What the web refuses to an agent that says what it is
A real, dated test found a hardened commercial platform simply out of reach — not a task Dinoer failed, a door it does not try to force.
This one is not a task. It is an observation from real use, and it is the case where the honest answer is the least flattering.
Used respectfully — courtesy delays, page and action caps, no attempt to force past a real block — Dinoer’s retained browser core, and the SearXNG discovery layered above it, both meet sites and search engines that simply do not answer an unauthenticated, declared agent.
What a real test found, named plainly
On the 14 August 2026 reputation campaign, two profile pages
(github.com, m.youtube.com) were fetched but returned nothing but
cookie-banner noise — the light tier cannot execute their JavaScript, and
escalation to the retained browser core never triggered because the page
technically returned text, just none of it usable.
The full case →
A hardened platform like LinkedIn is a harder case still: reaching it at all would require credentials and a session an unauthenticated agent does not have, and this project does not treat that as a bug to route around. Structural reach, not a missing flag — the same conclusion the project reached about SearXNG discovery generally. What Dinoer does not compete on →
No formal block-rate panel has been run for Dinoer itself. The tool this project forked from measured one, on its own pre-fork history — those numbers describe that tool’s history, not this one’s, and are not repeated here as if they were.
This is not a defect to fix
A site has every right to close its door.
Anti-bot posture is the site’s own choice, and Dinoer does not try to defeat
it. That is the whole content of declared identity: the agent says what it
is, and accepts the answer. Practically: expect a meaningful share of dead
ends on hardened commercial platforms, and treat a block signal
(respect.waf_bloquants) as information to route around, not an error to
retry against. Retrying is both useless and rude.
One distinction worth holding
An interactive challenge — a checkbox, an image puzzle — is a question asked to a visitor, and it is legitimate to answer it honestly. An agent operating for a named person, from that person’s own address, is not the anonymous mass traffic the question was designed to stop.
An invisible verification screen that never resolves is different. It presents nothing to act on: no checkbox, no challenge, no door. From the agent’s side there is simply nothing to answer, and getting past it would require address rotation or fingerprint spoofing — pretending to be something else. That is outside what Dinoer does, and the boundary is a choice rather than a missing feature.
Why publish this at all
Because it is the finding that a page selling the tool would leave out, and because it is the one that lets you decide whether Dinoer fits your case. If your targets are your own infrastructure or sources that do not run hardened anti-bot defences, little of this applies. If they are large commercial platforms or authenticated professional networks, you now know the shape of what you are walking into before writing a single manifest.