreen content. Action: No intervention required.
7. Reproducibility
The code, execution notebooks, and data schemas for this research can be reviewed in my GitHub Repository.
Acknowledgments & data credit
Built on the FlyRank ML Internship dataset. Visit https://flyrank.ai for more information on the data sourcing.