4 ms·
It's almost like, if they already know you're not a bot, they don't have to try very hard to re-prove it, or something. Think of it in a Bayesian sense. If 10
by skj 12y ago
It's almost like, if they already know you're not a bot, they don't have to try very hard to re-prove it, or something.
Think of it in a Bayesian sense.
If 10% of anonymous users end up being bots (the prior), and the "hard" recaptcha has a 1% false-negative (incorrectly identifying someone as a human) rate, then of the anonymous users who succeed in getting past the recaptcha, .1% will be bots (the posterior).
But if 1% of sign-in users are bots (probably less than that), you only need a recaptcha with a 10% false-negative rate to achieve the same bot throughput limit. And, those users are less frustrated.
- jobigoud 12y agoWhile Google is worried by the false negative, we as users measure frustration with the false positive (failures to identify an actual human) rate. Ideally they would find a system where both rates are independent or where false positive are rare.
- skj 12y agoIdeally, yes.
- Fice 12y agoI understand how it is justified technically, but that does not invalidate the fact that reCaptcha is discriminating against the users who care about privacy.