3 ms·
> LinkedIn claims that its security systems detect and block approximately 96 percent of fake accounts. In order for that number to mean anything, they'd have
by notacoward 4y ago
> LinkedIn claims that its security systems detect and block approximately 96 percent of fake accounts.
In order for that number to mean anything, they'd have to know what the total is. It would be more accurate to say that 96% of those who are caught at all are caught by LinkedIn themselves (presumably the rest by third parties) but that says nothing about how many are still in the system ... and that still seems to be a lot.
- pfortuny 4y agoYou can do random sampling, though. It can give a good estimate. Not saying they are doing it, though. But you certainly can get a good assessment without knowing the total population.
- oersted 4y agoAs in any similar problem: you can sample a reasonably representative set of accounts, review them thoroughly by manual means, and see how these manual results compare to the automatic ones. They don't need to know what the total is, if they knew the problem would be solved. 96% represents the probability of a correct prediction, not a fraction of the total.
- tedunangst 4y agoNo, that would be much less accurate to say. They're not saying the other 4% are caught at all.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notacoward 4y ago> No, that would be much less accurate to say. You don't know that. If I was premature in making a guess, you were equally premature in contradicting it. What's your interpretation? That they meant 96% of the total? I might enjoy seeing you explain how that could be true while still leaving 600K Amazon/Apple profiles to be cleaned up in a special campaign responding to media exposure. Do you think it's 96% of what they could have caught by manually examining every profile? That's no more supportable than the theory you summarily rejected. Your own guesses or assumptions are no better than anyone else's.