On 10/2/07, Jesse Stay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/07, m h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds like a good way to do genealogical indexing. Someone should
> > tell the church ;)
> > Also sounds like an interesting business idea. Farm out captchas to
> > blogs, and pay people for usi
On 10/2/07, m h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a good way to do genealogical indexing. Someone should
> tell the church ;)
> Also sounds like an interesting business idea. Farm out captchas to
> blogs, and pay people for using the captcha
>
Seth Godin actually already proposed
On 10/2/07, Bryan Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The inventor of the captcha calls this Human Computation. He gave an
> interesting talk at Google on the subject that you can watch here:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143
>
> He presents it very well and even no
Sounds like a good way to do genealogical indexing. Someone should
tell the church ;)
Also sounds like an interesting business idea. Farm out captchas to
blogs, and pay people for using the captcha
On 10/2/07, Jon D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an idea...
> Some of you may have se
The inventor of the captcha calls this Human Computation. He gave an
interesting talk at Google on the subject that you can watch here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143
He presents it very well and even non-techies (like my wife) enjoyed
watching this when I showed th
Having a valid CAPTCHA and then a digitization problem is okay, but
recognize it doesn't mean that CAPTCHA can validly be used for digitization,
or vice versa -- it just means that you've added a "service" element onto
the CAPTCHA so people can do some useful work at the same time they are
validati
But most of these points are in fact addressed by
reCaptcha. The idea given below was simply using
handwritten texts, instead of printed books as input,
which would require just a little bit more
verification of accuracy.
-Jon
--- Jacob Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've seen this idea
The solution to what Jake suggests is a two-part CAPTCHA, one part
that the computer does know and another that it doesn't. If the
former is entered accurate the user passes it is assumed that the
latter is as well, but of course you can run the handwriting through
as many time as you want
On 10/2/07, Jon D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Here's an idea...
> Some of you may have seen today's (and previous)
> Slashdot links on reCaptcha, a cool idea
> that's starting to be more commonly-used:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7023627.stm
> http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html
> Basi
I've seen this idea before, and the main problem is that digitizing scanned
words and CAPTCHA are at cross-purposes. The problem in digitizing is that
the computer doesn't know the word. In CAPTCHA, the computer knows the
word, and it needs to in order to validate the user. If you don't know for
Here's an idea...
Some of you may have seen today's (and previous)
Slashdot links on reCaptcha, a cool idea
that's starting to be more commonly-used:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7023627.stm
http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html
Basically they're using a CAPTCHA to digitize old
scanned bo
11 matches
Mail list logo
