[pooriaazimi]

I don't want to be an asshole who just criticizes, but really? It's the best W3C, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Facebook, HP, Adobe, Nokia and Opera could come up with?

Just look at these screenshots:

http://d.pr/i/EbSt

http://d.pr/i/zmk9

http://d.pr/i/i9y

And it took me 5 minutes to load the site - it was down when I first tried it (and on subsequent tries).

So, I personally don't think this is the w3schools killer we were waiting for. At least not yet.

[desbest]

Actually a "2 + 3" captcha is much more effective than a typical one with an image. You'd be surprised.

When I ran a phpBB forum that spammers would join to get some of my PageRank 2 juice, putting up a special question on the registration form (by modifying the php code), was much more effective than phpBB3's captcha function with maximum difficulty applied.

Spamming software doesn't have support for capctha questions, only captcha images.

[paulgb]

It depends on the threat. If you're worried about someone writing a custom script to attack your site, you want a hard captcha. If you're worried about random form-filling bot spammers, you want to be unique.

I wrote a plugin for wordpress years ago that simply asked you to copy a number into a box. If you had JavaScript, it would even do it for you and hide it so most users never even knew it was there. It filtered out nearly every single piece of spam. This would have been mid-2000s though, might be different now.

[pooriaazimi]

The problem is, it's always in the form of "x + y = ?", which makes it ridiculously easy to bypass with an script.

At least that's what I initially thought. But after some more digging it seems that x and y are hard-coded to be 2 and 3, respectively.

I opened the registration page in 4 different browsers with different IP addresses (my own, my VPS, and a couple borrowed from Tor) and in all cases the "security" question was "What is 2 + 3?"

Unbelievable.

[sjwright]

Ten minutes to implement, stops nearly all automated attacks that aren't specific to this site, much less user hostile, and far fewer accessibility issues.

Believable.

[dmorgan]

Not to mention a placeholder for a more advanced captcha to eventually be deployed.

Extremely believable.

[driverdan]

> So, I personally don't think this is the w3schools killer we were waiting for. At least not yet.

Pretty much every HTML/CSS resource out there is a w3schools killer. w3schools sucks.

[creativityhurts]

w3fools.com tried to kill w3schools and it couldn't do it.

[dbaupp]

As someone pointed out above, the robots.txt may be like that because the site hasn't been deemed properly ready. (And similarly, the site isn't fully developed so the blog isn't set up yet.)

[iSnow]

Choosing an image sharing site that requires Javascript to display an image. Really?

[pooriaazimi]

Sorry. But I chose the only image sharing site that isn't blocked in my country (and isn't a complete garbage, and preferably has a mac client)!

[dmorgan]

Not running with Javascript enabled? Really?

[iSnow]

Absolutely. Noscript is the only sane way around the web these days.

[dmorgan]

That and tin-foil gloves for keyboard work.

[EasierLikeThis]

They say they're in alpha. Has to start somewhere, right?

[dmorgan]

>I don't want to be an asshole who just criticizes, but really? It's the best W3C, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Facebook, HP, Adobe, Nokia and Opera could come up with?

No, it's the best a small team, sponsored by those companies, but having nothing to do with them --it's not like Google or Adobe or MS assigned their best engineers to the new site-- could come up with as an ALPHA release, and in a short period of time.

Isn't it OBVIOUS?

[pooriaazimi]

> Isn't it OBVIOUS?

No, it's not. I didn't (and still don't) see a mention of it being alpha or even beta on the site's homepage or the linked article. There's a notice on wiki pages that I missed.

And my impression (from the article) was that the initial content is provided by the aforementioned companies' employees, and the site is curated by W3C. So it's not like a bunch of nerds have created a site and these tech giants are endorsing it by putting their logos in the main page. They are the guys who are running it, and it's not a charity, too. It benefits all these companies (whom, in total, worth maybe about 3 trillion dollars) financially.

I'm not sour at them or anything - I'll probably use their site and share it with others. I'm just disappointed that it's just not up to the standards of what I was hoping these multi-trillion campaniles are able to do. If they were just a bunch of guys, I'd commend them. Now that it's a coalition of biggest tech giants, I can't be as forgiving.