Totally agree. I'd like to see some separation between rules created by newer rulebots and preexisting rules. That way if there becomes an issue with a bot, we can turn off one group quickly and easily.
Darin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sniffer@SortMonster.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [sniffer] New RuleBot F002 Online Pete, In light of current and prolonged issues, this seems like a good and safe tactic. I would appreciate it however if maybe you could place the rules in another result code since this result code is not as accurate as some others are and some of us weight it lower than others. Thanks, Matt Pete McNeil wrote: >Hello Sniffer Folks, > > Rulebot F002 has been placed online. > > This rulebot captures and creates geocities web links from the > "chatty" campaigns. This is largely a time saver for us humans... we > will focus our attention more on abstracts for these campaigns now > that F002 will be capturing the raw links. > > Rules from F002 will produce a 60 result code (Ungrouped). > > The engine is following a standard protocol that we have used for > months. I expect no false positives from this one. > >Thanks, >_M > >Pete McNeil (Madscientist) >President, MicroNeil Research Corporation >Chief SortMonster (www.sortmonster.com) >Chief Scientist (www.armresearch.com) > > >This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html > > > > This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
