Signature changes

[yatyatling]

I don't think signature ads should be banned.
However I also think that a fee like a few BTC or more must be paid to the forum (as running cost) before making that campaign public. This benefits both users and the forum.

[abyrnes81]

I don't think signature ads should be banned.
However I also think that a fee like a few BTC or more must be paid to the forum (as running cost) before making that campaign public. This benefits both users and the forum.

Someone has told that the forum doesn't need "money", so I don't think it will be a good idea. I think we need more control here in the forum and the sig. campaign managers can help the staff to stop the spammers.

[PolarPoint]

I support the idea of ignoring signatures with keywords. I could add the keyword "ponzi" or "cloud mining" to my profile and all signatures containing those keywords will hide. I could do the same for a particular signature which hurt my eyes

IMO, the forum should disable large font size and glow to be used in signatures.

[funtotry]

Meh, seems like a decent idea, but not to the smaller users. Have the user at least hero or something to have this option for disable. Taking out the possibility of views for signature advertisers would decrease the views for them and hurt their value of the campaign. Or maybe disable certain categories of signatures like ponzi, or big ads for pictures, or text.

[EvilPanda]

Sure, people should have an option to ignore sigs, just like they have an option to use addblock on other sites, especially since sigs are sometimes bigger than posts
That said, it's funny that this forum is full of wannabe economists and people screaming about freedom of speech but some of them run to the authorities (admins in this case) asking to ban the campaigns. On one hand you believe in capitalism and free market laws and on the other want the higher power to help you.

[tspacepilot]

Ok, I just noticed (very belatedly) that this post is in "new forum software".  Does that imply that these changes aren't being suggested for the smf forum that we're currently using but for the proverbial new software that was going to be installed here two years ago?  Similarly, does this mean that the myth of new forum software isn't actually dead?

[redsn0w]

Ok, I just noticed (very belatedly) that this post is in "new forum software".  Does that imply that these changes aren't being suggested for the smf forum that we're currently using but for the proverbial new software that was going to be installed here two years ago?  Similarly, does this mean that the myth of new forum software isn't actually dead?

I suppose these changes will be applied in the new forum software (because the thread is here). It will "no-sense" to add this feature on this forum (based on smf) because in a couple of months we will migrate to the new epochtalk forum software, so at the end it will be a "waste" of time.

[hilariousetc]

Ok, I just noticed (very belatedly) that this post is in "new forum software".  Does that imply that these changes aren't being suggested for the smf forum that we're currently using but for the proverbial new software that was going to be installed here two years ago?  Similarly, does this mean that the myth of new forum software isn't actually dead?

It's coming and its development is very much alive and apparently nearly ready. Read the last posts of wangbus for more updates: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=207730;sa=showPosts

It's a general purpose forum that's intended to compete with others. Once the theme engine is in place, we'll be able to get more involvement from the public. For now, you can check out the source. On top of that a beta is being evaluated with the staff at this point so please sit tight.

Last one indicates a beta is being tested.

[tspacepilot]

Ok, I just noticed (very belatedly) that this post is in "new forum software".  Does that imply that these changes aren't being suggested for the smf forum that we're currently using but for the proverbial new software that was going to be installed here two years ago?  Similarly, does this mean that the myth of new forum software isn't actually dead?

I suppose these changes will be applied in the new forum software (because the thread is here). It will "no-sense" to add this feature on this forum (based on smf) because in a couple of months we will migrate to the new epochtalk forum software, so at the end it will be a "waste" of time.

So you seem pretty confident that this is actually going to happen.  I guess I began to dismiss all such talk about 6 or 8 months ago when even then it seemed that the speaking of new forum software was already supposed to have happened some time ago.  I recall a lot of drama about people who donated money to see it happen and they were sad/pissed off that we were still on smf.

[abyrnes81]

I think before the end of the year we will migrate to the new forum software, why people don't relax and wait it happen? For the questio about the signature, I like this feature and it will be useful to ignore a sig ad with only some keyword.

[bensam123]

Will this be implanted in the new forum or will we start doing this right now?

Got the answer.

I think filtering the sig ads with keywords is good, maybe a site you already know and use, you could filter that.

But maybe add a rank exclusion? Such as newbies or junior members can't do this, just as only hero member and above can block the forum ads.

[Superhitech]

Another option among the others can be: "show signature just one time for page"

I support this. The issue here we are talking about is the not the spam, but seeing the same ad over and over again, so this would be a good fix. This way, signature campaigns will still get effective advertising, without users seeing the same ad over and over.
As for all the people who are requesting stripping the colors, size, etc, I don't think this is a good idea, as it ruins the concept of advertising. Then, it would just be lines of text, which would be quite boring. Some of the signatures here are designed quite nicely!

I personally like the concept of signature campaigns, I think that it's a good way for users to earn some BTC.

[dserrano5]

As for all the people who are requesting stripping the colors, size, etc, I don't think this is a good idea, as it ruins the concept of advertising.

And doesn't advertising ruin the concept of signature?

Oh I see, you have an ad.

[Superhitech]

As for all the people who are requesting stripping the colors, size, etc, I don't think this is a good idea, as it ruins the concept of advertising.

And doesn't advertising ruin the concept of signature?

Oh I see, you have an ad.

Good point, advertising does ruin the concept of the signature, but like I said above, I personally think that signature campaigns are a good way to get some extra BTC. You can help out, or learn more about the Bitcoin community while getting paid for it. (Of course, there are the spammers, but the subject here is seeing the same ad over and over.) As for the people who don't like seeing the same ad over and over, there is this:

Another option among the others can be: "show signature just one time for page"

[Harry Hood]

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.

It wouldn't. They're not 'saying' anything so there's nothing to censor. I'd rather the designs not be pre-approved and users given the choice of what to ignore but I'm just proposing the option to get the design pre-approved beforehand if the signatures become too much of an eyesore with flashy designs.

Hilariousandco, are you "hilariousandco" and "hilariousetc"? In this series of quotes "hilariousandco" says "I'm just proposing the option to get the design pre-approved beforehand..." but it was "hilariousetc" that said it.

As for the topic at hand, the ignore individual's signature is the most direct way to fight the too many advertisements issue. And since the code exists to ignore an individual's posts and code exists to ignore signatures, you can surely revise and blend the two to have code to ignore a specific individual's signature. That said, the greatest offense people are feeling is not the signature/ads, it's the content of the post. If fewer people wrote frivilous posts (i.e., repeating answers already provided, not providing thorough comments, providing off-topic comments) the threads would not be as littered with advertisements (because there wouldn't be as many posts to each thread.) The existing "ignore" user is the most effective way to ignore the spam-heavy posters, and it's already available!

[Fernandez]

There is already an option to disable the signatures but I doubt many are even aware of it. So if this feature is implemented it better be obvious that it is there. Otherwise don't bother.

Long time back I had suggested activity and signature limitation changes to curb account farming. It included making the activity levels in powers of 2 which is more appealing to us.

[Decksperiment]

In the new forum, surely it would'nt be too much to implement a simple 'box' where the sig would be, blockable by the user, using right click? Then admins dont need to worry about what is what, the user block or not?

[Muhammed Zakir]

Hilariousandco, are you "hilariousandco" and "hilariousetc"? In this series of quotes "hilariousandco" says "I'm just proposing the option to get the design pre-approved beforehand..." but it was "hilariousetc" that said it.

hilariousetc is alt of hilariousandco. He uses it when he is in an unsecure machine AFAIK.

As for the topic at hand, the ignore individual's signature is the most direct way to fight the too many advertisements issue. And since the code exists to ignore an individual's posts and code exists to ignore signatures, you can surely revise and blend the two to have code to ignore a specific individual's signature. That said, the greatest offense people are feeling is not the signature/ads, it's the content of the post. If fewer people wrote frivilous posts (i.e., repeating answers already provided, not providing thorough comments, providing off-topic comments) the threads would not be as littered with advertisements (because there wouldn't be as many posts to each thread.) The existing "ignore" user is the most effective way to ignore the spam-heavy posters, and it's already available!

Users are spamming mostly because of PPP signature ads. Ignore sig per user basis and maybe blocking sig would eventually reduce spams.

Ignore funtion is to ignore their posts and it can't reduce spam like ignoring sigature might does. I personally don't like 'ignore' posts because they may also bring good news to us.

[Chijio]

disabling or filtering sig ads can reduce post spammers yes, but it will decrease helpful post too even a little.. but for me, maybe the option to filter sig ads can only be enabled and disable based on the forum rank of the user.. the higher the rank the more option/s they will have

[Muhammed Zakir]

disabling or filtering sig ads can reduce post spammers yes, but it will decrease helpful post too even a little.. but for me, maybe the option to filter sig ads can only be enabled and disable based on the forum rank of the user.. the higher the rank the more option/s they will have

What is the need for 'rank' in disabling/enabling/filtering? Forum is allowing everyone to enable/disable signatures, avatars and ads and also to ignore. So this is option should also be available for everyone regardless of the rank.