Proposal: Disallow Ads in Signatures

[apsvinet]

FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

Lol imagines the thread is like 5 - 10 posts tops ha-ha

But then you miss B!Z joke lol

And why would that matter? Do you think, in a scenario were there were no signature advertisements at all, that -none- of the people who chose to comment who currently has one of those, would've commented?

Depends how interested they are in the topic really signatures aside although sigs are a part of the forum design even if they are unpaid ones.

Yup, and not to forget there's an option to ignore ALL user's signatures.

[brush242]

Which, frankly, is the best option.

[Kiki112]

1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him?
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people

I think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..

[apsvinet]

1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him?
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people

I don't think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..

Yeah but in the end the changes are based on one guy getting annoyed by posts he can chose to ignore and decides to ask to ban what he doesn't like.

[Kiki112]

1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him?
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people

I don't think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..

Yeah but in the end the changes are based on one guy getting annoyed by posts he can chose to ignore and decides to ask to ban what he doesn't like.

yes, but if he thinks trough it with his own head and how this actually is good not only for bitcointalk but for bitcoin too

the more data a website has the better it will rank and more people will accidently stumble upon bitcointalk and become sucked in the crypto world

this is what we actually want, larger demand

besides, circulating some bitcoins around is also good for our coins

[apsvinet]

1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him?
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people

I don't think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..

Yeah but in the end the changes are based on one guy getting annoyed by posts he can chose to ignore and decides to ask to ban what he doesn't like.

yes, but if he thinks trough it with his own head and how this actually is good not only for bitcointalk but for bitcoin too

the more data a website has the better it will rank and more people will accidently stumble upon bitcointalk and become sucked in the crypto world

this is what we actually want, larger demand

besides, circulating some bitcoins around is also good for our coins

Ah yeah. Well this thread is getting old and those arguments have already circled around a few times in the thread, but didn't get much of response. In the end they wanted to stop spammers. After this period however I can't say that I've noticed a significant change. However if they have - good for them.

[DiamondCardz]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

[nahtnam]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

[DiamondCardz]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

[nahtnam]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

[DiamondCardz]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

[apsvinet]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Because if you weren't Full Member + yourself you would never have suggested that.

[nahtnam]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

[DiamondCardz]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

Those who will be pissed, will be pissed simply because they can't be paid to post? This is a forum for discussing Bitcoin, not for making profit, at the end of the day. If people quit because they can't make money by posting, good riddance I say.

[apsvinet]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

Who is pissed now then? If the mods hadn't noticed a significant decrease in spam when they changed the signature rules, they would've changed it back straight away, no?

[nahtnam]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

Who is pissed now then? If the mods hadn't noticed a significant decrease in spam when they changed the signature rules, they would've changed it back straight away, no?

There is a slight difference but not big enough. Right now the people in this thread who are anti-ads are pretty pissed.

[apsvinet]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

Who is pissed now then? If the mods hadn't noticed a significant decrease in spam when they changed the signature rules, they would've changed it back straight away, no?

There is a slight difference but not big enough. Right now the people in this thread who are anti-ads are pretty pissed.

No offense, but that seems to be a them-problem. They actually made a change based on just 1 persons proposal, made it happen very quickly too. They don't have the right to be pissed imho.

[nahtnam]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

Who is pissed now then? If the mods hadn't noticed a significant decrease in spam when they changed the signature rules, they would've changed it back straight away, no?

There is a slight difference but not big enough. Right now the people in this thread who are anti-ads are pretty pissed.

No offense, but that seems to be a them-problem. They actually made a change based on just 1 persons proposal, made it happen very quickly too. They don't have the right to be pissed imho.

Not one persons. A lot of mods and even theymos wanted the change.

We both know the only reason that we are against this is because we are getting paid. If I wasnt I would def be against it.

[apsvinet]

I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?

Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?

Or maybe not allowed to have a link.

Truthfully there is no medium. Its either get half of the forum pissed, or get the other half.

Who is pissed now then? If the mods hadn't noticed a significant decrease in spam when they changed the signature rules, they would've changed it back straight away, no?

There is a slight difference but not big enough. Right now the people in this thread who are anti-ads are pretty pissed.

No offense, but that seems to be a them-problem. They actually made a change based on just 1 persons proposal, made it happen very quickly too. They don't have the right to be pissed imho.

Not one persons. A lot of mods and even theymos wanted the change.

We both know the only reason that we are against this is because we are getting paid. If I wasnt I would def be against it.

Of course it's because we're using the signatures ourselves. But we are doing that for a reason, probably ( in my case at least ) because I don't see why it should bother anyone.

[nahtnam]

Of course it's because we're using the signatures ourselves. But we are doing that for a reason, probably ( in my case at least ) because I don't see why it should bother anyone.

One word. Spam.