From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9092
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: adaptive word scoring
Date: 05 Dec 1996 19:50:56 +0100
Sender: larsi@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no
Message-ID: <m2ral4rfjj.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no>
References: <199611290525.VAA00464@kim.teleport.com> 	<yahlobh2mpz.fsf@twi.tudelft.nl> <9612021508.AA23722@stud2.tuwien.ac.at>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149170 16443 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:26:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
          by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id LAA22632 for <steve@miranova.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:06:07 -0800
Original-Received: from proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (root@ppp16.larris.ifi.uio.no [129.240.68.116]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <TAA27264@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:53:04 +0100
Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (8.8.2/8.8.2) id TAA17086; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:50:57 +0100
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Robert Bihlmeyer's message of Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:08:05 +0100
Original-Lines: 17
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.73/Emacs 19.34
X-Face: &w!^oO<W.WBH]FsTP:P0f9X6M-ygaADlA_)eF$<UwQzj7:C=Gi<a?/_4$LX^@$Qq7-O&XHp
 lDARi8e8iT<(A$LWAZD*xjk^')/wI5nG;1cNB>~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\<y
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9092
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9092

Robert Bihlmeyer <e9426626@student.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

> (I think I've already suggested this once:) IMHO word-scoring should
> derive it's scores from the normal adaptive (line-)scores (by deviding
> the line-score by the number of words in the subject). So if killed
> articles would get -50 for their subject, words from the subject
> should be scored with -50/(number of words) each (ignored words are
> not include in this count). In this way, word-scoring mimics the
> effects for line-scoring for single subjects, but has the intended
> side-effects on others. Furthermore, the scores would by a magnitude
> smaller than the line-scores, giving the latter priority.

I think that sounds reasonable...  Anybody have any thoughts on this?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen