Sig2Big?

Amhran Nua

Hi there, I've twice had my signature image removed, although it falls within boards.ie guidelines. I pm'ed one of the admins in that sig forum, and the sig was removed afterwards again, presumably not by them.

Can I get some information on who exactly is doing the removal and who is complaining about it?

Thanks.

Tallon

You won't get that information as it is private.

Spear

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hi there, I've twice had my signature image removed, although it falls within boards.ie guidelines. I pm'ed one of the admins in that sig forum, and the sig was removed afterwards again, presumably not by them.

Can I get some information on who exactly is doing the removal and who is complaining about it?

Thanks.

It looks like the bottom link falls foul of the disguised link rule.

Definitely looks like it's because of the disguised link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1354

From sig rules:

Sigs may contain a simple text only link to other websites, including a business (i.e. www.mysite.com - no images), but a disguised link (i.e. Come buy really cheap electronics here, we're having a huge sale, come on down!) or an image banner to that site is not allowed.

Amhran Nua

Eh the "disguised link" wasn't removed. Just the image, twice.

Also, it beats me how that link is in any way disguised.

Actually, all three sigs of the people who have responded thus far seem to be in violation of those rules (or at least two I think).

www.amhrannua.com is not disguised
Amhrán Nua, a new political party with new ideas is.

Do you know what a disguise is?

Amhran Nua

Papa Smut wrote: »

www.amhrannua.com is not disguised
Amhrán Nua, a new political party with new ideas is.

Do you know what a disguise is?

Yes, it's what James Bond wears when he's sneaking into Blofeld's subterranean hideout. I've only ever seen linked text described as a disguise on boards.

And once again, the "disguised" text was not altered.

LoLth

Hi,

political affiliations is new territory as far as sig rules are concerned so they arent really covered. It has been decided, however, that these will be treated in the same manner as company signatures and their presentation by users affiliated or associated with those companies.

Currently, we are discussing whether your signature image (even though it is just a representation of an irish flag) counts as an image representational of your "comapny" - the political party you are advertising. The image was removed until the matter could be decided and the rules amended to reflect the decision. Maybe that should have been communicated to you and if it wasnt then you have my apologies.

However, re-instating your signature TWICE after it is removed and before discussion is also not the way to go. If a signature is removed, it is removed for a reason and you have to trust the mods of baords.ie to only remove signatures when necessary.

While your image size and dimensions do conform to the sig rules the image *may* be considered in violation when affiliation is taken into account. In the meantime, please can you change the text of your signature to either just be text or alter it so that the only part that links to your website is the URL of the site itself ie:

either:
www.amhrannua.ie

or

Amhran Nua, a new political party with new ideas. www.amhrannua.ie

I will get back to you as soon as possible on the image itself.

thanks

LoLth

ps. sorry i didnt reply to your PM but I've been a bit distracted over the weekend with the run up to the holiday season and all.

pps: from the signatures forum where the rules are available:

If your sig has been snipped and you're not sure why, please start a new thread on this forum to ask and remember to be polite.

for future reference, sig removal queries should be made in the signature forum - and preferably made before re-applying the signature that was removed.

Amhran Nua

LoLth wrote: »

Currently, we are discussing whether your signature image (even though it is just a representation of an irish flag) counts as an image representational of your "comapny" - the political party you are advertising. The image was removed until the matter could be decided and the rules amended to reflect the decision. Maybe that should have been communicated to you and if it wasnt then you have my apologies.

It was not communicated to me, and I do understand what you are saying. However the sun rising behind an Irish flag is not linked to or connected with the group I'm working with except insofar as it represents optimism for the future of the country. To say that's a slender connection would not be an exaggeration. I would probably have something similar even if I wasn't actively trying to do some good.

LoLth wrote: »

However, re-instating your signature TWICE after it is removed and before discussion is also not the way to go. If a signature is removed, it is removed for a reason and you have to trust the mods of baords.ie to only remove signatures when necessary.

While I get that the mods are busy what with the season, after the link was removed I clicked on the sig2big link to find a page of rules which the removed part of the sig conformed to. A pm was send inquiring about this, and in the absence of further information, there was no compelling reason to leave it off.

LoLth wrote: »

While your image size and dimensions do conform to the sig rules the image *may* be considered in violation when affiliation is taken into account.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure I have an idea where any complaints might be coming from, given the recent skirmishes I've had with frankly unstable political fringe elements of various stripes in AH and the politics forum, who I'm sure are enjoying this thread immensely. To be honest its a nice image of the Irish flag, and I can see no justification for its removal. I mean what, I'm affiliated to Ireland?

LoLth wrote: »

In the meantime, please can you change the text of your signature to either just be text or alter it so that the only part that links to your website is the URL of the site itself ie:

either:
www.amhrannua.ie

or

Amhran Nua, a new political party with new ideas. www.amhrannua.ie

Sure.

LoLth wrote: »

for future reference, sig removal queries should be made in the signature forum - and preferably made before re-applying the signature that was removed.

I would have, but it said it was a private forum?

r3nu4l

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It was not communicated to me, and I do understand what you are saying. However the sun rising behind an Irish flag is not linked to or connected with the group I'm working with except insofar as it represents optimism for the future of the country. To say that's a slender connection would not be an exaggeration. I would probably have something similar even if I wasn't actively trying to do some good.

To be honest its a nice image of the Irish flag, and I can see no justification for its removal. I mean what, I'm affiliated to Ireland?

I'd say it was indicative of a 'New Dawn', a bit like your 'New Song' and given the use of metaphor and imagery by Amhrann Nua and the fact that Amhrann Nua make great use of the tricolour, I'd say it's more than a slender connection. However, it is a lovely image as you say.

Sigs are not something I usually deal with but I thought I'd add my tuppence/two cents worth here.

Quazzie

Is it ok to have a disguised link in your sig to forums on Boards or is it only when the link is to an external site?

r3nu4l

Quazzie wrote: »

Is it ok to have a disguised link in your sig to forums on Boards or is it only when the link is to an external site?

I'm not the sig expert amongst the Admins but the sig rules state:

Sigs may contain a simple text only link to other websites, including a business (i.e. www.mysite.com - no images), but a disguised link (i.e. Come buy really cheap electronics here, we're having a huge sale, come on down!) or an image banner to that site is not allowed.

Make of that what you will. For now, I read that as meaning external sites. Why do you ask?

Quazzie

r3nu4l wrote: »

I'm not the sig expert amongst the Admins but the sig rules state:


Make of that what you will. For now, I read that as meaning external sites. Why do you ask?

Ha, I see the wink smiley and only realised now that you have "disguised links" to Boards forums

The reason I ask is because last year DeVore was kind enough to post this in the All the way round forum as an option for people to use as a sig in the build up to the event. I'm not entirely sure when the rules came in but I just wanted clarification because we'll be using a similar sig this year (maybe just the picture that will have changed) and I want to make sure its not outside the SigPo rules.

r3nu4l

Quazzie wrote: »

Ha, I see the wink smiley and only realised now that you have "disguised links" to Boards forums

The reason I ask is because last year DeVore was kind enough to post this in the All the way round forum as an option for people to use as a sig in the build up to the event. I'm not entirely sure when the rules came in but I just wanted clarification because we'll be using a similar sig this year (maybe just the picture that will have changed) and I want to make sure its not outside the SigPo rules.

I'm honestly unsure, as I said, I generally don't concern myself with sig issues but it's a fair point. I'll raise it with those who know more about the minute details of sig rules than I do.

Gordon

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hi there, I've twice had my signature image removed, although it falls within boards.ie guidelines. I pm'ed one of the admins in that sig forum, and the sig was removed afterwards again, presumably not by them.

Can I get some information on who exactly is doing the removal and who is complaining about it?

Thanks.

Hiya, as far as your sig stands at the moment, it's fine. The original issue was with the disguised link which you've now corrected, cheers.

As far as Quazzie's question regarding disguised links pointing to internal boards (or adverts) forums/threads/adverts: internal disguised links pointing to within boards are fine currently.

Amhran Nua

Thanks, and I appreciate people taking the time to look at this.

Orion

Papa Smut wrote: »

www.amhrannua.com is not disguised
Amhrán Nua, a new political party with new ideas is.

Do you know what a disguise is?

Personally I think if the text was completely irrelevant to the link that would be a disguise. But a description of the organisation linking to the site is not a disguise imo. Common sense should apply - there was no intent to deceive from what I can see.

LoLth

well to me, a URL is www.xyz.abc : it shows the address you are going to. a lump of text with a link behind it is obfuscated if not disguised. I think , if users are being directed off site they should *know* where they are being directed to before they click.

Spear

LoLth wrote: »

well to me, a URL is www.xyz.abc : it shows the address you are going to. a lump of text with a link behind it is obfuscated if not disguised. I think , if users are being directed off site they should *know* where they are being directed to before they click.

No, that's a hyperlink where the anchor text happens to matche the target. A lump of text with a link behind is not obfuscated and not disguised, it's the definition of a link.

LoLth

hence I included the "to me". I am well aware of the definition of a hyperlink but, in terms of boards.ie signatures the rules state:

Sigs may contain a simple text only link to other websites, including a business (i.e. www.mysite.com - no images), but a disguised link (i.e. Come buy really cheap electronics here, we're having a huge sale, come on down!) or an image banner to that site is not allowed.

where the URL the user is being directed to is not visible in the linking text is considered a disguised or obfuscated link.

Spear

LoLth wrote: »

hence I included the "to me". I am well aware of the definition of a hyperlink but, in terms of boards.ie signatures the rules state:



where the URL the user is being directed to is not visible in the linking text is considered a disguised or obfuscated link.

Those rules are frankly ridiculous. If those were to be enforced my sig of an image of my Battlefield stats linking to a more detailed stats page wouldn't be allowed. There's nothing malicious in there, and I object to your claims that it's somehow disguised. Yet we're to believe that it would be okay if I separate the link out onto another line, where it needlessly add a little more ugly bloat, it would somehow be okay? The rules do nothing but damage the boards.ie experience a little further.

Daemos

LoLth. you know you can see the URL if you hover the cursor over the link?

I hate to bring this back to an old thread, but in the one where the user wanted boards to develop a way of doing a thread preview, ye said it wouldn't happen because the browser does this itself.

Well the browser also tells you the URL of a link before you click it, so I don't see why the same principle can't apply here?

pickarooney

I have to agree that it seems like circular logic - how is the site name any more ecplanatory than a description of same? The user still won't know if www.xyz.com is a malicious/misleading/boring site unless he/she's already visited it. The above is a good example - if I saw the link name I would expect to be led to a music site but instead I end up on a politics page, whereas the 'disguised' link clearly tells me what to expect.

LoLth

The current sig rules were devised with input from anyone, user/mod/cmod/admin/staff, that wanted to have a say.

re: gamertags
the banner links apply to commercial tags or "for profit" organisations. Gamertags, in particular, were brought up during the discussion which lead to the rule being applied to commercial sites only. Political sites were not considered at the time and it was only when AmhranNua's sig was reported that the issue was discussed by the Admins. Devore made the suggestion that political party sites be treated like commercial sites as, aside from any idealism, there is potential monetary re-imbursement. Any gamertags that have been removed have only been for the reason of size (filesize, image dimensions) and not for being a gamertag.

re links showing up in the browser: Not always and not every user of boards would know to look for it. Those completely unfamiliar with browser functionality have to be catered for as well. The issue with thread preview was that developer time is at a premium at the minute and has to be prioritised to allow the devs to get on with issues that arent managable with current browsers.

@Pickarooney: the text before the link describes Amhran Nua as a new political party. The content of the link shows it to be a link to an offsite location, granted not whether it is malicious or not but thats why reporting sigs is encouraged and why users should have AV or a browser that warns of potentially harmful sites. It also helps the user know if the link is to an actual site or to a discussion of AmhranNua in the Politics forum for example.

We cant, and dont want to, rule for every possible form a sig may take so some rules will have to be amended as incidents occur. That is what happened with AmhranNua's signature. The clear text link rule helps users to stay informed and helps them stay safe online. It doesnt guarantee safety but it helps.