151–160 of 171 posts
Brilliant building of software. Less than brilliant copy. I would change Black plays; checkmate in one! This is a chess CAPTCHA. Click on the board to make your move, and prove you are human. to This is a chess CAPTCHA... To prove that you are human, click on a black piece, then click on the only destination square that will checkmate. I really don't mean to nitpick, but took me a minute to figure out what to do. Som…
I am fairly certain it would be quicker to program a computer that can brute force a checkmate in one than I can solve these things by hand. You have what, 11 pieces, they can move into 64 positions each (at most, much less in reality). That means a computer must brute force 64*11 = 704 attempts. In other words, no time at all to bruteforce this once you've read the grid. Reading the grid in itself is rather trivial…
Yes, an afternoon of coding to be able to post spam on exactly one website. Until they change the captcha.
There are easier to implement unique captchas, than chess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for the feedback, I will apply the suggested change soon.
Ignore the feedback. Original copy is better. It is interesting because you can't really A/B test the response time with the different text, since the response time includes the human processing time of the chess problem.
Brilliant building of software. Less than brilliant copy. I would change Black plays; checkmate in one! This is a chess CAPTCHA. Click on the board to make your move, and prove you are human. to This is a chess CAPTCHA... To prove that you are human, click on a black piece, then click on the only destination square that will checkmate. I really don't mean to nitpick, but took me a minute to figure out what to do. Som…
1) The two most important pieces of information (player color and goal) became separated from each other;
2) The third piece of information (number of moves) went missing;
3) The player's color became hidden in the middle of the paragraph instead of the first word;
4) The player's goal disappeared to the end of the paragraph, instead of in the first sentence after player color;
5) The original has a clear and unambiguous goal for both new and regular users, while the alternative became very verbose, especially for returning users.
6) Usability is about the target audience, and the target audience is chess players, not software developers.
7) In contrast to how the founders want to position the brand, a very watered down, a newbie-friendly CAPTCHA could alienate experts from the site, and an expert-friendly CAPTCHA could alienate beginners.
To the OP: Since you have an established chess community, you should be asking them if they have a strong opinion rather than blindly taking advice from Hacker News :)
Brilliant building of software. Less than brilliant copy. I would change Black plays; checkmate in one! This is a chess CAPTCHA. Click on the board to make your move, and prove you are human. to This is a chess CAPTCHA... To prove that you are human, click on a black piece, then click on the only destination square that will checkmate. I really don't mean to nitpick, but took me a minute to figure out what to do. Som…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, of course, and I knew I was going to regret the use of even the toned-down term "probably normal-ish". The question is whether the one can meaningfully ask which text is faster to parse, despite the "noise" the comes from the time to actually perform the chess move. I suspect the answer will be 'yes'.
I think the answer will be 'no' as solving a chess problem is a learned skill and not as innate as reading and understanding text and the time delta of comprehension between two similar text passages << time to solve chess problem distributed between users of low and high skill.