Signature changes

[BadBear]

Posted this elsewhere, figured I should post it here.


I'm pushing for a way to easily disable signature advertising on a per user basis, it would be a setting in your profile you could set yourself. Either filter them by keywords or regex, disable special characters and formatting to make signatures less obnoxious, or something similar.

If one can disable forum ads, one should be able to disable sig ads as well. Since signature ads are so much more prolific it only makes sense. Shouldn't have to disable signatures entirely just because because of ads, users should have the choice. Signature advertising would still be possible, just less effective, and would cut down on the spam without so many users needing to be moderated/banned.

It would also mean sig campaigns would need to be much more responsible. If your campaign has lots of spammers in it that you are not controlling, then people are going to block your ads. If your ad is obnoxious, people will block it.

[mishax1]

You can do that already, just cut down the amount of characters allowed in a signature so they attract less attention.

Or, a signature campaign will need an approval before running one, plus, a fee to the forum for running the advertisement. (you don't get anything from the current campaigns, right?)

[KaChingCoinDev]

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Quoting a relevant suggestion:

Sounds like a great idea and compromise. It has my support. How about an 'ignore this user's signature' button in a similar way you can ignore users?

I think that is what BadBear meant by "it would be a setting in your profile you could set yourself".

Or maybe certain staff or admins could have the choice of disabling certain user's signatures as punishment instead of a ban. The option to either disable them for a short period of a week or something or for three-time offenders disabling them forever (or something extreme like several months even up to a year) may be a greater deterrent.

+10.

   -MZ

[Muhammed Zakir]

You can do that already, just cut down the amount of characters allowed in a signature so they attract less attention.

Bad idea IMHO. Signatures are used for personal advertising too without much designs.

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

Only if they don't check and ban people from their campaign correctly. Some users might disable with keywords such as cloud mining but I don't think it would affect much.

   -MZ

[KaChingCoinDev]

You can do that already, just cut down the amount of characters allowed in a signature so they attract less attention.

Bad idea IMHO. Signatures are used for personal advertising too without much designs.

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

Only if they don't check and ban people from their campaign correctly.

   -MZ

If 50% of users turn off signature viewing, then the signature campaign is getting 50% less exposure. So won't they want to pay less?

[BadBear]

You can do that already, just cut down the amount of characters allowed in a signature so they attract less attention.

Bad idea IMHO. Signatures are used for personal advertising too without much designs.

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

Only if they don't check and ban people from their campaign correctly.

   -MZ

If 50% of users turn off signature viewing, then the signature campaign is getting 50% less exposure. So won't they want to pay less?

Why should users be forced to view ads they don't want to see? We already allow forum ads to be disabled, I don't see you being concerned about that though.

[Muhammed Zakir]

If 50% of users turn off signature viewing, then the signature campaign is getting 50% less exposure. So won't they want to pay less?

A small decrement maybe there but due to the competition, they will pay an amount which isn't disappointing.

Why should users be forced to view ads they don't want to see? We already allow forum ads to be disabled, I don't see you being concerned about that though.

Users can also disable their signature.

   -MZ

[KaChingCoinDev]

You can do that already, just cut down the amount of characters allowed in a signature so they attract less attention.

Bad idea IMHO. Signatures are used for personal advertising too without much designs.

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

Only if they don't check and ban people from their campaign correctly.

   -MZ

If 50% of users turn off signature viewing, then the signature campaign is getting 50% less exposure. So won't they want to pay less?

Why should users be forced to view ads they don't want to see? We already allow forum ads to be disabled, I don't see you being concerned about that though.

Didn't know we had that feature. And by the way, I just found a disable signatures button in my profile. Now I can't see your signature! So we already have this feature?

If 50% of users turn off signature viewing, then the signature campaign is getting 50% less exposure. So won't they want to pay less?

A small decrement maybe there but due to the competition, they will pay an amount which isn't disappointing.

   -MZ

true.

[BadBear]

Didn't know we had that feature. And by the way, I just found a disable signatures button in my profile. Now I can't see your signature! So we already have this feature?

Disable advertising specifically, not signatures entirely. There are useful things to be seen in signatures, shouldn't have to turn them off completely.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Didn't know we had that feature. And by the way, I just found a disable signatures button in my profile. Now I can't see your signature! So we already have this feature?

Not per user basis or keyword basis. What hilariousandco suggested should also be added IMHO.

   -MZ

[tonygal]

Why don't you (or: whoever feels responsible) start up a poll as the new forum software comes
closer? I guess that a big majority would be in favor of disabling signature advertising alltogether.

[KaChingCoinDev]

Didn't know we had that feature. And by the way, I just found a disable signatures button in my profile. Now I can't see your signature! So we already have this feature?

Not per user basis or keyword basis. What hilariousandco suggested should also be added IMHO.

   -MZ

Since we already have this feature, and sig campaign payouts are not low,  I am okay with being able to block a users signature.

[hilariousandco]

Or, a signature campaign will need an approval before running one, plus, a fee to the forum for running the advertisement. (you don't get anything from the current campaigns, right?)

I've thought about Signature Campaign Managers/Runners having to pay to a small fee to the forum before they can run one, though finding an appropriate price could be problematic. The forum doesn't gain any monetary value directly, though the number of users/traffic signature campaigns bring in will obviously be quite valuable/significant.

Why don't you (or: whoever feels responsible) start up a poll as the new forum software comes
closer? I guess that a big majority would be in favor of disabling signature advertising alltogether.

Polls like this can be easily manipulated by multiple alt accounts or account farmers especially when they have money on the line.

Cross posting my post from where BadBear originally posted it:

Sounds like a great idea and compromise. It has my support. How about an 'ignore this user's signature' button in a similar way you can ignore users? Or maybe certain staff or admins could have the choice of disabling certain user's signatures as punishment instead of a ban. The option to either disable them for a short period of a week or something or for three-time offenders disabling them forever (or something extreme like several months even up to a year) may be a greater deterrent.

[tonygal]

Polls like this can be easily manipulated by multiple alt accounts or account farmers especially when they have money on the line.

Ah right, I see..

But then: The big annoyance are meaningless posts, not the ad below it (in my opinion). So I don't think this would
bring a great relief..

[Quickseller]

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

yes. I am not sure this would be effective in reducing spam, it could even make it worse as companies would pay less so the people who are willing to try to earn via signature spamming will either need to work harder (spam more) or would be willing to accept less. I would say that generally people who are willing to accept low payments will probably generally spam more.

I do agree with your point that people should not be forced to view ads although it is currently setup so that only heros+ can disable forum ads.

I think a good solution would be to have a second tier of a ban when someone is banned for insubstantial posts + paid signature (aka signature spam). One could be banned for 14 days from posting/sending PMs and then once that ban expires, for a person to be unable to display their own signature (they can't participate in signature campaigns).

It would probably also not be a bad idea to disable displaying a signature when the ban starts as well so that when a person is banned they will likely be denied payment from their campaign because their signature is removed. This would cause people to be more careful about getting banned because it would mean they won't get paid for their "work" verses they just can't post now and would likely appear as though they just went on vacation.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Polls like this can be easily manipulated by multiple alt accounts or account farmers especially when they have money on the line.

Ah right, I see..

But then: The big annoyance are meaningless posts, not the ad below it (in my opinion). So I don't think this would
bring a great relief..

People spam more because of the signature. People will be careful more when it be disabled than they get ban.

   -MZ

[BadBear]

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

yes. I am not sure this would be effective in reducing spam, it could even make it worse as companies would pay less so the people who are willing to try to earn via signature spamming will either need to work harder (spam more) or would be willing to accept less. I would say that generally people who are willing to accept low payments will probably generally spam more.

I do agree with your point that people should not be forced to view ads although it is currently setup so that only heros+ can disable forum ads.

I think a good solution would be to have a second tier of a ban when someone is banned for insubstantial posts + paid signature (aka signature spam). One could be banned for 14 days from posting/sending PMs and then once that ban expires, for a person to be unable to display their own signature (they can't participate in signature campaigns).

It would probably also not be a bad idea to disable displaying a signature when the ban starts as well so that when a person is banned they will likely be denied payment from their campaign because their signature is removed. This would cause people to be more careful about getting banned because it would mean they won't get paid for their "work" verses they just can't post now and would likely appear as though they just went on vacation.

Well the point isn't to reduce spam, it's that I (and other's I'm sure) are sick of seeing the same ads over and over again.  I would love to not have to see them anymore without turning off signatures entirely. Right now it's all or nothing. Should be all, no ads, or nothing.  

I do see what you're getting at in that less pay=more spam as people try to make up for it, but more spam would just make them easier to catch. As it is, the signature campaigns just get the most garish ads they can find, throw money at it, and ignore spammers because they know people don't really have a choice. If people have the ability to turn off the ads, then they would have to work smarter. Have ads that are pleasing and not too distracting, have good posters in their campaign, and to not go overboard with how many users you have with it, and have a good rapport with the users of the forum (if you see the same ad 20x in a row on the same page you are much more likely to block it, especially if it's loud and annoying). Giving people a choice would add consequences, and would be much closer to a true free market than the way it currently is. And eventually maybe a middle ground is found.
 

[hilariousetc]

I do see what you're getting at in that less pay=more spam as people try to make up for it, but more spam would just make them easier to catch. As it is, the signature campaigns just get the most garish ads they can find, throw money at it, and ignore spammers because they know people don't really have a choice. If people have the ability to turn off the ads, then they would have to work smarter. Have ads that are pleasing and not too distracting, have good posters in their campaign, and to not go overboard with how many users you have with it, and have a good rapport with the users of the forum (if you see the same ad 20x in a row on the same page you are much more likely to block it, especially if it's loud and annoying).
 

Have you thought about signature advert designs having to be approved by the admin's first? Maybe too colourful/garish ones are not allowed? Personally I don't mind most of them and think they look ok except maybe the multicoloured rainbow ones that are obviously designed to just be eye-catching but I think a well-designed/professional-looking one is actually more effective than those.

[Quickseller]

Well, in theory if one ad is displayed multiple times in one page then each additional advertisement displayed will be less effective and companies will want to try to limit this by creating smaller signature campaigns. Although the nature of free markets say that generally speaking once a company is successful it will continue to grow which would allow them to have a bigger budget for advertisements.

The campaign that I am in does a pretty good job in not paying for spam, which is ultimately what needs to happen. Unfortunately it is very time intensive to monitor for spam on a campaign basis with the help of some administrative tools. There was a good amount of spam from the campaign that I am in last week, and will probably be a bit of spam for another week or two until people realize they won't get paid for shit posts. I think the site owner will likely see that that kind of advertising is much more effective as people will be less likely to skip reading posts from people who make nothing but shit posts (and skip over the signature/ad as well).

As it stands now, if someone were to get banned in the middle of a signature campaign, it would only appear as if they stopped posting, and as long as they made the minimum number of posts required they would likely still get paid, so there is really a very small penalty for being banned. If a ban were also to, at the very least result in a signature being removed while they are banned then they would not be paid because almost all signature campaigns require that the signature be kept up the duration of the payment period.

I can say that I often see something that someone is selling themselves (for example their escrow service, physical coins, ect.) that I may be interested in buying, and the amount of business they do would obviously not warrant any kind of paid advertisement.