Robert Menschel wrote:
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.
DATE_IN_FUTURE_48_96 has an S/O of 1.0, yet is disabled. Others have
S/O values that are just barely under the current threshold.
The results are nonsensical. That highly suggests there is something
wrong with the criteria.
