Comment by johnklos
1 year ago
Designing a site to not be affected by bots is fixing the problem. Blocking things that are bot-like, poorly, with no technical understanding, is a kludge, not a fix.
1 year ago
Designing a site to not be affected by bots is fixing the problem. Blocking things that are bot-like, poorly, with no technical understanding, is a kludge, not a fix.
That is not always possible, may not be affordable, or may degrade the overall user experience.
> That is not always possible
It is definitely always possible.
> may not be affordable
You hired the wrong person / people, then.
> may degrade the overall user experience
Which is exactly what Cloudflare does, although most people would make a distinction between degrading an experience and outright causing something to not work at all.
> with no technical understanding
WTF?
Building a WAF that has zero false positives and zero false negatives is impossible. All we can ask is that the companies that build WAFs be responsive, but they also need accurate bug reports with sufficient information to identify the variable.
I would ask that the companies that build WAFs please stop, honestly.
I don't think you understood the parent.
> Designing a site to not be affected by bots is fixing the problem.
Bots footprint is minimal and shouldn't affect your site performance.
Bots have negative impacts beyond potential performance impact:
- scraping & content theft
- spam & fake engagement
- DDoS attacks
- Ad fraud
> Blocking things that are bot-like, poorly, with no technical understanding, is a kludge, not a fix.
a kludge might be better than none. And it's an easy kludge (for the site owner - a checkbox in cloudflare).
The fault lies with cloudflare implementing a lazy bot detector.