Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone.

[RealBitcoin]

Seriously who cares about the signatures anyway, let anybody do what they want with their signatures.

I don't like the authoritarian view of just disabling it because 1 person doesn't like it. People need to be more tolerant between eachother, otherwise this forum can fall into tyrrany lol 

[1715467421]

1715467421

[1715467421]

1715467421

[1715467421]

1715467421

[mashcom]

Bump

[P-Funk]

Reducing signatures to simple text without size and color tags seems to be long overdue. I agree with the negative effects pointed out in the OP but I think simple signatures, even if they're ads, can still have a place here. Just make them less like attention grabbing banner ads and hopefully their value as adspace will go down, with the result of less low-quality postcount++.

[CIYAM]

The good people that left in 2013 and 2014 had to have gone somewhere, right? All of them didn't just decide to not participate in bitcoin-related conversation online. So where do you think they went - Reddit? Or maybe the really stayed and their contributions are being drowned out by the increased volume and noise?

As I basically don't really bother with other forums (this one was really the first that I've ever spent much effort on) I can't really answer that but for sure I do not see regular posts from many that used to contribute regularly previously (so they are not just being drowned out but are no longer posting much if at all).

Good luck with your forum, hopefully it serves the right purpose for you and others.

We'll see - and progress is going well - initially it is probably just going to start out as a decentralised Blog platform for crypto projects to use (and I've already had some interest in it from a couple of major projects).

[ObscureBean]

I know it will look like I'm defending signatures because I'm wearing one but that's not the case, I couldn't care less if there weren't any paid sigs anymore. It is true that a lot of posts feel forced but I think it's rather obtuse of you to not want to see past that. That's like saying only people that have something to pass down should have children, it is snobbish and downright stupid. Good posts are there same as they've always been, so what if there is more small talk?

[hua_hui]

i agree that it is cause a lot of useless spam but i still like to see such active forum as compare to others. I was invovled in an active forum previously and it was ranked top 5 in my country. However, somehow it just didnt stay that way and now it is basically dead with top post like 10 per 3 days(beside the regular moderator/contributor). There is basically no respond when you post anything. So i feel that the signature is a good way to keep this forum alive.

[kingscrown]

how would u find my blog if there was no signature here?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

'Signature spammers' are a problem. Stupid, short, not thought out posts are a problem. There is nothing wrong with people typing out constructive posts though. Who cares if they're wearing a signature as long as their posts are constructive & on topic in the relevent thread?

This forum would likely be dead without signature campaigns, the bitcoin price has been about as active as an 85 year olds sex life for a while now so the forum has become quieter.

Signature campaigns keep this place lively.

I totally agree about signature spammers being annoying & they should be banned but most good signature campaign managers kick those people off their campaigns any way.

[Blazed]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg12607907#msg12607907

Look how much some of these guys depend on the campaigns. There are so many people that must use them as their primary source of income  

*For the record I get a flat rate no matter how many I post*

[mrbrt]

This forum would likely be dead without signature campaigns, the bitcoin price has been about as active as an 85 year olds sex life for a while now so the forum has become quieter.

If the forum would be dead without signature campaigns lets just let it die. What non-signature campaigner would want to participate in a forum that only exists because of idiots posting nonsensical garbage to other idiots to up their post count? What does this say about the usefulness of advertising on the forum in the first place, given the forum would be dead without ad-campaign spammers?

[TheRealSteve]

how would u find my blog if there was no signature here?

By going from this: https://i.imgur.com/py58ywm.png
to this, maybe: https://i.imgur.com/0kg4rC2.png
( I can't see your signature, had to pop it open in an incognito window.  My variant of the blocker script happily assigns a high score to my own signature, for that matter )

But honestly the complaint is mostly the nature of signatures since ad campaigns, and not really signatures in general; but if signature campaigns aren't really policed (should it get even worse), then removing signatures in general would be the idea.

Seems unlikely to happen, so blocker script it is; doesn't take care of nonsense posts, but at least removes some of the eyesores.

[Xialla]

signature campaign managers kick those people off their campaigns any way.

signature managers don't care, especially guy from bit-x. reason is simple, even stupid non-sense post brings link to website in same way as constructive one + he can't manage it, if dozens or maybe even hundreds of guys are in..

[Lauda]

signature managers don't care, especially guy from bit-x. reason is simple, even stupid non-sense post brings link to website in same way as constructive one + he can't manage it, if dozens or maybe even hundreds of guys are in..

Most campaign managers do not care at all, this is correct. We can not generalize in this case either and there are exceptions. I know one. The problem is actually quite complex and at the moment there is no efficient solution to it.
We're looking into options. Banning campaigns should be the last option since it would harm the good people.

[HostFat]

An user of the italian section (Anon39) suggested to prohibit campaign that pay for post, and allowing only campaigns that pay a fixed value every month.
I'm not sure if this is the solution, but it can be a good improvement.
It must be also forbidden to compel the user to write a minimum of posts.

[Xian01]

FWIW, I run with signatures disabled. It adds too much visual noise to threads.

I would not shed a tear seeing signatures being completely removed, and abolishing pay-per-post / sig campaigns.

I feel it cheapens the place.

[hilariousandco]

An user of the italian section (Anon39) suggested to prohibit campaign that pay for post, and allowing only campaigns that pay a fixed value every month.
I'm not sure if this is the solution, but it can be a good improvement.
It must be also forbidden to compel the user to write a minimum of posts.

Fixed rate campaigns do cause less spam for sure but it's more about who runs the campaign and whether they're doing their job or not. Pay per post campaigns like yobit and secondstrade do cheapen the place because their companies do nothing apart from pay spammers automatically without checking posts and it gets worse everyday because they then tell their friends they can get free bitcoins for posting crap and the knock on effect continues on. It would be hard to enforce people to only pay fixed rate though and even fixed rate can be abused if there's no one actually managing their campaign. What we actually need to do is put more pressure on the lazy campaign managers to do what they're supposed to and if they can't get on top of it there will be consequences ie bans.

[onemorexmr]

An user of the italian section (Anon39) suggested to prohibit campaign that pay for post, and allowing only campaigns that pay a fixed value every month.
I'm not sure if this is the solution, but it can be a good improvement.
It must be also forbidden to compel the user to write a minimum of posts.

Fixed rate campaigns do cause less spam for sure but it's more about who runs the campaign and whether they're doing their job or not. Pay per post campaigns like yobit and secondstrade do cheapen the place because their companies do nothing apart from pay spammers automatically without checking posts and it gets worse everyday because they then tell their friends they can get free bitcoins for posting crap and the knock on effect continues on. It would be hard to enforce people to only pay fixed rate though and even fixed rate can be abused if there's no one actually managing their campaign. What we actually need to do is put more pressure on the lazy campaign managers to do what they're supposed to and if they can't get on top of it there will be consequences ie bans.

why dont ban (tempban) lazy campaign managers until they fix and enforce their rules

[subSTRATA]

An user of the italian section (Anon39) suggested to prohibit campaign that pay for post, and allowing only campaigns that pay a fixed value every month.
I'm not sure if this is the solution, but it can be a good improvement.
It must be also forbidden to compel the user to write a minimum of posts.

Fixed rate campaigns do cause less spam for sure but it's more about who runs the campaign and whether they're doing their job or not. Pay per post campaigns like yobit and secondstrade do cheapen the place because their companies do nothing apart from pay spammers automatically without checking posts and it gets worse everyday because they then tell their friends they can get free bitcoins for posting crap and the knock on effect continues on. It would be hard to enforce people to only pay fixed rate though and even fixed rate can be abused if there's no one actually managing their campaign. What we actually need to do is put more pressure on the lazy campaign managers to do what they're supposed to and if they can't get on top of it there will be consequences ie bans.

why dont ban (tempban) lazy campaign managers until they fix and enforce their rules

because managing a campaign poorly isnt against the forum's rules; theyre not breaking a rule so there are no grounds for a ban. a rule for this should be implemented, but its difficult to draw a line as to when the campaign can be considered to be causing rampant spam.

[onemorexmr]

why dont ban (tempban) lazy campaign managers until they fix and enforce their rules

because managing a campaign poorly isnt against the forum's rules; theyre not breaking a rule so there are no grounds for a ban.

ok, i change my question: why arent the forum rules changed to tempban sigcampaigns which dont check forum posts

[hilariousandco]

Temp banning them is exactly what I've suggested. More temp bans need to be handed out to the users on their campaigns too until they get the message. And being a lazy campaign manager might not be against the rules but but spamming poor quality posts which they encourage is and do nothing to stop. A rule can always be added that if people can't run a campaign effectively then there will be punishments. Regardless, these campaigns are still being a nuicance and nuicance users are usually banned. If a user signed up to this forum and created a thread that said they were going to pay users to post crap all over do you think they wouldn't receive negative feedback or be banned? No difference here really. The signature campaigns like yobit and secondstrade are causing a significant mess and it's unfair on everyone. Signature campaigns could actually improve the post quality of the forum if campaign managers only accepted and paid users who made decent posts and there are some campaigns that do that but it's futile ultimately when the users that don't get accepted or paid for their posts just go to a campaign like yobit and secondstrade that will pay them for any crap they post.