Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 150
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
    Useless posts that happen to have a bright shiny signature 4 times larger than the oneliner they post.
    If we stop the useless posts by dealing with the real problem, we won't have to see the bright shiny sigs, and no one else will have to lose out because of the "me first" attitudes of a few.

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

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,566
    ok everybody, grab your earlobes........
    now with me, aawoooooossaaaaaaaaaaa
    Dave
      0 Not allowed!

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by writespeak
    If you start being nice to him in this thread, he might wave at you.
    I am being nice to Dennis. I'm expressing my opinions, Dennis is expressing his. I'm ok with a little friction during the process. It's all good.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    I have to agree, With SWR & Jan, If people were punished for "Sig Pimping" (as aussie bob calls it ) it would make moderators jobs a lot harder and more time consuming.

    If you look at the web hosting forum there is many threads were people just repeat what someone has already said to get there sig in there. There is a few members who seem to do it with every single thread in the WH Forum (Yes its not hard to guess who i am talking about) If someone wants to find out who owns what company/site there is a perfectly fine "Website" button in the bar under every ones name.

    <<and its not too hard just to keep out your sig..... Test>>
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by The Napster
    I have to agree, With SWR & Jan, If people were punished for "Sig Pimping" (as aussie bob calls it ) it would make moderators jobs a lot harder and more time consuming.
    Actually, I think it would be quite easy to moderate such posts if we provided clear guidelines about what is and isn't allowed.

    If someone wants to find out who owns what company/site there is a perfectly fine "Website" button in the bar under every ones name.
    So the sig spammers will become "website button" spammers if everyone starts using that button instead of looking at sigs. We'll still have the spammy posts.

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

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    9,039
    I think reducing signatures to 2 LINES would be a good idea also.

    Its only a signature.... So a name and web address is all thats needed at most?

    4 lines encourages big plugging.... big colours... lots of smilies and before you know it, its bigger than a banner...
    Matt Wallis
    United Communications Limited
    High Performance Shared & Reseller | Managed VPS Cloud | Managed Dedicated
    UK www.unitedhosting.co.uk | US www.unitedhosting.com | Since 1998.
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Originally posted by writespeak
    Actually, I think it would be quite easy to moderate such posts if we provided clear guidelines about what is and isn't allowed.



    So the sig spammers will become "website button" spammers if everyone starts using that button instead of looking at sigs. We'll still have the spammy posts.

    Lois
    Lois, I dont think this thread is addressing "Spammers" i think it is trying to address the thread in the web hosting forum where people are replying just to get there sig in, If you can call it spam but i think its more self promotion, As they are just repeating what someone else has already said.

    Example:
    OP: I need a cpanel host bla bla

    Reply1: is there any reason you want cpanel hosting?
    Sig: *company.com quality plesk hosting since 1945*

    Reply2: Check out the offers forum and the hostquote feature
    Sig: *My cpanel company rocks your sox*

    Reply 3: I agree with Reply 2
    Sig *my company is the best, hosting the worlds since time began*

    And so on

    Correct me if im not understanding?

    Regards,
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Another thought. Both people seeking hosting and the hosts themselves can benefit from informative sigs as long as the posts don't contain fluff. If someone is looking for a specific control panel or hosting in a specific country, for example, it's helpful if hosts who offer that CP or hosting in that country post in that thread -- as long as they post useful information and not fluff.

    If we implement guidelines about what isn't allowed, hosts will still be able to post useful information, and hosting seekers will be able to see who offers what they're looking for. The host seekers will also be able to see who is truly helpful. OTOH, if we remove vB, sigs won't be as informative, and we'll have less useful information in hosting threads. There'll be less incentive for hosts to be helpful.

    Concerning the sigs themselves, I like having 4 available lines and vB. I don't like loudness. Perhaps we could disallow bolding?

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

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by The Napster
    Lois, I dont think this thread is addressing "Spammers" i think it is trying to address the thread in the web hosting forum where people are replying just to get there sig in, If you can call it spam but i think its more self promotion, As they are just repeating what someone else has already said.
    We're talking about the same thing:

    Garbage posts
    Signature spam
    Signature prostitution
    Signature pimping

    I called them "spammy posts" because the sig becomes spam when the post contains nothing useful and is posted just to get the sig in the thread.

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

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Originally posted by writespeak
    Another thought. Both people seeking hosting and the hosts themselves can benefit from informative sigs as long as the posts don't contain fluff. If someone is looking for a specific control panel or hosting in a specific country, for example, it's helpful if hosts who offer that CP or hosting in that country post in that thread -- as long as they post useful information and not fluff.

    If we implement guidelines about what isn't allowed, hosts will still be able to post useful information, and hosting seekers will be able to see who offers what they're looking for. The host seekers will also be able to see who is truly helpful. OTOH, if we remove vB, sigs won't be as informative, and we'll have less useful information in hosting threads. There'll be less incentive for hosts to be helpful.

    Concerning the sigs themselves, I like having 4 available lines and vB. I don't like loudness. Perhaps we could disallow bolding?

    Lois
    Hmmmm, So the webhosting forums can just turn into a place for hosts to reply to threads just to get there sig in? And i can assure you i do see "Fluff" many times a day although it is not obvious but it doesnt take a genius to work it out
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by The Napster
    Hmmmm, So the webhosting forums can just turn into a place for hosts to reply to threads just to get there sig in? And i can assure you i do see "Fluff" many times a day although it is not obvious but it doesnt take a genius to work it out
    No, not at all. That's what we're working to prevent. I see a lot of fluff too, which is why I'm in this thread.

    But let's say that Member A wants hosting with servers in Country X. Host B, who has servers in Country X, provides informative answers to Member A's questions about hosting in that country. Shouldn't Host B be allowed to have an informative sig with such posts? Shouldn't Member A be allowed to see it?

    Or let's say that Member A wants hosting with control panel Y. If hosts that offer control panel Y post fluff, we'll remove their sigs and perhaps their posts. But if they provide informative answers about control panel Y, their posts stay, and the posts and sigs add value to the thread.

    The above is if we implement this suggestion.

    What I'm saying is that I don't think we should take away the ability for host seekers and hosts to benefit from sigs when the hosts post useful information.

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

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    1,889
    Sigs should be confined to two lines and none of this promotional nonsense like "Multple domain hosting" "UNMETERED BANDWIDTH" "Fantastico Included!!" "PHP, Zend, <insert 30 more features here>" etc.

    Stripping vb tags is not a bad idea as well.
      0 Not allowed!

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Originally posted by writespeak
    No, not at all. That's what we're working to prevent. I see a lot of fluff too, which is why I'm in this thread.

    But let's say that Member A wants hosting with servers in Country X. Host B, who has servers in Country X, provides informative answers to Member A's questions about hosting in that country. Shouldn't Host B be allowed to have an informative sig with such posts? Shouldn't Member A be allowed to see it?

    Or let's say that Member A wants hosting with control panel Y. If hosts that offer control panel Y post fluff, we'll remove their sigs and perhaps their posts. But if they provide informative answers about control panel Y, their posts stay, and the posts and sigs add value to the thread.

    The above is if we implement this suggestion.

    What I'm saying is that I don't think we should take away the ability for host seekers and hosts to benefit from sigs when the hosts post useful information.

    Lois
    Lois,
    Can you define this as a useful post or is it "Fluff"

    OP: Need Host with cpanel

    Reply: Check offers section
    << company rocks, Flashy sig>>

    When there is clearly a sticky in that forum saying you should look at the offers section and check out the hostquote feature.
      0 Not allowed!

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by vito
    I tend to agree with Bob. Yes, VB code will make the sig stand out more, and so that might encourage the sig whores to post with even more ferver. However, even with a single line sig, if allowed, they will still prostitute themselves at every opportunity.
    Exactly. Removing vb code will not address the real problem.

    Why won't it address the problem?

    The problem is members posting in commericially sensitive threads, for the sole purpose of displaying their sig, for possible commercial gain. Now the sig will still be there, with or without vb code. Removing the vb code does not remove the inappropriate post, for the specific intent of displaying their sig.

    So we need to remove the sig completely, if it is deemed that the specific intent of the member was to post so as to display the sig. This addresses the heart of the problem. Whether that sig displayed has vb code or not, is irrelevant. The sig is still there, being displayed in a commerically sensitive thread, whereby the sig pimper can gain a possible commercial advantage from.

    Therefore, it is my firm resolve that removing the vb code from a sig, that was posted with the specific intent to display their sig, will not solve this problem. Sig pimpers aren't going to stop sig pimping, just because they can't have vb code in their sig. The vb code is not the culprit. It's the poster's intent, and subsequent sig being displayed, that is the problem.

    Lois's post has ideas that will powerfully combat sig pimping.

    I really want to believe that the Leaders will listen to the community, and not just a quick thread here, and their discussion in the "executive boardroom".

    I want to believe.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by The Napster
    Can you define this as a useful post or is it "Fluff"

    OP: Need Host with cpanel

    Reply: Check offers section
    << company rocks, Flashy sig>>

    When there is clearly a sticky in that forum saying you should look at the offers section and check out the hostquote feature.
    It's clearly fluff. From the suggested announcement/sticky:

    If you are looking for hosting

    To find a host, you can:

    - Search the Offers section of this forum [link to the relevant Offers forum]

    If you are a web host

    - You may not repeat the above advice.
    Lois
    "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." – Theodore Roosevelt
      0 Not allowed!

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Originally posted by writespeak
    It's clearly fluff. From the suggested announcement/sticky:



    Lois
    So how about Disabling sigs in the webhosting forum? That shoudnt be that hard.

    Regards,
      0 Not allowed!

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,876
    So how about Disabling sigs in the webhosting forum? That shoudnt be that hard.
    That'd require a software hack, and it's been said that they're not hacking anything until the vb3 upgrade.
      0 Not allowed!

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    North of some border
    Posts
    5,613
    Originally posted by The Napster
    So how about Disabling sigs in the webhosting forum? That shoudnt be that hard.
    That wouldn't be my preference. See this post.

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

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    36,939
    It isn't just the webhosting forum, it is dedi, colo, reseller, T&S, E-Commerce etc....they go where they can sig spam the most
      0 Not allowed!

  20. #95
    I think something has to be done, theres do doubt about that.

    I thinkin this thread, there are a lot of useful points.

    I think a combination could be tried, remove VBcode (maybe say if the spammyness stops it may come back), and impliment new rules.

    I know that theres no new hacks, but if the upgrade happens anytime soon, maybe a hack could be added for stock replies... such as

    "We will try our best to help you find a host, however hosts on thease forums are not allowed to reply to you. Please see the sticky here (add link).

    You can search the fourms, the offers section and also use the hostquote system at the top of the forum.

    Thankyou for using WHT"

    and with that hack, when someone selects the quick reply it posts if from say WHT-members but the post count is added to the member that posted it. With the post count going up, please will use it, but they wont be advertising anything and will mearly be working as a 'bot' as such.
    Note to self: Add something funny!
    Search is your friend!
      0 Not allowed!

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    36,939
    Originally posted by tree-host
    I think a combination could be tried, remove VBcode (maybe say if the spammyness stops it may come back), and impliment new rules.
    When you get people in #wht bragging that they get 85-99% referrers from their signature at WHT, it is a problem. Disabling bbcode means that if they are going to get visits, someone has to take their time to copy and paste the URL. The novelty of posting for the sake of exposing the signature will soon wear off
      0 Not allowed!

  22. #97
    Wow, before i changed my sig, i had 1 person some to our site, and then i didnt take him as a client as i had, not on purpose, self promoted. Instead i took my warning (after i asked about it as i iddnt think i had done self promoted, but i jsut wasnt checking properly) and helped him find another host.

    If hosts want to promote, they should use hostquote, somepeople says they get bad conversions off it, but we got a good 60% conversion from it, mainly because of the way we answered them. (and no im not telling you how)

    WHT is a community not a Bill Board for adverts!

    Maybe you could ban off site URLs from sigs full stop (so people can still link to search and the like)
    Note to self: Add something funny!
    Search is your friend!
      0 Not allowed!

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766
    Well here's the quick and dirty take by me on the subject.

    Personally I enjoy having my sig, but even mroe I enjoy having the sigs of other people on the boards. I would like to see vb code and 4 lines stay because it adds a bit of "flash" to the forum for me. Maybe this is just because I frequent quite a few boards with huge avatars, images in sigs, long user tites, rep, etc... displayed and I enjoy it. I know that is not the view of most people on this board, but it's what I enjoy.

    If the VB code was removed I would miss it, but it wouldn't make a huge difference to me. I also don't see it making much of a difference in sig spamming either. One thing that I think might actually help (if nothing else it will help in identifying sig pimpers) would be to change that cute little checkbox from being checked by default to being unchecked by default without the ability for the user to override the option (not sure if this would require a hack or not).

    In any event if that happened then we'd know when the sig was placed in the post on purpose. I personally try to avoid posting in threads such as "where can I find XXX for YYY with ZZZ" because I do not want to come off looking like a troll. WHT is very low on my list of where customers come from even, but none the less I like to keep at least a somewhat professional looking appearnce on the boards.

    We'll that's my two cents, take it as you would like

    /me goes to grab webhostingtalkdemocracy.com and turn it into the biggest WHT research lab in existance (being the only one that should be easy).
      0 Not allowed!

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    49
    Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
    Maybe signatures are just more noticeable now.

    What if we went back to the signatures that didn't allow vb code?

    When we introduced hyperlinking and colors, it was on a trial basis.

    Maybe the perception of sig spamming is due to signatures being more noticeable?
    I'll take one of those! No vb code. No colours. No links (profiles have a link already dammit!). One line only. The rest is annoying fluff that has turned posting on WHT in to just a game for many. Bring the discussions back.
      0 Not allowed!

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
    When you get people in #wht bragging that they get 85-99% referrers from their signature at WHT, it is a problem. ]

    Why is it a problem that WHT members get referrers from their WHT sig? Maybe someone can explain how that is so wrong?
    Disabling bbcode means that if they are going to get visits, someone has to take their time to copy and paste the URL. The novelty of posting for the sake of exposing the signature will soon wear off
    Even with removing vb code, I think that clickable urls will still work in sigs. They just won't have any formatting, or be under a text link. I think they will still function as a stand alone url. If memory serves me correct, vb code has always been allowed in WHT sigs. Color was allowed around 2 years back, but I don't think vb code was added then.

    As far back as I can remember (around Sep 2001) vb code was allowed in the sigs, but just no color or smilies. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Chicken, where are you?

    IMO, removing vb code from sigs will be taking away from the community, and not improving the community. Some would beg to differ, but that's my take on things.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up
      0 Not allowed!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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