markovian matching & dobly noise reduction

[tallison at tacocat.net]

> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 02:21, Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>> Also I find it absurd to say a filter is better than a
>> human. Who checked the filter after all?
>
> Slashdotters had that discussion too.  When they say better than a
> human, they mean that a human scanning 5000 emails is bound to skip some
> legitimate ones due to sheer volume and the therefore scan rate.  You
> simply can't look closely at all of them.  Only when you look closely
> can you achieve 100% accuracy.  Moreover, they specifically say that by
> a human they mean a personal secretary rather than yourself, and
> therefore they will not know your exact desires even looking closely.
> Using these criteria, I find it very likely that a human will do even
> more poorly than 99.5%.  Think about the number of typos you see in
> published works (or bugs in software) to judge human fallibility.
> Automated spell-checkers _can_ be more accurate too (rhetorically
> speaking, please).
>
> Tom
>

>From a traditional type Quality Assurance background, visual inspection is
only 80% effective when looking for manufacturing defects.

I would consider it trivial for any number of filters to far exceed a
visual inspection even if the person was >>80% effective.