> I used to report it to the site admins, but among the few that responded, almost none knew how to fix it. I no longer bother, so I suspect that the less cluel

> I used to report it to the site admins, but among the few that responded, almost none knew how to fix it. I no longer bother, so I suspect that the less clueless admins have no idea how many visitors Cloudflare has driven away. It's an acceptable cost, versus other ways of dealing with abusive traffic. Hell, we (sysadmins, back when that was a term people used) used to just blackhole all the IP blocks associated with certain countries—made the logs so very much quieter, and this was back when the whole Internet was a lot quieter to begin with. At least CloudFlare's less blunt than that. Failing to block abusive traffic can be really expensive. Detecting it is always going to cause false positives. Admins are OK with those as long as they don't cost more than implementing a system with fewer false positives would. A half-percent tax on revenue (to pick a number out of a hat) in the form of lost customers is a reasonable trade-off for a lot of companies. You've got to have pretty serious scale before it's worth investing real money to try to shave that down by a couple tenths of a percent (you'll never get it to zero, and only places like Amazon have the kind of scale that make it worth attempting to closely approach zero)