Boiled down to basics, the original poster want to test that the person making the comment is a person, and not a robospammer. Current technology does not permit a direct test, so proxy tests have to be used, one of which is the captcha. Proxy tests are poor and imperfect.
I don't disagree that Dreamwidth should make reasonable efforts to prevent spam posts from appearing on its servers. The original poster makes good points that the specific circumstances (anonymous comments on inactive journals) warrant some action.
It remains unclear that the circumstances outlined in the suggestion are particularly common. I'm not familiar enough with the Dreamwidth defaults to know if no-captcha-for-anon-comments can arise by accepting defaults. If that is the default case, I'm somewhat easier about Dreamwidth making minor changes to site behaviour than if the owner has consciously chosen not to show a test.
On further reflection, and acknowledging the evil nature of captchae, I would not raise tremendous objections to this as an interim resolution, pending a better (and fully automated) internal spam-check process.
There would need to be publicity about this, possibly including a message to the effect of "You're seeing this test because the journal owner hasn't logged in for some months." Such a message might also prod the owner to logon again.
no subject
I don't disagree that Dreamwidth should make reasonable efforts to prevent spam posts from appearing on its servers. The original poster makes good points that the specific circumstances (anonymous comments on inactive journals) warrant some action.
It remains unclear that the circumstances outlined in the suggestion are particularly common. I'm not familiar enough with the Dreamwidth defaults to know if no-captcha-for-anon-comments can arise by accepting defaults. If that is the default case, I'm somewhat easier about Dreamwidth making minor changes to site behaviour than if the owner has consciously chosen not to show a test.
On further reflection, and acknowledging the evil nature of captchae, I would not raise tremendous objections to this as an interim resolution, pending a better (and fully automated) internal spam-check process.
There would need to be publicity about this, possibly including a message to the effect of "You're seeing this test because the journal owner hasn't logged in for some months." Such a message might also prod the owner to logon again.