Comment on Automatically hiding spam works

  1. Still not quite (Guest) Thu 23 Nov 2017 11:19PM UTC

    The number of legitimate/spam works is not relevant, the 0,7% false positive is of works already hidden and not works in general.

    So, of all the works in the archive, a given number of works will be hidden because the AutoMagic system will assume it is spam. Out of this number of works that the system flagged, 0,7% will be false positives. The 0,7% is of the works assumed to be spam by the system and not of all the works.

    So, using your number for an example, "1000 legitimate works for every spam work":

    I you assume 1 million works on AO3, about 1000 of those would be spam and flagged as so by the automatic system. Between those works flagged and hidden, there will be a 0,7% of false positives hidden incorrectly (meaning 7 legitimate works in this case).

    So what you would have is, roughly, 7 legitimate works hidden by mistake, 993 spam correctly flagged and hidden, and 999000 works the system ignored because it recognized it as not spam and didn't touch it.

    Comment Actions

    1. :) (Guest) Fri 24 Nov 2017 09:25AM UTC

      And a lot more time for Abuse to address the 7 works hidden by mistake (rather than addressing the 993 spam works).

      Comment Actions

    2. Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:16PM UTC

      >the 0,7% false positive is of works already hidden and not works in general.

      That is not what false positive means.
      The meaning of false positive is probability of a positive on test A conditional to A being negative.
      What you are using is probability of A being negative conditional to a positive on test A.

      Nobody uses your definition because it is very sensitive to the ratio of positive to negative in the population you are testing, while the correct one is only sensitive to the quality of the testing process.

      If you want to make up your own flawed definitions, don't go around "correcting" people that follow the norm, darling.

      Comment Actions

      1. (Previous comment deleted.)

        1. Foxglove87B Sat 25 Nov 2017 09:04AM UTC

          >"I can't read", the comment

          Anon, you have to go back

          Comment Actions

        2. CoralFlower Sat 02 Dec 2017 08:07AM UTC

          holy FUCK i aspire to this level of sarcasm this is seriously impressive. #goals

          "woah, we have a specialist!" "because I'm not a pedantic asshole" i love this

          Comment Actions