3 ms·
Pretty interesting insights. Though in Habit #6: "Fraudsters Are Really Boring" : the digits in email addresses appear pretty obvious (non-fraudster) to me. We
by gordon_freeman 12y ago
Pretty interesting insights. Though in Habit #6: "Fraudsters Are Really Boring" : the digits in email addresses appear pretty obvious (non-fraudster) to me. We need to remember that there are 600 million + email accounts registered with Gmail for example and it is really difficult to increase your chance of creating new email ID without using any digit(s) while registering your email address.
I myself use email address with 2 digits and I have so many of my friends using 4 digits or so. I personally don't think having more digits in your email ID is directly proportional to being more fraudulent.
- skeoh 12y agoI would say that while there can be legitimate email addresses with multiple digits, and fraudulent email addresses with no digits, neither of these facts precludes the possibility of a correlation.
- gordon_freeman 12y agothat's exactly my point. Looking at this habit of "email address with multiple digits" alone seems correlation rather than causation. Making an anti-fraud algorithm by including all or most of these habits might point to causation and help solve the problem though.
- robmccoll 12y agoAlso, that distribution doesn't scream "relevant correlation" to me. The bins are different sizes.
- gordon_freeman 12y agoYep. I don't understand how having 1 digit in one's email ID makes him more fraudulent than someone whose email ID consists of 2 digits. :-o
- wastedhours 12y agoAnecdotal of course, but I and a few friends/family I've seen used to have email addresses (when I was younger) with two digits representing birth year (like, something85), whereas I can't think of a reason I'd use only one...
- brohee 12y agoSome people actually encode birthyear with 4 numbers, and some even like zipcodes...