3 ms·

If doing something fends off a lot of bots, but also inconveniences a very small number of people who have significantly non-standard or just out-of-date config

If doing something fends off a lot of bots, but also inconveniences a very small number of people who have significantly non-standard or just out-of-date configurations, I'm likely to favour protecting myself from the former over worrying about the latter. To paraphrase Mr Spok: The inconveniences of the me outweigh the inconveniences of the you!

b112 4y ago
Bear in mind, inconveniencing 4.8% of users, does not map identically. Instead, you are often dumping 4.8+4.8+4.8 as you add block methods, with some overlap.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  To be fair, most of my visitors are not exactly lining up with the expectations of "standard". I get >90% of my [human] traffic from desktop clients, for example.
  - b112 4y ago
    Sure, but the logic about mitigation does hold true, if you overlap methods. Eg, your method described in prior post, along with thongs which may lock out VPN or NAT users. Just something to consider.
- dspillett 4y ago
  FWIW I don't block non-HTTP2, but at some point that 4.8% who can't use it will be much smaller and if you are still turning it off you will be part of an increasingly insignificant population. It is not dissimilar to measures that will have the side effect of stopping apps working on IE - I wouldn't in DayJob¹ but I'd not think twice on a personal project. I don't have time to care that much about people with very non-standard or very out-of-date setups, if accidentally blocking them is a side effect of a benefit I might feel. Added benefit: blocking them effectively removes potentially difficult users from the support queue! And to some, that 4.8%+4.8%+… doesn't overlap their target audience enough that losing the few in both categories isn't really a problem in the grand scheme of things. ---- [1] some of our clients still have users using IE11 even though we no longer officially support it² so we still don't want anything other than minor display & performance issues there ATM [2] of course we will for more money, if someone wants to pay us to address said minor display & performance issues

b112 4y ago

Bear in mind, inconveniencing 4.8% of users, does not map identically. Instead, you are often dumping 4.8+4.8+4.8 as you add block methods, with some overlap.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
To be fair, most of my visitors are not exactly lining up with the expectations of "standard". I get >90% of my [human] traffic from desktop clients, for example.
- b112 4y ago
  Sure, but the logic about mitigation does hold true, if you overlap methods. Eg, your method described in prior post, along with thongs which may lock out VPN or NAT users. Just something to consider.
dspillett 4y ago
FWIW I don't block non-HTTP2, but at some point that 4.8% who can't use it will be much smaller and if you are still turning it off you will be part of an increasingly insignificant population. It is not dissimilar to measures that will have the side effect of stopping apps working on IE - I wouldn't in DayJob¹ but I'd not think twice on a personal project. I don't have time to care that much about people with very non-standard or very out-of-date setups, if accidentally blocking them is a side effect of a benefit I might feel. Added benefit: blocking them effectively removes potentially difficult users from the support queue! And to some, that 4.8%+4.8%+… doesn't overlap their target audience enough that losing the few in both categories isn't really a problem in the grand scheme of things. ---- [1] some of our clients still have users using IE11 even though we no longer officially support it² so we still don't want anything other than minor display & performance issues there ATM [2] of course we will for more money, if someone wants to pay us to address said minor display & performance issues