Accurate metrics

The Relative Performance Index

Noticias externas — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT

I’m so good sometimes I amaze even myself. I like to play around with metrics and measurements

The Relative Performance Index

Terry Zink's Anti-spam Blog — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:31:29 GMT

I’m so good sometimes I amaze even myself. I like to play around with metrics and measurements.

re: Accurate metrics

Norman Diamond — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:19:28 GMT

"I was talking specifically about measuring the effect of spam on the user experience."

I assure you that false positives (the other metric whose article I will read in a few minutes) DOES affect the user experience. I'm not sure if it's the big half or the little half, but it sure isn't negligible. Don't you think my example (which was real) shows how false positives affect the user experience?

A few days ago Yahoo found a better method. Several times in the past Yahoo put non-spam from Yahoo into the recipient's spam box, where it might go unnoticed by both the recipient and sender. But the latest time, Yahoo took non-spam from Yahoo and bounced it back to the sender in Yahoo, so the sender knew about it and could send it to a different e-mail address (if the recipient has a non-Yahoo address). So at least the sender knew about it.

(I'm not sure if Yahoo has improved its stats on the amount of spam from Yahoo that goes into Yahoo recipients' inboxes.)

The other half of accurate metrics

Noticias externas — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:22:40 GMT

Referring back to my previous post on accurate metrics referring to spam-in-the-inbox, spam is one side

The other half of accurate metrics

Terry Zink's Anti-spam Blog — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:20:38 GMT

Referring back to my previous post on accurate metrics referring to spam-in-the-inbox, spam is one side

re: Accurate metrics

tzink — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:24:45 GMT

I was talking specifically about measuring the effect of spam on the user experience. The other metric is how to measure false positives, which will be the subject of a future post.

re: Accurate metrics

Norman Diamond — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:28:21 GMT

"The way Hotmail does it is use a metric called Spam-in-the-inbox, or SITI for short."

Not good enough. That's somewhere around half of what needs to be measured, and I'm not sure if that's the small half or the big half.

Microsoft isn't much better or worse than Yahoo in terms of sending spams and mishandling reports from victims. Both take turns adding each other to blacklists. But some mail from Microsoft is legitimate, and sometimes I have to report to Yahoo that some Microsoft message in my spam box wasn't spam.

A few days ago, out of the corner of my eye, just after clicking a button to empty my spam box but before it got processed, I thought I noticed one more message that I should have checked first. But it was too late. Was it really from Microsoft or not, and was it really legitimate or not, I'll never know.

You have to count the opposite metric too, the amount of non-spam in spam boxes.

Word to the Wise » News and articles

Word to the Wise » News and articles — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:14:03 GMT

PingBack from http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2007/11/19/news-and-articles/