Comment by PoignardAzur
Comment by PoignardAzur 2 months ago
Sooooo... You're saying that the chance of a true positive given an alert was much less than 33%?
I don't if you meant it as a counterpoint for what I said, but it really isn't.
Comment by PoignardAzur 2 months ago
Sooooo... You're saying that the chance of a true positive given an alert was much less than 33%?
I don't if you meant it as a counterpoint for what I said, but it really isn't.
Yeah, but again, the problem isn't the high false positive rate.
The problem is that given any positive at all, the chance it points to a problem is still virtually zero.
If it was 6.8% of all tests as false positives and 2% true positives, probably people wouldn't have silenced the alarm.
If it goes off 8 times a day and 2 of them are true positives, then people have recent memories of having to fix problems pointed by the alarm.
Sorry, I meant to say that with only 6.8% of all tests triggering a false alarm (and 0% true alarm), a test operator still found a way to prevent the alarm from occurring rather than being kept on their toes.