On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Amir Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM, DustyReagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> The way I understand it, you want to create a CAPTCHA that uses the
>> twitter API. The CAPTCHA itself would be used anywhere someone needs a
>> CAPTCHA. Like my websites email newsletter signup. So the point of the
>> thing is to be and function as CAPTCHA. But instead of picking out
>> kittens, or reading letters, people would see a few of my tweets. So,
>> it's just one more spot to expose the user to my brand.
>>
>> Did I get that right Amir?
>
> I wasn't thinking of using it that way.  I was thinking of this as
> being a different use of CAPTCHAs that has nothing to do with
> security.
>
> But sure, you can combine (security) CAPTCHAs with advertising.
>
> Amir

BTW, I've been using the term "CAPTCHA" incorrectly.  It stands for
"Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans
Apart."

What I describe here isn't automated.  Users must submit a question to
test comprehension of their tweet selection.

But like a CAPTCHA, we want to make sure this is not a computer (or
mindless clicking by a human).

Amir

>
>>
>> If so, it sounds cool. If I, as a developer, need to setup a CAPTCHA
>> for whatever site I'm working on. It might as well be one that could
>> help my brand. (Aka possibly gain my Twitter account more followers.)
>>
>> Dusty
>>
>> On Dec 8, 9:51 pm, "Amir Michail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Waitman Gobble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Well, if you're like me you don't really need any cheerleaders to
>>> > fluff you up and get you going. I mean they're nice and all, but
>>> > stubborn persistence regardless.
>>>
>>> > And besides, we'd not have much of this stuff if it weren't for some
>>> > renegades with stubborn idears. You know, the Internet Cowboys. Guys
>>> > who would crowbar their ways onto the rooftops of bank hi-rises just
>>> > to set up satellite dishes and offer wireless internet when most
>>> > people never even heard of broadband. Or rent a back hoe and chaw
>>> > through public streets without permit to run copper. Back in the
>>> > 1990's. Those types. Where would we be now?
>>>
>>> > The thing I'm missing in your proposal - I can't see the nookie. I
>>> > mean, are users getting a higher quality of selection of tweets
>>> > because you do the Turing exam? Or are they going to get more
>>> > followers because you have a pool of twitters at the other end waiting
>>> > for them? (because of the quality of feed).
>>>
>>> Suppose you have two twitter users who are each working on a web 2.0
>>> startup and would like to increase the number of their twitter
>>> followers to better their chances of startup success.
>>>
>>> They could go to this service to increase their followers.
>>>
>>> So in using this service, they find each other.  Even though they
>>> don't necessarily want to increase the number of people they follow,
>>> they might discover cool tweets that they would like to see anyway.
>>>
>>> And so they end up following each other, even though it was not their
>>> intent to follow more people.
>>>
>>> Amir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Not cutting, just trying to understand.
>>>
>>> > Waitman
>>>
>>> > On Dec 8, 7:11 pm, "Amir Michail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Waitman Gobble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> > ...
>>>
>>> >> > Anyways, back to the original topic.
>>>
>>> >> > I don't understand WHERE these "Them" are going to submit. (re:
>>> >> > original post). I guess that's what I'm missing.
>>>
>>> >> > Waitman
>>>
>>> >> At the service using the twitter API that I'm thinking of building.  I
>>> >> didn't realize this idea was so difficult to understand though.  Maybe
>>> >> I shouldn't even try...
>>>
>>> >> Amir
>>>
>>> >> > On Dec 8, 5:54 pm, Cameron Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >> It's because people who are new, or considered new due to few posts, 
>>> >> >> are
>>> >> >> automatically put in the moderation queue.
>>> >> >> spam, which I'm sure
>>>
>>> >> --http://b4utweet.comhttp://chatbotgame.comhttp://numbrosia.comhttp://t...
>>>
>>> --http://b4utweet.comhttp://chatbotgame.comhttp://numbrosia.comhttp://twitter.com/amichail
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://b4utweet.com
> http://chatbotgame.com
> http://numbrosia.com
> http://twitter.com/amichail
>



-- 
http://b4utweet.com
http://chatbotgame.com
http://numbrosia.com
http://twitter.com/amichail

Reply via email to