Hello Justin, Tuesday, January 3, 2006, 12:19:52 PM, you wrote: JM> Michael Parker writes: >> John Myers wrote: >> > These tests are essentially a group. Once one of them has been paid >> > for, the rest have negligible incremental cost.
>> Maybe we should put rules into groups or buckets and the rule promotion >> code would add all rules in that group/bucket when any of them are selected. JM> Hold on, though. JM> If the S/O ratios are too poor to qualify, why bother keeping them, even JM> if they *do* have negligible cost? They still have a cost, even if it is JM> small; the overhead of calling an eval rule, and tracking JM> scores/descriptions/etc. I agree. Even within SARE, which has a much more aggressive stance than the SA distribution, we archive rules which fall below our threshold of usefulness, regardless of whether they're part of a group, and regardless of any low cost of execution. The determining factor shouldn't be how little the tests cost, but rather the determining factor should be how useful the tests are. Bob Menschel
