Signature Policy

[! !]

Signatures with or without hyperlinks to one's Web sites are a small exchange to make in return to making the quality posts and helpful tutorials that may help many many strangers for months and months (often without getting even a "Thank You".


Posters should at least get the benefit of a link and traffic for sharing their expertise Free of Charge.


If any forum makes money from advertising / advertisers, it would be a way of "sharing" the revenue with posters.

By giving something back to those who are donating knowledge that has probably taken YEARS or even DECADES to accummulate - it is demonstating a fair exchange :cool:


Yes - Decades...
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6
:eek:

[Nick W]

Last thing I want to do is read or have to skip dozens of sigs in a thread, along with avatars i think they ruin forums.

The good ole profile link is great, if someone has somthing cool to say, I often look at their profile for a url...

Nick

--
Vist my dumb arse blog here! (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com)
I love dogs!

Somebody once said somthing I thought was funny, now you gotta read the same damn thing over and over again every time im involved in a thread

Here are my pc specs
ZX81
1mb RAM
blah blah
--

See? ;-)

[DaveN]

they will be spammed to bits !

[pleeker]

The profile link is enough, and according to log files, it actually works. :)

[dannysullivan]

Signatures with or without hyperlinks to one's Web sites are a small exchange to make in return to making the quality posts and helpful tutorials that may help many many strangers for months and months (often without getting even a "Thank You".

We've made the decision not to have signatures as part of posts for the moment because:

1) They can be prone to link spam
2) They can be annoying when there are many short posts
3) Most important, we want to focus attention on profile pages

Some may have noticed that there are small reputation bars that appear above each post, in the profile reverse bar. We're hoping that over time, this feature will help those who contribute quality posts be recognized by the community. In turn, people can learn more about the poster by the profile page and they gain recognition in that way.

Overall, the decision not to have signatures at the moment is not meant to prevent a fair exchange to those to contribute. We simply think the profile pages at the moment provide the best way to do this.

Forums elsewhere are obviously split on the issue. Some allow sigs; some have strict sig rules and some don't allow them at all. I've personally participated in all of these regardless of what's allowed.

Please note that while the signatures aren't allowed, you can set your title (the text under your nickname) to whatever you want. That's a change we decided to make, when deciding not to have signatures.

[Jeff Nienaber]

I applaud the no sig policy. Let's keep this forum for purists...

[rcjordan]

>I applaud the no sig policy

Ditto. The pros will read/post more (white stuff, black isn't posted publicly anymore) without the noise.

OK, 1 out of 3 problems areas solved. Now about links to commercial products....

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showpost.php?p=800&postcount=22

[Elisabeth]

>I applaud the no sig policy

Ditto. The pros will read/post more (white stuff, black isn't posted publicly anymore) without the noise.

OK, 1 out of 3 problems areas solved. Now about links to commercial products....

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showpost.php?p=800&postcount=22

1) yes, we will allow links to other forums/sites/articles whenever relevant to the discussion at hand

2) yes, we will allow discussion of specific vendors/tools and links as well, though I believe they are going to have their own forum with a special disclaimer.

[NetinsertGuy]

Posters should at least get the benefit of a link and traffic for sharing their expertise Free of Charge.

Valid point.



Please note that while the signatures aren't allowed, you can set your title (the text under your nickname) to whatever you want. That's a change we decided to make, when deciding not to have signatures.

Excellent solution! :)

BTW, hello to you all. This is my first post here. I'm sure this forum will become an important meeting place for professionals from all walks of the web.

[Dodger]

Overall, the decision not to have signatures at the moment is not meant to prevent a fair exchange to those to contribute. We simply think the profile pages at the moment provide the best way to do this.

Forums elsewhere are obviously split on the issue. Some allow sigs; some have strict sig rules and some don't allow them at all. I've personally participated in all of these regardless of what's allowed.


There was one more option on sigs ... they allow them, but they get turned off on Guest Accounts which include spiders. ;-)

I like the idea of no sigs and applaud it. The profile page is plenty sufficient and will provide a valuable linkback at any rate. The fact is that people are coming to the conclusions that sig links are getting tossed or devalued anyway (at least the possibility exists).

One thing that might be keen to do is make a Directory out of the profiles. I can't think of anyone doing that yet. It would be unique and organized by profession or some other organization. The Rep level will float one's profile to the top for instance. Just thinking out loud.

Canning the sigline is a good idea. The clutter of sigs on short posts is irritating. Hell, short posts are irritating enough as it is. Little mind altering ani-gifs in the sig line can render one comatose if you are not careful -- I do think there are aliens from another planet sent here just to do that too. See my site www.alien-watch.org for all the details. :eek:

[! !]

2 SUGGESTIONS: Web site Reviews & Link Exchange Forums | Helping Members who Help :)

This is a way of GIVING BACK to people who are giving of themselves

These resources could be open to ALL members (preferably) - or - as a last resort - those who have met some predefined standard - (such as # of quality posts)



Looking a ! ! profile
- in just two weeks - there are THREE TOPICS with Over 4,400 Views and TWO in the "Active Threads" Top 20 list
- as well a third one right under the top 20 :o

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79

The Good Posters are not responsible for those who take advantage - nor should everyone be deprived because of others whom they have no responsiblity for.

Since signatures have been abolished for EVERYONE - This could be an optional way of helping others as well as helping their Web sites
and - of course SHARING ;)

Also, please bring those "BEAUTIFUL" Fonts and Font Colors back into the posting options - they are very- very - pretty and Really add an aesthetic dimension.

[Elisabeth]

! ! -

thanks for the feedback on the forums. You'll be happy to know we're in the midst of discussing what forums we should add/take away right now.

But, I'm not exactly sure what your post here is actually getting at beyond that suggestion -

the sig file discussion is a moot point. we've made the decision to disallow them, and that's final. (and one of the reasons we decided not to allow them, was because of the potential abuse, by those posting only with the interest of raising the Link Pop to their own sites. the typical reward for contributing to forums such as these, is for all to get help from other experts in the industry, and pay it forward, that should be enough in return.)

just because a thread has been viewed a lot, does not necessarily mean it is a good discussion, with good posts within it. Post count as a % of views might be more telling of a great discussion.

Alternatively, good posters may be distinguished by the use of the Reputation feature, but since you have disabled yours, we are unable to tell what feedback others have given to you based on the quality of your threads/posts.

[dannysullivan]

Since signatures have been abolished for EVERYONE

Actually, let me be clear about what happened with signatures.

During beta, we never meant for the signature option to be enabled. It was left on by mistake. As it was already on, we talked about whether we should retain it before going into the public launch. A decision was made that the user profile line worked as well and avoided the problems associated with below post signatures. We altered things so that you could put whatever you want on your user profile line to make this work even better.

In fact, the user profile line is essentially your signature. It appears in association with every post and provides ample credit. If the software allows, we may even change the name of the text that powers that line from "Custom User Title" to "Signature" to help new users understand how to change it. A FAQ is also in the works to make this clearer.

As Elisabeth said, the idea of adding new forums -- including one you named -- is already in the works. The purpose of those isn't to try and help good posters get more "credit" but rather to ensure the community as a whole is well served by having more targeted discussion rooms.

Overall, there are plenty of forums that don't have signatures but where users feel they get plenty of credit for participating. Because of this, we're not unusual in not allowing below the post signatures.

We think the modification to the user title, as well as our reputation feature, will help those who participate well get plenty of credit here. We may look at other ways to reward those who contribute to the community beyond this, if such needs emerge over time.

[seobook]

I think feeling you are owed something for helping people is an indication of a fundamental lack of understanding of what the web is all about.
http://www.aaronwall.com/archives/000317.html

[rustybrick]

People have sometimes asked me whether I am upset that I have not made a lot of money from the Web. In fact, I made some quite conscious decisions about which way to take my life. These I would not change - though I am making no commenton what I might do in the future. What does distress me, though, is how important a question it seems to be to some. This happens mostly in America, not Europe. What is maddening is the terrible notion that a person's value depends on how important and financially successful they are, and that that is measured in terms of money. That suggest disrespect for the researchers across the globe developing ideas for the next leaps in science and technology. Core in my upbringing was a value system that put monetary gain well in its place, behind things like doing what I really want to do. To use net worth as a criterion by which to judge people is to set our children's sights on cash rather than on things that will actually make them happy.
- from p. 107-108 of Weaving the Web by Tim Berners-Lee

I love that quote. Thanks for the link seobook.

[Marcia]

It's very simple; branding is very powerful, which we can easily see by people's names we've immediately recognized right here from the start.

A person's posts establish branding for their posting nickname.

[DianeV]

True, Marcia. I also like that so many of us, who have all met in one forum or another over the years, seem to have joined up here.

[arttworks]

"edited out url in sig"

What are you afraid of? Exactly how many spam links are posted with 2 paragraphs of relevant commentary? You control freak censors prove that you people really have no clue what the internet is... and no respect for the great value you are helping destroy. Down With Unmonitized Linking! Stop THE FREE Internet!

[seobook]

What are you afraid of? Exactly how many spam links are posted with 2 paragraphs of relevant commentary? You control freak censors prove that you people really have no clue what the internet is... and no respect for the great value you are helping destroy. Down With Unmonitized Linking! Stop THE FREE Internet!

free links usually occur when people like what you have to say. I actually had one poster on my blog demand that I place their spam link back in my comments or they would turn me into google for spamming.

I then proceded to tell them how dumb they were, blocked their IP from my blog, and left it at that.

if people agree with you or find something you say as interesting then sure they will link to you. if you tell people that they are all full of crap they are less likely to link to you (unless they put it through some sort of redirect)

why should people reward others for being rude?

[arttworks]

For 4 years I finance and produce content for a web site that has no paid advertising and defends the simple premise that the internet could be much more than it is... And you imply that the site is Spam? The whole web-site is devoted to the subject of this board--Except for the brilliant free toolbox--and a fair person who respects the readers intelligence, and their right to disagree, would think a link to the site perfectly appropriate.

We might not be able to prevent immoral wars...but thanks to the “rude police” we don’t have to endure the horror of ignoring a link within a message board post. Welcome to the 21st century!

[seobook]

For 4 years I finance and produce content for a web site that has no paid advertising and defends the simple premise that the internet could be much more than it is... And you imply that the site is Spam? The whole web-site is devoted to the subject of this board--Except for the brilliant free toolbox--and a fair person who respects the readers intelligence, and their right to disagree, would think a link to the site perfectly appropriate.

We might not be able to prevent immoral wars...but thanks to the �rude police� we don�t have to endure the horror of ignoring a link within a message board post. Welcome to the 21st century!

send me your url. if I like your site I will try to work it into my future posts across many different forums.

[dannysullivan]

We might not be able to prevent immoral wars...but thanks to the “rude police” we don’t have to endure the horror of ignoring a link within a message board post. Welcome to the 21st century!

You seem to be upset that you used a below-the-post signature with a live link to your web site, which was removed.

Rather than being the rude police, I'd argue we are fairly liberal in allowing people to place live links in their posts and in particular, even to link back to their own material, as appropriate.

Going back to your original post (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4674&postcount=4), you could (and still can) freely link to anything in your own site that supports what you are saying or adds specifically to the discussion.

A signature link doesn't do that. That's one reason why we don't allow them.

You are free to place whatever you want under your user name, including your URL, to make up for this. You of course also have the ability to link to your site on your profile page.

[arttworks]

So if I described the link as-- "My Home" which is entirely devoted to this subject-- you wouldn't have deleted it? This seems a lot like the google rules that you put your keywords in bold text, or that you follow certain composition rules or your content will be made nonexistent. You call the link I left a "Signature"... I just thought it was a link to relevant content. What irks me about this whole thing is that you presume all posters to be guilty and not trustworthy enough to be allowed the freedom and responsibility to post a relevant link. If you really think there is a need for a signature policy-- that signature links are too hard to ignore-- then why not use the classification capabilities of the message board software to punish, with a lower rating, those who prove themselves incapable of respecting the readers enough to post relevant links. It's like I have to higher a MBO [message board optimization] company to make sure I cross every "t" and dot every "i" to the satisfaction of the zero-tolerance moderation algorithm. If humans still had tails no doubt you people would be chasing yours.

[Chris_D]

I think Danny made the point a while back:

We've made the decision not to have signatures as part of posts for the moment

Its not about 'rude police' or 'conspiracy theories' or whether or not you have a tail - its just plain old fashioned respect.

SEW has very few rules - just respect them. Its really not a big issue is it?

Non constructive arguements just generally just lead to an increase in the number of rules applied. How constructive is this discussion?

Play by the rules - and get on and discuss Search engine related issues. Isn't that why we are all here?

:)

[David Wallace]

Why are you here, arttworks?

Is it just so you can get signature links or it is so you can participate in a forum about search engine marketing where you can learn and teach others as well as communicate with others in the industry?

If it is the first reason then you are probably in the wrong place. I know that I am here to learn, to teach and to build relationships with others in the industry. Because I am here for those reasons, it is not important that I have a live hyperlink attached to every post I make. While I don’t speak for others, I think the consensus of others who participate and contribute here is the same.

[dannysullivan]

So if I described the link as-- "My Home" which is entirely devoted to this subject-- you wouldn't have deleted it?

If there were a purpose to having a link in your post, there would be no problem with it remaining. There's no purpose in a signature link other than to say, "this is who I am, and this is where you can find more about me." Instead, we think the user line that appears above every post is a better way to do that. That's the decision we've made for the moment, and we'll be staying with it for the near future.

If you want people to see your web address along with every post you make, change your custom user title. You can have whatever you want there. It won't be a live link, but people can click on your name to get to the live link.

You call the link I left a "Signature"... I just thought it was a link to relevant content.

Again, if it was relevant to you to link to something within your post, then go ahead.

What irks me about this whole thing is that you presume all posters to be guilty and not trustworthy enough to be allowed the freedom and responsibility to post a relevant link.

No, we do not. I cannot stress this enough. We are very, very liberal about letting people leave all types of links to their own material or material produced by others. We simply don't want to have all posts ending with a signature and live links. That's because as this thread has explained, we think the user line above a post is more appropriate for that.

I'm sorry if you interpret that as some type of "guilt" being applied to all people posting here.

If you really think there is a need for a signature policy-- that signature links are too hard to ignore-- then why not use the classification capabilities of the message board software to punish, with a lower rating, those who prove themselves incapable of respecting the readers enough to post relevant links.

Other threads discuss that this system is hopefully to work as a way to help people find exceptional posts over time. We don't currently see it as a useful way to try and police signatures, especially when we feel we have a good signature policy at the moment.

[arttworks]

You keep using the term "signature" as if repeating the lie makes it true. The fact is, the link wasn't to a site "about me" it was a link to a site almost exclusively "about" the subject of the conversation. I don't want to get into war over semantics. I just think before you delete something... or call someone a serial signature-er that you just click on the damn link and realize in 8 and 1/2 seconds that this:

My Home (http://donotgo.com)

isn't really that much different than this:

It's a thought-provoking read:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_...roblem_wit.html

[Elisabeth]

hey arttworks,

I really don't want to keep dragging this out-it may well be a difference in opinion, or miscommunication somewhere.

but let me explain why i perceived a difference in your "My Home" link vs. the example to seth Godin's link (which, by the way, I have not actually been able to get to work from either thread).

Your link was dropped at the bottom of your post, as a stand alone line, you had already made your point within your reply above it, which was fine. The link didn't specifically seem to fit into the point you were trying to make, as the link was pointed directly to the homepage of your blog, rather than a specific entry RELATED to the topic at hand, (as Seths' was) which was specifically discussing the value of SEO.

Just because a blog covers the search industry doesn't make the entire thing relevant to a specific discussion. Only specific entries/examples should be pointed out for discussion. Blogs are tough, however, to classify sometimes as relevant or rederick, so the confusion is understandable.

also consider the fact that someone else pointed to Seth's blog as an interesting perspective, he didn't drop the link himself. as danny mentioned, we're incredibly tolerant of people linking to their own work, but it must remain on topic and relevant to the discussion at hand.

[NFFC]

Looking on the positive side I would just like to add that the ignore list works a treat :)

[Marcia]

>>isn't really that much different than this:

Nor is it all that much different than about 10K other pages out there, most of whom would just love to drop their URL wherever they can get away with it. The simple solution is to acquire a piece of automated software, rev it up and go on a log-spamming expedition. That's one way to attract attention and get plenty of traffic.

I sincerely don't understand what makes some people think that *their* page is so much better than those belonging to all the other members in forum communities that they deserve the privilege of bending rules and having *theirs* discussed.

You want truth? Here it is. I have looked and I don't want to discuss your page. I am here to discuss pertinent issues with other members, not to go off and read other people's pages, hundreds of which I can find by browsing ODP. If I wanted that I'd be at ODP and not here.

So there you have some more truth to start your day. You value truth, so do I - and you've gotten enough of it to keep you happy for the rest of the day.

[arttworks]

Elisabeth,

While I believe we are arguing over a misplaced syllable. I think you have again misstated the facts. I did not link to my blog, although, it is almost exclusively about the subject being discussed. I linked to the homepage because it gives clear access to my "whatis" proposal and the blog and other resources relevant to the subject. The fact is it wasn't an inappropriate link... although I will concede I should have labeled it differently considering your signature policy.

[Marcia]

Here we go. Feel free to discuss it.

[Point made - link to embarrassing first personal homepage removed, especially since the animations and music don't work any more.]

:eek:

[rustybrick]

I personally think the forum policy was stated and we should move on.

If there was a miscommunication then we can act like adults and put it behind us.

Let's just continue posting about SEO/SEM related topics and not about signature links.

[Dodger]

For a minute there, I thought I was in another Forum when I started to read the posts. But then I found my eyes pulled toward the lettering in the images for the Moderators and my eyes started to squint just to read it, and I knew where I was from that moment on. Now the whole page is a blur and I cannot read a thing. Warning to all that follow, don't go near the Moderators avatar ... stay away if you do not want to go blind. :D

[greenleaves]

I totally love the "no-sig" policy.

When people place signatures, it keeps far too many people posting based on interest. A no-sig policy helps keep a forums quality.

BTW, I also hate it when images are put on forums... that is just one more reason why I don't frequent places like Highrankings forum.

[Dodger]

BTW, I also hate it when images are put on forums... that is just one more reason why I don't frequent places like Highrankings forum.

That is the same reason I do not read Playboy anymore. But it doesn't stop me from doing it anyway. :D

[NFFC]

>BTW, I also hate it when images are put on forums

Firefox is your friend.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

[Dodger]

So is IE, just disable images in the Advanced section of your Internet Options.

But what is your point? And do you browse the web with images turned off as a default? I don't think so.

[NFFC]

>But what is your point?

That Firefox is your friend.

>So is IE, just disable images in the Advanced section of your Internet Options.

Site by site, server by server, with wildcards?

See http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=474

[Lex]

Also, please bring those "BEAUTIFUL" Fonts and Font Colors back into the posting options - they are very- very - pretty and Really add an aesthetic dimension.

No. Sorry, but no.

[Jill Whalen]

Yep, nothin worse than seeing photos of the people who are posting.

<shudder>

[rustybrick]

lol - these smilies are much more attractive :cool: don't you think?

[pleeker]

In the end, it's all about content and finding/accessing that content as quickly as possible. Anything that slows down or distracts from that -- avatars, photos of the members -- is useless.

The content here on SEW Forum is phenomenal, but sometimes it's infuriatingly slow. with all the Jupitermedia garbage around it.

[ihelpyou]

I think people are missing an important point;

The bulletin software allows the "option" of "any" member to turn off signatures AND/OR avatars. You simply go to your control panel and switch them off. It's simple stuff.

Many forums 'do' allow signatures because they want to give a member the benefits of that signature. I see absolutely zero wrong with it. Links are what made the web to begin with. The web thrives on links. The forums out there who are visited the "most" ALL allow them. I'm not talking about search engine forums, but "other" types of forums. These forums are truly the biggest and 'do' allow sigs and avatars. I think you are missing the boat. It ain't hard to monitor signatures at all. Besides that, ALL members can simply turn them "off" if they wish to do so. I also think a pic gives forums and members more credibility. Forums are notoriously places for "some" out there to remain hidden and post whatever they want and do so without repercussion. Putting a post to a pic is simply building "trust". Besides again; ALL avatars can be turned off by a member.

This ain't rocket science.

[greenleaves]

I don't know which forums you are talking about ihelpyou. Then again, I really only visit webmaster forums, and only ocationally visit "other" subject forums for quick research. The main webmaster forums don't allow picks or sigs. Webmaster forums are more prone to people posting just for the sake of getting a link (webmasters know the $$$ value of a link).

Sure the web was built on links. But you are talking about an era that did not know the meaning (or profitability) of SPAM. I am not saying all sigs are SPAM but sigs are prone to abuse. Above the fact that even if Avatars *can* be turned off, far too many people will never figure this out.

And as far as "trust" goes, for me, trust comes from a reputation that has nothing to do with a pick. Someone who joined WW in 2001 and has 2875 posts, is most likely knollegeble (even if he doesn't have a pick). And then on top of that many forums place reputation sistems like the one here. And to even further re-enforce trust, I have seen your nick in many sites, many times, ihelpyou.

BTW Jill, LOL, I thought you would probabily read this post and pick up the sugestion ;).

[ihelpyou]

but not only are sigs prone to abuse, but they make a thread longer and harder to read then necessary.
That's dandy. You can simply turn them off if you wish.
And as far as "trust" goes, for me, trust comes from a reputation that has nothing to do with a pick.
I look at this from "both" points of view. There are two points of view you know. First, those out there who "hide" behind a user profile with no information at all are less apt to be trusted than those who do 'not' hide behind anything at all. Those who show a picture of "who" they are, are "not" hiding anything either. If I were a regular reader and a regular joe simply looking for 'who' to trust, do you actually think I'm going to look at this reputation thing in these forums to find out? I don't think so. Talk about an abusing system,.... the reputation thing is full of abuse. Most would rather look to see if that member is hiding behind a profile and also see if that member is including a link to their "own" website, or if that member does indeed show his/her face. That's the member most people would "trust". They certainly should not trust the idea that a certain member has scored "points" and yet, have no website listed and no pic. Do you think most would trust that member? No way. More than half the members in here who contribute daily don't have any website listed at all. Friends, etc are simply raising the reputation level of that member.

The bottom line is that there are different angles to view this. To each his own. And yes, there are other much larger forums out there that do include sigs and avatars. I'll find them and post them. Remember, it's easy to turn off both signatures and avatars if you don't wish to see or read them.

[rustybrick]

This forum does not include signatures or avatars. I participate in all types of forums. I personally find avatars not to be distracting. Some signatures go way overboard. Of course I can turn them off.

Some forums dont allow them, and I respect that.

I do not go to a forum to look at signatures. :) I find that if I am looking for more info on a member, I click on the member's profile anyway.

I like that some forums allow it and I like that some don't. These policies really form the personality of the forum.

And like search engines, I use forums for different reasons.

[ihelpyou]

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/

http://www.webmaster-forums.net/

http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/

http://www.geekvillage.com/forums/

http://www.htmlforums.com/

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/

Those are just a slight "few" of them. They all are fairly "large" forums with lots of contributing members daily. They all either allow sigs or avatars or both. There are good reasons for allowing them.

[ihelpyou]

I find that if I am looking for more info on a member, I click on the member's profile anyway.
Yes Barry, that sometimes works, although many don't leave any info in a profile either. Hiding is hiding. :)

[seobook]

Those are just a slight "few" of them. They all are fairly "large" forums with lots of contributing members daily. They all either allow sigs or avatars or both. There are good reasons for allowing them.

the sigs do help encourage participation, but they also encourage noisy me too type posts.

today at another forum I just edited out like 35 fake sigs from posts from a single person making a bunch of posts primarily for the fake sig links...that gets annoying and it makes the forums less usable as a whole.

most forums are designed to sell tons of ad space. since SEW already has a ton of ad space they appear to be more interested in quality vice quantity. the signal to noise ratio here makes this forum one of the top few on the web.

I know if they did allow sig links here and I was new to SEO I would likely post a ton of posts here to parse me a bunch of link popularity.

everything has a balance and I think different forums can have different purposes. I try to visit forums that have a high signal to noise ratio and this is one that I visit every day for that reason :)