New Rules for User Signatures: Please Read

I agree! Great policy addition to forum signatures! We often get new members that will post 2-4 posts and then stop posting but have signatures full of links!

Raena, I loved the language you used in that post :stuck_out_tongue: “shonky” and the like hehe.

Rudy, my respect and love points for you just went up by like 9,000! :wink: That whole sentence is made up of total and utter win, “inevitable shitstorm” :smiley:

Hopefully this will cut down on the fluff some more.

Andrew Cooper

Says a brand new member with his very first post. :rofl:

I’m sure he’s genuine, but the irony made me chuckle. :smiley:

They’re looking into it :smiley:

Woohoo! Great news!

Yep, the right thing to do. I guess it’s easy for me to say, since I don’t even have any links in my sig. But still…

I reported one of them yesterday trying to post that they were selling god knows what but it made no sense what they were typing/selling? It looks like they got terminated a few minutes after I reported 'em - although I don’t think they knew how to add links in the Signature.

Yep, in full joy here :smiley:

I would still like to see the little red reporting button in the PMs. I send those spam things to a mod, but a button would be better. Easier for the mods too.

Yes, I confess that it is a bit selfish to leave all the work related to pms for the administrators but hey, moderators don’t go that far :smiley:

That’s something that I would like to see as well, then you wouldn’t get a few mods having to deal with them all as any mod could sort out the next few on the list.

What a great policy. I support it wholeheartedly. Viva sitepoint.


Why not simply delete offending forum posts and then delete the account of these offenders. Or does this require too much time because the spammers keep returning?

Alternatively, why not require that someone has to be a member for 6 months or a year before they can leave a signature. How many spammers are going to stick around that long? Then after 6 months or a year, we would be allowed to leave a signature. I would think combining the deletion of offending accounts with a long waiting period would be enough. Am I wrong?


Repeat spammers are banned, but not everyone is so easily labeled a spammer, and nobody has time to make a subjective judgement of every post and every signature on a forum with thousands of daily users.

This seems like a logical solution as well but I would imagine that most spammers aren’t going to stick around for 90 days either, which is what the new limit is set to.

i’m all out support on this move…

I support the rule.

Since we are all reading about the new rule now. It would be helpful if some admin can remind us (or post a link) as to what are the restrictions on the signature format – in terms of graphics, number of lines, number of characters, font, color, etc. I’ve been here so long, I’ve forgotten what those were.

Can I make another suggestion, although maybe it isn’t as relevant.

I’ve just joined today, due to looking up info for pretty links on SMF addons, and I was able to add my website to my profile, which anyone can now see, but when they click on it, it takes me AWAY from this site, to my site.

I would have thought that opening in a new window may be better, so as not to actually exit from Sitepoint. Maybe even having a time limit before adding the website for new people may be worth considering ?

There is literally nothing you can do to save Sitepoint from the hell it is already circling and has VISITED CARNALLY many times.

We already do that when we can. However, part of the problem is that people still think that we’re a happy little do-follow forum. New members’ links are already marked nofollow in the hopes that it will deter some of the dodgy types,

Alternatively, why not require that someone has to be a member for 6 months or a year before they can leave a signature.

Three months is hopefully long enough (90 days = 3x 30 ;)). If it requires longer, it’s a snap to alter the requirement to be longer.

You’ll forgive me, I hope, for not agreeing.