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.'"

Comments

more ads

[spokenoise]

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

Re:more ads

[Sockatume]

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

[the_Bionic_lemming]

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

Re:translation

[arthurh3535]

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

[osu-neko]

... 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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[BasilBrush]

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.

Just ID computers

[pubwvj]

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

[OhANameWhatName]

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

Yeah?

[WillKemp]

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?

[Spacejock]

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.

Spyware

[matria]

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

[TaoPhoenix]

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.)

Don't shoot the messenger!

[Pale Dot]

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.