7 ms·
The second half of the article reveals that (in a specific case) removing the CAPTCHA improved conversion from 48% to 64%. I didn't much like the rest of the ar
by JoachimSchipper 16y ago
The second half of the article reveals that (in a specific case) removing the CAPTCHA improved conversion from 48% to 64%. I didn't much like the rest of the article, but this is interesting.
- showerst 16y agoWhat they failed to mention is what percent of that boost came from autofillers/spammers. They say they successfully used timestamp/honeypots to keep out spammers; if so, how many spammers did they keep out? If it was tons, then say so, that's useful information. If it wasn't very many, then they didn't need the CAPTCHA in the first place.
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoYes, the statistics are very incomplete. There's a reason this article didn't get my upvote.
- RyanMcGreal 16y agoI'd be interested in knowing whether the application itself is designed to be immune to autofilled accounts. Assuming people use it to create slideshows they can then share with their family/friends and not socially/crowdsourced a la flickr, a bunch of bots with garbage accounts no one has to look at wouldn't actually harm anyone else's experience of the site.