Topic: Signature changes - page 3. (Read 6664 times)

Everyone, but just one time.
So if you post two messages on the same page, your signature will be visible only one time, at your first message.
As I said, it should be just "Another option among the others".

i'm actually not against this, sometime those sign occupy too much space and make the reading too confusing

Interesting proposal, well considering that forum ads are blockable by Hero Members the same extension could be applied to the signature slots in the bottom of our posts.

That said the question remains is it worth implementing this feature this late into the forums shelflife, in theory we are due to migrate to the new forum sometime in the year so who would put in the time and effort to code this into the current SMF software.
(Edit, I presumed it was for the SMF forum not new forum software presumptions below were based on SMF)
 
I think it would be a neat idea to customize it but not sure if it would create to much bloat, if I recall correctly Theymos never got around to fixing the IGNORE button on each persons user list, the signature campaign block would likely use the same type of code in order to create customized listings of blocked advertisments for each user.

In summary it seems a bit difficult to implement as the forum is presently, but may work in the new forum software, any rough estimates at how much time it would take to code the function (Wangbus)

There are lots of ways to filter signatures. While it would be possible to alter just to get around it, just make it a bannable offense, same as bypassing certain url filters. There's a difference in having an ad, and intentionally bypassing forum enforced filtering to avoid it.

And like was said, the proposals would allow the user to make that choice.


I'd rather this be implemented than us trying to control it.


It's new ground so it will take some tweaking but I'm sure it will work out in the end. Auto ignore is a good idea. However it's implemented, a lot won't realize how it works or how they can use it, much like the trust system.

Check out this page, we have 4 signatures, 6 if counting the changed format.   Which one should be shown ?

Another option among the others can be: "show signature just one time for page"

I am pretty sure this would essentially amount to censorship. Anytime you are going to require that someone get what they want to say 'pre-approved' by some third party, there is going to be the possibility (some may argue probability) of abuse.

And what if someone wanted to put something on their signature that was damaging/embarrassing to one specific admin, and that particular admin happened to be the one who had to approve/deny the use of such signature. There is no appropriate response the admin could give to the requestor - remember it is possible that the ad could otherwise break the rules (granted the admin could decline to make a decision and pass the decision to someone else who would not be affected by the signature message)

+1. I really agree with you. I already make use of the Ignore user link when having to deal to shit/spam posters, so I don't feel such an urge of a new tool to disable signature. I think Quickseller may have a point in asking for a having banned people signature removed to avoid sig campaigns payment to spammers; however, i also hope campaign managers to donate banned spammers earnings to initiatives like the one from MZ aimed at reporting spam posts & educating people about forum rules.  

I'm not terribly opposed to this idea (and I know my opinion isn't really worth much anyway).  But the part that I don't understand is expressed here:


Don't you just want to ignore completely the posts of the spammer or useless poster?  Why not just use the ignore button that already exists?

If the idea is that you might simply dislike the look/feel of a particular sig-ad then I guess this is the right solution.  If the idea is to fight meaningless posts then I think that this doesn't really address the problem.

FWIW I support this idea and would be very comfortable with a simple filter that stripped font sizes/bold/colours. It's the big fonts and aggresive colouring what distracts me most, not the actual contents of the ad. Some ads are even cleverly designed so the simple fact of reading the post above makes the signature stand out, taking advantage of some known tricks regarding optical illusions and the like. They are usually black patterns over the whitish background.

Re: the placement of an hypothetic "Ignore signature" link, I'm thinking just besides the report one, ie "Report to moderator | Ignore signature".

I am newer here ,and I found a lot of signature campaign run like this " you must post at least xxxxposts"

I think it is the main reason of spam.

Can we limite it ?

signature  advs  are everywhere,  which make  the  users tired.

I think we should make the signature simple ,such as at most two lines ,with only one colur,bla bla bla

if we let users be able to ignore signature themself, it is not fair for the signature provider.at least they need a show chance.

That's why we're proposing users being able to individually ignore what signatures they want.

i'd love to see sigads removed.
but how would you detect them?

e.g. mine is an ad for xmr
cyiam has an ad for himself

^ do you consider this as advertising also?

Could you not put it on the left directly opposite the report to mod button? I'm not sure how or how well the auto-ignore will work though as certain peeps will just choose to ignore any signatures regardless of how annoying the individual ones may or may not be. Glad to see options and solutions being proposed though.

Yeah, there should probably be an "ignore signature" button near each signature. I've thought about doing this with SMF, but I don't know how I would structure the HTML so that the ignore button is non-intrusive and doesn't mess up everyone's signature.

The ignore data could be used to auto-ignore signatures that are commonly ignored (as an option). Maybe using Bayesian filtering.

Cut from this post  : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10740213


A lot of people are thinking that the signature campaigns generate more spam, I understand it is not a 100% fault of the sig. campaign itself but Have you seen how much users were banned in these days?

I (also) agree with the BadBear's idea, it will be useful to disable the view of an ad (with the use of some specific words). In these days a lot of users have been banned so I think this feature should be implemented as soon as possible (will it be difficult to add in this forum software?).

In person, I support BadBear. But I do think signature is really a wonderful thing which is allow users to degsin their own signature and show it to everyone, Cutting signature might be a good idea but I will be happy if you save the color and the font.

Also, how about a rule for all signature campaigns? Limited posts count? Lower rate? etc....

Well, in theory if one ad is displayed multiple times in one page then each additional advertisement displayed will be less effective and companies will want to try to limit this by creating smaller signature campaigns. Although the nature of free markets say that generally speaking once a company is successful it will continue to grow which would allow them to have a bigger budget for advertisements.

The campaign that I am in does a pretty good job in not paying for spam, which is ultimately what needs to happen. Unfortunately it is very time intensive to monitor for spam on a campaign basis with the help of some administrative tools. There was a good amount of spam from the campaign that I am in last week, and will probably be a bit of spam for another week or two until people realize they won't get paid for shit posts. I think the site owner will likely see that that kind of advertising is much more effective as people will be less likely to skip reading posts from people who make nothing but shit posts (and skip over the signature/ad as well).

As it stands now, if someone were to get banned in the middle of a signature campaign, it would only appear as if they stopped posting, and as long as they made the minimum number of posts required they would likely still get paid, so there is really a very small penalty for being banned. If a ban were also to, at the very least result in a signature being removed while they are banned then they would not be paid because almost all signature campaigns require that the signature be kept up the duration of the payment period.

I can say that I often see something that someone is selling themselves (for example their escrow service, physical coins, ect.) that I may be interested in buying, and the amount of business they do would obviously not warrant any kind of paid advertisement.