On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:12:03 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I assume he knows about all that. Yet, being confronted with the > initial mystery of 4.9 vs 5.0 and a sneaky spam refusing to cross > that all-magic threshold, he seems to have forgotten about rounding. If you reread the original post you'll see that he did initially attribute 4.0+1.0 giving 4.9 to rounding. It became confusing when 4.0 was increased to 4.1 and the score jumped by 0.2. It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it becomes more complicated if one needs to handle threholds close to, or below, zero and which aren't multiples of 0.1.
