41–46 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep! We try to localize the time.
So the fraudsters in Vietnam are trying to time it for 2am to 4am in the local market of the site they're defrauding?
So for something like "fraudsters don't use capital letters," does your system discover a fact like this automatically, or do I have to think up these indicators myself and hope they are relevant?
This is awesome stuff. Theoretically. But Sift doesn't actually make these functional/actionable right away through their service (even though they could). We signed up, love (LOVE!) the idea, but they keep asking for more data before returning meaningful results. Their home page says, "Get going in minutes: Integrate in just three steps: paste a Javascript snippet onto your site, log transactions from your servers t…
Yeah we work with one of their competitors and it is not simple. It takes an investment and thoughtful analysis to get use out of these services. No surprise. It's an inexact science. But, they really shouldn't advertise it as easy to use.
Disclosure: I'm a happy current customer whose model isn't quite right yet, but is getting there.
This doesn't seem really smart since some of those apply to me. I am not from America and I sometimes order from there meaning it would seem like I'm ordering at 4am when its 2pm my time. Another thing is the email, I know a lot of people with their birth year inside their email. What about them?
Sift intern here. We use the time zone of the customer rather than of the website for scoring riskiness. Sorry if that wasn't clear. As for customers including birth years in their emails, you're correct that this would be counter to the general trend. However, a fraud detection system like Sift has many data points on which to score a customer. Hopefully, the person would otherwise look benign and thus not have a ve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah we work with one of their competitors and it is not simple. It takes an investment and thoughtful analysis to get use out of these services. No surprise. It's an inexact science. But, they really shouldn't advertise it as easy to use.
I disagree: Sift can be easy to use. One of the features of Sift is its flexibility. You can make it easy to use and get some additional anti-fraud protection. Or you can make it more complicated but get better results. Disclosure: I'm a happy current customer whose model isn't quite right yet, but is getting there.
Well, that's kind of the point: sure, you can get it to function easily, but getting it to actually provide you with solid coverage takes some effort.
>Disclosure: I'm a happy current customer whose model isn't quite right yet, but is getting there.
That pretty much seals my point.
I mean, who wants semi-effective fraud protection? That's where the extra work comes in. And what you will find is that fraudsters change their game and you have to evolve your model, even once you get it customized. So, if you are simply using the "easy-to-use" out of the box signals, you are going to find that fraudsters have already been trained by other Sift customers. Sure, it might take them a moment to realize that you have implemented these measures, but they will adapt quickly when they do. If not, then you are dealing with amateurs and you really don't have much of a fraud problem.
And, that's one of the reasons it surprises me when these services publish fraud signals (as in the subject post), even if it's only a few simple ones. You will find that one of your most effective weapons against fraudsters is secrecy and misdirection. Never "train" them by letting on how you are trying to detect them and never give immediate feedback when you bust them. For instance (and I will give only a couple of simple examples), make them believe there is a problem with the site or that their order is on the way (just don't send it). The longer it takes for them to realize that their game isn't working, the better. And the more confused they are about whether it actually is working, the better. You want them confused, frustrated, and ready to move on to an easier target.
Again, my point is that for anyone who has a real fraud problem and needs a service like this, devising an *effective" strategy for using it is not simple. Instead of simplicity, Sift should advertise that fraud is tough, but they are tougher. They should talk up their models, machine learning, etc., but also their experience in and commitment to understanding customers and leading them to an effective use of their tools and mitigation strategies. This stuff isn't turnkey. It is very much a customer service and consulting business, whether they would prefer it to be pure self-serve SaaS or not.
In any event, good luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree: Sift can be easy to use. One of the features of Sift is its flexibility. You can make it easy to use and get some additional anti-fraud protection. Or you can make it more complicated but get better results. Disclosure: I'm a happy current customer whose model isn't quite right yet, but is getting there.
> You can make it easy to use and get some additional anti-fraud protection Well, that's kind of the point: sure, you can get it to function easily, but getting it to actually provide you with solid coverage takes some effort. > Disclosure: I'm a happy current customer whose model isn't quite right yet, but is getting there. That pretty much seals my point. I mean, who wants semi-effective fraud protection? That's wh…
That is exactly why I want a machine learning model, so that it can constantly be modifying and improving itself. Even better that it has a network of many clients, so that it can see lots of fraud examples and IP addresses where fraud is happening in real time.
> you are going to find that fraudsters have already been trained by other Sift customers.
The opposite should be true: fraud attempts on other Sift customers have helped improve your fraud protection.
> who wants semi-effective fraud protection?
If I can get immediate marginal improvement inexpensively with a probability that the fraud protection becomes very effective, then yeah...sounds good. Sign me up.