[Spambayes] More back-patting - my brain's first FP where bayes got it right

[Tim Peters]

[Skip Montanaro]
> ...
> You have to assume people are going to be gung-ho at the beginning,
> then taper off when either performance gets good enough or the novelty
> wears off.  One stop on the way to not training at all is to only train
> on FPs, FNs and unsures.
>
> Maybe "real world" is a better term than "realistic".

Failing to account for human behavior would be a failing of the client,
then.  For this to work superbly, the client is going to have to train on
msgs without the *user*'s guidance.  I ran a quick experiment on that
earlier (the classifier training on its own decisions, simply assuming they
were correct), even to the extent of training on false positives as spam
assuming the user doesn't look at their spam folder at all after a while.
The results were indeed superb, but it so happened there were no false
positives during the test run (and I haven't had time to continue with more
of those tests, alas).

I doubt by-hand training will work except for geeks; they'll end up doing
mistake-based training, after an initial flurry of training on 5-year-old
ham <0.9 wink>.