cssplay.co.uk— This is the first CSS font on the web! as he says, unless someone knows different.Just peep in the source code!
May 3, 2006View in Crawl 4
This is absolutely ridiculous. There's much better, more accessible ways to fool spam bots, ones that don't add bloated code. This technique adds 100 bytes PER LETTER. That little bit he wrote adds 6k to his website, when it should only add around 50ish bytes.Digg really needs to chill out and actually look at things before digging them... especially when "CSS" or "Ajax" is in the title. I'd hate to go to a website that implements most of the "tips" you see. It would be the most inaccessible, horribly bloated website since the dark ages before web standards.
Nah, I just dugg it to promote increased traffic to his site so all the spammers could add in the STU@S7U.CO.UK that he cleverly hid via his way too much free time.I would also agree that it is pointless though.
Yes. It would be a lot of work, and would take less time to do it with normal code, but this is just proof of concept stuff. It's not meant to be a way to replace all captchas or other things like this stuff, just that it 'can be done'!
so true.even if it's used to hide text on a site. look at the wrapper element title attribute.. 60 sec and your bot could read it...*edit* ups, did not noticed the comment below me before.
mattlatMay 3, 2006
This is absolutely ridiculous. There's much better, more accessible ways to fool spam bots, ones that don't add bloated code. This technique adds 100 bytes PER LETTER. That little bit he wrote adds 6k to his website, when it should only add around 50ish bytes.Digg really needs to chill out and actually look at things before digging them... especially when "CSS" or "Ajax" is in the title. I'd hate to go to a website that implements most of the "tips" you see. It would be the most inaccessible, horribly bloated website since the dark ages before web standards.
Closed AccountMay 3, 2006
It's kinda cool.
samerMay 3, 2006
Nah, I just dugg it to promote increased traffic to his site so all the spammers could add in the STU@S7U.CO.UK that he cleverly hid via his way too much free time.I would also agree that it is pointless though.
danatkinsonMay 3, 2006
Yes. It would be a lot of work, and would take less time to do it with normal code, but this is just proof of concept stuff. It's not meant to be a way to replace all captchas or other things like this stuff, just that it 'can be done'!
manateeMay 3, 2006
dupe!
birch25May 3, 2006
agreed! i've read about 50 comments and still can't figure out why this is cool.well, i have no interest in coding web pages...
teh_psyrenMay 3, 2006
Stu Nicholls is an idiot; using CSS for all the wrong reasons.This example is pointless, even if it is just proof-of-concept...
nimmerMay 3, 2006
so true.even if it's used to hide text on a site. look at the wrapper element title attribute.. 60 sec and your bot could read it...*edit* ups, did not noticed the comment below me before.