Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CAPTCHA Using Ad-Based Verification

Posted by samzenpus on from the more-human-than-human dept.

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.'"

6 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.

  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 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. 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.

    --
    Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
  4. 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.