Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@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.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
