81–90 of 207 posts
It require minimum user interaction, and you will eliminate most of spammers bot, since it will lose its cost-effectiveness. You can implement something like coin-hive proof-of-work, without having to mine monero anyway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only have anecdata of course but so far I've had a 100% success rate. I imagine this will come down eventually but for the past ~year or so it's been working fine to just hide the honeypot field with CSS
I'm glad it's worked for one of us at least.
Depending on where it is the name= would be surname (where the form submission has a name field rather than a first name surname split), website, url, etc
I had a strange idea about solving this problem: How about a micro-payment, something like $0.01, instead of solving a puzzle? In that case maybe you won't care if many bots login to your website. I think that I by this time I have the technology to make something like this work, I was wondering if this is a good solution though. What do you think?
Say what you want about the site, but 4chans pass method of payment, which just removes all the captcha's when posting and lowers the post timer, was a fantastic idea, and just works.
For bots which are not specifically targeted at your page i simply add an invisible form element named url. Bots _LOVE_ to share their viagra urls. Any request which submitted an url is discarded. This trick is simple stupid and should not work but somehow the simple spam bots have not improved. This does not work for sophisticated bots (never met one) or the ones programmed specifically for your site (happens very r…
If you work in the Ruby ecosystem at all, there is a gem called invisible_captcha that does just this. It beat back most of the bot signups we were getting, though some still slip through occasionally. https://github.com/markets/invisible_captcha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now you're filtering out bots and people with disabilities?
Nope, screen readers (usually?) ignore elements with "display: none". To be sure, you could add aria-hidden="true", which I'd guess most bots don't recognize. http://alistapart.com/article/now-you-see-me/
Depends on why you need it. Captchas work well for telling humans from bots for the purpose of denying automated/scripted access. But here a simple IP-based blacklist works well, because of how many bots now live on Amazon's properties and some such. You don't need a captcha to filter out bot spam . That's a massive overkill. stopforumspam.com works well. You can combine it with a simple keyword based filter, have it…
Not all media manipulation is commercial. Not by a long shot.
You're fighting the last war, if not older.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You hide it with CSS, not type='hidden'
It really doesn't matter. display:none or position:absolute;left:-1000px makes little difference. Honey pots only catch a small number of bots.
W3C has published an extensive list of reCAPTCHA alternatives: https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ W3C is requesting feedback for the document, if you'd like to make suggestions, please open an issue: https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues
How about put your users first and don’t farm them out to Google ML training because someone told you to. Recaptcha is a cancer on the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now you're filtering out bots and people with disabilities?
Unfortunately I've not given thought to people with disabilities in this case. It's an oversight and that's on me. I wonder if bots are smart enough to figure out aria-hidden="true". Possibly empty it out using javascript on submit. I would guess a bot not using CSS would also not be using javascript? Unsure, would need testing.