> On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:17, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 23/7/15 23:49, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit : >> HI, >> >> yes, ban may make sense. I think that “false positive” is a bit incorrect. >> For example, consider the “probably missing yourself” rule. Even if you are >> not missing it, the rule is not wrong. It just warns you that you should be >> carful with this case, because it is easy to screw up something. Now even >> while this is not a false positive, you want to skip the rule for this >> method. >> >> That was the philosophy behind the name. > I do not know. We discussed a lot in the past about this vocabulary and it > would be good to have one. I do not understand the diff between this is > useless and skip. > I prefer > ban this rule = do not run it > false positive = rule is ok but wrong here
Do you mean ban rule completely? On which level? For a developer (machine)? Then again, skip works as former “false positive”. But in my opinion “false positive” is not a good name from the logical point of view. You have a rule that detects if you have no #yourself message in the end of a cascade. Now do people really mark this as “false positive” if the rule detects cascades that have #yourself message in the end? Or they do it if they don’t want to see the critic? Then it’s not false positive, then they just want to hide or “skip” the rule. This is fun part from statistics to name things as false positives. But if we program a rule in such way, that it is fuzzy, I think that it’s not correct to call it as false positive. Maybe it’s critics are useless more times that they are helpful, and if the critic is correct, the issue is not that important. Then probably we should just remove the rule or rewrite it. Now with useless button, the only reason is to collect data on which rules are actually useless to people [1], so we can take a look at them in a first place. It doest not affect the functionality. Uko [1]: http://renraku.inf.usi.ch/rules <http://renraku.inf.usi.ch/rules> > > Stef > >> >> Uko >> >>> On 23 Jul 2015, at 22:29, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> HI yuriy >>> >>> it would be good that quality assistant uses the same vocabulary than >>> codecritics. >>> for example >>> skip -> ban? >>> marks as false positif? >>> >>> Stef >>> >> >> > >
