What has your NFL signature got to do with the context of the SEO related messages you post here? What if you posted on a particular health related forum? What if you posted on a collectibles forum? - how would they provide context on those forums? People post signatures because they want links, want traffic and want to publicise their site - that has nothing to do with context.
The only time something is to be considered black hat or even gray is if the value is superfluous to the end-user.
What has your NFL signatures got to do with SEO? Surely your signature is superfluous to the end user?
But just because someone sucks as a poster, their signature is not a black hat tool… ban them because they suck as a poster.
They get banned becuase they post just to link drop!
I am not against signatures and allow them in all my forums…
It adds context… how many times do I have to repeat myself? Seriously do you not understand what I am saying?
You have no report on this forum because nobody can place you anywhere… people know where I come from because my signature… that was why that person posted that, they wanted to point out how lack of signatures do harm… my point is that on forums signatures provide context and value to other users NOT to the forum.
I understand what you’re saying cgustaveson, but I’m not sure how relevant it is.
Some people have links to their own sites, some people have links to client sites (in the hope of building PR), some people link to sites they like, etc etc
I’m not sure that you can judge someone (or place them in a ‘context’) based on their signature links.
Well, yes you can. Regardless of where the site takes you it places a context for that user. If it is a clients site, nonetheless it adds to the understanding of that user and that is all that a signature is for.
My links take you to my site, you know I love football, cheerleaders and the color blue if it were my clients site you would know I make cool sites with cheerleaders and the color blue…
Signatures are basically each users plug and links are links regardless of the post… I think the main point is that a users signature is not related to the content of the post. Nobody cares about someones signature, but if a signature is appealing then they do. I get TONS of hits from related sites I get some hits from this site. Regardless of my post quality my signature provides value to other users.
Without a signature I can’t make any assumptions about the other user so I can’t take their advice or not especially in the case of CBP he telling us he is hypocritical and allows them and then tells people they are bad… How would I know if your forums are successful or not.
Here let me show you… but first let me say that I agree with this but that is not what you are arguing otherwise you would have no argument with me…
NOTE to those who think this is ethical
Insinuates you think links are unethical AKA bad
If its not unethical, then why do I spend so my of my time as a forum administrator on 5 forums banning idiots and scum and deleting their useless messages that do nothing to contribiute to the good of the community just so they can link drop their signature. I would love to start sending friends around to these peoples homes with baseball bats to stop them doing it.
Basically what you are saying is because people abuse the system then it is unethical…
Which I say you are wrong… administrate if you have to but forum signatures provide for the community and to users.
Careful guys. No one wants to read a dragged out personal argument…
I disagree. How do I know whether it is something you are interested in? Someone may have incentivised you to place that link in your signature for all I know (although that is against forum rules).
Ah - so now you’re suggesting that people ask each other what the context of their signatures is? I’m not sure that many people would actually bother. Or care!
My point is that signatures are NOT related to each specific post… they are related to the poster somehow. Since forums are not related only to each specific post the poster is more relevant.
So, signature links are relevant. If the poster is a bad poster it doesn’t mean their signature is relevant and if a poster is a great poster it doesn’t mean their signature is.
The point I am making is that one bad apple doesn’t spoil the bunch. Just because some people are not relevant posters doesn’t mean that all signatures are bad. In the same light, a few “bad” posts doesn’t mean that signature is bad as well.
You have to look at the poster in general… signatures provide a context for other members.
If I find something interesting in a signature I ask about it, others might not but nonetheless signature are end-user beneficial and thus are not (as a whole) black hat but there are some people that do things that definitely constitute black SEO.
Whether or not a signature is ‘valuable’ or not is irrelevant. What we are discussing is whether the use of a signature in a forum can be abused. The answer is yes. Whether that user is posting crap to get signature exposure of a great site or a rubbish one, it is the behaviour that we are calling to account, not the signature itself.
Looks to me like the point of the OP is not that it can be abused, but the general concept of the link is black hat.
The point I am making is that it has relevance and value to the end user, so it is not.
I understand later the OP said that he thinks it’s unethical to post nonsense… I am saying that then it is not the signature that is then bad only the posters methodology.
…