[Spambayes] Leaving for another tool.
thruska at cubiclesoft.com
Sat Dec 8 18:43:19 CET 2007
skip at pobox.com wrote:
> Pete> Way too many false negatives (still running at around 7%, after
> Pete> 13,000+ spam training messages and 50,000+ good training
> Pete> messages),
> Way too large a database. Train on just mistakes and unsures. If you've
> trained on over 60,000 messages you must be training on everything you
> Good luck with K9. Sounds like it's doing the trick.
This only proves that Spambayes needs an autobalancing ham/spam feature
built in by default. Users train on everything in the hopes of
eliminating all spam from the in-box. Also, by _your_ logic, the
default training mechanism in Spambayes should be to NOT train on spam.
In terms of usability, Spambayes is clearly designed "by geeks, for
geeks" but since this tool has appeared in major computing magazines
that _users_ read, the tool needs to change to fit the mindset of those
who will actually use the product. What Pete said has crossed my mind
quite frequently while using the tool. Your focus is on "training
database size" rather than the user's actual complaint: That the
product is not _usable_. I can use and understand the product only
because I'm a geek. However, it needs to be significantly simplified so
a user can use it.
Maybe your goal is only to cater to geeks. If that's the case, you need
to state it somewhere at the top of your homepage and drop the support
for the Outlook add-in - at which point I too will probably stop using
the tool because there is no hope for it...ever, Users will not take
the time to learn to use the tool how you want them to use it. If they
see spam, they are going to train it as spam no matter how large their
training database gets. That is how users think. Developing software
is more about psychology than code: Study the user and code accordingly.
Sorry for the rant. I've been feeling the same way as Pete and wanted
to put what he said into a little different perspective - perhaps one
that you'd understand better. You completely ignored Pete's very
lengthy e-mail on what it means to be a user of Spambayes from his
perspective and instantly focused on the one sentence that is useless to
him but is "comfortable" for you. I'm hoping this helps craft an
improved tool rather than write Pete, me, and other users like us off as
"annoying". I know that you are going to be upset when you read this
but I don't care if you hate me as long as you end up going back and
pondering Pete's e-mail. His words, from just that one e-mail, are
capable of guiding how Spambayes should be developed for the next 5 years.
*NEW* MyTaskFocus 1.1
Get on task. Stay on task.
More information about the SpamBayes