Slashdot Mirror


CAPTCHA Using Ad-Based Verification

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.'"

33 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. more ads by spokenoise · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:more ads by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  2. translation by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:translation by arthurh3535 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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_.

      --
      No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    2. Re:translation by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... 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.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re: translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:translation by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re: translation by JakeBurn · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re: translation by cffrost · · Score: 2

      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)

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re: translation by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Just ID computers by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just ID computers by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    2. Re:Just ID computers by torsmo · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:Just ID computers by watice · · Score: 2

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

  4. Yeah? by WillKemp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Yeah? by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      how are we supposed to recognize logos?

      You must be a communist! (ducks)

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Yeah? by Spacejock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Yeah? by clemdoc · · Score: 2

      Another thing that came to my mind while reading the BBC article 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) 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?

    4. Re:Yeah? by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      My answer for Dyson: fucking overpriced.

  5. Spyware by matria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Spyware by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.)

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Spyware by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 2

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

      --
      You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
  6. Only because of Adblolck by ksemlerK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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,.

  7. Faster? More Lucrative! by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. It's more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's more than that by DKlineburg · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
  9. Don't shoot the messenger! by Pale+Dot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Brand recognition? by Engeekneer · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. easily defeated by 1u3hr · · Score: 2
    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....

  12. Won't go by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Who remembers K5? by tepples · · Score: 2

    I haven't once seen us fork slashdot to only include (fewer?) high quality stories.

    Kuro5hin originally ran the SLASH software that powers Slashdot before Rusty rewrote it from the ground up to create Scoop.

  14. Advertising disguised as "Security" by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2

    Back in 2000 I got so fed up with all the advertising on TV and radio and print, coupled with the poor quality of content and product placement, that I ceased listening to broadcast TV/radio and cancelled magazine subscriptions that are heavy in ads. I actively avoid ads and will not patronize chains that advertise movies (I'm talking to YOU, Burger King and Pizza Hut). Today I don't know the latest movie or TV show or any Lady GaGa songs, and I DON'T CARE. My personal life is so much better not being bombarded with ads.

    I really despised TV news broadcasts using movie advertisements disguised as "news", and this is an advertising gimmick disguised as "security". I won't recognize most brands today, will not waste my time researching them, and will move to another web resource without flinching. Ad-based CAPTCHAs is a big fail.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10