Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location PL
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Salesforce Exam ANC-301 Topic 2 Question 47 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's ANC-301 exam
Question #: 47
Topic #: 2
[All ANC-301 Questions]

A CRM Analytics consultant is reviewing results from an Einstein Discovery story with a business user. They agree with the findings but notice that none of the fields used in the story have a correlation value greater than 4%. The client is now concerned that the model

may not be good enough to deploy.

Which action should the consultant take?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Buck at Oct 20, 2024, 06:31 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ANC-301 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Lawanda
6 months ago
I like option A - expanding the data sources seems like the surest way to boost the model's performance. Although, the client might be more impressed if the consultant could also do a stand-up comedy routine while they're at it.
upvoted 0 times
Heike
5 months ago
User 4: Yeah, let's focus on getting more relevant data for better results.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edward
5 months ago
User 3: I agree, let's try to expand the data sources first.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jodi
5 months ago
User 2: That sounds like a good idea, more data could definitely help.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ozell
6 months ago
User 1: I think we should go with option A and find more data to improve the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Nickolas
6 months ago
Option A sounds like the most thorough approach. But if I were the consultant, I'd also bring a bag of lucky charms just in case. You never know when a little extra magic might come in handy!
upvoted 0 times
...
Afton
6 months ago
This is a tough one, but I'd say option C is the safest bet. The algorithm might need some tweaking to get the best results.
upvoted 0 times
Kimberlie
5 months ago
Let's go with option C and update the model with the appropriate algorithm.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisandra
5 months ago
I agree, tweaking the algorithm could improve the model's accuracy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Francisca
6 months ago
Option C is a good choice. The algorithm might need some adjustments.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dusti
6 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. Editing the model accuracy settings might work, but it could also just be masking the underlying issue. I'd lean towards A or C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hannah
6 months ago
I think option A is the way to go. Identifying additional data with stronger correlations could really improve the model's predictive power.
upvoted 0 times
Elmira
5 months ago
User 4: Using the appropriate algorithm and updating the model could also be helpful.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amber
6 months ago
User 3: Maybe we should also consider editing the model accuracy settings and rerunning it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shakira
6 months ago
User 1: I think we should identify additional data with stronger correlations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maia
6 months ago
User 2: That could definitely improve the model's predictive power.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lauran
6 months ago
I agree, adding more relevant data could strengthen the relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desire
7 months ago
I think we should identify additional data to improve the model.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77