Simple Machines Community Forum

General Community => Site Comments, Issues and Concerns => Topic started by: 青山 素子 on July 17, 2008, 02:36:16 PM

Title: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: 青山 素子 on July 17, 2008, 02:36:16 PM
Due to spammers registering here, not posting anything, and making spam links in their signature, we have had to implement a change in user permissions.

Starting now (17 July 2008), users will not be able to add profile information including a signature until they have made more than 10 posts. In addition, guests to the site will not be able to view any user profile. This second restriction may be lifted in the future.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and blame the spammers who ruin things for everybody.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Nathaniel on July 17, 2008, 05:27:41 PM
I supose that the people with more than 25 posts are now called Semi-Newbie (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=groups;sa=members;group=60), I was wondering why there was a new membergroup, thanks for the explanation.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: SleePy on July 17, 2008, 10:13:39 PM
Yes.

As a note the admins have lowered it to 10 posts.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: aldo on July 18, 2008, 04:46:44 AM
Good, no one likes spam, or at least I don't...
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Hoochie Coochie Man on July 18, 2008, 05:52:57 AM
Good change..
But I really don't like to lifted the second restriction in the future..
Let it be always..
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: [unplugged] on July 20, 2008, 12:11:27 AM
<--- Was wondering about the "semi-newbie" also.  :P
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Nathaniel on July 20, 2008, 12:16:35 AM
I don't know if this happened at the same time but the number of stars seems to jump by two instead of one from "Sr. Member" which has 4 to "Simple Machines Hero" which has 6.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Eliana Tamerin on July 20, 2008, 01:56:29 AM
There's a title in between those two, IIRC.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on July 20, 2008, 11:21:25 AM
Yeah, Sophist Member. :P
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: ccbtimewiz on July 20, 2008, 04:50:50 PM
I was wondering about Semi-Newbie too. xD

Anyways, I personally find it a good idea. No more newb spam.  :P
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Eliana Tamerin on July 20, 2008, 05:34:32 PM
Yeah, Sophist Member. :P

That's it. Been so long since I was there, only three months. :P
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: metallica48423 on July 20, 2008, 11:19:56 PM
Only 8,000 more to go and you too can be a super hero :)

I am glad that people understand the need to keep SMF from becoming a spam depot :)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: lovearat on July 21, 2008, 12:04:03 AM
I think this is a good rule. I hate spam!
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: will on July 30, 2008, 11:05:17 AM
I can understand the reasoning for this rule, but unfortunately I am two posts shy of the required ten posts (only one after this post).  I've had this account for quite a long time and just realized today it is using an old email address (b/c of the automated birthday message), so I need one more post to fix that.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: ♣Lû¢ký¢härm$♥ on August 09, 2008, 08:44:32 PM
Thats a great rule, cuz @ the other smf powerd forums i been 2 are full of users that neva post.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on August 09, 2008, 09:10:19 PM
I can read it. Though, I generally have a dislike for anything other than black on a forum.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: olym2008 on August 17, 2008, 01:04:18 AM
I've know why I can't add profile information.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: wmcintosh on August 20, 2008, 04:50:42 AM
Good, almost thought I'd lost it for a second or two. :P

Those aren't bad to implement, by the way.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: soviman on August 20, 2008, 10:39:14 AM
Good job...
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: pimwiz on August 25, 2008, 05:59:58 AM
Okay, just came back since a long time and wanted to change my email adress... so this is 2/10!
Good thought tho :-)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Oldiesmann on August 27, 2008, 07:41:05 PM
Okay, just came back since a long time and wanted to change my email adress... so this is 2/10!
Good thought tho :-)

If you give us your new email address, we can change it for you now rather than making you wait until you have 10 posts.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: cinestar on August 29, 2008, 12:01:41 PM
Hey guys, I would like to apply this same policy change in my forum, but I cant seem to be able to fin dthe setting on the forum. Do I need a plugin or something? I have serached everywhere and cant seem to be able to find any info on how to do this.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: 青山 素子 on August 29, 2008, 12:25:57 PM
You need to enable permissions for postcount groups. If you need further assistance, make a topic in the support board.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Thantos on August 29, 2008, 12:26:03 PM
Use post based permissions.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: SpoogeBeast on August 31, 2008, 08:17:12 AM
So that explains it! I was going in circles trying to figure out why I couldn't edit my profile. Blame the spammers... :(
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: yollyp on December 18, 2008, 01:55:54 AM
I also hate spammers. How could these charlatans do such a thing and ruin this hi-tech world.  It's easy to conduct diplomacy, but sometimes we run out of it.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Kenny01 on December 27, 2008, 03:15:39 PM
I fully support the rule, but some members only register to be able to read all the boards, because there's no need posting the same question if there question is already answered.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Looking on December 30, 2008, 09:13:38 PM
Now that explains why I cannot edit my signature. I was looking for it all over the place.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Matthew-me on January 26, 2009, 08:46:47 AM
"SPAM" was a terrible thing when it was just a form of canned Pork meat, popular amongst the less well off in the 1970's.

Anything that can be done to reduce the amount of either type in circulation gets my vote :)

Matthew
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: sotoremodelers on February 07, 2009, 03:10:07 PM
ten post seem like a good rule, and i agree with just keeping the profiles limited to members only

it is not difficult to join at all so if someone really wants to read the profiles join.

Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: hygron on February 21, 2009, 04:08:34 PM
Great idea!  It doesn't hurt at all to have members establish themselves before getting total access.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: owcommandpost on February 28, 2009, 01:04:02 PM


Starting now (17 July 2008), users will not be able to add profile information including a signature until they have made more than 10 posts. In addition, guests to the site will not be able to view any user profile. This second restriction may be lifted in the future.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and blame the spammers who ruin things for everybody.
I know this is an old post but I just joined your site today,
and was looking for how to add profile information and this is all I've found
I alaso wanted to say that I TOTALLY agree with the policy.
In fact before converting to SMF I had the same type of policy for much of the same reasons.
I will be looking to bring back our policy like this now that I know it can be done on SMF.
Spammers suck and this is a GREAT tool in determent of those who join just to promote their crap which usually has nothing to do with what your content is.
Just my (http://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii348/OS_09/Emotes/2bits.jpg)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: bosmolskate on March 23, 2009, 03:36:11 PM
I like the anti spammer protection.  I hate when forums are piled up with spammers and their useless info.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: cflforum on April 06, 2009, 02:42:11 PM
I can read it. Though, I generally have a dislike for anything other than black on a forum.

Once you go black, you never go green!
I hate signatures myself..
sometimes they take up the whole page and are annoying to see especially when the user has a 1 line, 4 word post, and a 1/2 page sig with huge graphics.

If I could turn it off I prob would.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on April 06, 2009, 08:22:37 PM
Well, you can. Take a peek in the Look and Layout section of your profile. ;)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: cflforum on April 07, 2009, 10:03:54 AM
Well, you can. Take a peek in the Look and Layout section of your profile. ;)

thanks! found it - forum looks a lot cleaner, loads MUCH faster and is quicker to read... I must admit I miss some signatures (especially your simpsoms,lol) It would have been nice to limit sigs to those on your friends/buddy list... oh well. small price to pay
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on April 07, 2009, 05:08:46 PM
It would have been nice to limit sigs to those on your friends/buddy list... oh well. small price to pay

Heh. Why not post a topic about that in the Feature Requests board, I think it would be nice for something like that in the core feature set.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Frestorm on May 08, 2009, 10:49:45 PM
SMF Customizer - Themes
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: shawblink on May 26, 2009, 04:15:01 AM
About these spams happening on every forums in the internet. Before I don't understand why they "spam" and put useless links. I'm a moderator of multiple forums myself and usually delete these posts in an instant when I see them.

But now I understand why they're doing it. These links with anchor texts are called backlinks they do it to increase the Pagerankings of a certain website. Websites with higher page rankings are often the target of link builders.

Most individuals are getting paid to build link for these website. Some are getting paid per link or paid per hour. So if a post is off topic they just post the links with no other comments I delete them instantly. But if they have a good comment which is related to the topic I let it go(probably give the link a few days like 3-5 days enough time for them to get paid for it).

Some forums or websites allowed placing of website links in the members profile where each member can add multiple anchor text - links in their profile.
Like this website for example: **Removed***

Making this kind of feature allows a member to put those backlinks without having to put them in discussion topics which will look more like a spam. Thus making the discussion clean of spam. And it also helps increase traffic for their website.

This website http://www.simplemachines.org has a page rank of 8/10 (Congratulations!) that's why link builders come here to post their links in the signatures.

To the moderators, please allow my links to be up for a few days and you can delete them afterwards. Thank you!
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: JBlaze on May 26, 2009, 04:45:15 AM
Ha! That is definately a keeper lmao (just remove the links)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on May 26, 2009, 04:52:26 PM
Malformatted links. So this guy FAILS at spamming. :P
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: JM2Chen on May 28, 2009, 11:03:17 AM
Yes. I like the change.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: CarpeDiem on June 05, 2009, 09:22:40 PM
Bit of Trivia:  Spam, the word itself, comes from SPiced hAM, and it's what got a lot of soldiers (some would call them "our boys" or "our fathers") through World War II, since there was no refrigeration for meat out in the battle fields and it was designed to be a self-preserved, easy-opening can that solders could carry in their backpacks with them, since they were sometimes isolated from fresh food for days and weeks and longer (and when you can neither advance nor retreat, or are wounded, AND starving, you eat Spam with gratitude); thus, in this context, Spam was a life saver.  Now, personally, I don't like its original flavor either, especially since I was fed a LOT of it as a kid since my own post-war family in the 40's & 50's couldn't afford much else (it was the cheapest meat you could buy and became a staple of the poor, so you know I'm an old guy too), and in this context it was a primary food source for those of little means (and people were grateful to have it).  However, too much of anything, like fried Spam & eggs, Spam sandwiches in the school lunch box, more Spam for dinner, quickly became a source of dislike and contempt, and then what started out as a life saver and reasonable nourishment became something of disdain.  These days, Spam survives and now comes in a variety of flavors (lean, spicy, extra hot, turkey-based, etc.), though the disdain from too much Spam in the past still clouds it's reputation with those who were forced to eat it after the war.  Currently, the newest types of spam (now no longer with a capital "S") include junk postal mail and unwanted email and bogus or malicious links, and this is the context and purpose of this thread.

Anyway, I was searching and searching for why I could not put in an avatar, but my searches never matched this thread since I was searching for user "avatar" instead of "signature" (my avatar search matched people who were having trouble with using avatars on their own personal SMF websites, but not this current SMF thread), but thank goodness someone finally clued me in to this thread when I asked why I couldn't add an avatar in a new topic elsewhere.

Glad I now finally know why I couldn't find out on my own without help how to add an avatar or signature, etc., in my profile screen like on all the other sites in which I am a forum member; but, quite frankly, IMO newcomers should be told upfront instead of keeping it kind of a secret and making them feel like dummies because they search and search and futilely do not find (well, until they stumble on this thread and learn the "secret handshake", like many have said here).  I know telling newcomers what's going on will clue in the ones who insert malicious links, but the malicious need to be dealt with individually more than dazing and confusing all newbies (and I hope that's a term I can either delete or adjust if I decide to use SMF on my own existing websites, as it's simply pejorative and a put-down).

Now, quite frankly, some (but not all) of the comments in this thread seem to me like off-topic empty blather, similar to elbow-jostling between buddies or what goes on in locker rooms, with little real value to the topic thread or from which newcomers or old-timers will gain much (just upping posting numbers, I assume) -- so I decided to join the jostling blather too, or go off thread, describing where the word "spam" came from in the first place within the 1st paragraph above, in case it adds anything of value about the word people freely throw around (by the way, it's a true history lesson, too!).  Now, to end...

Last, I hate, Hate, HATE the verification on every post.  I have to do it again, and Again, and AGAIN, since I have visual problems (and the "listen" option doesn't work in Firefox with Linux, though I listen to music and watch browser videos with no problem), so it is quite a chore to post with visual verifications demanded over and over (it took me about 12 to 15 times when I first registered to get the right verification code!).  Time to walk to dog again...so I'll stop growling!
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: 青山 素子 on June 05, 2009, 10:37:23 PM
The image verification requirement goes away after ten posts as well, I believe.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: CarpeDiem on June 07, 2009, 03:57:41 PM
Motoko-chan, I see that it is a settable option in my administrator's control panel and it is set to 10 as a default (just like SMF I assume based on what you said), and I am very happy I can adjust it for my users to less than 10 (or even zero) so they are not stumbling around in the dark wondering why they can't find the traditional signature or avatar settings.  Good people on most websites can add avatars and signatures right away, and I neither want to hide the information about 10 posts, nor want these good people to need to post questions in the forum to find out why they cannot find out why avatar and signature settings are hidden (since they'll plainly see others have them).

Because SMF has a minority abusing privileges here, this policy change in this thread makes the majority of new members suffer if they are looking for avatar and signature settings, and I just hate that approach to problems (and it's even worse when the government makes the majority of people be restricted or have less when it gets frustrated dealing with a few).  I say deal with the abusers and don't punish the innocent (though I understand the forum feels there is no other way).  Think creatively!

By the way, since it's URLs that are the offenders, are all the URLs that I see in signatures and descriptions and posts essential to SMF discussions?  I'm not sure they all are.  People sitting in a room together don't need URL's to communicate!  Again, if we were sitting face-to-face talking, we could effectively communicate and understand each other about most forum problems without URLs!  If URLs are the offenders, it's something to consider (besides, most URLs I see here seem like self-promotions having little to do with the discussion at hand).  The key element here in the SMF forum is discussion and/or links to other parts of this same forum (not outside it).  Why not restrict URLs to in-the-house?  Wouldn't that solve much of the problem!

Since you said "I believe" Motoko-chan, I hope the number is really set to 10 here as you suggest, as I've only been able to enter the mystery codes correctly the first time on one occasion (and I have to enter them again, Again, and AGAIN, and it's SO frustrating since I have visual problems and the listen option doesn't work in Firefox on Linux).
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: CarpeDiem on June 07, 2009, 10:57:18 PM
Arantor, you seem to say about the potential lack of URLs I propose, "Very soon the community feels empty, since its only contents are what the people who are posting bring to it", but I disagree with this statement, as this is the very gold that people bring.  It's what people say that's important, not the flags and banners they wave.

You also say "No sharing of ideas from outside, no sharing of funny moments, just purely what each person has to give", but I don't think URLs do that; I think it's in their posts, in the very words that they write, that they do this sharing the most.  "Out there" in URLs is not where I see this happening in what I've seen here thus far.

I agree I don't know how best to handle the URL abusers, but taking hold of the abusers is nearer my heart than being tough on good people (I just hate going that route).

Arantor, I'm not disagreeing with you; I just think you feel that URLs bring more to the discussion than what I see in the SMF forum I've viewed (but you've certainly seen more of the forum than I have, so you're the experienced guide in this interaction and I'm the new scrappy hiker who just joined the trek who is definitely opinionated and questions and questions, and says "Let's go this way", "Let's go that way"...so I'll try to calm down and listen -- while I'm running in place!).
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: SleePy on June 07, 2009, 11:17:27 PM
We are working on a solution to the links issue, but I don't know if it will change profile restrictions.
As a note, these are human spammers. The captcha and other tools SMF has built in to stop spam bots does not work against them.

In the mean time while we work on a solution, please just hang tight.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: JBlaze on June 08, 2009, 07:40:50 AM
The problem is this. This is a huge forum, and we have a limited amount of Team Members that can actively handle spam, etc. The Team is more focused on helping the community with issues, troublshooting, etc.

The point is, I don't disagree with the no-sig-until-you-made-10-posts rule. In fact, I believe you have to earn the right to have a sig. No point in having one if you are going to never post again after say 5 posts.

To get to your point about the Showcase (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=6.0), all posts there have to be approved, so there is no problem with linkage there. All links are checked and sites validated before the post is approved.

On a final note, spammers are the reason why forums, as well as other community-like sites, have to implement such rules. So blame them.

This is just my 2 cents. Take it how you will.

Regards
JB
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: JoeBowlerson on June 30, 2009, 07:51:47 PM
Bummer.
I really wanted to spam here...
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: JBlaze on June 30, 2009, 09:42:51 PM
Bummer.
I really wanted to spam here...

What for?
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: rapvideosguy on July 03, 2009, 12:15:15 AM
Good call. Posting signatures for backlinks has become kinda like blog commenting for some. This really deters the spamming
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Amacythe on July 03, 2009, 01:38:24 AM
Yes, good call... which is why when someone comes along and makes 13 posts (none of which are regarding support for a forum) then promptly edits their profile to include backlinks (to a site which has no forum) their profile is edited by an Admin and said backlinks are removed.

/me sighs
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: JoeBowlerson on July 14, 2009, 03:22:32 PM
Bummer.
I really wanted to spam here...

What for?

Though you may question this, spamming was actually my intention to register! This website has a lot of traffic.

Touche SimpleMachines. Touche.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: MoorMan on July 24, 2009, 02:18:01 AM
Agree with what has been said so far but from a Newbie (to the forum) point of view I agree with CarpeDiem in that new users should be told about the problem when they first register, or will this alert the human spammer ?.  As already stated I too was having problems until I saw this thread, the answer is check the board I suppose.
And Yes this is MY first post.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: kai920 on July 28, 2009, 12:41:33 AM
Starting now (17 July 2008), users will not be able to add profile information including a signature until they have made more than 10 posts. In addition, guests to the site will not be able to view any user profile. This second restriction may be lifted in the future.

Is this possible to duplicate this on our own forums running 2.0 RC1.2? (are any mods required?)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Reflection on July 28, 2009, 12:42:50 AM
Simply use permissions and ranks. Deny users in the "newbie" rank from doing such, and have a rank after it with more posts able to.

EDIT: Quote screwed up.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: kai920 on July 28, 2009, 01:16:31 PM
Thanks, one last quick question... I'd want "Enable permissions for post count based groups" to be on, right?
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: fluin on August 15, 2009, 05:25:27 AM
It need more than 10 posts to be able to add code in signatures. Whatever the rules are just to protect web site from spammers. Therefore it is ok to agree with this rules. ;D
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: DSfirerescue on September 17, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
This very well explains why I have yet to be able to edit my signature.  I am almost to 10 so its good. :D
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: WillyP on September 19, 2009, 10:00:54 PM
I think it's a great idea, and infact have implemented post based restrictions myself, after getting hit by Chris-you-know-who...

Now there is 'no follow' after my links, I assume that is the result of further detterant to spam? Will that go away after some condition is met?
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: chriso29 on September 22, 2009, 12:20:34 PM
25 posts to be a semi-newbie...
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on September 22, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Actually, it's 10.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: DarkLite on September 22, 2009, 03:29:55 PM
I thought we realised it was 10 on the first page? :P
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: DSfirerescue on September 22, 2009, 04:22:21 PM
I thought we realised it was 10 on the first page? :P

I have less then 20 post right now.  It shows i'm a semi newbie.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Gary on September 22, 2009, 04:36:56 PM
It was 25 at first, but it was then swiftly lowered to 10, hence why it's said to be 25 in the first reply, and then 10 in the second.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: DSfirerescue on September 22, 2009, 04:57:47 PM
It was 25 at first, but it was then swiftly lowered to 10, hence why it's said to be 25 in the first reply, and then 10 in the second.

Makes sense. :P

Anyways at least I got everything in before they changed it again, now to just get my post count up again.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Daniel0 on October 15, 2009, 09:56:14 AM
Yes, it will. The [nofollow] stuff is to prevent PageRank being flowed so that even if the link is there, it shouldn't be followed or counted by search engines. When you have more posts it'll go away - for the first few posts it even breaks the URL entirely.

Is that a custom modification you've made on these forums? Would it by any chance be possible to release this publicly?
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Daniel0 on October 15, 2009, 10:24:38 AM
Is there any particular reason why it would not be publicly released, or even added as a default feature? This would be useful to a lot of people as a measure against link spamming. I once tried to do something similar based on the member group permissions, but I never figured out how to do it.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: karlbenson on October 15, 2009, 01:36:13 PM
Hi Daniel0, (Thanks to Sleepy for sending me a PM, pointing me to this topic.)
I wrote it for smf.org when we were getting hammered by human spammers (dozens of them per day)
(and obviously the standard automated defences in most software aren't designed to work against them.)
So rather than putting all the effort at the 'front gate' we've got some inside.

It has 3 levels
- no links
- non-active links
- active links set to [nofollow] (so no pagerank).

It was a bit of an experiment, but it has been quite successful here I think.  (although theres always room for improvements)

I did indicate to the team (Private Topic: Link (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=309418.0) (For teamies reference only) that when I wrote it that I was not planning on releasing it publicly myself (but would allow other teamies to release it either as their own mod or under the Customize Team name.)

Some of the regex's to detect internal (allowed urls) vs external (disallowed urls) were hard-coded, and so it wouldn't be a straight release, but would need some coding either allow the admin to specify the domain or doing it on $boardurl etc.

IIRC someone did possibly indicate they would release it (I'll check into that).
My version did have a few little bugs which IIRC Sleepy fixed.
(So presumably I need to find the updated fixed package and if I can find someone to take it on.)
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Daniel0 on October 16, 2009, 06:50:54 AM
Sounds good. Actually, I think it has enough universal utility to make it worthy of being incorporated into SMF, but I'll let other people decide on that. A modification would also suffice.

Thanks for your response.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: begamo on November 09, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
This is good all members, but bad for spammers.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: chester2009 on December 08, 2009, 12:54:49 AM
they should not blocked spammers because. if they blocked. no one can visit ther site.
bath and body products.
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: wildebeast on December 27, 2009, 10:57:34 PM
great policy - I wonder if the post from 'chester2009' is a spammer that does not get that spammers are hated and that their websites are as irrelevant as they are
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: Antechinus on December 27, 2009, 11:21:23 PM
Obviously. Also a spammer who does not realise that posting text saying "bath and body products' without any associated link is about as smart as a cat trying to bury its droppings on a concrete floor. :D
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: wildebeast on December 27, 2009, 11:38:13 PM
LOL - as an 'uncle' to a crazed cat I can certainly appreciate that analogy
Title: Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
Post by: kat on September 06, 2012, 04:05:25 PM
Due to the fact that some signatures are, now, somewhat on the huge and overly distracting size.

The team has had an argument a discussion about this and the general consensus that an overall size of 600x200 pixels is adequate. That includes all images and text.

We'll give everyone a week, or so, to make reduce their sigs to this size.

After that, any sigs that are bigger will get zapped, without notice.

Let's make it as from Monday the seventeenth of September. (Which is generously more than a week away).

Love'n'kisses,

The SMF team.