Advertisement:

Author Topic: Policy Change: User Signatures  (Read 268097 times)

chriso29

  • Guest
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #60 on: September 22, 2009, 12:20:34 PM »
25 posts to be a semi-newbie...

Online 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 #61 on: September 22, 2009, 01:19:00 PM »
Actually, it's 10.

Offline DarkLite

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #62 on: September 22, 2009, 03:29:55 PM »
I thought we realised it was 10 on the first page? :P

Offline DSfirerescue

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • Net1hosting
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #63 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.

Online 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 #64 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.

Offline DSfirerescue

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • Net1hosting
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #65 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.

Offline Daniel0

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Gender: Male
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #66 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?

Offline Daniel0

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Gender: Male
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #67 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.

Offline karlbenson

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 15,629
  • Gender: Male
    • @mortonssols on Twitter
    • Criminal Solicitors
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #68 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 (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.)
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 03:13:44 PM by karlbenson »

Offline Daniel0

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Gender: Male
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #69 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.

Offline begamo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #70 on: November 09, 2009, 08:47:31 PM »
This is good all members, but bad for spammers.

Offline chester2009

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #71 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.

wildebeast

  • Guest
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #72 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

Offline Antechinus

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 24,136
  • Master of BBC Abuse
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #73 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

wildebeast

  • Guest
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #74 on: December 27, 2009, 11:38:13 PM »
LOL - as an 'uncle' to a crazed cat I can certainly appreciate that analogy

kat

  • Guest
Re: Policy Change: User Signatures
« Reply #75 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.