You fail your own "reading comp" test.

[kaz]

54.3 is a number between 53 and 55, but is not accepted by the registration form.

[rconner]

54.3 is a number between 53 and 55, but is not accepted by the registration form.

Well, with all due respect, I guess you may also have failed a reading test, if you look up a couple cm or so from here you will see "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)"

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

-- rick

[turetzsr]

Hi, Kaz,

...Thank you for reporting this!

Hi, Steve or Wazoo,

...Could you please fix the question so that it is clearer that a whole number is required? Thanks!

[Farelf]

Hi, Steve or Wazoo,

...Could you please fix the question so that it is clearer that a whole number is required? Thanks!

Way outside my abilities But, Kaz has not been around since initial 2 posts and being gently led towards the light in one of them - and Kaz is the only one, I believe, raising the point.

[Wazoo]

...Could you please fix the question so that it is clearer that a whole number is required? Thanks!

Question now reads as; Please enter any random number (integer) between 53 and 55.

[Farelf]

Noting that "Between x and y" means a single intermediate value (except, in use, with time-date values where exact starting or ending values are generally/legally acceptable unless expressly excluded IIUC), which is not the same as "From x to y" which encompasses both x and y and all intermediate values and represents the total interval either exactly or as an approximation of either/both extremes. Or something. Darn, I failed! Can I have a re-test?

[turetzsr]

Question now reads as; Please enter any random number (integer) between 53 and 55.

...Apparently that still isn't clear enough for a couple of our most recent members. <g> I'd suggest the following: "Please enter any random whole number (integer) between 53 and 55 (not including 53 and 55)."

[Wazoo]

...Apparently that still isn't clear enough for a couple of our most recent members. <g>

Curious .... this is based on what?

[turetzsr]

Curious .... this is based on what?

...See, for example, "ReadComp" entry of relatively new user Amazon13. I can find other examples, if you like, but suspect that you can search the database for "ReadComp" entries of 53 and 55 easier than I can look one-by-one through "showuser" web pages. <g>

[Wazoo]

but suspect that you can search the database for "ReadComp" entries of 53 and 55 easier than I can look one-by-one through "showuser" web pages.

OK, can see yout point. However, the numbers 53 through 55 do meet the intended action. Basic gist of this question was to knock out those that simply bang on the keyboard (or as suggested elsewhere, trying to run a bot to fill in forms) .... although agreeing a bit that the question is a bit explicit, especially for those with english-as-a-second-language, it has been helpful thus far, especially when compared to complaints from other Forum Admins about the ever-increasing spam load traffic. (The last major complaint I recall from another IPB Forum Admin talked of gettng over 2,000 'new users' in one day, and all of them making a single search-engine-exploit type Post.) As you note, yes, a more direct database query shows the 'bad' users plugging in values like 28, 40, 95, etc. .... definitely noticeable when scanning those screens. In all honesty, the only logic check performed on this entry is looking for two numeric digits, the intent being that those who don't actually read the request statement will in fact stand out prominently. (Not discounting that there may be those that simply don't understand the question, but thoughts there are that the question/answer mode probably won't occur either, if this is the case.) Another assumpton made at this point is that the folks that this applies to won't take the time to read this Post/Topic.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

However, the numbers 53 through 55 do meet the intended action.

<snip>

...Ah, in that case, my recommended rewording (if it is deemed worth the effort, which I gather it really isn't) would be: "Please enter any random whole number (integer) between 53 and 55 (including 53 and 55)." <g> I thought I'd remembered that in mathematics the default meaning of "between" was "not including" but I could be wrong.

[Wazoo]

...Ah, in that case, my recommended rewording (if it is deemed worth the effort, which I gather it really isn't)

No, that's not an issue. Again, I'm leaning to make it easier for the english-as-a-seconf-language user. Just adding the word 'integer' bothered me a little, as it suggested to me that there'd be yet another case of "having to look it up" to figure out what it meant. I was going with the 'range' being shown as a hint as to what was being looked for in the reply-box.

would be: "Please enter any random whole number (integer) between 53 and 55 (including 53 and 55)." <g> I thought I'd remembered that in mathematics the default meaning of "between" was "not including" but I could be wrong.

I'll agree with your definition.

If I start thinking about actually limiting the input data to the specific point, I start thinking about dong an automatic type action on the 'accepting the Registration" process .... and just not sure I want to do that, primarily based on the possible languge issues (but also including the accidental typo.) Idiot that I am, I still agonize over adding to the iptables listings, for example, extending a /24 to a /18 last night ... no current/past users from this IP block, yet after months upon months of attempted spam inserts to the newsgroups via the mailing lists and the continued inaction by those allegedly responsible, amazed that an ISP could somehow allow that many open proxies to continue to exist and continuously exploited by the spammer(s), the inclusion of Reports sent to folks with a 'special/dedicated' SpamCop Reporting address, on and on .... it just hurts knowing that I may actually end up blocking someone that may in fact wish to request help sometime in the future. Near as I can figure, the addresses involved are simply being used as proof that the spam is making it out.