> 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.
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.