Justin Mason wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 00:43, Marc Perkel <m...@perkel.com> wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:06, John Wilcock <j...@tradoc.fr> wrote:
Le 03/03/2009 17:42, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
I have been already thinking about possibility to combine every two
rules
and do a masscheck over them. Then, optionally repeating that again,
skipping duplicates. Finally gather all rules that scored>=0.5 ||<=-0.5
- we could have interesting ruleset here.
But that's going to be a HUGE ruleset.
Not to mention that different combinations will suit different sites.
I wonder about the feasibility of a second Bayesian database, using the
same learning mechanism as the current system, but keeping track of rule
combinations instead of keywords.
It sounds like a really good idea to me, and also like the most reasonable
way to manage self-learning meta rules.
It seems to me that the consensus is that it's worth a try. I don't know if
it will work or not but I think there's a good change this could be a
significant advancement in how well SA works.
So you're volunteering to code it up, then? ;)
--j.
I would if I were any good at perl.
