Advertisement:

Author Topic: Policy Change: User Signatures  (Read 268084 times)

Offline Gary

  • Lead Customizer
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 17,317
  • Gender: Male
  • So this is the luck of the draw...
    • Gazmanafc on Facebook
    • garygadsdon on LinkedIn
    • @Gazmanafc on Twitter
    • The Bongo Comics Fan Forum
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2009, 04:52:26 PM »
Malformatted links. So this guy FAILS at spamming. :P

Offline JM2Chen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Gender: Male
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2009, 11:03:17 AM »
Yes. I like the change.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 11:09:34 AM by ChenJM »
I like Simple Machines Forum

Offline CarpeDiem

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #42 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!
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 12:53:53 PM by CarpeDiem »

Offline 青山 素子

  • Server Team
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 17,020
  • 戦場ヶ原、蕩れ!
    • srvrguy on GitHub
    • @motokochan on Twitter
    • Nekomusume Moe
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2009, 10:37:23 PM »
The image verification requirement goes away after ten posts as well, I believe.
Motoko-chan
Director, Simple Machines

Just because it's pouring down doesn't mean we're gonna drown. There's a time when all you can say is let it rain - Mat Kearney (Let It Rain)

Note: Unless otherwise stated, my posts are not representative of any official position or opinion of Simple Machines.


Offline CarpeDiem

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #44 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).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 08:57:36 PM by CarpeDiem »

Offline CarpeDiem

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #45 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!).

Offline SleePy

  • Site Team Lead
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 29,931
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats his happy face.
    • jdarwood007 on GitHub
    • @jdarwood on Twitter
    • SleePy Code - My personal site
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #46 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.
Jeremy D — Site Team / SMF Developer
Support the SMF Support team!
Profiles:
GitHub

Offline JBlaze

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 12,152
    • @fragicide on Twitter
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #47 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, 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

Offline JoeBowlerson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2009, 07:51:47 PM »
Bummer.
I really wanted to spam here...

Offline JBlaze

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 12,152
    • @fragicide on Twitter
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2009, 09:42:51 PM »
Bummer.
I really wanted to spam here...

What for?

Offline rapvideosguy

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #50 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

Offline Amacythe

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 19,060
  • Gender: Female
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #51 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.

* Amacythe sighs

Offline JoeBowlerson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #52 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.

Offline MoorMan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #53 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.

Offline kai920

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Gender: Male
  • its != it's
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #54 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?)

Offline Reflection

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 503
  • Gender: Male
    • Wii Powered
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #55 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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 11:14:15 AM by Reflection »
Good "SMF" Portals
Tiny Portal [SMF 1.1.x only]
Simple Portal [SMF 1.1.x and 2.0]


Good "SMF" Theme Sites
SMF Themes [SMF 1.1.x and 2.0]
Dziner Studio [SMF 1.1.x and 2.0]

Offline kai920

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Gender: Male
  • its != it's
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #56 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?

Offline fluin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #57 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

Offline DSfirerescue

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • Net1hosting
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #58 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

Offline WillyP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
    • Planet Descent
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #59 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?