Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 55
  1. #1

    WHT Signature rules need to be updated

    Signatures:
    Must be setup in your profile, and not manually added to your messages.
    May not contain any pricing, plan, sales, etc. details.
    May contain a maximum of two smilies. Or one animated smiley.
    May include two clickable links.
    May include two colors, plus black.
    Maximum font size cannot be larger than normal.
    Must be kept to a maximum of four lines (at 1024x768 resolution).
    May not contain links to other threads or posts.
    Please keep special characters to a minimum.
    Your signature is your signature. It is not for sale or rent.
    Any signature that is offensive or insulting to WHT, its members, or its staff, is prohibited.
    We reserve the right to ask you to change and/or remove your signature at any time, for any reason.
    You guys need to add the following

    - No Affliate links
    - No Links to free hosts

    Are there any other rules missing?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Oneida, NY
    Posts
    2,842
    Personally, I believe that the 2 clickable links rule is a pain in the butt. If we can keep our signature at 4 lines or less and still have more links, I really don't see the big concern. But, I'm not the rule makers, just the rule follower
    Nick Hudson - Prevail Host LLC - http://www.prevail.host/
    Premium Quality cPanel Hosting Services - CloudLinux, LiteSpeed & SSD
    WHMControl - Secure Your Server Logins & Automate Password Changes

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    34,793
    Quote Originally Posted by perpetual
    - No Affliate links
    You may not post commission, referral or affiliate links anywhere on the forum.
    - No Links to free hosts
    May not contain any pricing, plan, sales, etc. details.

    If you don’t like the road you’re walking on, start paving a new one.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick H
    Personally, I believe that the 2 clickable links rule is a pain in the butt. If we can keep our signature at 4 lines or less and still have more links, I really don't see the big concern. But, I'm not the rule makers, just the rule follower
    i agree

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,858
    Links to free hosts shouldn't be banned. The word "Free" shouldn't be allowed, but if there's no mention of price, it should be just fine.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    34,793
    Quote Originally Posted by ub3r
    Links to free hosts shouldn't be banned. The word "Free" shouldn't be allowed, but if there's no mention of price, it should be just fine.
    Yup, they can have a link to their free hosting so long as they don't mention free
    If you don’t like the road you’re walking on, start paving a new one.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick H
    Personally, I believe that the 2 clickable links rule is a pain in the butt. If we can keep our signature at 4 lines or less and still have more links, I really don't see the big concern. But, I'm not the rule makers, just the rule follower
    Umm no. This would invite people to use WHT to increase their link popularity in search engines by linking to all their sites:

    A B C D E F G H I ... you get the point

    And personally, I think using Arial Black as the font in your signature (like you did) SHOULD violate the rule: Maximum font size cannot be larger than normal.
    InterNich LLC
    Founder

    Bringing you PicResize.com (More than 95 million pictures resized since 2005)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Derry, Ireland
    Posts
    1,550
    I think the rules are strict enough

    Like anon said, they do already ban affiliate links and the word free so both of your suggestions are already in place

    I don't see a reason for not allowing links to free hosts though...the word free and pricing is banned, but why ban all links to free hosts?
    John Diver
    CanaryHotspot.com - Canary Island forum and information
    InternationalChatForum.com - International Travel Chat Forum and information

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,641
    IF you are saying that "Free" isnt allowed at all in sigs, there are gonna be a flood of tickets. I have seen quite a few sigs that have "Free" in them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,568
    Can robots even see links in sigs? I thought I had seen this brought up here before and remember somebody saying they cant see them.
    Dave

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Why would bots not be able to see signatures? Bots simply see the page output. They don't care whether it's a signature or not. If the rest of the page's text is indexed, so is the sig
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,858
    I think the showing of signatures for logged-out users was once turned off. I could be wrong though.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Derry, Ireland
    Posts
    1,550
    It is totally blocked for spiders on SP (Sitepoint), but WHT doesn't block it at all
    John Diver
    CanaryHotspot.com - Canary Island forum and information
    InternationalChatForum.com - International Travel Chat Forum and information

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Oneida, NY
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Nich
    And personally, I think using Arial Black as the font in your signature (like you did) SHOULD violate the rule: Maximum font size cannot be larger than normal.
    The font size didn't change in my sig -- just the font
    Nick Hudson - Prevail Host LLC - http://www.prevail.host/
    Premium Quality cPanel Hosting Services - CloudLinux, LiteSpeed & SSD
    WHMControl - Secure Your Server Logins & Automate Password Changes

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    156
    Rules are Rules.. !

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Oneida, NY
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by markov
    Rules are Rules.. !
    You mean like the "No Fluff" rule that you are close to violating
    Nick Hudson - Prevail Host LLC - http://www.prevail.host/
    Premium Quality cPanel Hosting Services - CloudLinux, LiteSpeed & SSD
    WHMControl - Secure Your Server Logins & Automate Password Changes

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    11,686
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pm
    Why would bots not be able to see signatures? Bots simply see the page output. They don't care whether it's a signature or not. If the rest of the page's text is indexed, so is the sig
    They could be referring to the archive where, in fact, no signature is shown.

    I was under the impression, as well, that signatures weren't shown to bots. It's not that hard to distinguish between bot and real person and put conditionals in there
    WHMCS Guru - WHMCS addons, management, support and more.
    WHMCS Notifications Extended - Add slack, hipchat, SMS, pushover to WHMCS !!
    Always looking for Linux, WHMCS, Support Desk work. PM for details

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pm
    Why would bots not be able to see signatures? Bots simply see the page output. They don't care whether it's a signature or not. If the rest of the page's text is indexed, so is the sig
    Like I say, I thought this was something that had been brought up before. Look at what ub3r said then look what linux-tech had said. Not something I would of mentioned if I knew were impossible to make sigs invisible for the bots.
    With your known background in web-design you should know if something like this is impossible or possible before throwing your question "Why would bots not be able to see signatures?" by an answer or fact to you that is not entirely true.
    Dave

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    682
    You can add rel="nofollow" to links in the signature to stop Google from counting them towards the page's ranking.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by namelayer
    Like I say, I thought this was something that had been brought up before. Look at what ub3r said then look what linux-tech had said. Not something I would of mentioned if I knew were impossible to make sigs invisible for the bots.
    With your known background in web-design you should know if something like this is impossible or possible before throwing your question "Why would bots not be able to see signatures?" by an answer or fact to you that is not entirely true.
    But...signatures are right there. I suppose we could have a theoretical discussion about what would happen if signatures weren't shown to guests...but they are...so...that's what we have to talk about

    How do you distinguish between a bot and a real person and insert a conditional? Oh, some bots are kind enough to identify themselves and allow you to do this, but the majority do not. How do you identify a bot that doesn't identify itself? Or I should say, how do you do it in a practical sense? I have sites that may get a dozen search engine bots visit in a day, along with a couple thousand unidentified bots, which I can only distinguish later because they drop spam into my logs. If you have a solution for how to distinguish those visitors as bots and only offer up a portion of the page's content, I'd love to hear it. Seriously, I would! I could fight back pretty hard on the log spammers if there was a way to do this. I would set up spider traps, but I'm a little leery about making an .htaccess file 777.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,568
    I am pretty sure that just about every member here knows that you cant block every bot but just bots in general.

    Please rethink your reply to my statement just made.

    Again, we all know you cant block every bot but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
    I am talking about something that I had thought At One Time that sigs were blocked from bots/spiders. Never said Every Spider.
    Quote of the day
    "At one time......"
    Dave

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by namelayer
    Can robots even see links in sigs? I thought I had seen this brought up here before and remember somebody saying they cant see them.
    I was just reacting to this statement, about whether bots can see links in signatures. If someone said bots can't, they're wrong, unless neither bots not human visitors can see the signatures at all. My statement is accurate, and it's not directed against you. It's directed toward whoever first said bots were prevented from seeing links for whatever reason.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pm
    If someone said bots can't, they're wrong, unless neither bots not human visitors can see the signatures at all. My statement is accurate...
    Ok it may not be towards me but I still am in question about your assumption. I dont want to put words in your mouth but are you saying that there could never be a hack or code to disallow a majority of SE bots prevented from seeing certain parts or links of a page?
    Dave

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by namelayer
    Ok it may not be towards me but I still am in question about your assumption. I dont want to put words in your mouth but are you saying that there could never be a hack or code to disallow a majority of SE bots prevented from seeing certain parts or links of a page?
    Nope. I'm not saying that at all. You can program a site to treat distinguished UAs, such as those used by SE bots a certain way. I'm saying the vast majority of UAs, I'd reckon 90-95%, are not distinguishable from human visitor UAs (many are spoofed), and therefore, the vast majority of bots cannot be served up content that differs from what human visitors are supposed to see.

    Furthermore, you, as the programmer, are at the mercy of the bot creator, SE or otherwise, in terms of how you program your site to recognize a string. And lastly, most SEs will ban sites that serve up content to their bots that differs from what regular visitors see, if the infraction is reported. This is a big no-no. So, you can alter your site's contents to suit a small number of bots, and because of the nature and importance of that small number, it is a bad idea to attempt it
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pm
    Nope. I'm not saying that at all. You can program a site to treat distinguished UAs, such as those used by SE bots a certain way. I'm saying the vast majority of UAs, I'd reckon 90-95%, are not distinguishable from human visitor UAs (many are spoofed), and therefore, the vast majority of bots cannot be served up content that differs from what human visitors are supposed to see.

    Furthermore, you, as the programmer, are at the mercy of the bot creator, SE or otherwise, in terms of how you program your site to recognize a string. And lastly, most SEs will ban sites that serve up content to their bots that differs from what regular visitors see, if the infraction is reported. This is a big no-no. So, you can alter your site's contents to suit a small number of bots, and because of the nature and importance of that small number, it is a bad idea to attempt it
    I am 100% sure I can do this in vB Without getting banned by the big SE's And its a very simple mod to do. Will I do this to my forums? No, Have no need to. Its just a hint to you that it could be done properly.

    -Enjoy
    Dave

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by namelayer
    I am 100% sure I can do this in vB Without getting banned by the big SE's And its a very simple mod to do. Will I do this to my forums? No, Have no need to. Its just a hint to you that it could be done properly.

    -Enjoy
    Yes, ~5% of bot traffic could trigger different site content, assuming their programmers were merciful to you and never touched their UA string settings.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ferenginar
    Posts
    4,156
    Quote Originally Posted by John D
    I think the rules are strict enough
    Agreed.

    Web hosts will cry foul at what I'm about to suggest, so brace yourselves.

    Why not get rid of sigs all together? See I told you you'd hate it
    What's your budget?

    Seriously, what's your budget?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by RossMAN
    Agreed.

    Web hosts will cry foul at what I'm about to suggest, so brace yourselves.

    Why not get rid of sigs all together? See I told you you'd hate it
    That's been suggested more than a few times in the past, and you'd be surprised how many people are ok with the idea (I don't think the majority, but more than you probably would guess).

    I like signatures. They're nifty. But I wouldn't think twice about it if the community voted to remove them and the leaders agreed.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    9,037
    Notice its always the people with the crappiest signatures trying to get the rules relaxed... you gotta laugh at some peoples sig's.

    Personally I think it should be a 2 line limit with a single link and no styles... I.e. a real signature which can say who you are and who you represent.

    Some peoples are like big banner adverts!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ferenginar
    Posts
    4,156
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pm
    That's been suggested more than a few times in the past, and you'd be surprised how many people are ok with the idea (I don't think the majority, but more than you probably would guess).

    I like signatures. They're nifty. But I wouldn't think twice about it if the community voted to remove them and the leaders agreed.
    That's great, I didn't know that. It doesn't surprise me there would be so much opposition. I've actually discovered quite a few hosts from their WHT sigs, so they do serve some purpose.

    If you're going to have such strict sig rules (yes they are strict and I understand why) why not go whole hog? Standard size 10 or 12, no colors, no smileys, no colors just simple black text with hyperlinks.
    What's your budget?

    Seriously, what's your budget?

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    34,793
    Quote Originally Posted by RossMAN
    Standard size 10 or 12, no colors, no smileys, no colors just simple black text with hyperlinks.
    Standard size is already a rule, but I would agree with rest Some threads I get blinded by all the different colour combinations and clashing smileys Not something that makes me want to click any signature link.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Darwin, Australia
    Posts
    1,333
    The problem as I see it isn't sigs to boost your PR, I see it as being the same old crew who haunt the web hosting and reseller forums with "what are your requirements" "try the search function "thanks for the review" when infact what they are really saying is "look at my sig".

    These members are a miniscule percentage. I would go as far as it's the same 20-30 members doing it all the time. Most people here would know the members I am talking about.
    Graham Craig

    "IT'S NOT HOW GOOD YOU ARE, IT'S HOW BAD YOU WANT IT."

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,568
    Being here since 02 I know exactly who you are talking about. If my sig was made for sig spam I would definately have many more posts then I have now.
    I am just an honest member
    Dave

  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by namelayer
    Being here since 02 I know exactly who you are talking about. If my sig was made for sig spam I would definately have many more posts then I have now.
    I am just an honest member
    Sometimes I wish a little bit of your honesty would rub off on others
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Derry, Ireland
    Posts
    1,550
    The problem as I see it isn't sigs to boost your PR, I see it as being the same old crew who haunt the web hosting and reseller forums with "what are your requirements" "try the search function "thanks for the review" when infact what they are really saying is "look at my sig".
    I haven't been to any of those forums in well over 6 months so haven't noticed it myself

    I think sigs are a good part of a forum to be honest though, doesn't make much difference for me though, poker isn't a big thing for hosts and site owners
    John Diver
    CanaryHotspot.com - Canary Island forum and information
    InternationalChatForum.com - International Travel Chat Forum and information

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ferenginar
    Posts
    4,156
    Quote Originally Posted by SSHocker
    The problem as I see it isn't sigs to boost your PR, I see it as being the same old crew who haunt the web hosting and reseller forums with "what are your requirements" "try the search function "thanks for the review" when infact what they are really saying is "look at my sig".

    These members are a miniscule percentage. I would go as far as it's the same 20-30 members doing it all the time. Most people here would know the members I am talking about.
    I've noticed that more and more in the VPS forum. The other day a n00b posted a thread asking some pointed questions, 2 smaller unknown VPS providers replied stating to search the forums and best of luck.

    With their VPS offerings proudly displayed in their sigs, WTF???
    What's your budget?

    Seriously, what's your budget?

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    34,793
    It goes on daily in many forums RossMAN, quite a bit of moderator time is taken on that practice
    If you don’t like the road you’re walking on, start paving a new one.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by RossMAN
    I've noticed that more and more in the VPS forum. The other day a n00b posted a thread asking some pointed questions, 2 smaller unknown VPS providers replied stating to search the forums and best of luck.

    With their VPS offerings proudly displayed in their sigs, WTF???
    It appears that many go around the no-self-advertising rule by ostensibly letting the signature do the job But if a rule were in place, you'd probably see more than 50% of members guilty of such a thing
    •• PolurNET Communications••
    █ Avoid the Freeze, Enjoy the Breeze! █ A federally incorporated Canadian company at your service since 2004
    Proudly #1 on WebHostingJury and #1 on NamePros.com, the largest domain forum on the web!
    US/UK VPS+ @ ExcellentHost Enterprises || MSSQL 2008/IIS7 @ HostOptima.com || PremiumHost.com soon!

  39. #39
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by PolurNET
    It appears that many go around the no-self-advertising rule by ostensibly letting the signature do the job But if a rule were in place, you'd probably see more than 50% of members guilty of such a thing
    You mean like the first bullet point on the WHT Rules page that specifically addresses this behavior?

    Signature Spam (a post that was made in hopes of showing a signature, as determined by moderators) is forbidden in all forum categories.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    283
    Ah well, there you go Now, just the need to enforce it, despite so many threads daily!

    Enter: The Sig Patrol™
    Last edited by PolurNET; 10-13-2006 at 09:33 AM.
    •• PolurNET Communications••
    █ Avoid the Freeze, Enjoy the Breeze! █ A federally incorporated Canadian company at your service since 2004
    Proudly #1 on WebHostingJury and #1 on NamePros.com, the largest domain forum on the web!
    US/UK VPS+ @ ExcellentHost Enterprises || MSSQL 2008/IIS7 @ HostOptima.com || PremiumHost.com soon!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •