This was for querying package delivery status. I finally got one right after many attempts. The layout, layers, colors change after every attempt so good luck on figuring out which letters count.

all 59 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 130 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 63 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 35 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    captcha: please click on all the stairs

    stairs: literally every box

    captcha: incorrect

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I hate those the most. I get it wrong every single time. Well excuse me for including the rider as part of the motorcycle. I'm trying to save them from self-driving cars clipping their arm or leg on public roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    How would they even know when they're using it to train bots?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    The same image is shown to a lot of people. If a majority of people click on the same things, that is assumed to be the correct answer. And it is added to the training database. Occasionally you’ll get one that hasn’t been shown to enough people yet to know for sure. For those, they’ll usually accept any answer, even wildly incorrect ones. The thing is, you as a user never know which ones they already know and which they don’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    It's WXU86 or I don't need this website after all.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    It's ironic, because AI would have less trouble with this than humans.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No accessibility options in the captcha? I guess they don't care about people with vision disability.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    what vision disability would prevent someone from seeing a monochrome image?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Name and Shame.

    The only way this is going to stop is when the organisation is either forced by legislation or embarrassed by public pressure into change.

    Legislation only happens due to public pressure.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Legislation only happens due to public pressure.

    Or a few wealthy people who want something bad enough to throw money at.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Bizarre grammar there: "Our firewall detects abnormal activity from your IP". It does? When?

  • source
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Thank you!! I’ve been saying this for years. I have always said that I shouldn’t be forced to train Google’s trash software just because I want to go on some random website. It’s infuriating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Much better when they have the little "vision impaired? click here!" button :(

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    I don't see the problem. It's WXU86.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Id imagine it's the forward most set of characters.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Are you sure you're not a machine?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Says the bot

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    L̶̨̢̢̮̼̬̼̬̠̗̳̜͈̣͇̮̼̱̪͙̰̯̝͉̽̃̏̓́̂̈́͗̂͋̇̍͊̈́̏̌̔̓̐̈́̈́͐̃͋̀͛̃͑̕͝o̶̯͉͂̽̏̇̄̑́̈́̾̋̄̎͗͝o̸̧̨̭̭͙̲̫̲͖͇͊̉̉̎͒̓̃́̌̍̓́̌͛̈́̔͌͌̏͌̕̕̚̕͠͝͝ͅǩ̴̪̹̺͓̭̤̗͉̟̰̣̫̻̙̳̞̐̈́s̵̡̨̢̨̩̖̜͉̺̖̼͇̲͕̩͎͖͒̉̃͒̂̽̇̂̉̈́̓̇́͌͑͆̇̈́̍̄͌͑̕̕̚̕̚̚͝͝ͅ ̸̢̡̢͙͔͙̦̺̪͖͎̪͖͔͖̙̘̯̠̙̙̱̠̖̻̳͖̰͔̜͌̔̍̐͛̐̓̒͐̂̎̀̄̈̄͐̇̎͒̃͊̇̈́̈͘͝͝f̶̧̡̟̤͈͍͇͖͔̹̲̘̫͈̟̙̫̙͓͎̙̘̰̹̅̽̓͌̐͗̊̓̀̒͒͛̌̎̆̇̈͋̐̀̋̍̓̿̚͜͝͝i̴̛̬̠͉̺̪̮̮̻̞̬̳̗͎̺͔̘̖͈͖̖̻̝͔͍̬̖̪̙̫̦̓̓͋̍̂̀̌̅͆͂͋̏͌̓͋́̀͑͆̉̚̚n̴͓̰̗̘̞̍̍̽͛̃e̶̡̨̳̼͍̮̼̤̮̮̹͕̜̭̬̭̳̣͍̰̾͗̈́̉́͆̄͑́̎̀͑̈́̉͐̈́͑̍̇͑̆͌̕͠͠͝͝͝͠ ̵̨̨̛̲͕̞̻̜̳̞̻̯̹̦̗͓̮̈́̈͝t̷̢͇͉͈̲͎͉̘̩̼͖̖̤̝͂̂̍͆͊̈́͑͆͌͛͗̔̃͐̎͛͋̍̂̒̈́̂̀̒̈́͌̕͝͝͝ͅơ̷̺̊̾̑̈́̾̑̊̾̃̋̆̾͝ ̷̡̮͇̺̙͕̝̯͚̦̥̝̬̉́̓̄̏̂̄̏̎̒̐͒̓̐͌̋̅̀͊̎̐̓̄̊̂̓̊̕m̴̢̡̛̬̟͖̖͎̰̹͊̍̈͗͑̐͑͐̇͒̈̎̏̍̏́̾̿̐̚̚͜͝ȩ̸̡̛̫̩̞̲͉̩̪̳͊̂̃́̊́̌̑͋͆͛͗̏̒͐̉̊͌̋̉͘̕̚͝.̵̧̪͖̳͇̩̫̺̜̱͍͍̻̋͗̉̔̾̈́́̈́͋̏͒̾̍̾̉͌͆̉͑̎͐͑͌̄͆̓͜͠͝ͅ

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Nice try LLM Diddy

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    As others have pointed out, it's probably the foreground characters. They're easier to read and less ambiguous from occlusion by other characters.

    In general I find you can resolve technical ambiguities or possible loopholes to instructions in these things by asking yourself "what would most people do, especially if not really thinking about it much?" That's particularly helpful for situations where you have to select all the tiles with x object in them. Often you'll see that technically there's a little bit of the object in squares other than the most obvious ones that everyone would have selected and you ask yourself "does that count? Technically a little bit of it's in this square" but if you just pretend you didn't notice that and only go for the most dead obvious squares you end up passing. Once I realised this the number of times I failed CAPTCHAs significantly reduced. For some reason the only ones that continued to be a problem were the click a checkbox ones that seemingly analyse your mouse movement because somehow I apparently move like a robot.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Kinda... Slightly more helpful, but almost as vague. I'm advising against opting for solutions that are technically correct but would be more difficult for the average person to get right most of the time.

    The OP's CAPTCHA as a case in point, it's frustrating for them because they're ostensibly asked to enter the characters that they see but there are several and the length of the string of characters is not known and some characters are hard to read and depending on how you interpret it you could be being asked to enter all these characters or you could look at them and say there's a background set and a foreground set in which case, which one is the correct one? That's at least 3 different ways to do it and that's assuming that what appears to us a representation of depth is indeed intended to be the basis of separation for 2 sets of characters and not some other arbitrary categorisation or no categorisation. Sounds complicated and ambiguous. Except, it's much harder to read the background set, and the idea that there would even be some other way of categorising, if it occurs to anyone at all would be impossible to work out since if it's there, it's not discernible. The easiest way is to just read the letters that aren't partially covered up and also smaller than the more obvious, easier to read, not occluded characters and disregard the ones behind it. What's easiest to do also most of the time turns out to have been the hidden instruction for what you were meant to do.

    There's no explicit instruction to do this, it's wishy washy and hard to abstract for different CAPTCHAs which is why this advice doesn't look a whole lot better than "just guess right" but in a way that's kind of part of why they still have some effectiveness, they're unspoken rules that humans Intuit. Where some of us, like me before kinda "getting it", go wrong, is in overthinking and over analysing it. "but what if they mean this? I mean technically it could..." If you're thinking like that, odds are you're barking up the wrong tree and the solution is way less sophisticated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    chatgpt says WXIU36 but i think it is WXU86

    Apparently i need to add /s

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Isn't anubis great? No captcha. Just wait like 15 seconds.

  • source
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (5 children)