Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, not without a reason. :-) > > Are you saying you want to change this since the scores are a bit of > an anomoly exasperated by the use of old data? The scores were > probably fine at the time but since the data is now old, it's just not > right? > > +0
I think those scores are slightly wrong because we didn't use real-time network results for 3.0.3. The network rule hit rates were too high and the Bayes scores were lowered too far. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
