Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • FAIL100 is a really nice tool to indicate that something might be important but it's not suited to prove that something is important.

    • Is there any way at all that is suitable to proving that something is important?

      • by LaPerla (33) on 2009.07.22 23:50 (#69577) Journal

        Is this a rhetorical question? Human judgement of course, on a case by case basis. When you send the automatically generated emails all to yourself and read them and do the best of all possible efforts to judge the situation and only then forward those manually that have passed all possible filters. I mean permanently adjusting filters according to gained insights during the review process. Then you will still find people who disagree with you but that's just fair because you have done your very best effort. And that's the only thing that counts.

        I'm with chromatic here because I'm probably 10000 times more annoyed by spam than you are. My tolerance against self appointed importance sheriffs is quite limited. Why can't you just publish your wonderful statistics and let people subscribe who care enough? You should rather deny the right to email authors on the basis of being on the list. Prevent spam instead of asking for the right to spam.

        Other readers may wonder what I'm talking about: I looked at the list twice and both times the number one hit was obvious nonsense. I mean the formula is really pretty weak. It gives a good guidance when you have plenty of tuits and don't know where to invest them. That's what I recommend these lists for. The hope that the false positives will vanish has not much reason.