Coded by footballers



  • You might think that the WTF in the captcha system on www.footytips.com.au is its lack of text mangling:

     The CAPTCHA system on www.footytips.com.au -- programmed by footballers?

    Nope. The real WTF is the URL of the captcha image:

    http://www.footytips.com.au/FTwebshare/s78-f657669-26044499.gif 

     

    Presumably they hired ex-footballers to code this website?? 



  • Hmm, it's a 8 digit number so that means there are 100 million possible combinations.  That seems pretty secure to me. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Hmm, it's a 8 digit number so that means there are 100 million possible combinations.  That seems pretty secure to me. 

    I hope that's meant to be a joke...



  • @gremlin said:

    I hope that's meant to be a joke...
    That would explain why it's filed under '</joking>'.



  • Having the captcha in the image url is just an efficiency thing. Nobody's going to actually think to check that, right? Of course to be even more efficient they have a folder of all 100 million images pre-rendered and appropriately named, to simplify and save on execution time later.



  • Okay, I have decided that I need to replace the CAPTCHA with the Rorschach inkblot test.  Only Bots with personality will pass.  Oh, and some people will pass too.



  • Sadly enough, they didn't optimize that much, i tried accessing 82746183 and got a 404



  • @hallo.amt said:

    Sadly enough, they didn't optimize that much, i tried accessing 82746183 and got a 404

    Yeah, but the image linked to the in OP is still there, which makes you think they aren't even cleaning up old values... 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @hallo.amt said:

    Sadly enough, they didn't optimize that much, i tried accessing 82746183 and got a 404

    Yeah, but the image linked to the in OP is still there, which makes you think they aren't even cleaning up old values... 

    Cleanup? That can wait until the disk is full.


  • Well... This is no WTF...

     

    Does the site offer a great service for spammers? No? Then you can get away with a simple captcha. Take the site "Coding Horror" for example.. It also uses a captcha, but its even more simple. Its one word, and it never changes, and it is not even distorted...

     

    It gets "the job done" and anything more complex is simply not needed.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @hallo.amt said:

    Sadly enough, they didn't optimize that much, i tried accessing 82746183 and got a 404

    Yeah, but the image linked to the in OP is still there, which makes you think they aren't even cleaning up old values... 

     

    It makes me think that the mspaint guy hasn't made 82746183.gif yet. Possiby cargo cult - "hey, some sites have you type in some text from a picture, and they'e secure" maybe?



  • Well, al least it clearly says that you don't need to remember the number...

    I wonder if they added this text because the site is also used by footballers.

    I usual remember the captcha for several days 



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    It makes me think that the mspaint guy hasn't made 82746183.gif yet. Possiby cargo cult - "hey, some sites have you type in some text from a picture, and they'e secure" maybe?

    This reminds me of one of my favorite WTFs.  A developer I knew was tasked with created a digital clock that updated every minute through Javascript.  He decided that to make it look good he should use images that looked like an LCD-style digital clock.  Instead of just creating 0-9 and using those, he created by hand every value from 12:00 to 11:59.  This took him over a week.  Obviously this guy was not so bright.



  • @Bifi said:

    Well, al least it clearly says that you don't need to remember the number...

    I wonder if they added this text because the site is also used by footballers.

    I usual remember the captcha for several days 

    They should add a note to this site's captchas that you don't need to add the captcha to your post.



  • That's the best cargo cult programming I've ever seen.


Log in to reply