3 ms·
There are false positives. Every time I've used a tool like this, I get reports from my users about it blocking their access. It's especially bad for users who
by leros 2mo ago
There are false positives. Every time I've used a tool like this, I get reports from my users about it blocking their access. It's especially bad for users who use privacy oriented browsers like Brave or use VPNs.
For a personal site where you don't care about 0.1% of your users getting blocked, it's probably fine. For a business, blocking some of your paying customers isn't acceptable.
- mostlysimilar 2mo ago> For a business, blocking some of your paying customers isn't acceptable. That depends on your business and the costs you're incurring from the bots. It might be justifiable to lose 0.1% of your customers if it means saving server costs from serving useless bot traffic.
- leros 2mo agoI suppose it would depend, yeah. I find having paying customers being blocked to be completely unacceptable. Not only is a bad customer experience, but they tend to be very vocal about it. Posting online, leaving bad reviews, etc.
- ted_dunning 2mo agoHaving to serve 1000x more traffic from bots is completely unacceptable for most site owners as well. The fact that this trade-off isn't obvious indicates you haven't tried to run a site at scale and make a living off of it.
- leros 2mo agoYou are quite incorrect. I make a living off a website and 99.9% of my traffic is from bots. Literally hundreds of millions of requests from bots. The cost of bots is worth the cost of not harming legit users.