Excerpts from Ben Walton's message of Thu Aug 20 13:43:08 -0700 2009: > Excerpts from Chris Wilson's message of Thu Aug 20 16:01:10 -0400 2009: > > > I'd be happy to have sup automatically kill a thread that I have > > archived twice without reading. > > I think this kind of heuristic is a) hard to get right b) not required > if you do batch operations as described above. Part b) is subject to > personal opinion, of course! :)
[Here's one last thought from me in this thread before I come back next time with actual code and maybe some experience in using it.] Since, by nature of being a heuristic, this kind of thing can't be perfect, and since the cost of a false positive is high, (an important message being killed and never seen), here's another idea: First, leave killing to the user as an explicit action. Second, use the heuristics not for killing messages, but merely for prioritizing them in the inbox. But since the inbox might often be small, it's not adequate to move the "uninteresting" messages to the bottom. Instead threads that the heuristic identifies as "likely uninteresting" could have a delay attached to them before they are presented again in the inbox, (not too unlike throttling proposed for mailing-list servers to keep flamewars in check). This way instead of pestering the user with the bikeshedding until the user finally kills the thread in frustration, the bikeshedding could get delayed until the next morning's sweep where a day's worth of bikeshedding would be easy to identify and easy to kill. So maybe something like "Once I archive a thread twice without reading, don't show it to me again until tomorrow" or so. That might be interesting to try out. -Carl
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list sup-talk@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk
