>John Stracke wrote: >> And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality of >> the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics is >> better than not measuring anything at all; > >Wrong information is worse than no information. If the results don't >mean anything,
They don't mean *much*, but I wouldn't say they mean *nothing*. >why measure? As a research effort. The current draft admits that the results are not directly useful. But we'll never get techniques that do give useful results unless somebody starts trying. /===========================================================\ |John Stracke |Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. | |===========================================================| |"This horse has made a career out of being dead." -- Harald| |Alvestrand | \===========================================================/
