Forum Signatures No Longer Viewable To Non-Logged In Users

**r937** · Jun 19, 2009 08:27

Originally Posted by siteguru

... is there any reason why the nofollow wasn't also retained for members with low post counts?

it was

(not that it makes any difference, eh)

**siteguru** · Jun 19, 2009 11:40

Really. How come I clicked on a link in someone's signature (and it worked) when that person only had 7 posts? (this post)

**Dan Grossman** · Jun 19, 2009 11:52

Originally Posted by siteguru

Really. How come I clicked on a link in someone's signature (and it worked) when that person only had 7 posts? (this post)

Maybe you're confused about what nofollow is? It's a nonstandard attribute added to anchor tags to indicate to search engines that they should not pass PR. It has no effect on web browsers, you can still see and click the link.

<a href="http://www.example.com" rel="nofollow">Example "Nofollow" Link, You Can See And Click</a>

**AutisticCuckoo** · Jun 20, 2009 07:54

Originally Posted by siteguru

As such ... is there any reason why the nofollow wasn't also retained for members with low post counts?

There's not much point in having nofollow links when search engine 'bots can't see them at all.

**Jun Valasek** · Jun 20, 2009 09:18

I am not worried about this and it's not really a big deal to me... bye bye spammers..

**siteguru** · Jun 21, 2009 12:20

Originally Posted by Dan Grossman

Maybe you're confused about what nofollow is? It's a nonstandard attribute added to anchor tags to indicate to search engines that they should not pass PR. It has no effect on web browsers, you can still see and click the link.

<a href="http://www.example.com" rel="nofollow">Example "Nofollow" Link, You Can See And Click</a>

I'm a know-nothing drongo.

**felgall** · Jun 21, 2009 14:04

Originally Posted by Dan Grossman

It's a nonstandard attribute added to anchor tags to indicate to search engines that they should not pass PR.

The rel attribute is a standard one that is supposed to be used to indicate the relationship between the current page and the file that the tag the rel attribute is on references (eg. rel="stylesheet" on a link tag that references a stylesheet). While "nofollow" may be stretching the meaning of the attribute slightly I don't think that makes it non-standard.

**CSU-Bill** · Jun 25, 2009 10:56

Originally Posted by slappy12

Just an idea, on the other thread you mentioned forum spammers that keep coming back, multiple log in detection, sigs only show after a certain post count, ok thats 100, allow sigs to only show once per page and only if there is a minimum amount of words in that post, I found 40 works pretty good, you see the spammers re editing their post to try and get their sig to work

cuts out the "nice post" posts if they are only interested in spamming and there aint nothing worse than a thread full of signatures that contribute more content to a page than the actual posts do.

Someone may have already answered this point, but...

In another forum, I have seen messages posted by link spammers. These posts were frequently made in every area, all identical, and all overly long promoting their favorite SEO company.

Anything done to stop spammers is a GREAT thing.

**Jonathan Kinney** · Jun 30, 2009 16:40

LOL, nice thread. Being part of a company that likes traffic, it is cool to get traffic, but come on... The purpose of the existence of something should hold some value don't you think... The purpose of this forum seems fairly clear. I have had forums before, and it was a pain, people with their own purpose would come in and screw with my purpose. Congratulations on taking steps to put boundaries where they belong, let the SEO seekers continue to seek, there are better more valid ways than disrupting other people's purposes.

I work for the company in my signature, that's that. If you, for what ever reason, are interested in following the link, cool, if not, that's just fine. I am here to help with what ever I can help with.

**ULTiMATE** · Jul 7, 2009 06:30

Will this actually work? It's a great step, but it doesn't really seem to stop spammers from wanting to post on this forum, because they still believe that this is a popular forum that desperately wants to read their crappy websites.

Perhaps SitePoint should go all the way and completely remove signatures.

**hooperman** · Jul 7, 2009 07:07

Originally Posted by ULTiMATE

Will this actually work?

All the evidence says not. The disbelief of new members is apparent when they discover that search engines can't see their links. They don't read stickies (who reads stickies?) and they don't realise that their sig links are non-crawlable. It can only be a deterrent if they know about it.

Originally Posted by ULTiMATE

Perhaps SitePoint should go all the way and completely remove signatures.

Where do I sign up?

**Stormrider** · Jul 7, 2009 07:27

Originally Posted by hooperman

Where do I sign up?

Options, Signature, blank the box, Submit

**hooperman** · Jul 7, 2009 07:47

Originally Posted by Stormrider

Options, Signature, blank the box, Submit

LOL! Will it scale?

**ULTiMATE** · Jul 9, 2009 00:32

I'm still of the opinion that those that give genuinely good posts do deserve to be rewarded with a link back to their websites within their signature. Whilst I would say that signatures should be removed I think it would only again worsen the problem and force people to post the links within their posts as these spammers will join the forums blindly, then realise there is no signature for them to spam.

For me, the best step would probably be providing signatures that search engines can follow manually. If a user were to prove over time that they are a valued member of the community then the moderators should be able to grant them a signature for 6 months as a reward. This would give an incentive for good posts whilst ensuring that no one spams for a permanent signature.

**vanishdesign** · Jul 9, 2009 08:03

Why not do away with signatures altogether if you're going to be that draconian about it? Spammers are like terrorists or criminals, they only ruin things if you let them influence policy. You're still going to get spam; that's unavoidable.

What you're doing is hurting your members, not the spammers.

Sitepoint is a business, not a charity. I may not be a "sitepoint expert" or "guru of the year" but I'm hardly going to contribute if I'm getting a raw deal on something as harmless as a signature link.

**AutisticCuckoo** · Jul 9, 2009 08:32

Originally Posted by ULTiMATE

If a user were to prove over time that they are a valued member of the community then the moderators should be able to grant them a signature for 6 months as a reward. This would give an incentive for good posts whilst ensuring that no one spams for a permanent signature.

Sounds good in theory, but with 337,696 members (and growing) that would be quite a burden for a handful of moderators.

Originally Posted by vanishdesign

What you're doing is hurting your members, not the spammers.

It doesn't hurt members at all. Signature links have zero SEO value. And we just reverted to the state that existed a couple of years ago. Signatures were then made visible to search engines since many members requested it, but it proved – as we feared – that this was badly abused and threatened the quality of the forums.

Originally Posted by vanishdesign

I may not be a "sitepoint expert" or "guru of the year" but I'm hardly going to contribute if I'm getting a raw deal on something as harmless as a signature link.

Would you rather contribute to a valueless forum filled with spam, that no-one cared to read any more?

**hooperman** · Jul 9, 2009 08:40

Originally Posted by vanishdesign

I may not be a "sitepoint expert" or "guru of the year" but I'm hardly going to contribute if I'm getting a raw deal on something as harmless as a signature link.

If a few self interested individuals left as a result of implementing measures that actually reduced spam, that's a sacrifice I'd willingly make. The good of the many, and all that.

**vanishdesign** · Jul 9, 2009 10:44

Originally Posted by hooperman

If a few self interested individuals left as a result of implementing measures that actually reduced spam, that's a sacrifice I'd willingly make. The good of the many, and all that.

What a load of *********. This and the "if you're part of the community you'd understand" remind me of the nationalists during the George W Bush presidency.

As long as it's not important or valuable to you, it doesn't matter. You can tell me the links have no value, but no one here's an SEO expert. A link is a link.

And how is everyone agreeing with this so certain that it will solve the problem? If the signature links are so worthless, why do the spammers bother? I for one only ever see spam links in the post body, and rarely on this forum.

Would you rather contribute to a valueless forum filled with spam, that no-one cared to read any more?

Nice, go for the slippery slope fallacy. I've recognized nothing even approaching this, and I honestly don't know what the change is for.

Sitepoint wants our freely donated content to be indexed so it can maintain good rankings and SEO reputation, with no benefit to the users. If it's a fix, it's a hamfisted and lazy one.

**Dan Grossman** · Jul 9, 2009 10:56

vanish, you don't see it because we clean up the spam almost as it happens. A handful of moderators around the clock on a forum with thousands of posts a day. We were removing dozens and dozens of posts a day from people posting nonsense just to expose SEO-related signatures. Already that has reduced since the change.

If the problem didn't exist as you seem to be implying, we wouldn't have pushed for SitePoint to make this change.

If the signature links are so worthless, why do the spammers bother?

SitePoint is listed in the top 3 of well over 50 "dofollow forums" lists around the web. I'd be happy to PM you the URLs, but you'll find most just by searching "dofollow sitepoint". They were coming here from those pages en masse without being aware of the old policy of nofollow'ing signatures to 100 posts.

Turning them off to guests entirely, as SitePoint used to do, makes it more clear and easier for the spammers to understand when we tell them after removing their fluff posts. And gives reason for those lists to not include SitePoint next time they get updated or next time someone compiles one.

Nice, go for the slippery slope fallacy. I've recognized nothing even approaching this

hooperman's slippery slope warning was no fallacy. It was already happening to the Search Engine Optimization subforum. Several long time experts that used to contribute in that forum have already left SitePoint, they don't post anymore at all. They got fed up with every single thread in that forum becoming filled with one line replies written in broken english repeating basic advice that had already been repeated ad nauseam. That was a forum filled with spam that no-one cared to read anymore. The only participants in most threads were the "SEO experts" posting the same stuff over and over just to increase the number of times their signatures were shown.

**r937** · Jul 9, 2009 14:02

Originally Posted by vanishdesign

... but I'm hardly going to contribute if I'm getting a raw deal

bye

don't let the door hit you on your way out

**RyanReese** · Jul 9, 2009 14:45

Surprised he took this so hard. I mean really I'm sorta sad my signatures don't get viewed to GUESTS but not reaally search engines.

Besides most people here (myself included) just post to better themselves and be a genuinly good human being. I offer up my time here and getting a signaature to search engines (while you say that is the "pay", (which is a bad one at that

)) is hardly an acceptable reason to post here.

@r937 you said what I wanted to

.

**AutisticCuckoo** · Jul 9, 2009 22:29

Originally Posted by vanishdesign

Sitepoint wants our freely donated content to be indexed so it can maintain good rankings and SEO reputation, with no benefit to the users.

No benefits to the users?!

SitePoint Forums is one of the most valuable web-related discussion forums in the world. Thousands upon thousands of users have benefited from answers given by knowledgeable members.

The only ones who would not benefit from SitePoint Forums would be those few who know absolutely everything there is to know about content writing, graphic design, markup, CSS, programming, domains, site maintenance, databases, servers, SEO and business and legal practices … and who, at the same time, find no pleasure whatsoever in sharing their knowledge with those who are still learning.

**GoodFTA** · Jul 9, 2009 22:37

I loved this community both for value for the quality of posts being made, but i intergrated into my daily routine answering questions and helping others because in so helping others i helped myself with getting my signature read by spiders. Good Forum, but i guess its time to move on until the admins come to their senses in a few months.

**felgall** · Jul 9, 2009 22:45

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

No benefits to the users?!

SitePoint Forums is one of the most valuable web-related discussion forums in the world. Thousands upon thousands of users have benefited from answers given by knowledgeable members.

The only ones who would not benefit from SitePoint Forums would be those few who know absolutely everything there is to know about content writing, graphic design, markup, CSS, programming, domains, site maintenance, databases, servers, SEO and business and legal practices … and who, at the same time, find no pleasure whatsoever in sharing their knowledge with those who are still learning.

Tommy,

I think that sums things up perfectly.

For example almost all of my posts are answering other people's questions (with the original idea being that I was looking for what sort of questions people are asking so as to create web pages with the answers). What I have learnt from the other members along the way is enormous and that benefit far outweighs the benefits that I was looking for when I joined.