When is 99% better than 99.99%?

When you are talking of reliability. I had a problem with comments a few days back. Perfectly good comments were being held up for moderation. I never noticed till Michael Higgins sent me a mail and told me about it. Luckily he had my email id. (I don’t publish my email on my site to keep away spam and legal notices.)

So the point is, Spam Karma was working so well before it broke down that I had set up filters to move all mails telling me about comments being held up for moderation away from the inbox, to be disposed of at leisure. I was so used to it not catching false positives that I felt comfortable neglecting the task of approving or deleting moderated comments. If it had gone wrong more often, I would have been better prepared. The moral of the story is, 99% reliability is better than 99.99%.

Oh, and the problem should be fixed by now. The friendly neighbourhood Madman upgraded everything for me.

2 thoughts on “When is 99% better than 99.99%?

  1. Hi Ravikiran
    It is also better to have 99% reliability all of the time than 100% reliability 99% of the time and 0% reliability 1% of the time. Variance is the issue here. Anyway, I’m glad it is fixed and you are back to blogging full time.

  2. Spam Karma was beginning to behave like an aggressive out of control dog that bit the postman as often as it bit the thieves. So I switched to Akismet recently. It’s working well (so far). Another thing to have is “Bad Behaviour”, which conserves bandwidth too.

Comments are closed.