3 ms·
And your point is?
by zzzcpan 7y ago
And your point is?
- bryanrasmussen 7y agothat depending on your sites purpose and where your servers are located / where your main customer base is you might be opening yourself to extremely negative public relations by blocking this person as a bot, or even legal repercussions.
- zzzcpan 7y agoThis is completely irrelevant to the conversation about technical solutions. My example is just about probabilities and how to use them for bot detection.
- gregoryl 7y agoIf that logic is extended, the true technical solution is to turn the site off entirely.
- zzzcpan 7y agoWhat exactly in that logic in any way leads to turning off the site entirely? It's literally the opposite: narrowing down the bots by calculating probability of them not being real people using multiple signals and like Bayesian inference or something like that, it's pretty much a primitive machine learning. I'm surprised there are so many trolling comments here.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agowell if that was the case then the parent comment pointing out you could have had a false positive certainly seems relevant, but you wanted to know what their point was. I thought their point was just that these false positives could create negative consequences for anyone implementing a bot preventing solution on their site.
- zzzcpan 7y agoIn the context of describing an idea to minimize false positives, pointing out a false positive in the given example is at best nitpicking, it's definitely not relevant.
- heavyset_go 7y agoThe ADA exists and for good reasons.