Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 126 to 150 of 150
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,920
    You don't go into a voting booth, read the question, then go outside the booth and chat about it with others, before you head back into the voting booth and vote.
    No, you know the options before you go in the booth and you discuss your options prior to the day when you have to vote. An opinion is the result of a process where ideas are exchanged with others, not the result of a mental tombola. Just my take on it...
    Last edited by ldcdc; 10-15-2005 at 09:57 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  2. #127
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Los Gatos
    Posts
    588
    Well I learned something new today - can't believe I never saw the "Use Signature" checkbox, I should just go back to sleep, my work for the day is done.

    Sig spam may seem like a problem, but I don't believe it is... I have been accused of it before and even had the Sig police suspend my "S".

    I don't believe this is a democracy so any freedoms granted are gifts from the bathroom, but each time there is a change in policy or a sudden desire to enforce rules that were to that point lax, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Seems there will always be enough "new meat" around, so changes, minor or otherwise won't hurt the board at all, but I wonder when it will end.

    There ought to be a rule about making rules.

    I'de rather see something done about mean people slammin posters with no valid reason but to prove there intellectual superiority and lack of brains.
    Be nice to see an auto correct spell checker in the post preview (not that I would use it), but might free up the spelling police to do something else.
    Server$Hit.com Reseller/Hosting For Real People
    WebHostingAccess Trial Accounts Upon Request
    www.ForALaugh.com Get over IT Get over yourself
    Yahoo IM: concreteseller | Toll Free Support: 1-888-603-5305 | Like the Maytag repairman
      0 Not allowed!

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,920
    There ought to be a rule about making rules.
    Not what you want to hear, but there is one:
    We reserve the right to modify and amend these terms at any time without notice. It is your responsibility to remain informed of current WebHostingTalk policies.
    I see the rules as WHT's code of laws. All such codes are improved over time to fit the realities of the time. That doesn't always mean more restrictions, but in this case it does.
    I don't believe this is a democracy so any freedoms granted are gifts from the bathroom, but each time there is a change in policy or a sudden desire to enforce rules that were to that point lax, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
    The same can be said when the actions of some members force the moderators to switch from lax mode to harsh mode. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of moderators.
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,146
    by ldcdc
    Members who are posting irrelevant content just to add their signature in a thread, as determined by the moderators of this board, will be warned to stop such activity and their right to have signatures may be revoked. (...if vB allows this to be done easily). Extreme cases (recidivists/repeaters) may have their accounts disabled.
    I think we are starting to get somewhere, but 'repeat offenders' is an easier term to grasp then 'recidivists' is and, since they both mean the same thing, will cause less confusion.

    by writespeak
    You may not post signature spam (useless content just to get your signature in a thread). Members who do this may have their signatures or their posts removed. If you repeatedly post signature spam as determined by the moderators, your account will be disabled. Specific rules about what is not allowed are in Announcements in each relevant forum.

    The above two quotes are excellent starting places to work on the problem. I think the term 'Signature Spam' should be adopted as it makes for easy clarification when discussing these type issues.

    And, if I may, offer my own version.
    You may not post Signature Spam (useless content just to get your signature in a thread) in any Forum. Members who do this may have their Signatures and/or their posts removed. Warnings will be given and Repeat Offenders, as determined by the Moderators, may result in your account being disabled. Use common sense in posting, avoid posting 'fluff', and when in doubt, submit your reply for review.
    PotentProducts.com - for all your Hosting needs
    Helping people Host, Create and Maintain their Web Site
    ServerAdmin Services also available
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,339
    Originally posted by Website Rob
    You may not post Signature Spam (useless content just to get your signature in a thread) in any Forum. Members who do this may have their Signatures and/or their posts removed. Warnings will be given and Repeat Offenders, as determined by the Moderators, may result in your account being disabled. Use common sense in posting, avoid posting 'fluff', and when in doubt, submit your reply for review.
    Nicely refined, Rob. Now, if I may reword a few sentences and add a few grammar fixes:
    Signature Spam (a signature added to a thread by a useless reply) is forbidden in all Forums. Moderators will identify a useless reply, remove the signature of that reply, issue a warning to the member responsible, and disable the account of a repeat offender, if necessary. When in doubt, please submit your reply for review before posting.
    Not bad, eh? I took out "at their discression," as members know that Moderator's actions are at their sole discression already. Then, all actions taken are in listed in chronological order, with the blurb about submitting a questionable reply at the end (nice addition Rob). I lost the "fluff" and "common sense" part, as it's too much of a loophole for offenders to skirt around.

    Trip
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    2,132
    Originally posted by adb22791
    Maybe removing signatures in the Advertising forums and in the Lounge would be a good idea, just to start out with?
    I'd say that is a bad idea because i'd say the great majority of people who post in the lounge, post something useful. i think the scheme would be better used in the webhosting forums etc.

    Just to add:

    I think sigs should be limited (wherever allowed) to one web address, one company name and the name of the poster. Possibly on different lines, but none of these orange circles rubbish (*glances over at thenapster*)

    Jord
    Last edited by effusionx1; 10-15-2005 at 03:27 PM.
    Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #132
    Impressive thread. It appears a lot of thought has gone into this discussion.

    I would throw in my support behind the idea of keeping vb code, as I fail to recognize a connection to,err, sig pimping. Although I do understand the need to have an enforcement that stops(or limits) the problem, even if it does not effect the root cause, I feel that there are better solutions in this situation.

    Hopefully the rule that seems to being floated around will include some objective guidelines?


    Everyone seems to agree that the content must be useful, and not 'fluff'. However, a good question to put out there might be 'Does the post have to be useful to the OP?'

    I have seen many threads where false, or incorrect information is given and I know that I like to try and clear it up when I can. Thusly posts may contain useful material that could be considered fluff to some, but not to others. Usually this is called being 'off-topic', but is it sig spam?
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by mythologen
    Impressive thread. It appears a lot of thought has gone into this discussion.
    I'm impressed too. People are building on each other's ideas, and we have lots of creative energy going.

    Hopefully the rule that seems to being floated around will include some objective guidelines?
    Like the suggested ones posted here?

    Everyone seems to agree that the content must be useful, and not 'fluff'. However, a good question to put out there might be 'Does the post have to be useful to the OP?'
    Good point. Some sig spammers reply with information (or not) that doesn't address the OP's question. Any of us can be guilty of that by not reading carefully enough, but when the intention appears to be to get the sig in the thread, that looks like a good time to me to remove the sig. If the poster intended to help and just misread the question, s/he shouldn't mind having the sig removed. The complainers are those who care more about the sig than the post content.

    I have seen many threads where false, or incorrect information is given and I know that I like to try and clear it up when I can. Thusly posts may contain useful material that could be considered fluff to some, but not to others. Usually this is called being 'off-topic', but is it sig spam?
    I wouldn't want to penalize anyone for posting what they thought was correct but wasn't. We're all learning. The discussion that follows such posts should clear up any misinformation and provide more information. If the poster posted incorrect information just to get in the thread, though, that's a different situation.

    IMO it isn't off-topic to correct misinformation as long as the thread doesn't go off on a tangent without responding to the OP's question. I don't remember reading the type of thread you're describing, though.

    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #134
    Originally posted by writespeak

    Like the suggested ones posted here?
    That is a good start. I personally would modify #3-4 for webhosts to indicate that it is alright if done in a non-self promotionary way. Most likely by unticking the sig.

    I was actually refering to what appears to be the summarized version, last moded by trip. It is way to general.


    Originally posted by writespeak
    Good point. Some sig spammers reply with information (or not) that doesn't address the OP's question. Any of us can be guilty of that by not reading carefully enough, but when the intention appears to be to get the sig in the thread, that looks like a good time to me to remove the sig. If the poster intended to help and just misread the question, s/he shouldn't mind having the sig removed. The complainers are those who care more about the sig than the post content.
    Yea, but then you put the mod in the position of judging intent, unless you are thinking extremely obvious cases only. Not so much fun. Although if it could be done properly I do believe it would increase the helpfulness of many posts

    Originally posted by writespeak

    IMO it isn't off-topic to correct misinformation as long as the thread doesn't go off on a tangent without responding to the OP's question. I don't remember reading the type of thread you're describing, though.
    The problem with correcting posts is the person correcting may also be wrong, or the person being corrected may come back still thinking they are right. This can lead to OT tangents, which may indirectly relate to the OP.

    I've found misinformation is most often found on topics about poorly understood things, such as which raid configurations lend fastest seek times vs highest throughput, or the more recent peering issue with L3 and cogent. The worst misinfo seems to be presented in company reviews...heated ones.
    Try file hosting at Simpload.com
      0 Not allowed!

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,339
    Originally posted by mythologen
    I was actually refering to what appears to be the summarized version, last moded by trip. It is way to general.
    I'm not terribly familiar with how WHT rules are written, but I would think the more succinct the rule, the better? What might one need to add to make it clearer to the members? Thanks for bring that up myth, it's a good thing to think about.
    ...you put the mod in the position of judging intent...Not so much fun. Although if it could be done properly I do believe it would increase the helpfulness of many posts ...The problem with correcting posts is the person correcting may also be wrong, or the person being corrected may come back still thinking they are right.
    I absolutely agree with that. The challenge is that it all boils down two main avenues of problem resolution: either letting the mods do the "fixing" (in lieu of your comments) or altering signatures properties across the board (as discussed earlier on).

    Tough call, maybe a stripped-down signature combined with moderator action is in order?

    Trip
    Last edited by Trip; 10-16-2005 at 12:40 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by mythologen
    That is a good start. I personally would modify #3-4 for webhosts to indicate that it is alright if done in a non-self promotionary way. Most likely by unticking the sig.
    Good point. The first 2 in the web host section are things that no one should do, but the last 2 are a problem only if the poster has a web hosting site in his/her sig. We should clarify that.

    I was actually refering to what appears to be the summarized version, last moded by trip. It is way to general.
    It has to be general to a point. If we get too specific, we'll leave out something, and some people will find loopholes. But we can work on it.

    I'm waiting to hear what our Leaders have decided. Should we continue putting time into refining this idea? Is this the idea that we're going to use?

    Yea, but then you put the mod in the position of judging intent, unless you are thinking extremely obvious cases only. Not so much fun. Although if it could be done properly I do believe it would increase the helpfulness of many posts
    We wouldn't necessarily need to judge intent, although repeat offenders should learn to expect repeat reactions. If we disable sigs but leave the posts when posters reply with information that doesn't answer the OP's question, only the sig spammers will complain. It shouldn't bother those who are there to help.

    The problem with correcting posts is the person correcting may also be wrong, or the person being corrected may come back still thinking they are right. This can lead to OT tangents, which may indirectly relate to the OP.
    True, but these tangents aren't typical in "Help me find a host" threads.

    The worst misinfo seems to be presented in company reviews...heated ones.
    In those threads, you're getting into opinions, one-sided stories, and so on. But they aren't the problem in "Help me find a host" threads. We can't solve all the problems in this thread.

    But I'm impressed with all the ideas and brainstorming. A lot has come out of this thread.

    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt
      0 Not allowed!

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by writespeak
    I'm impressed too. People are building on each other's ideas, and we have lots of creative energy going.
    Yeah, lots of great ideas for sure. I see the sig pimpers shaking in their shorts.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

  13. #138
    I tried to respond to everything!

    Originally posted by Trip
    I'm not terribly familiar with how WHT rules are written, but I would think the more succinct the rule, the better? What might one need to add to make it clearer to the members?
    Good question. IMO word choice is critical to any summarized rule. Recognizing the need to keep it short and too the point, it is generally helpful to make statements broader(yet specific), to avoid loopholes and increase understanding. As an example, you may consider changing 'useless' to 'unhelpful'. A useless post is much more subjective than an unhelpful one, and clarifies how to follow the rule. There may be an even better word.

    Originally posted by Trip
    Tough call, maybe a stripped-down signature combined with moderator action is in order?
    Ahh, this gave me an idea, but it may require moding of the board, which would mean waiting a while to implement it.

    The thought is that we could limit VB code for everyone under a good amount of posts, 1000 sounds about right to me. A compromise. Then the mods wouldn't have as much of a burden, because older users have more to loose by breaking the rules, and it would make it more difficult for brand new users to pimp effectively. It also makes links in the sig privileges and show that the user practices responsible business.




    Originally posted by writespeak
    We wouldn't necessarily need to judge intent, although repeat offenders should learn to expect repeat reactions.
    If the leaders use the rules you suggested they could make it a fairly objective process! However, as you mentioned in regards to posts trying to correct misinformation, mods might be put in a position to judge the intent of the poster. An objective guideline regarding that would make it very cut & dry.

    (I see there as being two sets of rules presented here, one for mods on how to mod which should be very objective and clear, and one for users on how not to behave, which should be as short and as clear as possible. Both have been provided)

    Originally posted by writespeak
    If we disable sigs but leave the posts when posters reply with information that doesn't answer the OP's question, only the sig spammers will complain. It shouldn't bother those who are there to help.
    I'm sure many well intentioned users see sigs as a benefit and would be rightly upset for an unreasonable removal of it(your motives don't have to be pure for helping someone out, just professional). Removals of sigs could be very discrediting to some. It should be treated with much caution.


    Originally posted by writespeak
    In those threads, you're getting into opinions, one-sided stories, and so on. But they aren't the problem in "Help me find a host" threads. We can't solve all the problems in this thread.
    It is the same prob, OP brought it up actually, mock sympathy. You see people pop in and post "i'm sorry you had a bad experience with host xyz, we hope you will try another host...ps check my sig"
    Try file hosting at Simpload.com
      0 Not allowed!

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by mythologen
    Recognizing the need to keep it short and too the point, it is generally helpful to make statements broader(yet specific), to avoid loopholes and increase understanding. As an example, you may consider changing 'useless' to 'unhelpful'. A useless post is much more subjective than an unhelpful one, and clarifies how to follow the rule. There may be an even better word.
    Excellent idea.

    The thought is that we could limit VB code for everyone under a good amount of posts, 1000 sounds about right to me. A compromise. Then the mods wouldn't have as much of a burden, because older users have more to loose by breaking the rules, and it would make it more difficult for brand new users to pimp effectively. It also makes links in the sig privileges and show that the user practices responsible business.
    Problem is, most of the accused members (who we aren't naming) have a high post count already. A high number of posts does not represent that the member practises responsible business, unfortunately.

    The 2 main ideas in this thread are to put restrictions on sigs and to implement rules against sig spamming. The sig restriction idea has mixed responses, to put it mildly, while everyone who has commented on the rules idea likes it. Aside from that, it's good to make one change at a time so that we can see what effect it's having. If we implement both ideas and they work, we won't know if only one is necessary, and if so, which one. Fewer restrictions are better.

    That's my opinion, anyway. We haven't heard a decision from the Leaders yet.

    If the leaders use the rules you suggested they could make it a fairly objective process! However, as you mentioned in regards to posts trying to correct misinformation, mods might be put in a position to judge the intent of the poster. An objective guideline regarding that would make it very cut & dry.

    (I see there as being two sets of rules presented here, one for mods on how to mod which should be very objective and clear, and one for users on how not to behave, which should be as short and as clear as possible. Both have been provided)
    I see both sets of rules as for everyone. The mods look at the same rules that the members do to decide how to take action.

    I'm sure many well intentioned users see sigs as a benefit and would be rightly upset for an unreasonable removal of it(your motives don't have to be pure for helping someone out, just professional). Removals of sigs could be very discrediting to some. It should be treated with much caution.
    Another excellent point. We'll need to word the rule very carefully.

    It is the same prob, OP brought it up actually, mock sympathy. You see people pop in and post "i'm sorry you had a bad experience with host xyz, we hope you will try another host...ps check my sig"
    Oh, mock sympathy. That's another one to add to the list, but we can't really call it that, can we. Judging actions is easier and fairer than judging intent.

    In addition to the "If you are a web host" list, we could have an "If you have a web host name or link in your signature" list. For example:

    If you have a web host name or link in your signature

    Uncheck the "Show Signature" checkbox for your post (below the "Post Reply" box) if you post anything that comes close to the following:

    - Suggesting a price range or package type that you offer
    - Making general or non-relevant statements that don't add useful information, e.g., "A lot of hosts offer that"
    - Expressing sympathy for the thread starter's situation without including useful information

    If you have any doubts about whether your post may be seen as signature spam, uncheck the "Show Signature" checkbox before you post.

    ---

    What do you think?

    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #140
    Originally posted by writespeak

    Problem is, most of the accused members (who we aren't naming) have a high post count already. A high number of posts does not represent that the member practises responsible business, unfortunately.
    The fact is anyone on a web forum with a high post count is treated with more authority than a new member. They generally have been around long enough that they are known to follow the rules.

    And I bet you every one of them will step back after recieving a warning. They have a lot of time and energy invested. And a lot of customers to loose

    The mods would still have to do their job. But it would be easier.

    Originally posted by writespeak

    The 2 main ideas in this thread are to put restrictions on sigs and to implement rules against sig spamming. The sig restriction idea has mixed responses, to put it mildly, while everyone who has commented on the rules idea likes it. Aside from that, it's good to make one change at a time so that we can see what effect it's having. If we implement both ideas and they work, we won't know if only one is necessary, and if so, which one. Fewer restrictions are better.
    I'm sure either single solution will have positive results, and I personally feel that rules by themselves are a much better solution than sig restrictions, but I feel the combined approach will weild the most effective results. The benefits are more than either of the single approaches, including incentives for members to post(helpfully even).

    The issue with the combined approach is it is fundamentally different from either single approach(different results, different benefits, different restrictions). So knowing if just sig restriction or just rules is necessary after the fact doesn't make a difference, because either by itself would show completely different results. No matter what change(s) you make the effects won't be applicable to any other method.

    I'm all for as few restrictions as possible(realizing I would be restricted under this policy). I just think this would be the best way to accomplish the desired result effectively while maximizing benefits.

    Originally posted by writespeak

    I see both sets of rules as for everyone. The mods look at the same rules that the members do to decide how to take action.
    I'm gonna leave that one to the leaders as well, because it is really a matter of preference on how you like to make your rules.


    Originally posted by writespeak


    What do you think?

    Lois
    I like it!
    Try file hosting at Simpload.com
      0 Not allowed!

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    36,939
    Originally posted by mythologen
    The fact is anyone on a web forum with a high post count is treated with more authority than a new member. They generally have been around long enough that they are known to follow the rules.

    And I bet you every one of them will step back after recieving a warning. They have a lot of time and energy invested. And a lot of customers to loose
    By which facts are you basing that on? As mods, we treat all equally. Some have been cautioned already, but continue to post to show their flashy sig with a "sorry about that" "good luck with your new host" etc.

    I have made some interesting observations in this thread. Those who already have formatted signatures want to keep it. Those who don't, want what is best for WHT and the load on moderators.

    The Liaisons don't see the majority of tickets that admin have to handle on a daily basis. If we start warning them, then we will get irate tickets calling us all kinds of names. These are time consuming in many cases. Some will accept the warning after one reply from admin explaining the situation, but there are others that end up a five page affair

    I would still like to see the no code applied as a trial basis. One month should be a good test. If the same members continue, then we go with the warnings.

    Another thing I have noted, we have had few reports of sig spamming since this thread has been running. It doesn't mean that some aren't still doing it, (I have removed a few sigs today) but some appear to be observing this thread methinks.

    Edit: And you can bet your bottom dollar that if we ran a poll, they (the regular sig spammers), would suddenly appear to vote
    Last edited by anon-e-mouse; 10-16-2005 at 06:58 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
    I have made some interesting observations in this thread. Those who already have formatted signatures want to keep it. Those who don't, want what is best for WHT and the load on moderators.

    Those of us who want what's best for WHT, want an effective methodology to combat sig pimping. Period. It's been said many times in this thread, sig pimping is a behavioural problem, and not a sig formatting problem.
    I would still like to see the no code applied as a trial basis. One month should be a good test.

    As Lois has rightfully stated, that could be an option after the new sig pimping rules have been implemented and enforced. See how the sig pimpers react to those new rules, before taking away our vb code. I'm pretty sure that even without vb code, clickable links in sigs are still possible.
    Another thing I have noted, we have had few reports of sig spamming since this thread has been running. It doesn't mean that some aren't still doing it, (I have removed a few sigs today) but some appear to be observing this thread methinks.
    The sig spammers will no doubt adapt, unless strong rules are introduced, that actually stop sig pimping. That's the objective.

    Slightly off-topic, does anyone know of any other large online community (couple of million posts etc), where they have adapted a similar policy towards sig pimping? It would be interesting to see how they went about implementing and enforcing such a policy.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    49
    Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
    I have made some interesting observations in this thread. Those who already have formatted signatures want to keep it. Those who don't, want what is best for WHT and the load on moderators.

    The Liaisons don't see the majority of tickets that admin have to handle on a daily basis. If we start warning them, then we will get irate tickets calling us all kinds of names. These are time consuming in many cases. Some will accept the warning after one reply from admin explaining the situation, but there are others that end up a five page affair

    I would still like to see the no code applied as a trial basis. One month should be a good test. If the same members continue, then we go with the warnings.
    I agree. Get rid of the flashy stuff, at least on a trial basis to start with.
      0 Not allowed!

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    I should state I wouldn't want to be in the mod's shoes for quids. The amount of behind the scenes work that gets dealt with here, would be staggering. Anything we as a community can do, to lighten that load, should be a priorority. This would be the regulars being extra vigil, in regards to sig pimping, and reporting those posts that we feel violate the new rules. I'm sure there will be no shortage of vigil members willing to help.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    36,939
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    I'm sure there will be no shortage of vigil members willing to help.
    Sadly there is Which leaves the mod viewing a particular thread to have to decide for him/herself if it warrants an "untick sig" or hope that someone will report it for others to make that judgement for them.

    There are some that are reported that I see as grey....I leave it for others to judge. The bottom line is that the sig pimping is taking too much time out of our duties that would be better spent in other areas. We need to trim it and fast!
      0 Not allowed!

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,146
    Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
    We need to trim it and fast!
    Agreed, but what is the holdup?

    I think it has been established that VB code in Sig's is not the problem.
    The problem, with Sig Spam, is the behaviour of certain people who do it.

    Therefore, we need to focus on these certain people or specifc behavioural problems and best way to do that is with a new Rule. One has been suggested and massaged somewhat, which should be a starting point to work further on or institute.

    What are we waiting for?
    PotentProducts.com - for all your Hosting needs
    Helping people Host, Create and Maintain their Web Site
    ServerAdmin Services also available
      0 Not allowed!

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by Website Rob
    . . . What are we waiting for?
    Yeah, let's get the BBQ fired up and the rump steaks on the grill.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,815
    Well, that was certainly a healthy read. I think Trip came up with a fantastic idea, rather early in the thread, which didn't seem to receive any feedback (I certainly didn't see any). Here is what Trip posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip
    My main idea is contingent on the forum being upgraded to vB 3 or higher: Just move all signatures of everyone to a link that appears in the sub-menu that appears when you click a username in a thread (called something like "View User Signature"). When you click it, it could either launch a pop-up window or use some DHTML to display the who signature as a "tool tip"-type pop-up display, as not to disrupt the reading of the thread itself with another page change.
    I think that is a fantastic idea. It doesn't give the moderators any extra work, it allows those of us who like to see what associations members have to still do so, it pleases those who don't want to see signatures, and it will (I'm sure) cut down on signature spamming. Problem solved, it covers almost everything to a decent level, I think that is the perfect solution. I would love to see some feedback from others about this.

    I do have to side though with all the points Bob has brought up, and the others that have supported those points. If Vb code is taken away, it won't be long before we all get used to black and white signatures, and therefore some will still manage to stand out, it won't make a bit of difference in my opinion. I'm open for it to be introduced as a trial (say 2-4 weeks), just as long as WHT is willing to take the right hook that will come with it. Although the poll from 2 years ago suggests otherwise, I do think most would side with keeping Vb code.
      0 Not allowed!

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,339
    Agreed. Delay limiting the sig for now. Fire up the Rule, however specific it needs to be, and apply it ASAP! I think pretty much anyone who cares about the issue has had their say up to this point, so why not try something new starting this weekend?

    Trip
      0 Not allowed!

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Kalamazoo
    Posts
    33,412
    Originally posted by Trip
    . . . I think pretty much anyone who cares about the issue has had their say up to this point . . .
    Looks that way.

    Thanks for everyone's feedback and suggestions.

    We'll get this sorted out.


    Thread Closed.
    There is no best host. There is only the host that's best for you.
      0 Not allowed!

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •