The first working version of Negative Turing Test
I just committed revision 44 of Negative Turing Test, and am running it now on this blog (and I’ve turned off the Comment Authorization plug-in, which is what used to email you when you commented, prompting you to approve your own comment). It now correctly blocks spam and allows ham; these being the minimum requirements, I call r44 the first working version of NTT. Feel free to try it out on your own blog — or on mine — and report any problems (preferably using the Google Code issue tracker, but email‘s fine too).
I’m not quite done with it. My next step is to add an option for it to outright delete spam instead of simply stamping it “spam” and saving it for some plug-in that I don’t use to study. I’m confident that I will never see a false positive, and if I ever see a false negative, I can simply change the problem that it poses in order to avoid future false negatives.
The plug-in comes with no default challenge: All fields are empty. This means that if you want to block spam with it, you’ll need to think of a challenge to put in there. Please don’t borrow mine, as I put in no default for a reason: If there’s a default (or a really popular challenge), the spammers will pre-program their bots with the correct response and the plug-in will be defeated (and all NTT users who’ve used that challenge will have to change it, and/or will send me a bunch of email). I recommend searching a book of easy jokes or logic riddles.
January 12th, 2007 at 08:36:11
If the eighth word in this sentence is wrong, then the sentence must be wrong, but that means the eighth word is not wrong, so the sentence is right, but then …
Oh, just buy the darn viagra!
January 12th, 2007 at 11:19:23
Seems to be working well. :)
January 13th, 2007 at 09:55:41
I do believe this is known as overkill.
January 13th, 2007 at 21:32:40
Heh. ☺
Overkill, to my mind, would be anything that incorrectly blocks ham. Anything that consistently defeats the spammers while consistently allowing the real commenters is fair game, IMO.
December 29th, 2007 at 18:39:23
…
In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A gave out his answer (labeled as aa) to a question, he would also be required to guess how the other player B will answer the same question and this guess is labeled as ab. Similarly B will give her answer (labeled as bb) and her guess of A’s answer, ba. The answers aa and ba will be grouped together as group a and similarly bb and ab will be grouped together as group b. The interrogator will be given first the answers as two separate groups and with only the group label (a and b) and without the individual labels (aa, ab, ba and bb). If C cannot tell correctly which of the aa and ba is from player A and which is from player B, B will get a score of one. If C cannot tell which of the bb and ab is from player B and which is from player A, A will get a score of one. All answers (with the individual labels) are then made available to all parties (A, B and C) and then the game continues. At the end of the game, the player who scored more is considered had won the game and is more “intelligent”.
…
http://turing-test-two.com/ttt/TTT.pdf
August 5th, 2008 at 07:58:22
nice idea
August 5th, 2008 at 08:06:12
WHOOOOOO
August 5th, 2008 at 12:46:57
Neat-o!