1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?

On 1/16/2016 10:06 AM, Ken Cito wrote:
1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?


STATE FOR THE RECORD..............
1. YOUR TRUE FULL NAME
&
2. YOUR BUSINESS HERE WITH THIS FROUP.

(You have ten seconds to comply...... 1.......2.............

On 01/16/2016 01:06 PM, Ken Cito wrote:

1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

Perce

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:12:36 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 01/16/2016 01:06 PM, Ken Cito wrote:

1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

Yes, I read something like that too. That's for the hard one. It
seems fair to me.

But the lab where I have medical blood tests done, I just noticed an
online way to get my test results emailed to me. (I've gotten them in
the past but I don't remember how.)

And the capcha looks so easy. Typed numbers, impossible to misread.
The only question is whether I should duplicate the spaces between the
numbers so I tried both methods, and nothing worked.

So I emailed them and that didnt' work, so I called them and she asked
what browser. Firefox. "We've had trouble with that." Just for me
to type in letters and numbers? I don't think I believe her. While
I was in my first and only sentence that the webpage gave no warning
not to use Firefox, she hung up on me. ;-)

Perce

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:12:42 PM UTC-5, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 01/16/2016 01:06 PM, Ken Cito wrote:

1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

Perce

I believe you are referring to the reCAPTCHA project started by a guy from
Carnegie Mellon University.

https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/partners/s...recaptcha.html

"Beyond its obvious use for foiling bot attacks and would-be spammers, the
reCAPTCHA Project has another, more altruistic purpose. Several years after
introducing the world to CAPTCHA technology, von Ahn realized that, despite
taking just a few seconds to type a CAPTCHA, humans were spending hundreds of
thousands of hours each day typing in more than 100 million CAPTCHAs.

reCAPTCHA technology was developed not merely with an eye toward improving
cyber security, but also as a way to harness and reuse the collective human
time and mental energy spent solving and typing CAPTCHAs--a concept von Ahn has
dubbed "human computation." By constructing CAPTCHAs using words tagged as
unreadable in the digitizing of books and other printed material, millions and
millions of cyber users play a part every day in the digitization and
preservation of human knowledge by transcribing words. Tests have shown that
reCAPTCHA textual images are deciphered and transcribed with 99.1% accuracy, a
rate comparable to the best human professional transcription services. In just
the first year after launching reCAPTCHA, humans correctly deciphered and
transcribed more than 440 million words, roughly the equivalent of 17,600
books."

....and...

"Google says reCAPTCHA's technology can help it with some of its high-profile
initiatives, like scanning books and newspapers to create searchable archives.
As users type in the words, they help teach computers to read scanned text,
improving computer accuracy when converting scanned images into plain text, a
process known as optical character recognition. 'Having the text version of
documents is important because plain text can be searched, easily rendered on
mobile devices and displayed to visually impaired users,' Google said in a blog
post about the deal. Wall Street Journal, 9-16-09"

On 1/16/2016 12:06 PM, Ken Cito wrote:
1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?


For the record CAPTCHA is an acronym for "Completely Automated Public
Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.

I.

don't.

do.

captchas!

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:36:14 PM UTC-5, Neill Massello wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

Re-read my earlier post. It's used for both.

First, it is used to force users to decipher words that the OCR software had trouble
with and then the results are used to refine the accuracy of the OCR software.

Google said it. It must be true.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:36:10 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

But how do they know what we type in is right?

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 7:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ken Cito wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:36:10 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

But how do they know what we type in is right?

When they use the 2 image reCAPTCHA system, the first image is one the control, the second
Image is the one they want to figure out.

If you get the control image right, you are in. For the second image, they keep track of what
users enter and use that data to refine their software and/or use the answers in their
digitization of the document. It's explained in more detail he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCAPTCHA

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Ken Cito
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:36:10 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

But how do they know what we type in is right?

You raise the question, This might be great for interpreting a portion
of text, which, when combined with other text that is readable, or
which was also interpreted using captcha users, makes sense.

But what about cases where a plurality or even a vast majority of
users give the same answer, what it looks like, but the answer is
wrong? I don't know. I haven't read the wikip page or anything
else, but I suspect they don't have an answer. There are a lot of
cases, many times in archaeology for example, where competent people
say, "It appears that...." Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately,
in the case of archaeology, often others will read those cautious,
proper statements and repeat what was thought likely as if it were
fact. Then people think the archaeologists said it that way, and it
makes them look bad.

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:25:16 PM UTC-5, Micky wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Ken Cito
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:36:10 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

But how do they know what we type in is right?

You raise the question, This might be great for interpreting a portion
of text, which, when combined with other text that is readable, or
which was also interpreted using captcha users, makes sense.

But what about cases where a plurality or even a vast majority of
users give the same answer, what it looks like, but the answer is
wrong? I don't know. I haven't read the wikip page or anything
else, but I suspect they don't have an answer.

Perhaps you should read the page. I posted the link for a reason.

On 1/16/2016 11:06 AM, Ken Cito wrote:
1. When they give the two words, why is one easy and the other impossible?
Wouldn't a single impossible work work as well?
What's the reason for the easy word?

2. When they give the house numbers, how do they know you're right?
Are they using us to farm out the job of figuring out the numbers?
What do they "do" with the numbers if that's the case.
Or, does someone already tell them what the number is first?
But, if that's the case, ANY number would work (not just house numbers).

What's going on?

Think about it. If they can examine all the RAW VIDEO coming in
from their roving drones to *isolate* the house number, do you
really think they can't figure out what the number *is*?
How do they know where the number is located on the property?
On the house? Mailbox? Curb? etc. Do they show you a picture of
a HOUSE and tell YOU to find the number -- and tell them what
it is??

Recognizing digits is relatively trivial. The post office
recognizes HAND PRINTED zip codes on mail FLYING past a
camera at a high rate of speed. Surely, recognizing STORE
BOUGHT digits (that THEY have already "located") is a piece
of cake! Especially for a firm that has THOUSANDS of
computers available to do that work!

Note that they also have some clues as to what valid responses
(for THEIR recognizer algorithms) are likely to be. I suspect
they already have a database that tells them the street
numbers at each cross street. So, they know the upper and
lower limits on the numbers between any two intersections.

Additionally, they have *some* idea of the number for the
house immediately "before" and "after" the house in question.
If the previous is "5" and the next is "15", then it's probably a safe
bet to assume the current house is NOT "23" but, rather "13"!
And, as numbers tend to be odd/even (alternate sides of the
street), you can bet it's "13" and not "12"!

A more interesting challenge would be to see how "13-1/2" would
be handled. Or, "27B".

When Kurzweil created the "Data Entry System", an "operator"
monitored an image of the text that was being scanned. So,
if the algorithms were unsure of their results, they could
highlight the portion of the image and ask the operator
for clarification. This may be how (relatively RARE)
exceptions like "13-1/2" are handled!

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 5:36:14 PM UTC-6, Neill Massello wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

The human rebels will use CAPTCHA to communicate to keep the robot overlords from figuring out what the organics are up to. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Organic Monster

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:37:03 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:25:16 PM UTC-5, Micky wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Ken Cito
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:36:10 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

But how do they know what we type in is right?

When I read Don's reply, I was reminded that originally you were
asking about house numbers. I agree they can verify what house
numbers are, and so I find it hard to believe that house numbers are
the unknown half of a reCaptcha. Regardless, your shorter post above
didn't specifically refer to house numbers and my reply was about
words and numbers of all kinds that might be used.

You raise the question, This might be great for interpreting a portion
of text, which, when combined with other text that is readable, or
which was also interpreted using captcha users, makes sense.

But what about cases where a plurality or even a vast majority of
users give the same answer, what it looks like, but the answer is
wrong? I don't know. I haven't read the wikip page or anything
else, but I suspect they don't have an answer.

Perhaps you should read the page. I posted the link for a reason.

I expected you to reply. You know, you're a very competitive guy.

I don't mean that as a bad thing, just an observation.

Okay, I read the page. This is the closest it comes to addressing
what I said: "If the human types the control word correctly, then the
response to the questionable word is accepted as probably valid. If
enough users were to correctly type the control word, but incorrectly
type the 2nd word which OCR had failed to recognize, then the digital
version of documents could end up containing the incorrect word. The
identification performed by each OCR program is given a value of 0.5
points, and each interpretation by a human is given a full point. Once
a given identification hits 2.5 points, the word is considered valid.
Those words that are consistently given a single identity by human
judges are later recycled as control words.[14] If the first three
guesses match each other but do not match either of the OCRs, they are
considered a correct answer, and the word becomes a control word.[15]
When six users reject a word before any correct spelling is chosen,
the word is discarded as unreadable.[15]"


It says that if users agreed on a meaning but they were wrong, their
opinion is accepted as correct. That doesn't answer Ken's question
"how do they know what we type in is right?" They don't know, and
they don't addreess that they don't know.

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:40:02 PM UTC-5, Micky wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:37:03 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:25:16 PM UTC-5, Micky wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Ken Cito
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:36:10 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:

No, they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software.
You're doing the work that computers won't. But be happy: this means we
won't be terminated by our new machine overlords.

But how do they know what we type in is right?

When I read Don's reply, I was reminded that originally you were
asking about house numbers. I agree they can verify what house
numbers are, and so I find it hard to believe that house numbers are
the unknown half of a reCaptcha. Regardless, your shorter post above
didn't specifically refer to house numbers and my reply was about
words and numbers of all kinds that might be used.

You raise the question, This might be great for interpreting a portion
of text, which, when combined with other text that is readable, or
which was also interpreted using captcha users, makes sense.

But what about cases where a plurality or even a vast majority of
users give the same answer, what it looks like, but the answer is
wrong? I don't know. I haven't read the wikip page or anything
else, but I suspect they don't have an answer.

Perhaps you should read the page. I posted the link for a reason.

I expected you to reply. You know, you're a very competitive guy.

I don't mean that as a bad thing, just an observation.

Okay, I read the page. This is the closest it comes to addressing
what I said: "If the human types the control word correctly, then the
response to the questionable word is accepted as probably valid. If
enough users were to correctly type the control word, but incorrectly
type the 2nd word which OCR had failed to recognize, then the digital
version of documents could end up containing the incorrect word. The
identification performed by each OCR program is given a value of 0.5
points, and each interpretation by a human is given a full point. Once
a given identification hits 2.5 points, the word is considered valid.
Those words that are consistently given a single identity by human
judges are later recycled as control words.[14] If the first three
guesses match each other but do not match either of the OCRs, they are
considered a correct answer, and the word becomes a control word.[15]
When six users reject a word before any correct spelling is chosen,
the word is discarded as unreadable.[15]"


It says that if users agreed on a meaning but they were wrong, their
opinion is accepted as correct. That doesn't answer Ken's question
"how do they know what we type in is right?" They don't know, and
they don't addreess that they don't know.

If you re-read my response to Ken's question, you will see that I began
the post with:

"When they use the 2 image reCAPTCHA system, the first image is
the control, the second image is the one they want to figure out."

When they use 2 images, they do in fact know that "what we type is right"
for the first image. The first image - the "control" - is used as the bot
screener, the original purpose of CAPTCHA. The second image was added
later once von Ahn realized that there was a lot "human computation" power
available for free.

Ken's question is a valid question when the only thing you are told is
"they're using you to do the OCR on words that stump their software." The
correct answer is they *always* know when users are correct for the control
image, either by itself (CAPTCHA) or when used as the first word in the
reCAPTCHA system. It is true that they do not know if the users are correct
for the second image, but you can be sure that they tested the system in
order to see if it was a viable method for helping out with the digitization
of documents when the OCR software struggles.

From: https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/partners/s...recaptcha.html

"Tests have shown that reCAPTCHA textual images are deciphered and
transcribed with 99.1% accuracy, a rate comparable to the best human
professional transcription services. In just the first year after
launching reCAPTCHA, humans correctly deciphered and transcribed
more than 440 million words, roughly the equivalent of 17,600 books."

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:39:55 -0500, Micky wrote:

That doesn't answer Ken's question
"how do they know what we type in is right?" They don't know, and
they don't addreess that they don't know.

My main concern is that they don't have a lot of time in that
they let you in right away, if you get it right.

But ... how do they have enough TIME (as in split second time)
to make that decision?

I don't think I'm being clear so, let me try an example:

1. Person A in Italy gets asked captcha 1 at 10:00:00am.
2. Person B in France gets asked the same captcha 1 at 10:00:00am.
3. Person A types answer & hits "Enter" ten seconds later at 10:00:10.
4. Person B is still looking and hasn't yet hit "Enter".
(Repeat this scenario over, I dunno, 100 people?)

If Person A is the first to hit Enter, they have nobody to compare
answers with.

Of course, they can just automatically say "no" to the first 10 people
but all this has to happen in something like 10 seconds, right?

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:09:41 PM UTC-5, Ken Cito wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:39:55 -0500, Micky wrote:

That doesn't answer Ken's question
"how do they know what we type in is right?" They don't know, and
they don't addreess that they don't know.

My main concern is that they don't have a lot of time in that
they let you in right away, if you get it right.

But ... how do they have enough TIME (as in split second time)
to make that decision?

I don't think I'm being clear so, let me try an example:

1. Person A in Italy gets asked captcha 1 at 10:00:00am.
2. Person B in France gets asked the same captcha 1 at 10:00:00am.
3. Person A types answer & hits "Enter" ten seconds later at 10:00:10.
4. Person B is still looking and hasn't yet hit "Enter".
(Repeat this scenario over, I dunno, 100 people?)

If Person A is the first to hit Enter, they have nobody to compare
answers with.

Of course, they can just automatically say "no" to the first 10 people
but all this has to happen in something like 10 seconds, right?

Did you see my response(s)?

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:07:13 -0800, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"When they use the 2 image reCAPTCHA system, the first image is the
control, the second image is the one they want to figure out."

Here is a clear example I saw today of the *control* word, I think:
https://i.imgur.com/cGFL5oz.gif

And, here is another example I saw today of the *easy* street numbers:
https://i.imgur.com/vTZtHFO.gif

However, what perplexes me are these types of *impossible* cyphers:
https://i.imgur.com/5eGAZ3I.gif

Where is the *control* word in this captcha I encountered moments ago?
https://i.imgur.com/V8dMAUx.gif

Of those last two examples, I can't imagine that *either* of them
portrayed a word in an OCR document, unless they are OCR'ing
documents after sending them through a washing machine first!

So, what's the OCR-corrective sense in the latter two captcha's?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:12:36 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

I've read that they're using our responses to refine their Optical
Character Recognition software.

Here are links of actual captchas that I ran into today.
https://i.imgur.com/HNF6wzf.gif
https://i.imgur.com/hyWaQye.gif

None of these are cipherable by me, an avowed human.
https://i.imgur.com/DBqwWk1.gif
https://i.imgur.com/D1WfVsD.gif

I can't imagine that anyone can get these within reasonable accuracy.
https://i.imgur.com/jR8BXcP.gif
https://i.imgur.com/FRmO7kW.gif

Can you find any OCR use for these washing-machined words?
https://i.imgur.com/cCG7z9Z.gif
https://i.imgur.com/zzoYNDn.gif

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 03:20:28 -0700, Don Y wrote:

Think about it. If they can examine all the RAW VIDEO coming in from
their roving drones to *isolate* the house number, do you really think
they can't figure out what the number *is*?
How do they know where the number is located on the property?
On the house? Mailbox? Curb? etc. Do they show you a picture of a
HOUSE and tell YOU to find the number -- and tell them what it is??

Recognizing digits is relatively trivial. The post office recognizes
HAND PRINTED zip codes on mail FLYING past a camera at a high rate of
speed. Surely, recognizing STORE BOUGHT digits (that THEY have already
"located") is a piece of cake! Especially for a firm that has THOUSANDS
of computers available to do that work!

Note that they also have some clues as to what valid responses (for
THEIR recognizer algorithms) are likely to be. I suspect they already
have a database that tells them the street numbers at each cross street.
So, they know the upper and lower limits on the numbers between any two
intersections.

Additionally, they have *some* idea of the number for the house
immediately "before" and "after" the house in question.
If the previous is "5" and the next is "15", then it's probably a safe
bet to assume the current house is NOT "23" but, rather "13"!
And, as numbers tend to be odd/even (alternate sides of the street), you
can bet it's "13" and not "12"!

A more interesting challenge would be to see how "13-1/2" would be
handled. Or, "27B".

When Kurzweil created the "Data Entry System", an "operator" monitored
an image of the text that was being scanned. So,
if the algorithms were unsure of their results, they could highlight the
portion of the image and ask the operator for clarification. This may
be how (relatively RARE)
exceptions like "13-1/2" are handled!

Here are some captchas I found today of actual mailbox numbers:
https://i.imgur.com/8DVqqom.gif
https://i.imgur.com/1xWUy9v.gif
https://i.imgur.com/mwjODws.gif

Here are curb numbers:
https://i.imgur.com/5av6CJ4.gif
https://i.imgur.com/kF8gc3e.gif
https://i.imgur.com/s6IgAGP.gif
https://i.imgur.com/LB9mttl.gif
https://i.imgur.com/52AS1WW.gif
https://i.imgur.com/HyHADIJ.gif

And here are house numbers:
https://i.imgur.com/WF6jAto.gif
https://i.imgur.com/Gs4KRlh.gif
https://i.imgur.com/N1iZ45D.gif
https://i.imgur.com/kzGJ6o4.gif
https://i.imgur.com/578OzJK.gif

And even numbers attached to the roofline!
https://i.imgur.com/9zLilRH.gif

I wonder how they even FIND these numbers, automatically anyway?

On 1/19/2016 3:12 AM, Ken Cito wrote:
I wonder how they even FIND these numbers, automatically anyway?

If they can commit an INSTRUMENTED VEHICLE PLUS DRIVER for the
TIME IT TAKES TO DRIVE AROUND to the task of *acquiring* the
images, imagine how many computers they can devote to the task
of analyzing the images *from* those vehicles!

As I said, previously, recognizing MACHINE PRODUCED digits
(house numbers tend to be things that are purchased and affixed
to something, not *hand drawn*!).

Wanna bet you can replace your house number with ROMAN NUMERALS
and the next time around, they'll still get it correctly? I.e.,
if their recognizer can't produce a result with a high degree
of confidence, they can lookup the house number that was at
this location LAST TIME they ran the program to see if it can
enhance the recognize result. And, if that fails, send the image
to a human to analyze (assuming they really care that much).

Ken Cito posted for all of us...



On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:07:13 -0800, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"When they use the 2 image reCAPTCHA system, the first image is the
control, the second image is the one they want to figure out."

Here is a clear example I saw today of the *control* word, I think:
https://i.imgur.com/cGFL5oz.gif

And, here is another example I saw today of the *easy* street numbers:
https://i.imgur.com/vTZtHFO.gif

However, what perplexes me are these types of *impossible* cyphers:
https://i.imgur.com/5eGAZ3I.gif

Where is the *control* word in this captcha I encountered moments ago?
https://i.imgur.com/V8dMAUx.gif

Of those last two examples, I can't imagine that *either* of them
portrayed a word in an OCR document, unless they are OCR'ing
documents after sending them through a washing machine first!

So, what's the OCR-corrective sense in the latter two captcha's?

Hey Ken, no disrespect intended but why don't you take this to a captcha
related computer group? Don Y and maybe a few others know what you are
talking about but most don't.

--
Tekkie