[HN Gopher] Keeping our free tier sustainable by preventing abuse
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Keeping our free tier sustainable by preventing abuse
        
       Author : thecodemonkey
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2025-02-21 10:07 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.geocod.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.geocod.io)
        
       | prteja11 wrote:
       | I get why they don't want to share their detection mechanics for
       | potential fraudulent signups, but that is a very interesting
       | topic to learn and discuss.
        
         | thecodemonkey wrote:
         | I would love do a more in-depth talk about this at some point
         | with some more concrete examples.
        
       | AutistiCoder wrote:
       | so you implemented some sort of machine learning?
        
         | thecodemonkey wrote:
         | Not at this time. Some simple heuristics go a long way and also
         | makes it very easy to test and debug the logic.
        
           | gwbas1c wrote:
           | I once did a machine learning project at Intel. The end
           | result was that it was no better than simple statistics; but
           | the statistics were easier to understand and explain.
           | 
           | I realized the machine learning project was a "solution in
           | search of a problem," and left.
        
       | AceJohnny2 wrote:
       | Thanks for this writeup. Whenever people complain about some
       | service removing or making it harder to try out a free tier, I
       | think they don't realize the amount of abuse that needs to be
       | managed by the service providers.
       | 
       |  _" Why do things suck?"_ Because parasites ruined it for the
       | rest of us.
       | 
       | > _We have to accept a certain amount of abuse. It is a far
       | better use of our time to use it improving Geocodio for
       | legitimate users rather than trying to squash everyone who might
       | create a handful of accounts_
       | 
       | Reminds me of Patrick McKenzie's "The optimal amount of fraud is
       | non-zero" [1] (wrt banking systems)
       | 
       | Also, your abuse-scoring system sounds a bit like Bayesian spam
       | filtering, where you have a bunch of signals (Disposable Email,
       | IP from Risky Source, Rate of signup...) that you correlate, no?
       | 
       | [1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-
       | fra...
        
       | oger wrote:
       | Great writeup. Simple heuristics very often work wonders. The
       | fraudsters are out there and try to pinch holes in your shield.
       | Some time ago we were running a mobile service provider and had
       | some issues with fraudulent postpaid subscribers - however the
       | cost of using background checking services was substantial. We
       | solved it quite effectively by turning the background checks on
       | when the level of fraud went over a certain threshold which made
       | them go away for some weeks. We kept this on and off pattern for
       | a very long time with great success as it lowered the friction to
       | sign up significantly when turned off...
        
       | gwbas1c wrote:
       | Makes me wonder how easy / hard it is to turn this kind of
       | feature into a standalone product?
       | 
       | IE, send email, IP, browser agent, and perhaps a few other
       | datapoints to a service, and then get a "fraudulent" rating?
        
         | the_bear wrote:
         | This is basically what Google's reCAPTCHA v3 does:
         | https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/v3
         | 
         | The other versions of recaptcha show the annoying captchas, but
         | v3 just monitors various signals and gives a score indicating
         | the likelihood that it's a bot.
         | 
         | We use this to reduce spam in some parts of our app, and I
         | think there's an opportunity to make a better version, but it'd
         | be tough for it to be better enough that people would pay for
         | it since Google's solution is decent and free.
        
       | hn_user82179 wrote:
       | very cool, I wasn't expecting to find this so interesting. I
       | yesterday for the first time thought about the "abuse the free
       | tier" actors. I was trying to use a batching job service which
       | limited free-tier batch sizes to 5, which was so low that it took
       | away the point from using the automated job in the first place. I
       | think the little info box explained that they keep the limit low
       | to prevent abuse, and I started thinking about other ways they
       | could prevent that abuse. Your post was very topical. thanks for
       | sharing!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-02-24 23:00 UTC)