My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

« FOO Camp 2008 – How to Beat Google! (At Search) | Main | The Fast Last Puzzle Piece »

September 25, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sreenath Chary

On Point 2....wouldn't this be an excellent method to get aditional budget to staff appropriately, instead of suppressing the alarms? In most organisations, if there are no alarms identified, no additional money will be spent assuming that nothing needs to be done!!

On point 3......if a human resolves a false-negative/positive by asking for additional data (for example you gave the search for middle name as concluding proof), why don't systems include all the logical steps one would take to resolve an alarm and the one's that come out of this filter would be only those where a) Additional Data was unavailable to the application to get b) Additional data was inconclusive and no new rules have been coded to handle this or c) no logical rules have been coded to handle automatic examination of an alarm...and hence has to be done using human-intuition?

The comments to this entry are closed.