Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CAPTCHA Using Ad-Based Verification

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the more-human-than-human dept.

Advertising 174

mk1004 writes "Yahoo news has an article explaining how the text-based CAPTCHA is giving way to ad-based challenge/response. It's claimed that users are faster at responding to familiar logos, shortening the amount of time they spend proving that they are human. From the article: 'Rather than taking just a mere glance to figure out, recent studies show that a typical CAPTCHA takes, on average, 14 seconds to solve, with some taking much, much longer. Multiply that by the millions and millions of verifications per day, and Web users as a whole are wasting years and years of their lives just trying to prove they're not actually computers. This has led many companies to abandon the age-old system in favor of something not only more secure, but also easier to use for your average Webgoer: Ad-based verification, which can actually cut the time it takes to complete the task in half.'"

cancel ×

174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976357)

Mechanical Turk, baby!

more ads (5, Insightful)

spokenoise (2140056) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976365)

It's only because some company will pay to use their logo or watch their mini movie for the answer.

Re:more ads (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976967)

Yeah, someone should really tell that to these guys [youtube.com]

Re:more ads (3, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#42977571)

They also know that if you have to write down the name you're more likely to remember the brand. There's a lot of research right now in working around people's wonderful capacity to tune out commercials.

(I think I saw a Microsoft patent for Kinect-based ads where you could skip the ad, but only by saying the product's name (or whatever).)

translation (5, Insightful)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976371)

Heh, This is a desperate attempt to stop people like me from adblocking so we can actually use the service.

Re:translation (0, Redundant)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976405)

Time to dump Yahoo, I only still use it for the spam filter which it has been good at but if it expects me to look at ads I will stop using it.

Re:translation (5, Informative)

arthurh3535 (447288) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976427)

Time to dump Yahoo, I only still use it for the spam filter which it has been good at but if it expects me to look at ads I will stop using it.

I ran into a nasty 'ad-captcha' that was at least 10 seconds long before it would give the option to 'solve' the captcha. All the time an inane, loud commercial played for something I would never buy.

Yeah, great job annoying people even _more_.

Re:translation (3, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976871)

... All the time an inane, loud commercial played for something I would never buy.

And yet, people get upset about targeting ads, as if that was a bad thing rather than a blessing.

Re: translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976903)

They are not mutually exclusive.

Ads should be optional: if you force me to view or interact with them I have the option of not using your service or visiting your site.

Re: translation (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976949)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you block ads, you're just a leech anyway,

Re: translation (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977207)

What about the folks who want their privacy and in NO WAY shape or form said it was ok to track every web site they go to, location, and more?

And how about the security problems? Even Google gave out viruses in their ads just a couple of years ago. You think I trust strangers on the internet who want to push ads on me on pages I never wanted to begin with from doing searches? Most viruses are transmitted by online ads now.

http://www.avast.com/en-us/pr-online-ads-put-web-users-at-risk
http://www.spamfighter.com/News-8809-Online-Ads-%E2%80%93-New-Virus-Spreading-Tools-for-Hackers.htm

So anyone not wanting someone begging you with flashing bright orange and letter colors, or showing half naked women trying to sell you something for erections, or jumping up and down like their screaming at you for your attention, or not wanting popup windows that have their own popup windows, then they are "leeches"? Ya right. You are a troll. That is the most illogical and ridiculous statement, and I am totally surprised that someone really defends obnoxious and irritating ads on websites. Not only that... you got angry about it. lol

You, obviously, work for a company connected to the ad industry.

Re: translation (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977273)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you block ads, you're just a leech anyway

Bullshit. The internet was never created for the convenience of ad-whores. The attitude of marketroids that they have some divine right to plaster their drivel over every surface visible to the human eye just makes me want to smack the bastards in the teeth.

Re: translation (2)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977369)

What does the purpose of the internet's creation have anything to do with the day someone asked 'who the hell is going to pay for all this'? On what planet do you live where advertisers have any right whatsoever to put anything on a website without the owner's permission? Even if it was forced permission through a contract that a re-seller uses, no one has a right to advertise anything. The sites you use decide what they put up. Vulgarity, violence and a complete lack of knowledge on how things work. Your post is full of all kinds of fail.

Re: translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42977785)

No, his post is full of all kinds of right. Yours is full of all kinds of shill.

Re: translation (5, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#42978089)

The sites you use decide what they put up.

Lowest common denominator. The way so many things in the world turn to shit.

In Sao Paolo they banned billboard advertising. Business wasn't damaged at all.

In many cities and towns in Europe, advertising only allowed to be very low key, so that it doesn't spoil the look of the place. Especially so in historical locations. They still flourish.

The only reason there's so much advertising on the internet is there's nothing to stop it. Bad practices induce worse practices.

What does the purpose of the internet's creation have anything to do with the day someone asked 'who the hell is going to pay for all this'?

Government pays for some of the internet. Consumers pay for some of the internet to their ISPs. Lots of content providers do it for fun. Lots of content providers do it because they want to spread their message, and that doesn't have to be third party advertising. If the internet wasn't an advertisers whorehouse, micropayments might take off for things that are worth paying for.

Advertising doesn't have to ruin everything.

Re: translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42977723)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you block ads, you're just a leech anyway

Bullshit. The internet was never created for the convenience of ad-whores. The attitude of marketroids that they have some divine right to plaster their drivel over every surface visible to the human eye just makes me want to smack the bastards in the teeth.

If you see ads, it is because you are visiting and using services that use ads to pay their bills and salaries and provide the service you are using. If you don't want that, don't use them, stick with usenet or non-profit/non-ad based web services. Nobody are forcing you to consume for free the services ads help pay for.

Re: translation (2)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#42977737)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you block ads, you're just a leech anyway,

Is "leech" your term for an individual who's not completely incompetent with regard to network security? Or, maybe someone whose value system doesn't mandate owing a debt for participating in a voluntary exchange of ideas?

As I see it, any person or entity who wants to publish their ideas on the web is generally responsible for the cost of doing so. For example, this site's owners incur the cost of publishing "slashvertisements" and links to other sources' articles on this website — much like how participants in this discussion incur the cost of their own hardware, Internet connection, etc.

Now, I admit that Slashdot's own recognition of this exchange (in the form of its disable ads check box) is pathetically atypical. During the BBS days, the vast majority of sysops and users recognized and operated under this principal, yet nobody bitched and moaned about a glaring lack of epidemic-level hucksterism.

Anyway, we can pretend to play it your way if you want... I'll play the "leech" reader/contributor, and you can play the stoic consumer of shrill corporate drivel, furiously clicking on malware-laden buy-more-shit!-links to keep the Internet from shutting down, with nary a complaint save the occasional finger wagging and cries of "leech!" directed at the thieves who don't click their fair share. I can live with this arrangement — and yes, of course I'll fix your computer for you after you fuck it up again, just like every time before. ;o\

By the way, since I haven't placed any ads in this message, please just donate a few bucks to the non-profit charity of your choice and we'll call it square. :o)

Re:translation (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#42977999)

And yet, people get upset about targeting ads, as if that was a bad thing rather than a blessing.

I'm not at all upset about targeted ads themselves. If I'm going to see an ad I'd prefer it to be relevant. What I object to is being spied upon by companies that want to target ads at me.

As it happens I use Ad-block, so it makes no difference whether they try to target ads at me. I'm having my privacy compromised for something that's not benefiting anyone.

Negative Turing Test (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#42978179)

So it is actually a negative Turing test. You must be as insensitive as a machine to be able to sit through the entire "captcha". Great!

Re:translation (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976447)

What if they create a service like recaptcha and it gains popularity? Though, I imagine those websites that use it would want a small cut just like anyone displaying ads on their site.

Don't shoot the messenger! (5, Informative)

Pale Dot (2813911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976729)

Time to dump Yahoo, I only still use it for the spam filter which it has been good at but if it expects me to look at ads I will stop using it.

The news was by Yahoo, not about Yahoo. The company could still be among those planning to adopt the technology, but this isn't mentioned in the news story.

Re:Don't shoot the messenger! (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977315)

And incidentally, by far the best way to deal with Yahoo mail is via a proper email client (take your pick, Thunderfart, mutt, whatever rocks your boat). I can guarantee you'll never see any of their ads that way (unless Yahoo happens to be spamming you).

Re:translation (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976545)

Hahaha! They thought text-based CAPTCHAs were getting too easy to automatically solve! Wait until they try logo-based captchas! Hahahaha!

This is too funny.

First off, TFA is W-A-Y off: companies didn't abandon text-based CAPTCHAs because they took too long! They have been abandoning them because they are TOO EASY for machines to solve! I have been paid to do CAPTCHA - solving apps myself.

Put logos in there instead, it will just get easier!

And "to add insult to injury", as the saying goes: even more economical in many cases, there are 3rd-world services that will solve CAPTCHAs using humans to decipher them, 100 for a penny! It would get even easier if logos were used. I can easily see the services starting to offer 300 per penny.

It's just too funny.

Re:translation (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976709)

On one of my sites, I found that the spam bots were getting through Google Captcha as if it wasn't there. I tried a math test and the spam bots stopped getting through... Can you explain to me why as I would find it much easier to write a script that could solve simple math?

My biggest problem with Captcha is that the clients do not like it at all. They want an easy life.

Re:translation (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977257)

Doh, because the spam bots weren't configured/programmed to solve math problems.

Of course you'll find many humans aren't able to solve math problems either and thus have problems using your site. This may or may not be a feature depending on the type of site. For a site like slashdot it may be a feature if people who can't solve simple math problems are prevented from posting.

Re:translation (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977347)

Probably because there are pre-made applications to solve certain types of CAPTCHA. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that anything from Google would be a prime target for that kind of thing. If you are a smaller site, you might be more likely to be hit with one of those, and less likely to have someone outsource human CAPTCHA-drones.

Somebody hired me a couple of years back to scrape information from a government site, which was technically public information, but it used a CAPTCHA. Turned out that one was particularly difficult to solve. A pre-made app to solve similar CAPTCHAs didn't work on that variant, but I found a customizable app that, with some trouble, could be tuned to do it.

But again, those are aimed at more typical CAPTCHAs. It could be that nobody wanted to take the trouble to do a custom solution for your site's new scheme. I don't know.

Re:translation (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976881)

Just wait until captchas turn into 30-second flash videos, followed by freeform text answers with questions like, "How many cups of ___'s delicious Mountain Roast coffee did Jane buy?", followed by "What color was the scarf of the elderly woman behind her" and "what is the 800 number you can call to send a gift certificate for CoffeeCo's tasty rich dark coffee to a cherished friend?".

Before you argue that the number questions would be small, remember... advertisers will be shooting loads on their computer screens at the thought of being able to force users to watch, re-watch, and watch their commercials another 7 times to answer the captcha questions their marketing department will be submitting to Google along with the ads themselves. The more inane questions they come up with to submit (and by extension, the more ad views they can wring out of a single exposure payment to get him to be able to answer their questions), the happier they'll be. Mark my words, two or three years down the line, they'll be sending you on scavenger hunts to the advertiser's website to look up SKU numbers and specs from the users manual. Don't believe me? Sites offering downloads of pirated software and mp3s were doing the same thing YEARS ago... to download some file, they'd literally send you out to a hundred sites where you had to view ads and answer questions about them to prove you did it.

Re:translation (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977353)

"Just wait until captchas turn into 30-second flash videos, followed by freeform text answers with questions..."

I don't deny it could happen. But I wouldn't sit through them.

Re:translation (1)

Nbrevu (2848029) | about a year ago | (#42977651)

Nobody would. Any webpage trying to make people accept that kind of shit, even gradually, is going to lose users over time. There will always be another place with similar content and no bullshit like that.

Re:translation (1)

Nbrevu (2848029) | about a year ago | (#42977663)

Yeah, there were pages that forced you to go to another (usually ad-flooded) page to "vote" and such. Like ten years ago. They disappeared as soon as there were better (i.e., less time-consuming, no ad-forcing) alternatives.

Re:translation (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#42978055)

I wouldnt say that text captcha's are "too easy" for computers to solve.. its just that it costs almost nothing for a machine to fail and try again. Even with a dismal success rate like 10% you can easily see how futile the captcha's are when being attacked by computers that will never get tired or frustrated about failing 9 out of 10 times.

Re:translation (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#42978121)

I have been paid to do CAPTCHA - solving apps myself.

So you rent yourself out to spammers? Or something less objectionable? I'm trying to think of a legitimate reason for mass cracking of captchas but I can't think of one. Have I missed something?

It's more than that (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976717)

If a person hears or reads something that they don't like (e.g. an ad) their brain will often discard it immediately. But if you can make them say it, or in this case type it, they're more likely to remember it, and even start to believe it.

This is, essentially, low-grade mind control.

Re:It's more than that (2)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977015)

which is why I think this is terrible. And honestly, I don't look at adds. I don't have cable. I have ad blocker, the chance of me knowing a slogan is slim.

ads (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976381)

I'm all for them. They're so much easier to solve and we see so many adds anyway. I would love to see more captcha verifications switched to the ad things

Re:ads (1, Informative)

wmbetts (1306001) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976639)

I dunno why he's getting down modded. I'd rather be told click on the coke ad than type something I can hardly read. Then again I have trouble seeing so I might not represent the majority.

Just ID computers (4, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976387)

It would be better to simply prove that the computer is used reasonably and then stop presenting the captcha's after the initial few tests. If the computer starts being detected as a spammer then it must prove again, harder this time, that it is a valid user to become reaccepted. This would save time and processing power.

Re:Just ID computers (3, Interesting)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976497)

It's a v.good idea, but how would that sell advertising?

Re:Just ID computers (2)

torsmo (1301691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976955)

My ISP leases me an IP address for a period of 24 hours. It then resets. How does your solution work out for me?

Re:Just ID computers (2)

watice (1347709) | about a year ago | (#42977637)

By using identifiable information OTHER than your IP? There are tons of other options, ya know...

Re:Just ID computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42978265)

And what prevents anyone from grabbing that database of known good guys (possibly with guns) and picking an entry at random when asked for credentials ?
Better wrap out your cryptography knowledge now.

Re:Just ID computers (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976991)

There's an easier way to slow down spammers... generate a random string with some bit of known plaintext, save it in session context, generate a random 40-bit encryption key, save it in session context, encrypt the random string with that random key, deliver it to the user's client app, and make the client app bruteforce the encryption key & submit the decrypted value as a formvar along with the new message. Even phones are fast enough now to bruteforce a 40-bit key within a few seconds if you give them a hint or two so they can attack the problem intelligently. The biggest drawback is that ARM is so much slower than x86 or AMD64, even a shit PC can bruteforce something in a few seconds that would take an Android phone or iPhone a minute or more (ARM is about half the effective speed as an x86 of a given speed in megahertz/gigahertz with mainstream apps, but when the big boys pull out the heavy artillery and start involving lots of floating point math, matrix calculations, and huge integers, the gap between ARM and x86 widens considerably).

Example: a few months ago, I did a proof of concept experiment for a group of developers at my company. Given a list of ~500,000 real-world passwords obtained from compromised popular web sites, a ~2GHz Thnkpad T61 can iterate through the list, do a single round of PBKDF2 key stretching, attempt to decrypt a short pdf document that might have been weakly-encrypted with AES using that as a key in ECB mode, and rip through about 100,000 keys per minute. Of course, in real life, you'd never use ECB and you'd do at least 1,000 (if not many, many more) rounds of key-stretching, but the example just goes to show how fast even mediocre computer hardware is now at bruteforce cracking. In fact, the hardest part is finding a supported encryption algorithm that's suitably weak to make cracking it be (statistically) a 15-30 second job on a high-end Android phone or iPhone.

Re:Just ID computers (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977035)

What about all the computers that are zombie's? and the user doesn't even know? I'm sure spam is not coming from the real spammers computer.

Yeah? (4, Insightful)

WillKemp (1338605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976409)

A fancy rationalization of a money making scam. Nobody's wasting years of their lives doing captchas. And what about those of us who have very low exposure to advertising - how are we supposed to recognize logos?

Re:Yeah? (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976443)

how are we supposed to recognize logos?

You must be a communist! (ducks)

Re:Yeah? (1)

stephathome (1862868) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976647)

Communists ducks? They're everywhere!

Re:Yeah? (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977359)

In Soviet Russia the ducks quack you?

Re:Yeah? (5, Insightful)

Spacejock (727523) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976587)

And the logos - there's no point showing a US-centric firm's logo to an Aussie visitor, for example. I wouldn't know what most of them look like or who they represent.

Re:Yeah? (2)

clemdoc (624639) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977053)

Another thing that came to my mind while reading the BBC article [bbc.co.uk] linked to by the Yahoo article in TFS (yeah, I actually read all that stuff, I must be new here) is the fact that while many people with non-english native language may be comfortable reading articles in english (maybe sometimes using Google translator or some other stuff) but not necessarily be able to easily answer the question, even if they knew the brand.
The "Ad-CAPTCHA" in question (image [bbcimg.co.uk] ) asks to describe the brand "dyson". A valid answer would probably be "vacuum cleaner". Would the system accept "Staubsauger" (German for vacuum cleaner, actual meaning: "dust sucker") as well?

Re:Yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977193)

The "Ad-CAPTCHA" in question (image) asks to describe the brand "dyson"

My answer would be: "How the fuck could I know? They don't sell that brand in my country"

If you make me google stuff and guess spellings to log on your website, you'd better make a site that I absolutely have to use it or I'll skip happily to other parts of the intturnet.

Re:Yeah? (2)

scdeimos (632778) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977217)

My answer for Dyson: fucking overpriced.

Re:Yeah? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977377)

That's what I thought too, until I tried one. I've owned a few industrial-type vacs which worked well enough, in their own way, but are overly bulky for the home. I've abused the hell out of the dyson machine I bought ~3 years ago, and I'm still happy with it, whereas I usually start bitching and whining when machines stop working properly after a month. Only thing wrong with the dyson is that it's no good for wet stuff.

Re:Yeah? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#42978161)

Cheaper vacuums that don't work nearly as well are available. Typical vacuum, it's hard to tell if the suction is working at all, without putting your hand over the aperture. A Dyson tends to pull the carpet up from the floor.

(That may have changed since Dyson's patent on cyclonic vacuums ran out. I haven't tried any of the Dyson copies.)

Re:Yeah? (1)

KritonK (949258) | about a year ago | (#42977589)

This particular Ad-CAPTCHA had better accept "sphere" as a valid answer. Not being a USian, I 've never heard of this brand.

Re:Yeah? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#42978187)

Dyson is a British brand. Americans would probably know it. I'd imagine there are quite a few countries where they are familiar.

But the general point is that captchas would have to be targeted per country. And that part at least is not an issue with this scheme, because the advertisers would want the ads to be targeted per country anyway.

Re:Yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42978167)

This one is easy. Just write 'crap' every time and you'll pass with flying colours.

Re:Yeah? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year ago | (#42977557)

And the logos - there's no point showing a US-centric firm's logo to an Aussie visitor, for example. I wouldn't know what most of them look like or who they represent.

With a little bit of remedial studying and some perseverance, you'll be able to become more like an American consumer. I don't see how this would be be considered a bad thing to an advertiser.

Plus, I hear Aussies like to pay more for the same things, that's got to be good news for advertisers as well.

Re:Yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977275)

I noted in the article linked to in the posting, that they has examples on the left side. Top one was entering text from an ad, the second was assembling a jigsaw from 4 pieces and the 3rd was solving a math problem.
Hah! I switched my own website's contact form to a random math problem over a year ago. I am ahead of the commercial big guns, just this once. Yay!

Re:Yeah? (1)

ArturoBandini77 (2610501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977285)

I'm with you.... This makes no sense:
"You spend 1/3 of your life sleeping.
Multiply this by 6 billion human beings.
You are not productive.
You are fired."

Re:Yeah? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42978297)

I'd be amazed to see computers fail at recognizing company and product logos in images and videos.

Not to mention that there is a very finite amount of popular logos that are going to be used for this. Probably less than 1000-2000.
It shouldnt be too hard to have a list of advertisments mapping to the correct response.
You can even earn money generating it by hosting a website with this kind of ad-captcha, both recording the sucessful responses and earning money for displaying the ads.

Obvious scam.

Spyware (4, Interesting)

matria (157464) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976441)

I've examined a few of these "services". They keep track of who is using these things. Some of them even provide you with some of their data, such as a weekly or monthly report on how many people solved their question and how many failed. And some of them use cookies, allowing anybody to track your users.

Re:Spyware (3, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976493)

Nice catch.

(shock, horror) I actually read The Article, and you're spot on about how thin it is.

I don't know anymore. Maybe slashdot editors feel like they're under a gun to produce something/"anything" in the timeframe, but the cost to the readers of bad stories is growing. In other news sites I wouldn't care because we expect that drivel from some of them. But "news for *nerds" ... yes this matters, but aren't / weren't nerds the ones who dug into the details!? The ones who got thrown into the dumpster because we asked too many questions in class?

Supposedly the raw code to slashdot is open, but I haven't once seen us fork slashdot to only include (fewer?) high quality stories. (Not saying someone didn't, just saying that this medium regular user never saw it.)

Re:Spyware (2)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about a year ago | (#42977545)

Glad it wasn't just me with that dumpster thing ...

Let's save the world 7 seconds! (1)

Czubaka (132534) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976459)

Yeah, let us all save the world's 7 seconds multiplied by 1 bilion users. That would give us 221 years. Imagine what we can do in 221 of productive life! Fantaramtastic! I love such calculations. But, hey, I spent 80 seconds typing this message. That's 80-7=73 seconds waste? Now I feel I waster 2313 years (assuming one bilion people typing this message).

Only because of Adblolck (2, Interesting)

ksemlerK (610016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976537)

They are only trying this bullshit because of Adblock. If an advertisement is required to be used to solve a question, that renders Adblock completely useless, and will force people to view crap ads they have been able to block for ages now. If the internet becomes the ad-infested crap fest that I remember from the days before Adblock Plus, and Privox, I'll disconnect from it permanently. I'm not willing to endure a deluge of ads to enjoy a service that I'm already paying a pretty penny to receive,.

Re:Only because of Adblolck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977021)

Because you pay your ISP everyone else should work for free or at a loss even? Yeah that makes sense.

Re:Only because of Adblolck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977175)

My god, you'd think that ads were food, and GP is literally taking it out of someone's mouth.

"You wouldn't not download an ad, would you?" (Shot of sad starving marketing executive)

Re:Only because of Adblolck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977247)

Ads are copyrighted. I'm quite happy to use AdBlock, Privoxy, etc., to avoid downloading ads and violating some poor fool's copyright.

What? You want everyone to view ads but still be able to sue them for violating copyright?

Re:Only because of Adblolck (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977391)

So Adblock needs to evolve to autosolve these captchas. You could even crwodsource it quite easily, so every new captcha would have to be solved once and all other users could now bypass it.

House numbers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976591)

In one of the popular CAPTCHA schemes, you only have to solve one word to unlock access to whatever service you're trying to use, while decoding the other word is a distributed service sold to companies/agencies trying to digitize text.

I've noticed that one of the clients is interested in having street addresses decoded. That seems creepy and fishy to me, so whenever I see one, I enter a false number.

How much shit can they sell us already? (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976595)

I get the idea behind advertising but don't ads lose their effectiveness when they're so pervasive?

Re:How much shit can they sell us already? (1)

preaction (1526109) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976619)

Yeah, they cause me to use adblock and ghostery no matter how often they crash Safari

Re:How much shit can they sell us already? (1)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976773)

There might be some fall of of effectivness, but in general I don't think anybody really cares, given how bad ads on the Internet are. Not only are they still almost completely untargeted, they are also incredible repetitious, boring and not even made for the Internet. If Youtube for example shows me a video, why not tell me the name of the product at the start of the video? I am going to skip it in 5sec anyway, so you could just tell me now and reenforce that logo into my brain or I won't see it. Also why are there so few ads? Youtube seems to run the same five ads in a loop, every few month they might update one, but if I open three tabs, I get to see the same video three times. What's the point of that? Also why are they not interactive? Why can't I comment on them? Why can't I click a "I do not care about this product" button to get rid of them? Why can't I click a "I want to see more"?

Maybe there is some reason for ads sucking so much, maybe that's what makes them stick in my mind. I don't know. But the general feel I get from Internet ads is that nobody really cares about making them intersting, it's just colorful garbage dumped all over the Internet and it makes no real use of the possibilities that the Internet would provide.

Re:How much shit can they sell us already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976927)

sure, but that just means they need more ads.

Already Broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976611)

Yeah, cause all those CAPTCHA's they had pictures of would be impossible for computers to break! One of these ad based CAPTCHA companies has already been hammered on a bit.

http://hackaday.com/2013/01/16/script-defeats-minteye-captcha/
http://hackaday.com/2013/01/19/breaking-the-minteye-captcha-again/
http://hackaday.com/2013/01/29/breaking-the-minteye-captcha-one-more-time/

Faster? More Lucrative! (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976615)

Captcha's don't take all that long to solve if they are halfway readable. Seamless web uses a method I find interesting - image recognition and classification. "Identify which items are food! Go!". I find it hard to believe speed is the issue. It seems far more likely the companies realized the combination of captive traffic in front of a desired activity was too good of an opportunity to pass up. "Our users will see an ad every time they go to rate a restaurant they recently ordered from" is a hell of a pitch.

Re:Faster? More Lucrative! (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976891)

Captcha's don't take all that long to solve if they are halfway readable.

This is correct, both for humans and computers. The last part is why many of the captchas I see these days aren't even halfway readable.

Re:Faster? More Lucrative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977121)

CAPCHAs fail to load over slower dialup connections, especially with cookies or scripts disabled.

Re:Faster? More Lucrative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977397)

Identify which items are food: Cow, pig, dog.

European user: Cow, pig.
Muslim user: Cow.
Indian user: Pig.
Chinese user: Cow, pig, dog.

Defeating its purpose? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976651)

Well... isn't placing well-known logos, which can be easily image-matched by computers, kind of defeating the purpose of a CAPTCHA?

(And this CAPTCHA I just had to solve took me MUCH less than the fourteen seconds they claim as an average.)

Re:Defeating its purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977361)

Well... isn't placing well-known logos, which can be easily image-matched by computers, kind of defeating the purpose of a CAPTCHA?

Of course it defeats the purpose of the CAPTCHA and they already know that, but that doesn't matter to them as this is only the first step.
The next step is "In order to prove you're a human, you need to buy one of these products"-CAPTCHAs.

(Cause computers couldn't possibly have access to a valid credit card number, right?)

Re:Defeating its purpose? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#42978263)

it's not a captcha system.

it's a make-sure-the-ad-was-shown system.

and that's nothing new!

A 'solution' in search of a problem (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976675)

How often do you personally deal with a captcha?

This is a waste of time, and another vector for ad-servers to throw malicious javascript and flash attacks at you.

It's a sound idea (0)

ixarux (1652631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976681)

I think that this is the way to go. Every organization has different motives and the captchas can be tailor-made to utilize user-time in that direction. It works well in atleast one direction, if not in both. Depends on who the user is.

If it is a profit-maximizing organization, it makes sense to monetize these few seconds of user attention. If it is an organization working for human-rights, replace the captcha with the image of some charity or some news item that they wish to inform the user.

Get the captchas to help you read books, solve world-hunger problems, solve NP-hard problems, whatever you wish. But seriously we need to move on from random letters that do waste A LOT of time, with little productivity for anyone.

Re:It's a sound idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977277)

You must be new here (to the internet). A number of CAPTCHAs are already digitised text from books in an effort to get the internet-at-large to Turk it for them. I'd rather more of those than being forced to sit through advertising to answer a question.

Brand recognition? (2)

Engeekneer (1564917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976753)

In addition to all the other posters qualms about this, I really wonder how this would work on the internet. How many brands are generally recognized around the world? Fine, you can do some localization, but still.

It seems that this will be either choosing between the logos of Coca Cola, Apple and Nike, or presenting me with an ad of the biggest, most famous mattress company in the whole US.

Only when needed (1)

Chompjil (2746865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976759)

Adblock and Hosts Files

So what? (1)

EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC (2816391) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976763)

Multiply that by the millions and millions of verifications per day, and Web users as a whole are wasting years and years of their lives just trying to prove they're not actually computers.

Web users as a whole are wasting years and years of their lives just trying to look at cute cat pictures. Does this mean we should embark upon the CATcha?

Just another attempt to make viewing ads compulsory...

icky (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976771)

I had an experience with one of these... Yikes, I hate companies that support annoying adds it was loud and had no volume control on the app >. Whatever un-named body of dark stagnant water the people that throw up the "Buy my terrible anti-virus program that will tell you when naughty cookies are downloaded, no no we don't fix it that's this other product we sell" captach. Your being paged back to you cesspool, please don't touch the white telephone.

Shoad of lit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976853)

shitload of it

Was this really necessary /. (1)

Stonefish (210962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976895)

Mmmm it tastes just like butter, really??? Slashdot do you really need to place advertisments in this manner? Check the approval process for this piece of crap and you'll find someone taking kickbacks. If it wasn't deliberate ie a corporate decision then you have someone in the ranks getting kickbacks.

Ads? haha! (1)

boundary (1226600) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977045)

If I have to use ads to view a service, that service can fuck right off.

easily defeated (2)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977061)

How any logos are there that the average person could recognise? A few hundred? Say a thousand. Much easier to add these to the "OCR" library than the mangled text in captchas. There are only so many ads. And all the ads could be harvested and catalogued automatically, as they'd just reuse ones on other sites with identifying metadata.

Complete bullshit. And you know for a fact that in no time we'd be having to answer questions about crap like "One weird secret for losing weight/Mom is 54 and looks 27". Then we'd have to watch a flash animation. And listen to a jingle....

Re:easily defeated (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977363)

Yeah, that's the joke of these systems. They are completely insecure and utter failures at actually being CAPTCHAs. Common sense should be enough to determine this, but apparently it's not. Ad-based CAPTCHAs are one of the most ridiculous scams I've seen for a long time.

But (1)

YADoctor (2848059) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977063)

Putting the money making aside (which if they do it well is an acceptable and novel idea), is it not a good thing to have clients stalled for quarter of a minute? An average of 14 seconds per thousands or millions of connections a day surely results in a GIANT saving in terms of CPU time. Right?

I don't really recognise logos well (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977453)

Another issue is that most people don't "see" adverts, and will skip over these.

Video and audio adverts are the worst - one of the things that annoys me about Spotify is the adverts, which are so annoying they make me less likely to even pay for the service and just stick to playing my own music. Every three songs I get some guy quack-quack-quacking away in a foreign language, which surely makes no commercial sense.

Re:I don't really recognise logos well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42977933)

I think the spotify adverts work wonder. Everyone I know that pays for spotify does it to get rid of the adverts because they are so annoying.

Not buying the service because the ads in the free version is annoying seems very illogical.
Not using the free service because of the ads I can understand, but saying you would buy it if it weren't for the ads in the free version seems like a copout. You just want an excuse to why you don't want to pay.

Really? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#42977721)

"It's claimed that users are faster at responding to familiar logos..."

I have no TV (but a 55" monitor to watch torrented stuff without ads), use adblockers everywhere, refuse ads in my mailbox, I wouldn't recognize a logo that I don't know from childhood and most of those have changed.

" shortening the amount of time they spend proving that they are human."

I wouldn't qualify ad-watchers as 'human'.

Re:Really? (1)

GWRedDragon (1340961) | about a year ago | (#42977893)

"It's claimed that users are faster at responding to familiar logos..."

I have no TV (but a 55" monitor to watch torrented stuff without ads), use adblockers everywhere, refuse ads in my mailbox, I wouldn't recognize a logo that I don't know from childhood and most of those have changed.

Do you also never go outside? Visit a store? Or purchase any products?

I also block as many ads as I can, but I am still exposed to plenty of logos and such merely by going outside in any relatively urban area. Even interacting with any people you will see logos, since people wear all sorts of them on their clothing. There's also a logo on almost any product you can buy, even if you never go outside and never see any other people.

If you don't know any logos, you must have been living under a rock. Say, did you know that 15 minutes could...

Won't go (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#42977793)

I don't care how good your information is I won't interact with an add that you have forced upon me. I'd even give up slashdot if tomorrow I went to log in and an ad-captcha popped up. This is exactly the sort of MBA type crap that is ruining so many companies. Some douche does a spreadsheet showing how they will make x cents per user logging in with the ad-captcha. First the spreadsheet doesn't show how many customers will soon flee and second you suddenly have a new incentive to start ad-captcha'ing all over the place. First you just log people out more (a great way to lose customers because they can't be bothered to retrieve their login) and then you start putting ad-captchas between the user and just about everything. At first this will look great on the bottom line as you will probably triple your ad revenue overnight but 2 years later you are laying off 90% of your staff because you only have 10% of your readers.

The equivalent logic would apply to a grocery store putting all their prices up 20%. In the first week they would be rolling in profits due to customer inertia but by week 52 they are closed as there are so many other stores roughly 20% less.

But the worst logic is that an ad-capcha takes less time. Again MBA logic; the user is taking less time but seething the for that time and for a while after. Also keep in mind that most people (we aren't most people) don't have a clue what captchas are about but it must be something technical. But an ad everybody can understand.

So my prediction is that the best that ad-captcha sites can hope for will be that their growth will slow down; but my thinking is that most ad-captcha implementing sites will be taking it down and publicly saying that it was one of the worst decisions in the site's history.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>