Signature spam

There are too many new members that have signatures that are purely there for spam-related purposes. Is there any way that these can be cleaned up and/or stricter sig rules put in place? Not that.. they read the rules anyway but for the few that do?

Eg:
- No affiliate/referral links
- No link to spam blogs/websites/etc.
- Maybe even obv keyword based (since only logged in members see sigs) eg ("Home Based Business | Men's Fashion Styles | Cheap Clothes") taken from http://www.talkfreelance.com/member.php?u=25550

They should be moderated more so that active TFL members don't have to put up with all of the sig spam. Sigs aren't even shown to guests so I think this would be a common courtesy to members if this would be looked into and cleaned up.

I just get tired of seeing this allowed here as it severely degrades the quality of posts..

I think the rules already say we can't have affiliate/referral links. What's defined as 'spam' for blogs/websites however, that's almost pure perspective.

I think the signature however should not have more restrictions, it's suppose to be a personal box with almost whatever we want to give the user more personality... obviously if he has 5 posts how much of him do we even see? Maybe limit the number of links/lines/photos/photo sizes?

Originally Posted by BlaineSch Maybe limit the number of links/lines/photos/photo sizes?

Regarding photos I'd like to see them auto resized to fit the board.

Originally Posted by BlaineSch I think the rules already say we can't have affiliate/referral links. What's defined as 'spam' for blogs/websites however, that's almost pure perspective.

As far as spam websites it's far from pure perspective. When you've got links that are pointing to various websites that have affiliate based content (eg: http://www.talkfreelance.com/showthread.php?t=70085 and http://www.talkfreelance.com/showpos...66&postcount=8), are to sell penis enlargements.. and anything else that's obviously there to gain money from ads, etc I'd say it's completely obvious that they're spam.

It's not as if I'm suggesting to only allow "pretty" website in sigs--that would be an example of pure perspective. Affiliate/marketing/spam sites are obvious. There is no way to get around a website that's specifically geared towards just that.

Originally Posted by BlaineSch I think the signature however should not have more restrictions, it's suppose to be a personal box with almost whatever we want to give the user more personality... obviously if he has 5 posts how much of him do we even see? Maybe limit the number of links/lines/photos/photo sizes?

Why shouldn't it have more restrictions? I'm an active member here and I don't want to see people posting for the sake of advertising their signature. That's not the point of TFL. It really needs to be moderated/enforced even more as it's starting to get out of control.

In case you haven't read the rules on signatures (since you suggested stuff that's already been written):

• May contain a maximum of two (2) smilies or one (1) animated smiley.
• May contain a maximum of three (3) colours.
• Must be kept to a maximum of five (5) lines at size 3 font.
• "Fake" signatures must not be appended to posts

Which, by the way, your signature is not adhering to the rule of maximum of 3 colors .

The only way to completely eliminate signature "spam" would be to disable signatures altogether. And contrary to how you feel, I don't think these signatures are degrading the quality of posts - the posters are.

Text only signatures like we have are unobtrusive. They're not distracting and easy to ignore. Saying members here could not link to affiliate programs would be unfair. We have good members here that do so like AndyR. The same is true with members trying to market their websites.

However, I do agree these privileges are being abused... and mostly by new members. They're posting just for the sake of getting their links out there and that is degrading the quality of TFL in general. A good compromise would be to disable signatures all together for new members for three months and until at least 50 posts.

Anyone who stays here that long and posts that much, solely for the sake of contributing, has earned the right to have affiliate links in his signature if he so chooses.

The fact that they're posting to advertise their signature degrades the quality. No matter how you twist it around it all still falls the same way.

Having a signature is a privilege, not a right. I disagree entirely with allowing any member to have any affiliate/marketing based website in their signature. Signatures are only shown to members and not guests, so to bombard us with affiliate/marketing links in signatures is damn annoying.

Even with your example of AndyR, I disagree with even that site being allowed given that it's free to unlock an iPhone. It's highly misleading and having that sort of sig on a niche forum like this.. won't garner anything but negative responses which is exactly what happened when he showcased that specific website.

Down with annoying affiliate/marketing sig spam.

I approve of this, I'm getting sick of dumb ass posts made for the sake of advertising.

This whole Thread
This post
This Post
This Post

I think this member is going to have a new sig very soon

I can't find the post for forum signatures ]: I did a search and looked in obvious places. I saw one thread but it didn't really contain rules just a restriction. Is it not sticky?

Originally Posted by Jordan The fact that they're posting to advertise their signature degrades the quality. No matter how you twist it around it all still falls the same way.

Not all posts are made to advertise, but all posts can inadvertently advertise via signatures. I'm doing it right now with my "FOR HIRE:" text. That's why I said members should earn the right by showing they're here to contribute, over time, and not just to advertise (those people degrade TFL, not their signatures.)

Originally Posted by Jordan Having a signature is a privilege, not a right. I disagree entirely with allowing any member to have any affiliate/marketing based website in their signature. Signatures are only shown to members and not guests, so to bombard us with affiliate/marketing links in signatures is damn annoying.

I said they were privileges. And you have to admit, text only signatures are unobtrusive. What's annoying is the lack of quality posts these advertising-only minded individuals bombard the forums with. If they were instead honestly contributing, and adding to the overall value here, would an unobtrusive affiliate link really be that big of a deal? Probably not, and implementing something like I suggested would most likely help the matter.

Originally Posted by Jordan Even with your example of AndyR, I disagree with even that site being allowed given that it's free to unlock an iPhone. It's highly misleading and having that sort of sig on a niche forum like this.. won't garner anything but negative responses which is exactly what happened when he showcased that specific website. Down with annoying affiliate/marketing sig spam.

You're right, he did get negative responses, but it didn't hurt anyone except him. Down with annoying people. It's all subjective anyway .

Here you go Blaine, just scroll down to the bottom.