[NotOscarWilde]

> Do you really think that they would go ahead and implement a such system without rigorous testing of effectiveness? I am sure that they tested it extensively with users, AND with bots, and decided that it is better than the current system, and ONLY then deployed it.

I think the gap between the marketing material for nocaptcha (a simplified website, a youtube video with animations) and the seemingly lacking actual implementation is why this blog post was relevant for me.

Like other tech people around here, I was hyped up by the "smarts" of a system that uses cursor detection etc. to silently validate that I am a human. This blog post seems to indicate that the validation is a much simpler issue of previously passed tests and the amount of data that Google has associated with the user.

[homakov]

That's exactly why I wrote this post. I wish Google proved me wrong and demonstrate us how they use cool tech to detect bots instead of user.isGoogleUser? and user.acceptedCaptchas > 5

[yhlasx]

>>>So what Google is trying to sell us as a comprehensive bot detecting algorithm is simply a whitelist based on your previous online behavior, CAPTCHAs you solved.

That is a bold statement, something presented as a fact, not a hypothesis.