I think Linkbuilding through forum signatures is whitehat until you include it in your link building strategy and use it only to provide better SERP results. Then you are not only GreyHat, but possible aslo a blackhat.
Google wants to provide us with the best and most relevant information, not the websites with the best link building strategy.
Very nice post datatrond!
Interesting subject indeed!!
Do you think your signature is whitehat?
I am not trying to start an argument, I just wonder if you think many different anchors on one page to one URL qualifies as whitehat still…
I think whether linkbuilding through forums is unethical or not depends upon the principal motive. If the motive is solely to create a link without adding any valuable comment, then the comment is spam which is surely automatically unethical. The majority of commenters add signature links, so promotion by linkbuilding is undoubtedly one motive for many commenters. Promoting one’s services by adding value, in this case by adding comments that others are happy to read, cannot be criticised.
Forums Sigs unethical??hmmm this is new to me and made me confused…how can someone say that it is unethical??
Have you thought to look through the discussion or reading the OP?
Do you actually read threads before posting messages? How ethical is that? Numerous people (including me have called it unethical):
Exactly - they are the low lifes.
I wrote earlier in this thread:
Its the no brainer, one line posts that contribute nothing (eg “thanks for the post”) and usually from posters who have not bothered to read the entire thread, just to link drop are what have ruined Digital Point and are well on the wall to ruining Sitepoint … how can anyone claim that this kind of link dropping is not inethical?
But you have two aspects here… in a forum like SP they are a great context for the community. They serve two purposes 1) Resumes and 2) incentive… if the link itself serves a purpose to the end user then it’s not grey or black hat regardless of the length of the post, it’s really the value of the member that dictates that, not individual posts.
It’s pretty clear cut in my eyes.
There is nothing unethical about having a forum signature. How you use it is what matters.
If you post purely for signature exposure then you are abusing the system.
If you are posting to add value to the forum then your signature exposure is completely legitimate.
It is the people that post utter crap to get backlinks that give the whole system a bad rep. Not only do they make the forums less appealing, but they are wasting their time. The backlink is virtually useless from a PR POV.
I think that the word “unethical” may be a bit strong. And sometimes you genuinely thinks that a certain post/article is really good and you wanna let the poster and everyone else knows by saying “Thanks for the post” or “Thanks for sharing”, so i think it’s a rather grey area there. Some post to contribute knowledge, while some post to express appreciation.
All posts like that at my forums get deleted. If they do that more than once they get banned. I only want posters who contribute some good to the community.
SP should to the same to stop the increase in the mindless dribble that is occurring, that has turned Digital Point into Pointless.
I don’t think it is considered unethical. You can really get good links through signatures, specially if the forum you are participating to is related to your niche…
for me, it depends. many of us are abusing the forums. some uses too many signature links. some made the links invisible just to hide it from the moderators. some also post a non-quality post just for the sake of getting backlink. these reasons made the forum links unethical. but is we use the forums properly, like joining the conversations and giving effective suggestion/s, makes the post quality and at the same time brings or maintains the reputation of the signature link and the forum you posted in.
I agree with you that one line posts generally add little or no value to a forum and should be removed, however, why should this affect others that do follow the rules? It shouldn’t matter whether there are links within a poster’s signature as long as what they post is relevant and useful.
I also don’t think it matters what reason you initally joined the forum whether it’s for self promotion, to help others, to meet people or even if you’re bored on a Sunday afternoon, as long as you’re contributing something of value.
What if I joined this forum as part of a link building excercise, then go on to make 5,000 useful posts and help 1,000 other members with their problems, would I still be considered a ‘low life’ because of my initial reasons for joining?
I agreed. The most important is the content of your post, not the initial intention. Moreover, who else would know about your initial intentions? Unless you state it down explicitly but I really doubt anyone would say “Hey I am here to build links, but I accidentally help to solve some your problems!” 
Also, regarding contribution, I believe it shouldn’t limit to those who answer questions. Those who ask questions also contribute to the forum activities.
Thats the point I keep trying to make … I guess I have this view as I admin 5 forums and have to deal with the idiotic low lifes who post crap just to link drop their signatures (I banned several in the 10 minutes before I came here to SP!).
NOTE to those who think this is ethical: DO not waste your time posting on any of the forums I Admin. It takes less of my time to delete your crap than it takes of your time to register and post it.
They stick out like a “sore thumb” … anyone with Admin or Mod inexperience can pick them a mile away…at my forums we just proactively get rid of them early to keep the forums clean and a valuable resource.
How many of those in this thread that think its ethical actually Admin or own forums?
Since we all know what forums you monitor??? 
Do you allow signatures on your forums?
There are a couple points when you draw the line between ethical and unethical signatures. Its ethical to have a forum signature if you abide by the guidelines set by the forum. Thats why forums have moderators to make sure everyone is following by the rules, hence people get banned. Once you cross that line, thats when it becomes unethical, when you don’t add any value to the thread, or hide anchor text with the same color as the background, link drop, etc.
If signatures are unethical, why would sitepoint allow them?
I’m in agreement with you cbp. I also think members who spam the forums should have their posts deleted and be banned and possibly castrated!
Not being a moderator myself, I can’t comment on the number of spammers forums get but I can appreciate that it must be annoying having to remove spam so frequently.
Where my opinion differs is how to go about preventing/removing spam. The majority of the members on a forum stick to the rules and make useful contributions. It is only a minority of people that spam the forums and so I think banning links within signatures is likely to alienate more good members than discourage bad ones.
We do…
I think you’ve drifted off topic slightly. I agree that how you post in a forum can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (as I said in my earlier post) but there is nothing ‘unethical’ about having links in your signature. (And I think it’s fairly clear that I have moderating experience.)
Bingo.
We didn’t use to allow them (they were nofollow until very recently). That has changed and it does mean that we need to monitor things a bit more closely, but TBH, the number of people posting rubbish hasn’t really changed, because the rubbish posters tend to have no idea anyway - they assumed they were getting some kind of benefit from posting before.
Anyone with a grain of sense knows that the backlinks they get from forum sigs are almost worthless. It’s the traffic and link exposure that are the main benefits of posting in a forum, and you get that whether the links are nofollow or not.
Precisely.
Off course I allow them! What I am on about is those idiots that post messages that contribute nothing to the good of the community just to drop their signature. Do you consider that ethical?
Again, people bypass my comments which doesn’t bother me but lets point out content of one post has nothing to do with a posters signature… absolutely nothing.
The signature, also has nothing to do with the value of the post. The signature is there to provide context. Context provides atmosphere atmosphere provides much more.
If SP banned all signatures people would still post, the site would still be the same. Allowing people to have signatures serves as a reference and provides context to other users where you come from. If you make a really long post that is a very bad post in that it’s contents are wrong that users signature is not a bad thing as that signature still gives context and provides value to other users.
The only time something is to be considered black hat or even gray is if the value is superfluous to the end-user.
Since signatures are valuable to the end user then regardless of the quality of the post it is not black hat, gray or bad at all.
If someone does post a pointless “I agree lol” post then yes that is an aversive to the community but the signature still serves its purpose. Now if the signature had some methodological lie that was used to throw the end user off, then yes it is black hat.
But just because someone sucks as a poster, their signature is not a black hat tool… ban them because they suck as a poster.
Especially since nobody knows you or where you come from, because you don’t have a signature we cant sit here and see what you mean since there is no reference. That is why signatures provide value.