I would like to know if you would still use this forum (webhostingtalk.com) if signatures were disabled?

The reason being:


This forum was never intended as a means for web hosting companies to gain referral or commerical gain in anyway. Part of the reason there is no advertising on the site.
They are essential advertisements.
Web hosting companies are exploiting them, I need to change a few signatures everyday for minor violations, it's annoying but doesn't exactly give me enough reason to ban the host. And I still have to edit it anyway.
Web hosting companies are exploiting them as well with useless replies like 'I agree' or 'thats terrible' in order to get their 4 line signatures.
It weeds out genuine forum participaters (give some knowledge, get loads back) from those ... whats the word... ah well you know what I mean



Lets get back to sharing the knowledge!

Say that While some are making $ or gain from it its really helpful to be able to put the name to the face so to speak meaning ppls names and the company together, for me I took the ppls whos posts I found useful and visited their sites and watched their messageboards to get the feel for their companies, it also helps to know who to stay away from. While it might generate some gain for the companies I think the average visitor is the one who gains the most from it, the non tech..this is just IMHO :)

I agree with Lacey. Lately I have been having problems finding a hosting company with everything I need. I have used the WHT forum to search for good companies and do some research. Without the signature and/or URL, I would have to find the hosting companies elsewhere which would take even longer.

Just my thoughts...

I think it's good that Matt has noticed this thing with sigs and even better that he's actually planning to do something about it.

However, I'm going to have to agree with Lacey that it would help the average visitor or folks looking for a hosting solution to know when they are talking to a host in here.

May I suggest limiting sigs to just the host's name and URL instead of disabling it completely?

The URL's can be available through the profile section. In my opinion, eliminating signatures would "purify" this forum - I tend to agree with MattF

So, I don't see why it needs to be different here. If you didn't want advertising, then you shouldn't allow any hosts to join the forum.

As many folks have pointed out, this place has in the past been very helpful in finding web hosts. If you are looking for a host, you can tell a lot about them before you even see their web site, by what kind of posts they make, how they act, how fast they respond to posts, etc. Of course, if the poster couldn't include a blurb and link about themselves and their hosting company you would never know who you were dealing with.

So I think by eliminating URL's in signatures, you've already made the forum less useful. By suggesting you eliminate signatures, you are about to do this forum even less useful.

My opinion is, if you don't want to read a signature - don't. Hosting companies ads in their signatures are far less intrusive than banner ads on every other site.

Take care,

Brian

I want to know if someone is a host, because I can better
weigh their comments. I can't always tell from the User name or
comments. For example, if someone is trashing
another host is it because they're a competitor or are they speaking
from experience as a reseller for some jerk?
If someone is constantly praising a company is it because
they work there? Do people use company's URL in their
signature if they don't work for them or in some way benefit.

I agree with Lacey. If the purpose of this forum is to build a community of business professionals involved in the same industry to network with another as we talk about issues that are relevant to some or all, then why should we not be indentified with the business we work for/own?

In a physical networking setting, a badge with your name and your company name is issued at the door, and the business card swap is the traditional ending to each discussion. This is standard for any gathering of business people, from large industry conferences to local chamber of commerce meetings.

Your company name is part of your identity as a business professional, and your card is your contact information. Neither of these are seen as commercial or advertising. Handing out collateral literature or whipping out a laptop with a power-point presentation would be both commercial and advertising, but that's frowned upon and rarely seen.

Sure, some companies do use these opportunities to give people the 'hard sell'-the worst are the recruiters, especially with all the recent layoffs. They are like vultures.

They always will, getting rid of the nametags and outlawing the card exchange wouldn't keep them from doing so.

They'd find a way around it, just as they'll find a way around disabling avatars and signatures. As the saying goes: where there's a will, there's a way.

Aloha,
well my thoughts
signatures with urls are handy to see what the person has very quickly
saves copy paste or typing it in

also signatures can tell a lot about a person and what they are like or at least get an idea if they are serious, techy, nerdy, funny

I say keep em and limit them to a name, url, one line, small logo.

no I would not leave the forum but it would loose some of its power

if the person had to have at least 100 posts and moderator aproval it may stop some form just getting to the 100 post level
also chances are it would make people become part of the group at WHT

I'd prefer to allow them, but within reason. Usenet guidelines are good, take away alot of the "fancy" stuff and limit em to 4 lines of plain text.

I also like to see who says what and put a face to a company. It's 1 thing to see someone who is a good user, and another to see a company rep in here, bashing his competition and blaming everyone else for their problems. It helps you get a feel for a company in a more obvious way, I think.

Course, I'm just here as 'me', not activly representing my company, which is why I don't have a 'biz' sig, but something that means something to myself. Hell, my Avatar (b4 they were all rounded up and executed *sniff*) was a Cabbit (half rabbit, half cat) from Tenchi Muyo (sp). :)

I'm from India running a small web hosting co. when you start from a scratch you really have to start at a small level . As we started first sourcing the web space from local partners who though used to provide cheap hosting but a very little tech support and used to exploit us as well as our last customer. Then slowly we started sourcing directly from US based co's.But even this process used to be painful since in today's scenerio when the hosting co's are growing like mushrooms finding a real gud hosting service providers who provides you excellent support and services is a real critical thing

Previoulsy I used to search for the hosts on a few web hosting directories based sites wherew the chances for getting good hosts are very rare and most of the times new people like us are the prey to the vultures who pay to get advertised there

When someone suggeted me of WHT i visited here . the very first day i realised had this site been known to me a year ago when i started my business I would have made my business grow multifolds .The kind of information the helping attitude , the co-operativness ..and one competitor promoting the other one is seen only here.Its only thru the signatures that you come to know of this.

Now whle i browse this site i do pay close attention to the signatures of the member while going thru his comments . Its wonderful to see when community of hosts like aletia ,burst , donhost, 4webspace, hostrocket, and all are present here. The signatures gives us a chance to identify and get the insight of any Host it is of great help to people like me who are in the process of continious hunt for specialised and quality hosts. And how do visitors come to know of who's placing the comments since a nick name is not enough to know this and going thru the profiles of everyone is a real pain in the neck. Its the result of these signatures that we've decided to go for two dedicated servers with two major co's who are constantly here to support and participate.I think it would be totally unfair on your part to decide not to include the signatures of the webhosting co's. I would strongly recommend that you should allowe the members to use the signatures though for convinience you can restrict it to only the URL of the co.

Personally I'm grateful to WHT and to all its community members for making it a wonderful place to stay I make sure that atleast 2hours of mine are spent everyday learning more about the aspects of Web business. Its a home to all ...so dont put any restrictions let everyone wear what they want to :)
excuse me if this message has become very long

I myself couldnt be without sigs i can never remember a nick, and the first thing i do is look at the sig to see who they are.

Make it simple, if people cant read the rules when they sign up and cant follow the rules just ban them, dont change anything, dont warn them, just ban them, a little common sense tells you not to use colors, not to put lines of pricing in your sig and not to have a huge sig.

If you dont have this common sense, i doubt you can contribute anyways...

People who come here are not stupid at all and are perfectly capable of filtering the given data.

I really don't need moderators censoring the board. if this happens too much I would leave the forum.
I'm an adult and I don't want this forum to be "purified"

Sometimes it is also very handy to see where NOT to go ;-)

Domenico

Originally posted by Domenico
People who come here are not stupid at all and are perfectly capable of filtering the given data.

I really don't need moderators censoring the board. if this happens too much I would leave the forum.
I'm an adult and I don't want this forum to be "purified"

Sometimes it is also very handy to see where NOT to go ;-)

Domenico

Amen. That is what I meant to say above. I don't need someone else telling me what information I want to have available or need to have available. I can figure that out best for myself - and so can everyone else.

Take care, and great post!

Brian

Originally posted by bteeter


Amen. That is what I meant to say above. I don't need someone else telling me what information I want to have available or need to have available. I can figure that out best for myself - and so can everyone else.

Take care, and great post!

Brian
I'm not so sure about that.
I think that hosting co. offering Unlimited space and/or bandwidth must be filtered.
Some unawares user can be catched for the songs of sirens

Originally posted by Jedito

offering Unlimited space and/or bandwidth must be filtered.
Some unawares user can be catched for the songs of sirens

WHT might Benefit from a FAQ or some type of static web page (s) that lists things to watch out for as well as things to look for in a host.

Some of the info here would do well on a static page (I know very time intensive) Some times when searching the threads for info if you miss what came before it the thread may seem out of context.

Lacey
:eek: <----Me in the Morning before my first Email

Lacey.. as you know, WHT have guidelines and Rules, and most user don't read it.
Why do you think that other go to read FAQs about how to choose a host?

Originally posted by Jedito
Lacey.. as you know, WHT have guidelines and Rules, and most user don't read it.
Why do you think that other go to read FAQs about how to choose a host?


Easy question. What happens when you join a closed mailing list and you ask a simple newbie question?

You get about 25 replies flaming you for not reading the FAQ, and include a link to the FAQ.

After the first or second time this happens, people usually go to the FAQ first, ask second. Also, it is a simple matter for the board admin's to modify the message post form to say:

"Hey, did you check the Hosting FAQ first? If not, go there now to find the answer to your question."

Take care,

Brian

The discussion, and the poll itself, are a little off-topic from the question posed in the subject line. It would neither deter nor encourage my use of the forum. Which I guess means I don't really care... I don't see the sigs as they currently used as a big problem

But if Matt and the mods do, I'd see a couple of possible solutions, the first being moderator approval of sigs as mentioned in the poll. Another option might be not to require approval, but to only allow them after a set number of posts. A third suggestion: allow only one or two lines; leave room for just a name and a url, not a slogan or plan descriptions.

I wrote a post in the Vo forum that you should turn it off :), and I`ve done it some time ago. We still have a url button at the bottom that don`t scream "super host" at the ones who are only in here for valuable information.
Anyway, I think it will be a better place, because a lot of new folks are just writing fillin posts so someone can see their signature (like I was doing in the beginning).

A FAQ would be a very nice thing, there are much questions around which are answered at least once or twice a week.

And regarding the poll: Matt, that's too much. I was in favor of all previous changes (sigs, avatars,...) but it is enough. It should stay as it is or maybe you allow sigs after approval and 100 posts!

Originally posted by Phoenix
If the purpose of this forum is to build a community of business professionals involved in the same industry to network with another as we talk about issues that are relevant to some or allActually -- and Matt can correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think that is the intended purpose of WHT. That's more the intended purpose of hostcoalition.org; this place, it's my understanding, was created to be more of a resource for hosting consumers than a community of hosts.

I know sigs after 100 posts sounds good, but I think this is too easy to get around for those who wants it. Matt, if you want to shut the sigs down, go and do it! It`s your board!
If it works in a postive way, then it`s great. If it seems like it`s going to be only you and me left, then I`m sure you can turn it on again before it happens ;)

A very valid point (from Matt`s post) is that this is not a commercial board, so the only gain here is knowledge and not money so I think the users can be as clean as the board. As with forums like SitePoint, I would have thought otherwise.

How about a four line (or 2 line) max sig w/ links etc, like it was before that you get after 100 postes but WITHOUT ads like

________________
Dogma
Dogma Hosting
Hosting starting at $5.00 for 50 megs and 1 gig transfer

They should be
________________
Dogma
Dogma Hosting
<<FUN LITTLE SLOGAN THINGY HERE>>

Disable signature :)

Matt, I hear you troubles,

I like what Dogma says, no ads, in a sig, but most definitly, I like the part about no sig until 100 post. 100 post make me think the person at least is not completely new to the forum, we have a little background on them...

Originally posted by MattF
I would like to know if you would still use this forum (webhostingtalk.com) if signatures were disabled?
...
Lets get back to sharing the knowledge!


Of the choices in the poll, I voted for the min 100 post and moderator approval option.

I like the min # of posts option. That encourages contribution before the sig is allowed.

My preference for a signature would be a non-color, non-bolded, non-etc clickable URL only, though that might lead to domains such as www.HostForOnly5DollarsAYear.com. I do like to look at hosting sites based upon what I read is a person's message. Having to go to that person's profile is an extra step.

But to answer your question directly, yes, I would continue to use this forum if signatures were removed. For me it is a learning thing...



________________________
to teach if we are called upon,
to be taught if we are fortunate

that the 100 post rule would not change a darn thing, so am I to understand that the offenders that are causing this debate are all newbies?

I dont wanna start a fight here but it occurs to me one of the moderators offers software for tech support Im sure he (as he should he created the product) has made some money off of being here, and in contact with hosts(being a moderator doesnt hurt the image ;) Matt said in the first post he was concrened about ppl making money off of being here, it just seems to me that applies to more than just hosts.

ppl are smart enough to see past a smoke screen and if they arent , then the slight bump they hit was a needed lesson you cant place rule upon rule and expect any project to grow.

One last Thought.....Would you trust a host that cant follow the rules enough to have an appropreate sig line?..I wouldnt

I shall take my lowly handful off posts and go back to fighting with Dreamweaver :eek:

I would have no personal objection to removing signatures, but I think it lessens the value of the forum. The only reason I added in a signature was because it was a simple way of qualifying my comments for the benefit of others. If anything, to that end, I'd suggest that web hosts be required to state their affiliation.

I certainly don't see much abuse going on (although that may be tribute to efficient mods who edit out the abuse before I see it).

ok, im too tired to read all the posts so far...

but my suggestion: how about a one-liner signature that just displays your name? its just so that you won't have to keep writing your name at the end of every post you make... and also since it'll be good to just include your name at the end of your post anyway

;)

good idea, i think a faq would be great, there is a LOT of info on these pages and some of the archives could be eliminated

That doesn't help when somebody's name is wearethebesthost.com ;-)

So what happens then? Censor the usernames? Matt from site5 will not be happy. LOL

Really, I see no abuse taking place here and you will see very quickly when someone's activity on the forum is posting messages like "I agree" only.

Is this an grown up hosting forum or a jamboree?

Originally posted by Lacey
that the 100 post rule would not change a darn thing, so am I to understand that the offenders that are causing this debate are all newbies?What it might do is insure that by the time someone was able to use a sig, they'd have had plenty of time to read the forum rules -- and they'd have no excuse for not having read them.

I agree with Domenico on this one....

Most people on this forum are able follow the rules...so why should the people that do the right thing suffer?....I think it is just stupid to think about taking sigs off....i mean they are just sigs and nothing more....its not like they are a HUGE advertisement....I believe it is fair for the host to be able to advertise thier company in a sig as long as it follows the rules and isnt too advertiseing....

All ya gotta do is just put yourname, company name, and website/email address....


Like Domenico said I am an adult and I dont like people censoring things for me like im a child.

Im not trying to insult anyone or say anyone is stupid or anything like that...just getting my point across.

We are all aware of people that abuse or misuse the .sig feature, this is true of news groups as well. Yes, it's good to see the posting history of a host, good or bad, how knowledgeable they are or are not. That can be searched for and noticed via another means though. However, you have the issue of one thing; Is this a forum specifically limited to posting questions and answers only, as well as ideas and general discussions and nothing more, or to allow people to have the means to see how offers what, if they are even a host, if they should contact them and ask if they are a host or if they can help, or any number of other things.

This can be an advanatge for a person/company or the person seeking the service. To deny people the ability to know if someone can assist them in programming, web server administration, etc., might bother people and in some aspects, I think it should. To allow people to seek services, ask questions, help people or whatever, it seems strange to not really allow them to know what the other person can offer them.

However, we all know too, how annoying it can be. I'm sure some people find it annoying for the simple fact that I have a short description of the services I can offer, and now, I recently added the JaguarPC information to it as well. it's short and consice, I think.. other's might not agree. It might bother some and not other's. Personally, instead of guessing (if I was looking for a host), I'd be very glad to see how the "administrator" of JaguarPC appeared to be as per knowledge about hosting, technical issues, opinions about people, web hosting, hosting features, or whatever else. Some people appear to be grossly unqualified, whereas on a site filled with features, you might get the impression that they are indeed qualified. Of course, people also get up in arms about warning people about hosts or fraudulent or ill intended host anyway, so all you can really get is the positive side -- which comes from the individual judging by that hosts' employee of if they appear to be good and qualified.

However, that's not what this forum is intended for anyway, is it? So, why cater to people that are looking for that aspect? If it's not intended for it, drop it, is my opinion. No matter who wants what and why, if it's irrelevant to the purpose, lose it if it bothers you. This might deter some people from wanting to bother to come here to help or share their opinions of knowledge though, but again, this doesn't sounds like what it's intended for, so why make it into something else to suit other people's wishes? It appears you don't want it, you might have people lose interest, but due to them not being able to get their name out there or whatever, which is not the people you want posting anyway, I'd assume.

I'd suggest the following;

#1: Lose the .sigs completely. Quotes, jokes, ads, contact information... everything.

#2: Let people have their name and and email address, to save time from having to type it on their posts to identify themselves to the people that can't see well out of their left eye.

#3: You have an "email" feature and a "home page" feature. That covers the email anyway, all you need is the name, realistically.

#4: If need be; Maybe add some type of fields in the "profiles" section that people can check to have something appear next to their name, that would indicate "I'm a host", "I'm a programmer", or whatever, so people don't have to wonder or ask if this person does offer a service, because everyone's so afraid to break the rules and let that secret out. People shouldn't have to hide the fact or worry about breaking a rule, but surely no one wants people to just come to do outright promotion and get their name out there any way they can.

#5: Now you'll have to remove the user names that people registered as "hostname.com", because that's surely going too far, when no one else can even dare mention their company name, let alone that they are a host.

#6: Fill in the blank.

These are why I don't see it as being realistic and people being denied the ability to let someone that needs or wants their service not know, is not going to be fun for a lot of people. That in itself shouldn't be a big deal, but it is for the people that abuse it. Next thing you know, it'll be the same idea (referring to something else) or going to one extreme due to something that you don't like seeing on the other (i.e., offering unlimited bandwidth, because you're angry that you were jipped by a host that reemed you for $20/GIG overage). I don't see any graceful way out of this, other than to simply do what's reasonable -- but that opinion differs from person to person -- and just do what you personally want. If it's your site, run it how you want, or you'll never be able to relax about it. People will like it or not, cater to the people you want, not try to conform to their opinions, because there's too many and many of them are strong.

Huhu, Tim did it :blush:

Originally posted by Haakon
.... Matt, if you want to shut the sigs down, go and do it! It`s your board! ....

:agree: :D

I'd really be curious to see how many hosts will still post here after signatures are disabled :)

I'm pretty sure almost all of us will.

My $.02 on the subject is that they should be allowed. Maybe a two line max or no advertising besides a domain.

My prediction on what will happen is:
Sigs will be brought down to a
Line 1: name/nickname
Line 2: company
Line 3: Website address

or a quote mixed in there after company name or something. If they stick to what this forum is meant for, those are fine... but having host's advertise for a special going on or their plans is not fine.

I personally think that the signatures should stay how they are right now. There are many (new) people coming here looking to get offers/advice from webhosts ...and the signature is the only easy way to show that you are a webhost or not. Without the signature, people would have to ask "Are you a webhost?! ", etc.

I'm not coming to the board just to offer our services (which we have not even launched yet); but more because i like interacting with other people, sharing information & of course having some fun :)

What I want to know is how far will it go before it stops? Personally, I liked it with links in the sigs. Maybe it's just me, but I rather enjoyed clicking the links in people's sigs, hosts and everyone. I dont want to have to go to profile, then here, then there for every person I want to see their site...and I also want to know who's posting.....like Tim said, I want to know who works where and who does what.

You have the right to set whatever rules you want. But I feel things are becoming rather discriminatory against hosts here. We cant post anything whatsoever about ourselves, and the only place we could is now getting restricted even more...again?? C'mon now, that's how we and everyone else identify ourselves here, as well as most other forums. I think what I am getting at is that you can identify yourself however you want, as long as you are not a host. Geez, even Freewebspace.net hasnt become this strict. Looks to me like pretty soon it will be at the point that if someone asks me if I'm a host, I wont be able to tell them an answer in public because it'll be against the rules. Like I said, where will it stop? Maybe after a 30 char per message is implemented, boy Tim will hate that one..It's already to the point of rediculous. Limiting sigs is one thing, stopping them is another.

Leave the sigs as they are now, though I would prefer to be able to CLICK on links, not copy and paste. I'm tired and probably used all the wrong wording, but hopefully I got an honest point across somewhat. I know there are hosts that abuse things like the sigs....deal with them, dont punish everyone because of the few, and from what I saw, it was VERY few compared to how many hosts there are here. I said it before this was really a useless issue. If people are bothered by sigs, then they must have a LOT of things in life that bothers them if something like this does. I mean, you're arguing over forum sigs for crying out loud. Is there anything in life smaller than this issue that you could possibly argue about??

Anyway, I am just fine with my sig as it is. However, I do enjoy it being like that because it was MY choice to do it like that.

Originally posted by Webdude
I mean, you're arguing over forum sigs for crying out loud. Is there anything in life smaller than this issue that you could possibly argue about??


Lord knows, I've never been the same since they brought out those ##$!@$(%*$ RED M & M's!! I mean, RED!!!? WTF!? Oh, don't EVEN get me started on Astro turf!! Ugh!

I think some of you are missing the whole point. The sigs in themselves are not a problem. But the ones that just posts something because they have a sig, and gets 25 visitors each day because of the sig. Hosts flaming other hosts in the advert forum is the biggest problem, but also some repeatedly useless posts from others.
And a one line sig with just the company url won`t solve it! It will only take the best away and leave the problem where it was.
We still have a url link though (and e-mail), so there is no need to go into profile.
I think it should be tested as a temporarily sollution as I`ve said, those who survive may get the luxury of having a sig again.

#1. Disable Signatures
#2. Add the custom profile fields like Tim suggested

[This is just a long shot :)]
#3. Make users accept the rules before they enter. You could have a cookie set or something, or a small modification to the vB code.

I will repeat what has been said earlier: this board was not created as a resource for *hosts*, but as a resource for hosting *customers*. In the past year or so it has become almost completely dominated by hosts, and as a result, I, for one, have found it much more difficult to find good information about hosting companies. I am not a host. I have been in the market more than once for hosting services. I DO NOT want to hear from anyone but current or former customers of hosts I might consider when I ask for information on hosting unless I *specifically* request e-mail offers, which I did once (and found my current host that way).

If signatures are no longer allowed, those hosts who use this board primarily for the purpose of *mining* it for new customers or promoting their own businesses may well leave, and I think that would be a good thing. It's a simple, effective solution to what I see as a big problem: the subverting of the original purpose of this board by those who would turn it into a commercial resource.

I will add that I run a forum, and one of our first decisions was not to allow signatures of any kind but to restrict all such information to the Profile page, with the exception of one line under their name that can identify their business. It is our intent to be an informational resource for musical instrument makers, not a commercial resource for those who sell goods and services to musicians and instrument makers. We still have plenty of pros and suppliers who participate, and they *participate*, they do not sell. The quality of their pariticipation helps them build their reputation as knowledgeable in their field, and the fact that they "play by the rules" of our forum only makes them more popular. If they get business through our forum on this basis, more power to 'em! The same was true here in the past, and will be again I am sure if signatures are no longer allowed.

If you think that in your forum the best option is use one line signature, why don't you do it here?.
I see that you use the max allowed in this forum (4 lines). :rolleyes:
I know, you're not a host, but you're talking about signatures;)

Don't you forget that many hosts here are also customers.

Think about that. :o

If you think that in your forum the best option is use one line signature, why don't you do it here?.
Do you drive 15 MPH in a 55 MPH zone because 15 MPH is the speed limit where you live? If the limit here was one line, my signature would be one line. I'm playing by the rules. Please don't obfuscate the issue with irrelevant comments.

Don't you forget that many hosts here are also customers.
So? If the reason they're here is to get *information* then the lack of signatures shouldn't be an issue.

Once the focus of a forum changes, the way the focus has here to become so host-centric, then those for whom the forum was originally started tend to leave and changing the rules becomes much more difficult, as the majority of your users are now the very people you're trying to rein in.

Originally posted by Deb Suran
If you think that in your forum the best option is use one line signature, why don't you do it here?.
Do you drive 15 MPH in a 55 MPH zone because 15 MPH is the speed limit where you live? If the limit here was one line, my signature would be one line. I'm playing by the rules. Please don't obfuscate the issue with irrelevant comments.
What are you talking about???
YOU SAY that the best is one line signature.
and YOU use 4 lines here.
And If I think that the best for my is drive 15MPH I do it, and I don't care that the limit is 55 MPH, or do you see that in this forum everybody have 4 lines signatures?
So, be coherent with what you say and what you do.

How many would agree with me on disabling signature?
As long as signature is enabled, this kind of maddness will happen again & again & again.

Originally posted by klisis
How many would agree with me on disabling signature?

13.89% by now

Originally posted by klisis
How many would agree with me on disabling signature?
As long as signature is enabled, this kind of maddness will happen again & again & again.

Clearly the vast majority of visitors here do not agree with you. Neither do I.

I really do not understand what the problem with signatures is. I think that the real problem here is a very vocal minority of users have some kind of problem with commercial content of any type. I imagine they see a host mentioning their services in a signature as an unholy act which destroys the harmony of their experience here at WebHostingTalk.com.

To me it seems absolutely ludicrous. For me as a consumer and now a provider of hosting services there are three essential values to this forum :

1) Learning about other people's experiences with hosting companies

2) Discovering what products and services exist in the market that can make my life easier. (I never knew about CPanel before I came here. In fact I thought Cobalt Raq's were the coolest things besides sliced bread.)

3) Learning about what other hosts have to offer, so I can determine whether I would be better served by switching to their services.

As I see it, by eliminating signatures, only item #1 above would still apply.

#2 would not apply because you would have to look in profiles or constantly scan the advertising forum to learn about new services and products. Now with signatures (or should I say, before with useful signatures) you can list your services in your signature. For example, how many of us learned about QWK.MON (http://www.qwkmon.com) Monitoring services from a profile? Probably 0. How many learned about it from their signature? Most of us.

#3 would also not apply any longer. The only way to gain this information would be to constantly scan the advertising forum and look for new information. For me it is much easier to just look at the signatures in the messages and threads that I read daily. Besides, many of the posters in the Ad forum only come here to post ads, so I learn nothing about them besides their plan information. When I read messages posted by hosts in discussions I can say to myself "This guy/gal knows what they are talking about - maybe I should check them out." or I say to myself "This guy/gal is on crack, and I wouldn't dare use their services in a million years."

So. Having said all that. No I don't agree with you. No the forum won't be as usefull without signatures, and yes the usefulness of the forum has already been diminished by removing links and other helpful items from the signatures.

WebHostingTalk.com has been a great resource, but by limiting its scope too much, it can become "just another" resource, and some other site will take its place as the most useful place to go. I hope that doesn't happen, but it certainly could.

Take care,

Brian

I simply also do NOT have a problem with signature. I did not even have a problem with avatar.
However, some people keep bringing this up for reasonable reasons.

And for bteeter,
please try to keep post length a bit short. I can't read them all.(Most likely I don't want to read'em all.) :rolleyes: It is only for me though.

Originally posted by klisis
And for bteeter,
please try to keep post length a bit short. I can't read them all.(Most likely I don't want to read'em all.) :rolleyes: It is only for me though.

I usually do keep them short. Just this particular subject is beginning to irritate me, so I felt a lengthy tirade was in order. :)

Take care,

Brian

Originally posted by bteeter


I usually do keep them short. Just this particular subject is beginning to irritate me, so I felt a lengthy tirade was in order. :)

Take care,

Brian

That's why I want signature disabled. It is irritating me.
It will happen again as long as signature is there for everyone.

:idea: Deb's earlier comments have helped put this all into perspective. Don't need a crystal ball to see the big picture here.

We've seen the following escalating restrictions targeted against the hosts who post here, each starting with a poll that sparked quite a bit of discussion both for and against, but still the restrictions were enacted.


Avatars restricted to non-commercial (personal) logos
Signatures restricted to 4 lines
No colors allowed in signatures
Links disabled in signatures
Avatars disabled
Sales/advertising posts must be reviewed by a moderator first
Signatures disabled (pending)

Each time the reason given has been commercialism, and a small group of hosts flouting the rules and using these features for advertising. Looked at on an individual basis, they have seemed like the only ways to prevent hosts from practicing flagrant commercialism. But then...

Deb saith:
I will repeat what has been said earlier: this board was not created as a resource for *hosts*, but as a resource for hosting *customers*.
And a very good strategy, but somewhere along the way hosts began to post here and the community evolved along different lines.

more from Deb
In the past year or so it has become almost completely dominated by hosts, and as a result, I, for one, have found it much more difficult to find good information about hosting companies.
Therefore: In order to return the board to its orginal purpose as an informational resource for hosting customers, the current domination of the forum by the hosts cannot continue.

Deb also saith:
If signatures are no longer allowed, those hosts who use this boardprimarily for the purpose of *mining* it for new customers or promoting their own may well leave, and I think that would be a good thing.
There are two ways to get rid of an undesirable population in any community. You can tell them that 'the party's over, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here', *or* you can restrict them more and more until they decide they don't want to be part of the community and leave on their own.

the words of Deb
It's a simple, effective solution to what I see as a big problem
It *is* a simple, effective solution, too bad that such a dynamic community of hosts and customers sharing so much knowledge and lively debate is seen as a big problem.

I've been involved in many online communities over the years and this is one of the better ones. Considerable activity, little conflict (usually debates instead of flame wars), and the trolls are not too bad.

There are many opportunities to be gained from a community like this-just ask the guys at webhostdir who are trying to build up a similar community of hosts and customers (and already many of us post there as well). They allow avatars and signatures and links.

Originally posted by klisis
How many would agree with me on disabling signature?
As long as signature is enabled, this kind of maddness will happen again & again & again.

personally, i agree with klisis...
lets put a stop this this unnecessary arguments and madness about these insignificant signatures!

i just say either disable them as a whole... or just use ONE LINE signatures with only your name. as Tim brought out, vBulletin has the Email and Homepage field and occupation field etc etc! So why not use it like its supposed to be used? it's called a user profile for a reason ;)

PS. oh yea... and yes i would still use the forums even if sigs were disabled ;)

I agree that the ones wanting to take away sigs, and caused it to be restricted in the first place is a very minor, yet very voiceful group. Maybe, like politicians, this is a way to get themselves recognized by others.

If you dont like the signature options, you got 3 choices. Go away, dont read them, or accept them. Dont come here attempting to get changed what was not a problem before you got here and started complaining about it..

As for commercialism...it's amazing how many people see that and "profit" as an evil thing. I rarely post here and I do not go after customers here. There is not a single one of you who have asked about hosts that I have even so much as emailed. I dont need the advertisment. My business is growing rapidly just fine, and possibly too fast. So with me being a host, and under that reasoning, I see your reasoning to get rid of sigs as a load of crap. I want the sigs so that I can easily visit other people's sites and homepages. I dont come here as a host, though I have it in my sig. I am always looking for new software, interesting sites, etc, etc. The people complaining here are ruining one of the reasons I visit here.

Matt, if you let these few people ruin it for everyone else, and this forum will get a bad name eventually. I even link to this site and another from our main page so that visitors who need something different than what we offer can come here and find a host that does. Without hosts being allowed decent sigs, tell me how they are supposed to do that? Scroll thru an ad forum with 10 million posts? I dont think so. These people want to readily know who the hosts are and who arent. They want to see how these hosts behave themselves here in public.

Instead of ever screwing around with sig options, you should have simply gone after those few that abused it. One I remember was Burst, who had a sig longer than most of Tim Greers posts. You should have dealt with them and not let it ruin things for everyone else. If you are going to go this far to meet the wants of the few who feel hosts dont belong here, then maybe you should just ban all hosts. I'm sure your forum will do real well after that.

Jedito

Deb is only doing what is allowed *here*, she isn't required to follow her own forum's rules here, thus drop it please.

Deb Suran
I will repeat what has been said earlier: this board was not created as a resource for *hosts*, but as a resource for hosting *customers*.

I think part of the problem is that it is both now, and while it isn't bad, it mixes things up a bit. Many people who were members have become hosts, and the board has shifted.

Re: Signaures
Please realize that Matt is just throwing the topic up. Some of you seem to be jumping a bit and pre-freaking out. Relax a bit. He's just trying to see what you feel is the best, for your experience at WHT.

As you've probably figured out, he feels there is a bit too much 'slipping in the signature' going on, and obviously we'd like to limit this as much as possible.

As you can tell by the lack of banners, flashing buttons, etc., Matt does not make anything on this forum. He wants it to be more of a resource for everyone. What exact type of resource I can't say, but Deb seems to know :D I honestly don't know exactly.

Someone emailed me when the links were removed from the signatures saying, they thought that hosts who posted here deserved some promotion. Deserved??? I think this goes against the ideas that Matt has.

Matt suffered though trying to pay for this site for a long time until he got a sponsor. I and the other mods spend time here making sure it is as boardspam-free as we can make it. I don't think any of us expect anything, other than positive ideas on how to grow the community and ways to keep advertsing off the boards (except the provided Advertsing Forums of course). i don't think I ever felt I deserved anything more than what everyone else got. I can't have hot links in my sig.

Really the sigs. don't bother me (multicolored, links in them), and I like reading everyone's opinions about avartars and signatures etc. It helps me understand how you all feel about it. not everyone is going to like the final choices made, but it would be nice if we could hit the majority, and if that majority is 51%, then only 49% of you will plot to kill us. :(

Take care, and just let us know how you feel about everything.

Maybe some are really complaining but the others are just presenting their ideas into this case. I think thats what it was meant to be... to get the overall ideas through the members of this board.

As for me (one who opposes signatures and support one liner signatures)... it's not that i don't like the signatures as it is... it's fine. but, if you think about it, why are the URLs and email addresses even necessary when vBulletin provides you with the field needed in the user profile?

as Chicken mentioned, Matt posted this topic to see how the users of WHT feel about it. Chill out people... it's not the end of the world ;)

Originally posted by Webdude
One I remember was Burst, who had a sig longer than most of Tim Greers posts.

LOL that's damn funny! :D (No offense to Burst(tm) or Tim)

Originally posted by Chicken


LOL that's damn funny! :D (No offense to Burst(tm) or Tim)

shoot, i must've missed that signature!

Oh, what's next?

Censor HOSTNAMES? Grow up and people who can't stand sigs, whatever they look like, in my eyes have serious problems.

Really, I don't see the damn things. Only when I want to see them and what I said before the hosting companies are hosting customers too. They have dedicated servers at others hosters so everybody is everybody here so saying that this forum belongs to hosting customers only is a lot of crap IMO.

Oh, did I mention that I HATE censorship? ;)

No really, look at how long this thread has become and what are we talking about?

Originally posted by Domenico
Oh, what's next?

No really, look at how long this thread has become and what are we talking about?

Ummmmm we are talking about ummmmm Tin Foil???? LMAO lets see its shiney and crinkly and...... :stickout

This thread's a bit too big at the moment to weed through every post to see if this has been brough up or not. If one of the concerns is about people posting one or two word replies to show off their sig, why not have a minimun word count in a post. Seems this would fix the problem, if it's really considered to be one. I never had much of a problem with the board before these recent changes, but lately it's looking like an article in the Sunday newspaper. A bit too much of a "no frills" kind of look. It's losing the community type feel to it and even as informative as it is, I know i'm starting to lose interest. This is just my personal opinion, let me get the armor on as the bashing will likely follow.

Thread View Options
Show user's signatures in their posts? yes no
Show user's avatar in their posts? yes no


Hmm, It seems to me, that those who have a problem with sigs have an option.
Personally, A sig is a way of identifying someone, whether quote, url or just a name, it gives you a way to stand out ( kinda like Tim's Long Posts)
Whichever.

As for the format of the board changing, I agree, When i first started coming here, there were questions and answers that helped me to learn and understand the vast subject of webhosting. Now it's Polls, "this host sucks" and why cant i get an answer.
I keep coming back hoping to learn... maybe i will.

Originally posted by MikeM
As for the format of the board changing, I agree, When i first started coming here, there were questions and answers that helped me to learn and understand the vast subject of webhosting. Now it's Polls, "this host sucks" and why cant i get an answer.
Come on, you registered last month! :)

This forum, like every similar place has ebbs and flows of topic, volume, and mood. I've been here a lot less time than many people, but have spent years at other forums and a decade in newsgroups, and have read these kinds of "this place isn't what it used to be" about once a month in every venue I've spent a lot of time in. Including here.

And I've also seen many people get bored and go away; and I've done that several times myself.

The point: don't worry about it. This is a community (as much as I hate that affectation), and it will flow at the whim of its membership. We individual members can try in futility to ride herd, or we can ride along with the herd, or we can pack up and move on. If you do that and come in back in, say, six months you'll probably find essentially the same things going on here that are going on now.

Originally posted by MikeM
Thread View Options
Show user's signatures in their posts? yes no
Show user's avatar in their posts? yes no
Great point!! If you don't like um, turn um off yourself!! Just scroll up and click profile >> Edit options >> then select if you want them on or off

Anywho, I think that signatures should be allowed for several reasons[list=1]
I like to see the person's name and what company they're from
Sometimes I like to see someone's site after reading a post, they may have more then one and I have no idea of the ^www leads to their page or their co's page or whatever
People may have more then one site, and then you have to copy and paste
I like to know what a person does, ie Tim's sig
Going to the profile is just one more step, and something that ppl who want to turn off sigs can do, but why not just have a name and co. title RIGHT THERE? Otherwise ppl are going to spend more time searching for where other ppl work and less time posting
[/list=1]
I personally liked to have a [SIZE=1] think in my sig to make it smaller and less obtrusive, but still be their for ppl that wanted to see.....and I liked having some links. If you want to save space, put a 100 word limit on Tim!! :laugh:

It's just nice and convinient and people who don't want them can turn them off, then everyone is happy! If people don't abide by the rules, kick them off and don't punish the others. We can all be one, big, happy family :D :D

Following the lead of others, I'm getting my armor on, hope I don't need it :D

Originally posted by Domenico
Oh, what's next?

Censor HOSTNAMES? ......

Oh, did I mention that I HATE censorship? ;)



Do you understand that any restrictions put into place by the owner of this forum do not qualify as censorship?

Frankly, the signatures of some people annoy me as they do not follow the longest-available etiquette rules (Usenet): 4 lines max, nothing more than plain text. However, I would not like signatures to go away, as I think it's important to understand the context in which someone is posting.

Anyone who continually posts AOL-type "me too!" messages, however, or who posts inane messages (or starts inane threads) just to increase their post count and have their name be visible should be cautioned and then banned, IMO. There is enough noise in this forum already.

Jayc

Search exbodyguard.

This is (was me), but there was a discussion in re: to names and I fealt that maybe i should use Mine instead of a nick.

Originally posted by MikeM
Jayc

Search exbodyguard.Ha! Don't have to; I remember you.

That just means you've been around long enough that you must agree with me! :D

GREAT IDEA ALERT GREAT IDEA ALERT GREAT IDEA ALERT

>

How about, a change request is put into the VB developers to allow people to disable signatures on a user by user basis, therefore if i dont want to see sigs I could just turn them off and EVERYONES sigs would just disappear from ALL the posts I view, is that a great idea or what ??

OR

Have it as an option when you signup, the abaility for a single user to "censor" another users Sig, eg, if you dont like "XTStrike Thingy Hosting's" signature then you can disable it for yourself, and you will never get to see it again.

Its like a "personal" Sig firewall, lol

your comments ?

Originally posted by xtstrike
How about, a change request is put into the VB developers to allow people to disable signatures on a user by user basis, therefore if i dont want to see sigs I could just turn them off and EVERYONES sigs would just disappear from ALL the posts I view, is that a great idea or what ??


Maybe I'm being stupid here, but how is that different from the "Profiles"->"Edit Options"->"Thread View Options"->"Show user's signatures in their posts?" option which already exists?

Originally posted by cperciva


Maybe I'm being stupid here, but how is that different from the "Profiles"->"Edit Options"->"Thread View Options"->"Show user's signatures in their posts?" option which already exists?


But does that get rid of my sigs?




__________________
This is a tenacious signature.;)

I have to say thats the best i idea i have seen.. I try to stay out of these kinds of things.. BUT.

I think xtstrike has had the best idea yet about some thing like a sig firewall things would be great... Then every one is happy. If you don't like sig's then you can trun the damn things off..

To me this is kind of funny.. Yes i have a 4 line sig with my URL and Phone # in it.. But really i could care less if its there or not.. I have not been here to long but i have to say all these new rules are making me not want to come here as much..

I have been checking out sitepoint more now as they don't seem to have all these problems really..

I think leave them like they are and maybe add xtstrike's idea.. Then every one can stop crying sig's sig's sig's..

Just getting old to me really...

I would rather talk about some thing else really hard drives, web servers, T3's, oc 192 :) any thing but damn sig's..

Sorry mods just IMO i liked WHT much better when i first got here 6 months or so ago.. I could care less about si's if you don't like or want them trun them off the hell with it.. But to make one rule one week to take links out then the next week to see if we need sig's at all if just said to me..

Sorry for the bad typing droped a server on my hand to day.. :angry:

Originally posted by cperciva
Maybe I'm being stupid here, but how is that different from the "Profiles"->"Edit Options"->"Thread View Options"->"Show user's signatures in their posts?" option which already exists? It's not different; what xstrike asked for already exists and is what was being discussed a few messages prior... too many posts to read, I guess! :)

I've been using that setting for a while, pages load much faster. Doesn't kill the "tenacious" sigs, though.

By the way, I'm pretty much amused by the sentiment in some of these posts that "all this discussion" about sigs is frustrating and a waste of time. This discussion is in one thread, and while it could have been more clearly titled ("would you still use this forum" is a bit of an attention-grabber) it's immediately clear by the poll at the beginning what the topic is... so if you don't want to discuss sigs why are you here four pages into a thread about sigs?

Oh my *censored for those who take religious beliefs to the max*!

I made it to the end! So now I get to reply. :) My thoughts, if someone disobey's the signature rules, disable their signature. Possibly limit the signature down to 1-2 lines, no color, and no empty spacing between lines to set a focal point. I just got to setup another vB from scratch and the options on these things will make your head spin.

I think the real point of this is Matt and the others are Volunteering their time and going through editing sigs and warning people about them is just sucking up more time than many could handle. If someone really wants to know the company's url, or info, let them look at the profile (heck, maybe you can convince them to pop in some kind of affiliate thing where if anyone does come through here, you get something out of it). I'm an affiliate addict myself though... just one more, I swear!

Limiting the signature or killing them however will not take away from the value of the thread (unless the signature is a blinking fiesta of colors, links, and plans which shouldn't be allowed and for the most part isn't). I'm stopping now because this is beginning to get long and I know how "fun" it was to read through all that just to get to the end.

DUH!

Ok, picture this in a near future;

SIG is disabled and also the personal SIG firewall (vb 3.0) is turned on.

Why is it that you still see my sig?
DUH times two!


__________________
Domenico
http://www.besthostontheplanet.com
You get everything for free and give you $100 a month :D

Originally posted by Vortech
I have not been here to long but i have to say all these new rules are making me not want to come here as much..

I feel the same way. And I think that's the point that Deb was making in her earlier posts.

It's not about logos, avatars, links or sigs.

The tribe has spoken.

I have to agree, I never saw anything wrong with avatars, sigs, or any of those things. With the rate this forum is going, soon there will be a rule that says all lines much start with a capital letter and words can not be longer than 10 characters.

Come one! This is getting out of hand!

I agree that people should not be able to put anything they want in their sigs.. It would be enough to put their name, company name and url and maybe if they have a special going (and links should be allowed to the main page).

I never understood why you removed the avatars!? If I'm not misstaking, it was because people used their company logo? If so.. SO WHAT!?

I have been coming to this forum for a few months now and I have learnt A LOT! This is truely a great knowledge resource. But you have to understand that as people we all have different opinions about everything and there is no way you could make and keep everyone happy all the time.

I know how hard it must be for the moderators, as this forum is growing, it requires more and more time and resources. And I'm sure everyone appriciates your hard work and effort.

I just hope you find a way to turn the way this forum is going around and make it better than it already is.

Saeed

May I be partially humbled on the first option, it does appear you can turn off "ALL signatures" for everyone.

and guess what i have just done... lol

I apologise, I didnt properly read the earlier post by Dogma and MikeM

Way to go Xstrike
(May I be partially humbled on the first option )

I have to say this is a very intresting thread, if somewhat pointless.... My email is going nuts.....

Here in Australia we have a government agency called the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Businesses and citizens are obliged to provide it with all sorts of data (such as the census). The cost of filling out all sorts of forms and surveys is of course borne by the businesses who are obliged to do so. Now it used to be (as with a lot of other public services) that you could go to the ABS and grab a copy of which-ever statistics you wanted for free. Of course these days we have user pays. So the user has to pay to provide the information to the ABS and pay them to get the results back from them. Go figure!

Anyway, I haven't read all of this thread - but just an idea, charge people to have a signature if it is of commercial value and you bear a cost administering them.

Originally posted by Chicken
Jedito

Deb is only doing what is allowed *here*, she isn't required to follow her own forum's rules here, thus drop it please.


No Chicken, she is doing what she say that we don't must do, and what she think that is not the best for this forum.

Orininally posted byDeb Suran
I will add that I run a forum, and one of our first decisions was not to allow signatures of any kind but to restrict all such information to the Profile page, with the exception of one line under their name that can identify their business.

And she use 4 lines signatures.
Well If I think that eat chikens is the best, why I go to ask to all you to eat that and I eat T-bones that I say before that is bad.

Chiken please don't make me look as a mad man.

Originally posted by Annette


Do you understand that any restrictions put into place by the owner of this forum do not qualify as censorship?



:angry:

Ummm.. Hello?

Restricting speech is the definition of censorship right? If the owner of the forum doesn't like it - fine. If the owner restricts the content of the forum - fine - but it is censorship. Look it up in the dictionary. Or better yet, I'll do it for you. This is straight from http://www.m-w.com:

One entry found for censor.


Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable




Brian

Webster's dictionary (actually, my dictionary with Webster's name on it) defines censor as Either of two ancient Roman officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, and also supervised manners and morals; hence, anyone who exercises supervision of manners and morals; esp an official charged with examining books, plays and news accounts, and empowered to prohibit them or suppress parts if deemed objectionable on moral, political, military or other grounds; one who censures; an adverse critic; one given to faultfinding

The common element is an official. A simpler definition of censorship is the suppression of ideas, which many say can only be done by governments.

That is because censorship is when you are not allowed to express ideas at all. All any forum owner can do is say you can't express your ideas here. You are still free to express them elsewhere. That is not censorship.

Originally posted by zolbian
if they have a special going (and links should be allowed to the main page).


hehe you reminded me something. Some hosts tend to have special all the time. :rolleyes:

I think signatures should be like:


_____________________
John Doe
President, Doe Technologies


Where the company name is a link to the main page of the site. This is very simple and effective. I think this will make almost everyone happy.

Originally posted by bteeter


:angry:

Ummm.. Hello?

Restricting speech is the definition of censorship right? If the owner of the forum doesn't like it - fine. If the owner restricts the content of the forum - fine - but it is censorship. Look it up in the dictionary. Or better yet, I'll do it for you. This is straight from http://www.m-w.com:

One entry found for censor.


Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable




Brian

You have got to be kidding. You're so angry that you can't just do anything you damn well please here? Then go somewhere else. Censorship implies that you cannot express any ideas, period, at any time, in any place. That is not the case here - unless you want to call the guidelines that every single forum has "censorship". Why you people fail to understand that this is a private forum, where the guidelines are set by the forum owner is beyond me - and that you don't understand that the owner and mods certainly do NOT have to solicit opinions on changes speaks volumes. This is NOT censorship, in any way, shape, or form. Your speech has not been restricted. Your ideas are still something that can be expressed - or don't you find it ironic at all that you're bitching about "censorship" and yet here your words are, for all to see. There is no "idea" inherent in a signature. It is a tag. Period.

If people cannot express whatever ideas they have in their main post, without putting every color of the rainbow, all their prices, and any other thing they think will bring them business into their signature, then they are obviously here for one reason only - and it isn't the exchange of ideas. It's because they foolishly think that exposure in a forum like this automatically equals big sales or an increase in customers. They will find themselves sorely disappointed, because it simply does not work that way, expecially in this forum, which has turned into a three ring circus of hosts nattering away at each other and trying to top one another with 1.95 hosting or some kind of similar nonsense.

Well, I'll tell you what: if that's really what you want, have at it. I'm outta here until people stop acting like idiots over every tiny little thing that comes down the pipe because they think this is their private playground instead of something offered as a resource FOR FREE and moderated BY VOLUNTEERS. Those people who bitch away about the tiniest little things are the ones that would be advised to go start their own forum somewhere, for free, and develop this type of traffic. And then they will find themselves in the same situation - putting guidelines in place until the signal is not outweighed by the noise generated by whinebags who take it as a personal affront that things, by their very nature, change.

Originally posted by cperciva


Maybe I'm being stupid here, but how is that different from the "Profiles"->"Edit Options"->"Thread View Options"->"Show user's signatures in their posts?" option which already exists?
Sorry, maybe I miss something, but having this option to show or not signatures.
What is all this thread for?
If you don't want to see signatures, just put that option in NO.
Leave the people choise.
Into logical parameters of course.

Originally posted by Jedito

Sorry, maybe I miss something, but having this option to show or not signatures.
What is all this thread for?
If you don't want to see signatures, just put that option in NO.
Leave the people choise.
Into logical parameters of course.

VERY GOOD POINT!!! :agree: :agree:

Annette,

Are you a teacher or must I say a preecher?
Look at what you post. You say it doesn't matter but you need many lines to say it over and over again.

If you read the articles carefully you should have seen that there are many usefull and substantial posts from people with and/or without a sig.

What are you saying (SCREAMING!) here is;
"no sig GOOD, yes sig BAD.
Go to your personal settings and turn the bloody sig option of and you will never ever see a sig on this forum again and after a quick study of your posts you should have a very nice life after that.

Oh Annette, what is your problem?
:eek:

Oh, you can turn of the show sig option but I bet you will still see mine ;-)


__________________
Domenico
This sig is anti-sig proof. :)
http://www.minehostisbetterthanyours.com

Domenico,

Annette is not a teacher, but she would make a good one.

Annette is not a preacher, but I am (honestly).

She is a webhost, and darned good one at that.

I think you need to read Annette's post again. She did not say:

No sig = Good
yes sig = Bad

What she said was that she is sick and tired of everytime an owner of a privately owned message board tries to impose rules to preserve the integrity of that forum, somebody cries censorship. This is not censorship. Is it censorship if I will not let you use foul language in my house. No, because you are free to go somewhere else and do it, but not in my house. Why? Becuase it is my house, and I have children. This is Matt's house. He has a right to do what he wants with it right up to pulling the plug alltogether.

And you know what (This is not directed at you, Domenico, but a statement in general), I like this forum. At times I get good information from here. thewitt just taught me a lot about networking the computers in my home for instance. However, I am in the same ship with Annette. I get tired of inane comments about censorship in situations like this. I get tired of the arguements over stupid things like whether or not I can have a signature after my post or not. It is just rediculous.

To be honest, I don't care if we are allowed signatures or not. If I don't want to see them, I can turn them off in my profile. I have been here over 6 months and have never gotten a client from a post here.

So here is my suggestion. Hey, Matt, do what you want to do, because it is your house. If the lack of a signature drives people away then they have a serious problem.

...and if allowing sigs drives other people away, then those people also have a serious problem. However, I think maybe we should look at what attracted most people to this forum. Nobody ever left because of the sigs, but you may lose some regulars by removing sigs. Yes this is Matts house, but he asked for people's opinions. Matt is probably not interested in losing regulars, he is interested in keeping them as well as continuing to gain more regulars.

Others have said this, and I will say it again myself. No other forum I visit has problems with sigs, so why should this one. You will always have a few crybabies cause probs where there shouldnt be. Now that so many have spoken out to be either for sigs or neutral to them, where are the ones who started this whole mess?? Speak up, whine some more. Would you like some crackers to go with your wine?

Anyway, now that the fact that you can turn of signatures has come up (which I didnt know by the way), it kinda makes this an even more of a useless debate. So we can put sigs back the way they were, and let the whiners turn off their sig options. The debate is now a mute issue.

BUT, I do still agree there should be a 3 or 4 line limit. We dont need anymore sigs bursting the forums like they were before :rolleyes:

Ok you know after looking at this some more i am really lost. Why the hell are user complaning about sig's again?

In VB a user can trun sig's off on every one post there they should be happy.

> User Control Panel > Edit Options > Show user's signatures in their posts? xYes or xNo.

I think this post is really a waist of damn time. If you babys don't want to see a sig trun the damn things never see one again.

But please SHUT THE HELL UP!!

I am sick on new rule this week new rule this week all Over dumb **** a user can trun off an not have to see anther one agian.

Sorry MattF nothing to you but i think rules like this are just out of hand. When some thing is in place for users to trun off sig's if they don't like the damn things.

Just get real here guys.. This forum is for both Hosts and Hosting Users. I see no problems with sigs as long as they are with in the 4 line rule.. Just get over it guys trun the **** off if you don't like it..

Also look at the vote 76% want the sigs to stay in one way or anther.. I say leave it like it is or goback to like it was..

Hell i don't do what ever you want.. Getting sick of new rule this week blah blah blah.. Just make up your mind for god sakes..


We want SIG's, We want SIG's, We want SIG's, We want SIG's, We want SIG's..

matt,

Whatever you want to do is your business. For what it's worth, I think the majority of people would be in favor of leaving things as they are , perhaps returning the clickable URLs in signatures, and banning hosts that break the rules rather than punishing everyone.

That's what happneded at the beginning of the month when about a dozen hosts cheated and uploaded business logos and changed their signatures. Rather than punish everyone, I think banning the dirty dozen would make more sense. After all, if they decided not to follow those rules, they may decide to break others.

I think a forum features page would be a good idea. It could explain features like not seeing signatures and avatars. I also think whatever loophole allows sigs to be shown anyway (as with Jedito's sig) needs to be closed.

I think a combination of technology, by way of forum features, and good sense can achieve what is desired. As with styles and colors, people chan choose what they want to see without impinging on the desires of others to do the same.

Hello people, I think this discussion is going out of point. It is not about people who hate seeing signatures, its about web hosts exploiting the feature. Lets put this back into perspective :D

Originally posted by MattF
I would like to know if you would still use this forum (webhostingtalk.com) if signatures were disabled?

The reason being:


This forum was never intended as a means for web hosting companies to gain referral or commerical gain in anyway. Part of the reason there is no advertising on the site.
They are essential advertisements.
Web hosting companies are exploiting them, I need to change a few signatures everyday for minor violations, it's annoying but doesn't exactly give me enough reason to ban the host. And I still have to edit it anyway.
Web hosting companies are exploiting them as well with useless replies like 'I agree' or 'thats terrible' in order to get their 4 line signatures.
It weeds out genuine forum participaters (give some knowledge, get loads back) from those ... whats the word... ah well you know what I mean



Lets get back to sharing the knowledge!

My Great Idea [list=1]
Allow ppl to have sigs with 4 lines, no colors, and links
Ban people that don't follow the rules after being warned
[/list=1]
People that don't want to see the sigs can turn them off!! If you do leave them on. And punish the people who violated the rules. We don't throw everyone one in jail because a couple of people committed a crime!! People who don't want sigs, stop whining and turn them off and let us, who want sigs, to have them!!

Well I see we've continued to discuss this calmly since my last post, heh.

:argue:

I think Matt should just do what he feels is right and not really put it up for public debate. It seems to make everyone freak out and take sides.

My vote: Sigs, with links, some rules about links etc., no pricing etc., whatever else. Kill off the sigs. that violate the rules, throw the 'me too!' posts, blah blah, I don't really care one way or another it isn't the reason I came here, nor the reason I'd stop coming here, and anyone who stopped coing here because they couldn't have an avatar or a signature is probably someone the community doesn't need anyhow. Not to be hash, but that's probably just about how it is.

We want everyone to come here, but for the right reasons ('right' defined by Matt). Not that Matt is the only one who matters, and he's some all powerful tyrant who wants to take away everything on the board, just that I think he'd like it to be as close to a non-commercial exachnge of ideas, comments, etc., as possible, you know.

Well I'm kinda leaning towards allowing pricing in the sigs....like it was 2 months ago or less...

You see, pricing in the sig benifits both the hosts and the end users. As a host, I know what my competitors prices are while things are discussed here. It results in more competitive plans.

For the end user, they may see a host reply in a way they completely agree with, and can see the sig for a short message about their service and some pricing. I almost believe a link to the hosts main page should be require so as to identify the hosts from end users. Course, that is going a bit to far, I know.

I think the sig rules here should be the same as anywhere else(like it used to be before 4 or 5 people complained and who have now been overwhelmingly outvoted). No limit to whats there, except that it's kept to a 4 line minimum and remain clean. It's also less work for the mods and keeps this forum competitive with others of it's kind.

Oh and by the way, to make it easy you should ban the word "unlimited" ;)

Originally posted by Duster
I also think whatever loophole allows sigs to be shown anyway (as with Jedito's sig) needs to be closed.
It's not really a loophole that can be closed by any kind of technology, it's done by simply typing a "sig" into the post -- so the "loophole" could only be closed by making and enforcing a policy against it.

Of course, that it's being done by someone who's proclaiming in the same posts in which he's inserting them that the sig debate is moot because those that don't want to see them can simply turn them off in their own profiles is significant of the problem.

JayC I have noticed today that my signature was showed included to that people that have the signature option turned off.
And to be honest, I don't know why.
I change some thing in my signature to turn that off. But I think (reading your sarcastic comment) that I don't fix it.
If you tell me how to fix that I'll go to appreciate.
Best Regards

Jorge

Yes, the hosts deserve to have the company name etc.. in the signature the main reason is, they put alot forward for this forum and offer good specials to the users of this forum. Alot of help for users in the technical forums etc, comes mainly from the hosts. They also help the community grow and WHT Prosper, this is my view and i am NOT going to enter an flame war - sorry :)

Regards,
ValuableHost

Originally posted by Hostexp
Yes, the hosts deserve to have whatever they want in the signature the main reason is...

Oh come on... that's just trolling. People offer advise for the greater good of the community, both for hosts as well as end users. By expecting something in return just means you're not doing it for anyone's benefit but your own. There is no 'deserve' to it at all.

Signatures should stay as identifiers in my opinion. I'd much rather know I was reading information from either another host or an end-user so I can put it into context. Maybe it's just me but I enjoy knowing the background of the person I'm taking advise from. Whatever that sig looks like is up for grabs but I do think the pricing should go. The whole industry has become like a pack of insurance salesmen lately plugging 'cheaper than cheap' deals while forgetting that this is a *service* industry, not a product industry.

Annette was right about the sales pitch too. With one of the highest post counts on this forum I feel I'm a pretty good position to dispel the myth that the more you type, the more you sell. Sitting around tapping 'me too' a few hundred times isn't going to turn into the great golden goose you may think it is.

In the end it's Matt's sandbox. If he wants ti p*ss in the corner and take his toys home then it's up to him. No-one's forcing anyone in here with a gun to their heads. I do think letting polls be started was a poor decision as I feel it was the beginning of the recent rot. It seems that the option has brought a lot of the clowns out of the woodwork.

That being said, there is still a lot of good information to be had here, and it is still a good resource. A few bad apples without the common courtesy to go and hang themselves for the good of humanity isn't going to change the fact I still get some very good tips here. I just have to scan through a lot more crap to get to them is all.

Sigs or no sigs, tips and knowledge is still the reason most people come here - the fact I can see where that info is coming from without needing to drill through a member list just makes it more valuable in my eyes.

Greg Moore

The sage has spoken.
:blush: :blush: :blush:
Originally posted by akashik


Oh come on... that's just trolling. People offer advise for the greater good of the community, both for hosts as well as end users. By expecting something in return just means you're not doing it for anyone's benefit but your own. There is no 'deserve' to it at all.

Signatures should stay as identifiers in my opinion. I'd much rather know I was reading information from either another host or an end-user so I can put it into context. Maybe it's just me but I enjoy knowing the background of the person I'm taking advise from. Whatever that sig looks like is up for grabs but I do think the pricing should go. The whole industry has become like a pack of insurance salesmen lately plugging 'cheaper than cheap' deals while forgetting that this is a *service* industry, not a product industry.

Annette was right about the sales pitch too. With one of the highest post counts on this forum I feel I'm a pretty good position to dispel the myth that the more you type, the more you sell. Sitting around tapping 'me too' a few hundred times isn't going to turn into the great golden goose you may think it is.

In the end it's Matt's sandbox. If he wants ti p*ss in the corner and take his toys home then it's up to him. No-one's forcing anyone in here with a gun to their heads. I do think letting polls be started was a poor decision as I feel it was the beginning of the recent rot. It seems that the option has brought a lot of the clowns out of the woodwork.

That being said, there is still a lot of good information to be had here, and it is still a good resource. A few bad apples without the common courtesy to go and hang themselves for the good of humanity isn't going to change the fact I still get some very good tips here. I just have to scan through a lot more crap to get to them is all.

Sigs or no sigs, tips and knowledge is still the reason most people come here - the fact I can see where that info is coming from without needing to drill through a member list just makes it more valuable in my eyes.

Greg Moore :blush: :blush: :blush:

Greg, nice to meet an fellow Australian :) From queensland? i'm from sydney!

P.S we just beat NZ in the world cup qualifiers 2-0!
Originally posted by klisis
The sage has spoken.
:blush: :blush: :blush:
:blush: :blush: :blush:

Originally posted by akashik
In the end it's Matt's sandbox. If he wants ti p*ss in the corner and take his toys home then it's up to him.

Please note that we're still trying break him of the habit. We recommend using extra-strength Windex to cover up that smell at the bottom left of your screen. The management apologizes for any inconvenience.

Also note that the sandbox is now BYOT (Bring Your Own Toys).

looool!
Originally posted by Chicken


Please note that we're still trying break him of the habit. We recommend using extra-strength Windex to cover up that smell at the bottom left of your screen. The management apologizes for any inconvenience.

Also note that the sandbox is now BYOT (Bring Your Own Toys).

Greg said what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently.

Thank you, Greg.

Originally posted by Jedito
JayC I have noticed today that my signature was showed included to that people that have the signature option turned off.
And to be honest, I don't know why.
I change some thing in my signature to turn that off. But I think (reading your sarcastic comment) that I don't fix it.OK. Only one problem with that: as I said I've had sigs turned off for some time, and I don't see yours. I wasn't talking about you.