Ban signature links

[Salem]

At least for those people with say less than 10 posts.

There is no end of dross from people bumping threads with 1-line of pith which is either off-topic, or just vaguely relevant.

Most seem to go for old threads with high "visit" counts in the belief that means their sig will get more visits that way. Most are incapable of doing the math of "thread age / visits".

And you just know they're doing it just to spam URLs in signatures to push whatever they're selling.

Most never return after their initial flurry, figuring they've either been banned or the posts have been deleted. In any event, they're onto the next forum to repeat the process.

They're certainly NOT here to make a useful contribution!

[MosaicFuneral]

I second this.

It pisses me off to great ends, when they do this. They'll probably even attempt this still with fake-signatures.

[Nick Evan]

Here's a nice example of someone who is only here for sig-links. People like this make no useful contribution whatsoever and should be banned IMO.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not a mod here.

[MidiMagic]

I don't like this idea. Better ideas include:

- Don't display the signature link if the reputation is negative.

- Remove only the links that go to sites with the primary purpose of selling.

- Just ignore them. I rarely follow a link in a sig, unless I am really interested in that user's info. So their efforts are wasted anyway.

- Turn the links that go to business sites red.

- Put a big SPAM stamp on the post.

I also don't like the removing of links in posts that point to the user's pages. I used to point to tutorial pages I wrote, until you banned that.

If you ask me, there are too many intolerant NIMBYs on this site. They scream if you forget the code tags, they scream if you have a link to your site, they scream if you resurrect an old topic, etc. This place is supposed to be fun, not Big Rules City.

[almostbob]

I like resurrected topics.
sometimes 'best practice' changes and being told a better way to do something than the way I have been doing it is useful.
I dont really notice signature urls.
I only play with my sig

[Nick Evan]

But what we're talking about are people who only join to post a "I agree" post to a long closed topic just to promote their sig. If you take away that option, they might not post crap here.

[happygeek]

This is something that DaniWeb management has been discussing of late, however there are no plans to ban signature links.

If a post breaks the rules it will be dealt with.

If a poster is thought to be bending the rules relentlessly in order to advertise in the way being suggested, then it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

[John A]

I've said this already, and I'll say this again: I still think requiring X number of posts before a user can add a signature would work wonders to stopping this crap.

But for some reason higher-ups disagree with me. *shrugs*

[WaltP]

I've said this already, and I'll say this again: I still think requiring X number of posts before a user can add a signature would work wonders to stopping this crap.

But for some reason higher-ups disagree with me. *shrugs*

So do I. For people like Jen0608 with 170+ posts, it's easy to make the required number of posts in one sitting to get to the sig limit.

[Salem]

> then it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
You mean by relying on the relentless annoyance of the regulars in contributing to keeping the forum spam-free?
I feel another phase of "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" coming on.

> I rarely follow a link in a sig, unless I am really interested in that user's info. So their efforts are wasted anyway.
But the link is there for the search engines, not you.
Plus someone should go and read the post (not the signature) just to see what they said. Like I said, mostly it's just pithy drivel on the end of a long-dead thread. But still I wasted my time finding that out.

[happygeek]

If we did not give a damn then we would not be looking at individual cases of signature abuse - and we would not have deleted some 100+ posts by Jen0608.

[Nick Evan]

and we would not have deleted some 100+ posts by Jen0608.

You mean these 170 posts are the better posts (s)he made? :icon_eek:
But if you have deleted some 100 posts from this poster, why isn't (s)he banned already?

[happygeek]

The user has an official warning, old posts that were felt to add nothing except a signature were removed, any further such postings following the warning will be dealt with as spam and infracted, two infractions will kick off a ban.

Banning the user when they had been allowed to post those messages without intervention over a period of time, and without a warning, would not be fair.

[John A]

>For people like Jen0608 with 170+ posts, it's easy to make the
>required number of posts in one sitting to get to the sig limit.
But we don't have 100 Jen0608s. We do however have an increasing number of flyby members/spammers who make 10-20 useless posts with a link in their signature and then leave, never to be seen again. Dealing with them on a case-by-case basis would simply be impractical and ineffective.

Answer me this: why does a member with < 10 posts deserve a signature?

[Dani]

> why does a member with < 10 posts deserve a signature?
Because when we had a requirement in place to require 10 posts before someone could add a signature, it led to everyone (including people who typically wouldn't be spammers) just creating ten super useless posts super quick just so that they could have access to signature privileges, which caused even more damage.

[MidiMagic]

I still don't understand why they are doing it, if nobody looks at the sigs.

Could it be an attempt to raise a Google search score? If so, can the sigs be shielded from access by search engine robots? (Or you can just TELL them that, but not really do it.)

I also don't understand why everyone is treating these posts as though they were termites eating the foundations of the website. They are annoying, but do they really do any damage?

Likewise, I don't see anything wrong with someone referring to his own website in a post.

[crunchie]

I guess it's a good thing I'm not a mod here.

And now you are :D

[Nick Evan]

And now you are :D

It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum! Too bad, Jen0608 hasn't posted here anymore :icon_twisted: