Chris Lewis wrote:
Do we block an IP on one TIS hit? No. We compute good/bad ratios and
have heuristics on when its high enough to do something about.
The "bad" number is affirmative. People hit TIS. As a measure, the bad number
therefore has a 100% confidence level of accuracy (as long as we are careful
about defining badness.)
But where do you get the 'good' number from and is it really equally forceful?
If the basis for obtaining each number is conceptually different -- ie, if the
two different numbers really do warrant differential faith in their accuracy,
then how do you balance between them?
In case I'm not being clear:
The fact that someone hit TIS means that -- independent of whether it is
actually something that might be called spam -- the message irritated the user.
Every single TIS click has a 100% confidence factor, in terms of being a valid
count of being problematic to the end-user. (I'll quickly acknowledge that we
have a derivative issue from the fact that a given user is inconsistent and what
is irritating to me this morning might not be irritating this afternoon; but we
have plenty to consider by just looking at first-order issues.)
In contrast, perhaps you take the 'good' number from something like "no
one complained". There can be lots of reasons no one complained, only some of
which are due to a message's being "good". So our confidence in the aggregate
measure of goodness needs to be much less than 100%.
So, how do we factor in differential confidence levels in the final assessment?
Asrg mailing list