Suggestion: minimum post count before links are allowed in a sig

[robbieduncan]

I've seen quite a few newbie posters posting irrelevant content to thread which has no apparent purpose, other than getting the link(s) in their signature onto a high-traffic site like this one. For example the posts by this user.

To prevent this I'd suggest a minimum post count before links can be added to signatures. Say 100 posts or something like that?

 

[iBlue]

That's not a bad idea. A lot of "subtle" spam is done that way - a relatively harmless but mostly pointless post with a dubious signature link. I'd say maybe more like ~30 posts may suffice though, not everyone can maintain such posting proclivities.

 

[Unspoken Demise]

I support this motion.
However, it might lead to spamming just to unlock "Sig Link" privelages.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I would like this as it would also prevent newbies from coming here with an eBay auction link in their sig.

 

[sushi]

I like the idea and 100 posts seems reasonable.

 

[MacDawg]

I am not familiar enough with vBulletin to know how easily this could be implemented, but I would not be opposed. I don't know how much of an issue it is, but if it helps to reduce irrelevant posting, then I support it.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I'd support that idea... It seems like it's been getting more prevalent lately, but in a subtle way. Almost like how a cellphone is branded with a carrier's logo- just enough to be noticeable.
__________________
Let me spam my website!

 

[fireshot91]

I am not familiar enough with vBulletin to know how easily this could be implemented, but I would not be opposed. I don't know how much of an issue it is, but if it helps to reduce irrelevant posting, then I support it.

IIRC, it's not that hard to implement it.

Ah, back in the day when I was a mod (Of another site of course, not here)

 

[dejo]

For example the posts by this user.

Hey, robbie. That link doesn't seem to be working.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

If you do find this you should use the report post function!

Don't link to the search results with the search id because those expire too. Go to their profile and copy the link from there.

(Is it this guy?)

 

[Heb1228]

I link to my sites to boost google rankings, but I try to make it inconspicuous with small type/no colors, etc...

But I think a 50 or 100 post requirement would be a good idea.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

I link to my sites to boost google rankings, but I try to make it inconspicuous with small type/no colors, etc...

MR uses nofollow BTW.

I do like using in my sig

 

[Unspoken Demise]

Just throwing this out there, what if there were a post count requirement for signatures, period? That way, the only way to advertise would be through spamming, which can be easily reported, and the context of your posts.

 

[-aggie-]

Hmm....you know what's going to happen if you have a post count for signatures? You penalize those who don't spam, and the spammers are just going to write as many posts as they can think of to get to the limit. So, you get a whole bunch more needless posts than we would normally have. Just sayin'.

 

[Teh Don Ditty]

I like this idea.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

Hmm....you know what's going to happen if you have a post count for signatures? You penalize those who don't spam, and the spammers are just going to write as many posts as they can think of to get to the limit. So, you get a whole bunch more needless posts than we would normally have. Just sayin'.

If there was something like you had to be a member for 1 month and have 30 posts (like the marketplace) then that could help curve the spamming. That is only 1 post per day.

 

[-aggie-]

If there was something like you had to be a member for 1 month and have 30 posts (like the marketplace) then that could help curve the spamming. That is only 1 post per day.

That would be better....i.e., having a time limit and not just having a post count limit.

 

[SilentPanda]

I recently joined another forum (gasp!) and you are not allowed to post links in your posts until you have made 5 posts. It was somewhat frustrating but I got past the 5th post and all was well. 5 posts doesn't seem like a lot but it's a forum I'll probably read much more than post. I imagine it'll take me much longer than a month to get anywhere near 30. Most people that had the same frustration simply posted things like "www. somepage .com" or whatever.

Usually if somebody is blatantly spamming they are cleaned up shortly after they are reported. From a moderation standpoint it's almost better to have the spam link in the signature instead of the post because people are less likely to quote the signature. If we remove all the posts of a user and the link is only in their signature then we can generally be sure that the link has not been quoted and we don't need to do additional cleanup. If the link is in the post though then we need to go through posts made after theirs to make sure nobody quoted the link either.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

That would be better....i.e., having a time limit and not just having a post count limit.

If you just have a time limit and no post count limit though you would have someone make a account then leave 6 months then come back again

 

[-aggie-]

If you just have a time limit and no post count limit though you would have someone make a account then leave 6 months then come back again

That's not what I said. I said a time limit and not just a post count (i.e, a time limit and a post count....that's how I read it...).

 

[iOrlando]

i have mixed feeling about that notion.

i dont find these links to be too much in the way to really bother me. If anything, I might even click on random links (if i have the time) just to see what they are selling or are about or are promoting.

i would agree with limiting the size of links to say a minimal font size or something.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

This would be a good idea. It seems quite a few start threads for no apparent reason. Also, when making a new account, the absolute first thing I would do, would not be to make an elaborate sig advertising my other website.

 

[Doctor Q]

This is a reasonable idea and I think it's technically possible.

One concern: It may hurt the iPhone and iPod touch application developers who announce products in the App Store forum, since they often include their links in a signature for the benefit of potential users of their apps.

So, as is often the case, there's a tradeoff involved.

One thing is for certain: If a member is posting only to spread their signature links around the forums, they should be reported to the moderators since that's against forum rules.

 

[philbeeney]

The OP could always turn signatures off in the USER CP "Thread Display Options" within their profile. I have avatars and signatures turned off so the problem doesn't impact me.

How many other forum members are the same? If 75% of them have signatures turned off, then I don't see it being that much of an issue.

 

[robbieduncan]

Hey, robbie. That link doesn't seem to be working.

Probably because I reported the guy for sig-link-spam and they've been removed