[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Spam cleaning effort: May 2010

Quoting Frans Pop (elendil@planet.nl):
> On Friday 04 June 2010, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > > I marked 20. Maybe I'm too strict -- which ones aren't spam?
> >
> > All are. Your list helped me spotting two spams I initially
> > missed...Thanks for taking care to send your list.
> This is the second time you've missed spams others have found.

As you seem to question the care I used for this work, could I mention
that, well, two other people also missed two spams before I did. Maybe
not the same ones, but still..

If you did not intend to question my work care, may I suggest you
consider rewording things next time?

Anyway, I probably spotted these spams anyway as I do report spams as
they're flowing in the mailing list (bouncing them to the spam report
address). So, the overall look at the entire month is "only" a
confirmation of this work, in some way.

> IMO this proves a feeling I've had before: we should *not* worry about how 
> many spams one individual person finds, but trust that the process will 
> get them all marked in the end.
> Telling others how many spams you have found (either here or in the wiki) 
> adds no value, but only risks that others will stop when the find the same 
> number and increases the effort for others as it makes them do extra 
> counting and leads to these discussions which are of very limited value.

I don't see why they're of limited value. Indeed, even without these
discussions, but only with Don mentioning in the wiki page that he
found 20 spams while I found 18,I would have gone to review the
archives again.

> For the future let's just have everybody make their own best effort 
> independent of others. IMO the existing "numbers of spams found in a 
> month" should be removed from the wiki page.

Anybody is free to mention his work the way (s)he wants. Mentioning
the number of found spam is lees' initiative which I found
interesting. I don't want to enforece it on you if you don't want to
use that method.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: