2 ms·

"...how likely is it that users are more important than the spam detection algorithms?" I'm not sure you understand how spam filters work. No one is sitting th

"...how likely is it that users are more important than the spam detection algorithms?" I'm not sure you understand how spam filters work. No one is sitting there hard-coding all the possible terms and phrases that indicate spam; that would be unfeasible. The spam filters learn what content is considered spam based on user activity and user flagging. It's not that users are "more important than the algorithms," it's that the algorithms are trained by the users in the first place. In more general terms, the algorithms represent user preferences, so the user demographics directly determine the algorithms' behavior.

nickff 5y ago
>"In more general terms, the algorithms represent user preferences, so the user demographics directly determine the algorithms' behavior. " It all really depends on the algorithm used. I am familiar with many algorithms which could be used in these cases, and I'm not sure whether Google is using a 'stock' algorithm, or as I suspect, something tailored to their requirements. Each algorithm will produce different results, so which one you choose has a huge impact on what is 'filtered'. The user-base has a substantial impact, but you could probably get a variety of results by applying different algorithms to the same user data. You implicitly asserted that user demographics were the dominant factor, and I am not sure that's true.
- IceMetalPunk 5y ago
  Different algorithms do indeed learn from data differently. But the entire purpose of a spam filter is to filter out spam, a word which is defined subjectively. Any spam filter which acts contrary to its users' collective preferences would be considered bugged and broken, regardless of how it decided that, because it would mean it's not doing what it was designed to do, and not learning correctly.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    Gmail spam quality is internally evaluated based on the ratio of moves into and out of the spam label. So you're completely correct: it is optimized for how its users collectively define spam. There is no objective definition of spam.

nickff 5y ago

>"In more general terms, the algorithms represent user preferences, so the user demographics directly determine the algorithms' behavior. " It all really depends on the algorithm used. I am familiar with many algorithms which could be used in these cases, and I'm not sure whether Google is using a 'stock' algorithm, or as I suspect, something tailored to their requirements. Each algorithm will produce different results, so which one you choose has a huge impact on what is 'filtered'. The user-base has a substantial impact, but you could probably get a variety of results by applying different algorithms to the same user data. You implicitly asserted that user demographics were the dominant factor, and I am not sure that's true.

IceMetalPunk 5y ago
Different algorithms do indeed learn from data differently. But the entire purpose of a spam filter is to filter out spam, a word which is defined subjectively. Any spam filter which acts contrary to its users' collective preferences would be considered bugged and broken, regardless of how it decided that, because it would mean it's not doing what it was designed to do, and not learning correctly.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Gmail spam quality is internally evaluated based on the ratio of moves into and out of the spam label. So you're completely correct: it is optimized for how its users collectively define spam. There is no objective definition of spam.