3 ms·
There's little doubt that they have global filtering informed by user flagging. The question is whether they also have localized filtering for items where users
by mcbits 8y ago
There's little doubt that they have global filtering informed by user flagging. The question is whether they also have localized filtering for items where users may disagree on what's spam. If so, I would expect email from LinkedIn to be far more likely to be automatically marked spam for those 25% of users who have previously marked those emails as spam. That seems to be what happens, at least from what I've heard. (Gmail is essentially my spambox already, so I don't bother to flag individual items.)
That doesn't preclude the global filters from also occasionally binning some of LinkedIn's email when the global spam score is so high that the local ham score fails to override it. And the same thing could happen whether they implement it as a hierarchy of filters or just one filter with localized signals.
- mmt 8y agoI'm still failing to understand the distinction you're trying to make with a local filter, if it exists only in addition to, and is generally overridden by the global filter. > I would expect email from LinkedIn to be far more likely to be automatically marked spam for those 25% of users who have previously marked those emails as spam. This is true regardless of whether or not the filter is global or local, though. That 25% provides the majority behavior for both a local filter and a global filter. > That doesn't preclude the global filters from also occasionally binning some of LinkedIn's email when the global spam score is so high that the local ham score fails to override it. It does preclude it, because with a truly local filter, those people are a majority (unanimous, even). Even occasional miscategorization as spam would be completely unexpected. It's only when the filter is global do they end up subject to tyranny-of-the-majority behavior.