Pimping Sigs?

DeVore · 06-03-2003 3:49pm #1

Ok, you all know I hate advertisers and marketeers with a virilance thats probably not good for my health.

So, while regi agrees with me in the main, we thought we'd ask you what you guys think about people with fairly blatant ads in their sigs.

They've been becoming more and more common and I'm tempted to stamp on them hard.

Or am I over reacting, should I care? I REALLY dont like advertisers who advertise on the sly or on any place that they can put one of their ads. I mean, you dont see ads for Spin in my sig...

This could be "baggage" I carry so I thought I'd access the Big Collective Brain and see what it says...

What rules would YOU like to see enforced here?

Bard · 06-03-2003 3:53pm

Originally posted by DeVore
What rules would YOU like to see enforced here?

No commercial advertising allowed in signatures.

Victor · 06-03-2003 3:57pm

Originally posted by Bard

No commercial advertising allowed in signatures.

I concur, however I would permit something like [edit]

www.Victor_boardswebsite.com

[/edit] but only if that is the only thing in the sig (and none of them addresses are 6 words stuck together either).

Lashings with hazels laths for perpetrators.

Victor · 06-03-2003 3:59pm

Originally posted by Victor
www.Victorswebsite.com

Wow it exists and it's not mine. How about banning hyperlinks to commercial sites?

Lafortezza · 06-03-2003 4:00pm

I have avatars and sigs turned off, so makes no difference to me,

I'd agree with Bard though, or else limit the advertising to a single line of text with 1 hyperlink included, and maybe charge some cash for it?
I don't mind advertising at all as its unobtrusive (is that the word?) and i can quickly scan over the page and avoid the sh!te.

DeVore · 06-03-2003 4:00pm

You really REALLY seriously confused me there Victor!
Not only does it exist but its a commercial website too!

I get what you mean though, personal homepages...

DeV.

ballooba · 06-03-2003 4:01pm

I would pay to have my current sig if everyone else had to aswell. Can you PM me some rates for banners aswell please Dev? (Be nice we're poor

)

ecksor · 06-03-2003 4:02pm

I'd be inclined to not allow free advertising of a commercial concern like that. Let them pay for banners. Boards users in general seem to react badly to out and out pimping anyway ...

Edit: Ballooba's sig isn't too offensive though. The ones that are "visit my site, cheap and cheerful widgets and professional service, blah blah blah" style ones are what I'm thinking of. I probably don't give sigs like Balloba's a second thought because I don't even realise they're trying to sell me something (and I wouldn't normally click on them anyway).

davej · 06-03-2003 4:04pm

Sigs with commercial advertisements in them should not be allowed, however it may be a slightly different case on, for example, the komplett board or other future "Commercial Interaction" boards?

davej

ballooba · 06-03-2003 4:08pm

Originally posted by ecksor

Edit: Ballooba's sig isn't too offensive though.

I'd still pay for it because it's effective.

nosmo · 06-03-2003 4:13pm

No "banner" image style sigs that advertise, maybe?

DC · 06-03-2003 4:20pm

All advertising should be banned unless paid for. That includes signatures. Even usernames should be looked at. Should people be allowed call themselves MySite.com for example.

There could be a simple system whereby it costs X euro to advertise a commercial url, a few euro extra to advertise the url + a one line tag. I'm sure its worth it to help continue providing bandwidth, etc to boards.ie.

I would also be just as happy if it was totally banned.

Victor · 06-03-2003 4:21pm

Sorry for the heartburn DeV, but things like what ballooba and nosmo have I would consider it fine. If it was a blatently commercial site www.macrohard.com then it shouldn't have any accompanying text.

tom-thebox · 06-03-2003 4:23pm

Its a market why not charge for a certain amount of letters in a person sig to companys only? I am sure they will be more than happy to give you a big check including me.

Like if you are going to charge for banner space why the hell not charge for sig space it only makes sense. The money then would go towards helping you grow or buy the admins hats or somthing.

Regards

ozt9vdujny3srf · 06-03-2003 4:25pm

Balooba I notrice in your site u have had a charity gig, which i think watrrants oyu haveing it for free,

Anyway personally I doin't have much of a problem with just a single link, unless the start saying things like "check out our low low prices"

Leave the small companies have em methinks :P

nosmo · 06-03-2003 4:25pm

Originally posted by DC
Should people be allowed call themselves MySite.com for example.

I don't like when things like this happen. Most of the time, people named after websites are just pimping anyway

DeVore · 06-03-2003 4:28pm

Because not everything should have a dollar sign on it.

This is one I'm going to take advisement on from here and the other admins. We dont need the cash that badly and there are better ways of getting it if we DO need it.

btw, anyone with a .com name usually gets banned straight off the bat.

DeV.

Bard · 06-03-2003 4:29pm

It's all very well offering to sell people advertising in their signatures, but who wants to look at that many ads crammed into one page? ...After potentially every second or third post?

No, I'd say let them buy banner ads, sponsor boards events, - fine... but no commercial ads in signatures please. That's just a bit too much, imho.

FYI, Nosmo - the url in your sig for Weebl and Bob is broken. It should be http://www.weebl.jolt.org/ (not just http://weebl.jolt.org/)

steve-hosting36 · 06-03-2003 4:33pm

I'm with Bard, that's what the www link in the profile is for, we get enough advertising, let them pay for banners, etc

Unless it is a non-profit/charity/worthy cause of course

seamus · 06-03-2003 4:34pm

I was going to say it fine, but better if people can't put commercial websites in their sig at all, instead direct then to the URL section of their profile, which will put a single, non-obstrusive link button beneath every post. I think that's a pretty fair compromise.

Sigs littered with personal sites or sites of interest are fine - amp's for example

The Corinthian · 06-03-2003 4:36pm

The attitude I've taken to on the Web Hosting board has been one of if a hosting company answers to a thread, without whoring themselves in the body of the post(s), is genuinely helpfull, and the sig is not OTT (i.e. images, etc), then I turn a blind eye.

If ppl want sigs moderated more forcably, I've no problem with that.

nosmo · 06-03-2003 4:41pm

I don't object to links, but when a link is followed by 2 lines of text saying something along the lines of "x company is teh leet monkeh" it annoys me

ballooba · 06-03-2003 4:41pm

Originally posted by steve-hosting36
Unless it is a non-profit/charity/worthy cause of course

I like it... lol.

We would not seek to get free advertising because the event was for charity. Realistically we are not doing it out of the goodness of our hearts (totally). If there is a price set for this we will pay it.

dbahost · 06-03-2003 4:41pm

damn cookies....

hussey · 06-03-2003 4:46pm

Originally posted by steve-hosting36
I'm with Bard, that's what the www link in the profile is for, we get enough advertising, let them pay for banners, etc

Unless it is a non-profit/charity/worthy cause of course

Yeah agreed, no commerical stuff

would this count as charity here ?? (dont worry no p0rn here!)

P.s. content of site is making donations for a boob job .. if people find it inappropiate please delete

Clintons Cat · 06-03-2003 4:56pm

Ban all comercial sigs.

Paying for sig space is a terrible idea,and a definate no starter because it will interfere with moderatators impartiality when it comes to deletion decisions.After all if someone is paying for the privallege they are going to be more inclined spam all and sundry threads with reasons Company/Product X is good for World peace.

DC · 06-03-2003 5:14pm

I have to agree with the sentiments of Bard and Clintons Cat.

We get enough spam in our mail boxes these days without being subjected to it on a community site as well.

We don't want idiots going around saying 'I agree' to every thread just to get themselves to the top of the thread.

tom-thebox · 06-03-2003 5:14pm

I surpose there are very good points, I think I will copy steve on this one and not have a website link in my sig and only advert via banners.

DeVore · 06-03-2003 5:18pm

we've spent litterally thousands upon thousands of pounds on boards.ie to build the site WE wanted.

And we're REALLY happy with it.

100 notes from ANYONE isnt going to make us start to piss off our users and our mods. Fuck that!

I highly doubt I *COULD* make our mods alter their board rules for those reasons anyway.

Lets state this clearly: people who buy advertisments get exactly what it says on the tin. They get that 468x60 space up top, and some rules about what goes in it.

They could I suppose try something on with us on the grounds that they will retract their advertising but when you started with nothing and you dont NEED the cash... well its not much of a threat really is it.

Btw, the idea of selling sig space never occured to me. Its not something I think we would entertain.

DeV.

Dr_Teeth · 06-03-2003 6:07pm

I'd leave it as it is and deal with sigs on a case by case basis.

If I want to put the company I work for in my sig under my name, what's the problem? But if I want to put the name of the company, and a logo, and a big chunk of text saying how l33t we are then yes I'd expect to be brought up on that.

Teeth.

DeVore · 06-03-2003 6:21pm

Ok, thats kinda what I'm canvassing for... the rules that the community wants us (the caretakers) to enforce.

If enough people said that then I'd enforce that.

DeV.

Boston · 06-03-2003 6:26pm

What about people like patman and cat who have commercial links in the sigs? are they evil too. Also what about those stupid wish list things that link to the likes of amazon.co.uk

mike65 · 06-03-2003 6:34pm

All I can says is...

Dont be at yourself · 06-03-2003 6:49pm

I don't really have a problem with it, as long as it's just text.

Thorbar · 06-03-2003 7:00pm

Thanks bit of jaysus we have someone with a bit of cop on at the helm, selling advertising space on sigs are you out of your minds? Might as well throw in a few pop ups as well. I think Dr teeth has the right idea, if someone is pulling the piss just email a mod or admin about it otherwise leave things as they are. Oh and the likes of Patman should be allowed to keep their link in their sig as long as he doesn't go spamming all over the board just to get it more exposure. If yer flooded under a wave of sig abuse then just set down some iron rules for a few months until the monkeys get it into their thick skulls that you aren't some sort of gob****e that they can make a sly buck out off.

[edit]The likes of shinji and megs' sigs should be allowed in my opinion. Although both of them are links to places where they work they're not particularly LOUD and considering the service they've given the community in the past I think it would a bit of an injustice to force them to chance their sig.[/edit]

dvlnblk · 06-03-2003 11:31pm

Hey all, I was just looking at my hit meter on my site, www.victorswebsite.com and I noticed I got a bunch of hits from this messageboard. So, I came to this site and read this thread and saw someone named Victor had a link up to www.victorswebsite.com. This was not me, what's the deal? Also, what the hell is a Sig? Thanks for the help, Victor

Victor · 06-03-2003 11:41pm

Originally posted by dvlnblk
Also, what the hell is a Sig?

Assuming you aren't a troll* Sig = Signature

*Is that you Gordon?
This is my sig

|
|
|
\ /

DeVore · 07-03-2003 10:25am

Jesus, wasnt one victor around here enough!

Well he *appears* to be the real deal as he's got an email address at that site...

Maybe we should call him Victor 2.0...

Welcome to boards.ie...

DeV.

seamus · 07-03-2003 2:31pm

I'm tellin yis...the day is coming when getting your site posted on boards.ie will be as serious as being /.'d

DMC · 07-03-2003 2:56pm

I personally dont see the harm in a little text only URL sig at the bottom of each post. We had a spate of it at one time on the ICDG board, so we created this rule on ICDG.

DON'T Post links to off-topic sites, including your own if it is not a TV/radio/media/high speed internet related site. You may not start threads solely to promote or link to other internet sites. You may not, in particular, advertise commercial sites.

(You may however place a text only link to your own site within your sig.)

We have Tony on the ICDG boards, who is an invaluable poster to the Satellite forum. He has his own satellite installation business, www.satellite.ie
It was because of him that we put in the last clause in the rules, it let him have just www.satellite.ie as his sig. Its not in your face, its not really attention whoring.

Interesting debate, all the same.

amp · 07-03-2003 4:16pm

Personally I think that a mere inoffensive weblink even if linked to a commercial website shouldn't be banned. Big assed stupid sigs with huge pictures are far more annoying.

Puck · 07-03-2003 6:19pm

Making money off of this community without giving something back is wrong. Linking to non-profit sites and personal websites is fine. What really pisses me off though is people coming here for the sole purpose of advertising something and then leaving. They have no respect for what we are doing here or the community we have built up and view the place only as a way to reach a large number of people for free.

My two cent anyway.

Pablo · 08-03-2003 12:23am

who wants to read the same 3 lines after every post. i think they are a waste of space on the screen, it means that you have to scroll down even further to read the next comment. and yes i know that you can turn off sigs and i do. If only sigs were turned off by default and you'd see them if you specified on your profile.

zAbbo · 08-03-2003 12:27am

sigs can be turned off u know

Gordon · 08-03-2003 12:35am

Originally posted by Victor
*Is that you Gordon?

Sh*t I'm typecast!

As for signatures - how about getting boards' very own intern that makes that lovely protein coffee, I think he calls it "cumpuccino" to do some coolness. Gordon's patented SIGnore®©. This patented SIGnore®© will be a clickable link to make the particular offending users signature - IGNORED! Or should I say - SIGnored®©.

Vote SIGnore®© today because "your future is our ignorance".

DeVore · 08-03-2003 12:11pm

(woo! Go Puck

).

Ok, this is interesting because I think most people seem to have a good take on things. Let me try and summarise what the general feeling is in terms of advertising...

1. people who put blatant "We R Teh w1n with teh c00l leet stuffors d00d.. come to our super cool web****e" size 4 ads are left to me for my amusement. *evil grin*

2. If its *your* commercial website you can put one link, size 1, with no other related text like so:
--
www.spin.ie
(please note that the visible text is the url of the website...)

(Here I'm thinking about people like balloba and others who are really community members and who run their own fledgling site.)
We reserve the right to rescind this right

3. If the site isnt commercial then you can include it in your sig as normal but we reserve the right to ask you to tone it down if you are s00p3r-pim0ring it.

In general sigs should be size 1 (they look better and you get more in before the adminazis come along....)

I'm going to add "we'll never sell sig ad space" to the list of "do popups, sell the mailing list or use layered ads..."

Have I missed anything? Is this a fair representation of what people want? Should I take option 2 out and say "no links to commercial sites at all?"

DeV.

Dr_Teeth · 08-03-2003 11:21pm

Sounds good to me, I personally wouldn't mind seeing a short slogan in addition to a commercial link, as long as it was in good taste. However that's a grey/subjective thing so I can see how just having the link alone would be preferable.

Teeth.

AdMMM · 21-03-2003 7:15pm

So is linking to personal sites ok?

KdjaCL · 21-03-2003 7:30pm

Yah so im covered ,we dont sell anything

kdjac

DeVore · 22-03-2003 7:02pm

Kdjac, Modtheater is the sort of thing we *like* supporting.

DeV.

kamobe · 22-03-2003 7:17pm

Surely, if sigs can be turned off by the potential browser, then why force people to get rid of them? If you don't like the sig, for whatever reason, what are you doing reading it? It's easy to turn them off, so do just that!

The sig should be at the complete discretion of the user, so long as it doesn't have big massive jpgs, or pages worth of writing, i dont see a problem with its contents....

Pimping Sigs?

How do you feel about people advertising in their sigs? 59 votes

Comments