4 ms·

> With a team like that, Rambam says he has a near 100 percent effectiveness rate at finding people... I'm not sure how one could measure this. > I’m always a

> With a team like that, Rambam says he has a near 100 percent effectiveness rate at finding people... I'm not sure how one could measure this. > I’m always amazed at how infrequently people use cash for this shit. Maybe more of them do but they also get away. From the article I get the impression that these investigators just aim for the low-hanging fruit. There are enough of them to make a living.

carlmr 7y ago
>> With a team like that, Rambam says he has a near 100 percent effectiveness rate at finding people... > I'm not sure how one could measure this. You have a number of people you investigate N. You have a number of people who you find to be actually dead D, and a number of people who are fake dead F. Then there are some unknowns U. F + D + U = N If (F + D) / N is near 1, you have a near 100 percent effectiveness.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  The question is how can you be confident that the cases you’re putting into category D don’t actually belong in category U. The investigator is tasked with finding people who faked their own death; how can you tell the difference between a successful con and the person you’re looking for actually being deceased?
  - ridaj 7y ago
    Bodies
  - carlmr 7y ago
    Teeth, DNA, fingerprints, etc
- JasonFruit 7y ago
  That doesn't prove they are correctly categorized, just that a category has been assigned.
  - carlmr 7y ago
    F would be very stable, you have the person. D also, you can check teeth, DNA, fingerprints etc if you find them. U is mainly people where you don't find them or their body.
    - leni536 7y ago
      So you have near 100% of effectiveness if you find near 100% of them, dead or alive. Given that there are probably a significant number of cases where the person is actually dead and never find their corpse I doubt that near 100% effectiveness can ever be claimed. Also I expect this effectiveness to be defined as (found out fakers)/(all fakers), and it's pretty damn hard to predict the number of fakers you know nothing about. Maybe one can introduce fake fakers to measure the investigators, but it's also susceptible to all kind of biases.

carlmr 7y ago

>> With a team like that, Rambam says he has a near 100 percent effectiveness rate at finding people... > I'm not sure how one could measure this. You have a number of people you investigate N. You have a number of people who you find to be actually dead D, and a number of people who are fake dead F. Then there are some unknowns U. F + D + U = N If (F + D) / N is near 1, you have a near 100 percent effectiveness.

kd5bjo 7y ago
The question is how can you be confident that the cases you’re putting into category D don’t actually belong in category U. The investigator is tasked with finding people who faked their own death; how can you tell the difference between a successful con and the person you’re looking for actually being deceased?
- ridaj 7y ago
  Bodies
- carlmr 7y ago
  Teeth, DNA, fingerprints, etc
JasonFruit 7y ago
That doesn't prove they are correctly categorized, just that a category has been assigned.
- carlmr 7y ago
  F would be very stable, you have the person. D also, you can check teeth, DNA, fingerprints etc if you find them. U is mainly people where you don't find them or their body.
  - leni536 7y ago
    So you have near 100% of effectiveness if you find near 100% of them, dead or alive. Given that there are probably a significant number of cases where the person is actually dead and never find their corpse I doubt that near 100% effectiveness can ever be claimed. Also I expect this effectiveness to be defined as (found out fakers)/(all fakers), and it's pretty damn hard to predict the number of fakers you know nothing about. Maybe one can introduce fake fakers to measure the investigators, but it's also susceptible to all kind of biases.