This article takes simple things and makes them complicated. Yesterday WP Tavern published an article repeating Twitter allegations about WP Optimize possibly having a deliberate and disguised intent to cheat PageSpeed-like testing tools for evil ends, based on the allegations of someone who was presented in the article as an independent party. That, and only that, is what we should have been discussing. Deliberate hidden cheating, disguised deception, now caught out, etcetera. That was the accusation. Upon investigation once our expert developer, who couldn't be consulted prior to that article (being asleep in another timezone) was able to get up, it was quickly spotted that actually the guy had entered settings into an expert-user field which said right next to it that it was for omitting things from PageSpeed bots (and had a tooltip explaining further some potential use-cases, which were not how he used it). The whole premise of the guy's outrage, and the story - that there was something deceptive, hidden, an attempt to cheat, evidence of evil, etc., was just entirely false. The failure to clearly explain that he was entering his own settings into a explicitly labelled feature was also highly objectionable. The feature is up-front, and has legitimate uses, and if someone decides to use them to cheat, that's something else. Not what the original allegations were about. If there are bugs, that's also something else. If someone thinks that the use cases don't actually makes sense, that's also something else. If someone things that the user interface isn't as well presented as it could be, that's also something else. The guy hyping all the outrage about deliberate, hidden cheating turned out to be a competitor who was in the same thread promoting his own products as the antidote to these evils. And as I say, that's the end of the story. The article above is a new really over-complicated story about tangential questions and issues and third-party off-the-cuff speculations and musings about those related, but actually different, things. We'll no doubt, as part of normal development, have a look at related issues. But they're not what the allegations and outrage stirred up by the original Twitter poster were about, or the preceding article. Twitter is there for people who like discussing these things on Twitter. For me, I'd like to get back to doing useful work.