Previous idea is no longer center of discussion on the thread.
This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o
A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
and DdmrDdmr data
<...>
I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that:
- Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
- Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).
In summary we get:
- There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
- 21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
- 3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
- 1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.
So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …
(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.
Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.
I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.