View Full Version : Signature issues, should guests view them?
If it is possible to stay on topic without being attacked here I would like to discuss a very important issue that was raised in a thread that was locked by Chris today, that being taking signatures of forum posters out of the view of guests!
This is an issue that many forum members feel strongly about and has been an issue that has affected a few forums of late that took signatures down and put them back up after being exposed for the tactic!
I would like to have an honest discussion about this issue here without all the threats of being banned and having you all say it is a silly issue because it is not silly at all and will affect all forum owners and members!
Some forum owners think that by hiding signatures to guests that readers will stay on the forum longer without clicking out and that less outgoing links will help PR, but with the use of no follow tags PR is not an issue!
What do you think folks ?
Johnny Gulag
03-05-2006, 12:30 PM
I agree with you, forums should allow non regestered users and bots to see signatures.
Some forums use no follow tags on all signatures and links left in threads and others do not, so what is your feeling on this issue :confused:
Johnny Gulag
03-05-2006, 12:49 PM
Obviously I would rather the SE's be able to see links to my sites, no matter where they are. I would also like to take advantage of the sites PR to increase mine.
For years now forum discussions have mentioned that the search engines discount signature links anyway, so there is little value if that is the case and no follow tags would not hurt anyone a bit, I just want my signature to show as a small payoff for my contributions!
Why do I need 11,000 links from one forum as backlinks, is there a real value there even if the no follow tag is not there :confused:
Most posters want something in return for creating content on a forum, that being traffic and publicity for their sites, to take down the signatures from guest view is a crime against your members!
Johnny Gulag
03-05-2006, 01:05 PM
I get lots of clicks from my SP sig and even my sig here now. As I say, "yes I think guests should also be able to see them too" I am just not as concerned with it as you are. :) As far as why I post on forums, I dunno. I get an inner satisfaction (a fuzzy warm feeling) when something I post helps someone.
All members that make an effort and create content that forum owners profit greatly from should never have their signatures taken down period!
By my efforts and those members of the community that support them we have forced two forums to put them back up to guest view!
Sitepoint is next, if they do not put them back up, they will get hit hard by the webmaster community!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 01:22 PM
I don't think any forums have a responsibility to show your signatures. If you don't like it, you don't have to post. At one of my forums we have considered adding rel="no follow" to signatures until people have either X amount of posts or until they have been a member for a certain amount of time. The purpose being to keep spammers who just sign up to get there sig spidered out of the forum.
Certainly, though, there is no obligation that any forum has to its members to display signatures to guests. Personsally, I would rather that most did, but I could care less if they don't (signature links is NOWHERE on my list of reasons to join and participate in a forum).
As for the specific case of SitePoint... Signature links were disabled to guests and SE Bots last April (2005... a little over 10 months ago). It has been common knowledge since then, and the forum's growth has steadily increased. Don't you think if this issue was going to "hit [them] hard by the webmaster community" it would have already? Why did you wait 10 months to start your silly campaign? Can you respond without resorting to insults and ad hominem?
Do a lot of people wish SitePoint would allow sig links to be spidered by SE bots? Yes. Is that issue alone big enough to keep people from posting there? Not by a long shot.
And, for what it's worth, my links there still generate a lot of traffic from within the board--so they do still have a lot of value. Visitors to my site's coming from my sig links from SitePoint alone over the past 5 months have probably generated over $1000 for me. Not a fortune, but I really don't think SitePoint owes anything to me in that regard.
Sitepoint is the one who has insulted all of their content contributors so if you wish to pull the insult card pull it on the founders, administrators and the webmaster of Sitepoint!
My job is to report on the forum business and that I do by covering issues that are important to forum posters!
If that hurts Sitepoint and the truth damages them so be it!
There are many forums that show signature links to guests like this one and Sitepoint members that have an issue with it can post here and on other fantastic forums where their content is not stolen by greedy and self centered forum owners!
Chris
03-05-2006, 01:31 PM
I don't agree with the practice of hiding signatures.
I probably single handedly did more to popularize the practice of conserving pagerank than anyone else but I would never consider doing it with this forum.
The reasons are many, but in addition to rewarding members I also recognize that the PageRank lost is so small its hardly worth worrying about.
The only type of limit I would consider would be one based on post count whereby users without a certain number of posts would not be able to have a signature. This would simply be to discourage spam.
Sitepoint's reason (public anyways) for doing it was to cut down on server resource usage. I always thought this a poor excuse.
You already have to pull user data to display a post, one more field is not a big deal.
I can sympathize with them as far as it being hard to run a popular forum. This software can really suck down server resources, but I don't think disabling signatures for guests is going to be a major resource savings.
I agree Chris, many forums including our own have a 10 post minimum before you get a signature or are able to post live links!
One reason is the fact that virus spammers have posted links that forum members click on that load or attempt to load viruses and spyware on forum users boxes!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 01:33 PM
Again, how can SitePoint steal your content? There is nothing stopping you from never posting there, or if you have, you can go back and delete your posts. It's quite simple.
Further, you keep saying you won't stop until you get an explanation from SitePoint's founders, have you tried asking them for one?
http://www.sitepoint.com/contact
If you call their phone number, someone will answer.
You also conveniently avoided my questions. How is it that 10 months ago sigs were turned off for guests at SitePoint, and 10 months ago everyone found out about it and 10 months later SitePoint is growing at a faster pace than ever before? By your logic (that this is a major issue) the forum should have fallen apart by now... You seem to think that no one knows about this issue--that's not true, it is common knowledge--and that you will be the one to spread news of it far and wide. So far, it hasn't seemed like anyone really cares...
Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument over SPF, again, and I don't think Chris wants us to get into that argument again.
The point is... forums can do what they want. When you post something on a forum, you're giving them permission to use it. If you don't like that, don't post it. If you posted something that you want removed, at forums that use vB... like this one or SitePoint, you can go back and delete it.
It's really quite simple and nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.
The signature issue is one ALL FORUM OWNERS MUST ADDRESS NOW!
This is not just a Sitepoint problem, it is an industry wide problem and we intend to hold all forum owners feet to the fire that engage in content theft and deception, Sitepoint just happens to be at the top of the list at this very moment!
When the founders address my charges and change policy I will have no problems with them, until then, they are public enemy # 1 :eek:
Bleys
03-05-2006, 01:44 PM
When the founders address my charges and change policy I will have no problems with them, until then, they are public enemy # 1 :eek:
Again, why don't you try contacting them? How can they address you if they don't even know who you are?
Also, I respectfully disagree that this is a problem. Most people, as it has already been demonstrated here, don't care enough about sig links for that to sway them one way or another from posting on a forum. And if you do care so much, then just don't post on the forum.
The administrators and founders know about me already, they can come and explain it to the entire webmaster community if they have any concerns :o
Johnny Gulag
03-05-2006, 01:50 PM
I doubt they are going to come to your forum and explain themselves, they barely explained themselves on their own forum. ;)
I guess they do not value their business then!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 01:59 PM
Actually, I can tell you with near certainty that unless you have emailed or phoned them, Mark and Mike do not know anything about you.
Well I guess they can just sit on the beach while Sitepoint goes to hell then!
Michael
03-05-2006, 03:44 PM
Well I guess they can just sit on the beach while Sitepoint goes to hell then!
I am sure they feel very threatened. :eek:
SEO Chat once thought they were king of the hill too! :D
Until.......
http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=559
So do you think it is good to take down contributors signatures and con them out of their creative work :confused:
Bleys
03-05-2006, 05:13 PM
1. There is no "con" job going on here. That SPF signatures are not visible to guests and SE bots is common knowledge and has been since April when the change was made.
2. There is a major difference here between SPF and what that article indicates about SEOChat. It says, and I quote, "The owners, DevShed and Jon Caputo, have decided to enforce strict "nofollow" tags on all outbound links in signatures, causing a mass exodus of many members, including many moderators and banning of many more members who started angry threads on the subject." Emphasis mine.
There has been no mass exodus of members at SPF as a result of this, there have been no bannings as a result of this (or if there have been, a neglible number) and to my knowledge, none of the moderators or other staff members who have left did so solely because of this issue.
Comparing what happened at another forum to SPF is silly. They are totally different forums. SEOChat is FAR smaller, and given the subject matter it makes sense that members would be more concerned with search engines being able to spider links. That's just not the case at SPF. People may care, but not enough to leave solely because of that issue.
Sure there is a con game going on......
Sitepoint is not the first forum that has tried this crap, they are not the first forum to take down signatures to guests!
They will not be the first one we exposed either, take the heat, you are big enough, don't worry about losing 50% of your members man! :D
Bleys
03-05-2006, 05:21 PM
I'm not worrying about losing members... I don't think SPF is either.
As a forum owner and co-owner, I think that allowing sigs to be visible to everyone including search engines is a way to reward members for posting and participating. As Josh has stated, we have discussed hiding sigs for new members until they have generated 'X' number of posts to discourage spammers, but in general I think sigs should be visible.
With that said I think it is up to individual forums whether they make sigs available to all or allow sigs at all. I was annoyed when SP did things like hide sigs from anyone who wasn't logged in and I'm certain it reduced the amount of effort I put into posting article type posts. It was and is; however, their choice how they want to run their forum. If we don't like the way a forum is run then we should simply choose not to participate in said forum.
I agree with you KLB, great post, I appreciate your integrity and honesty!
You guys wonder why I changed and now support Chris when he was once my enemy :confused:
I have seen in the last few days that he really is a talented and outstanding individual in the community, we simply had a style clash and different opinions when I was on Sitepoint!
We are both a bit hard headed and we are both fighters, but after reading some of his work here and seeing how he was treated at Sitepoint and the class he has shown facing all of this, I have a much different opinion of him today!
You guys wonder why I changed and now support Chris when he was once my enemy :confused:
Somebody once said only two types of people never change their mind, those who are dead and those who are idiots. As things change and we grow our perspectives change. As a result we change our minds about things.
Personally I get very annoyed with people who fault someone for changing their mind.
Good deal, I will do my best to support this forum, I hope all of you will too, who knows, maybe Sitepoint will change for the better too in the end! :o
Bleys
03-05-2006, 08:55 PM
I find it rather humorous that Ken basically reiterated what I said, and FPU calls it a great post. But he's called me an "idiot" and "stupid" ... odd.
Also... if you want to emulate Chris, maybe you should drop your vendetta against SitePoint, since Chris doesn't have one.
Chris: "I don't have a vendetta against SitePoint. (http://www.websitepublisher.net/forums/showpost.php?p=40688&postcount=76)"
Anthony, you've been a bundle of contradictions...
Thanks for the clarification mighty judge! :rolleyes:
I am glad you have it sorted out in your own mind!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 09:04 PM
Clarification of what? Sorted what out?
Making sense is an integral part of communication, you know...
You try to create a conversation that is slanted toward your own brand of propaganda and that fails with those who see through it!
I think you need a lesson in comprehension instead of using your moderator mindset in a vain attempt to steer the conversation to your desired conclusion!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 09:21 PM
I'm not sure how you could possibly draw that conclusion. The first thing I said in this conversation was that I personally would rather that forums show signatures to guests, but that it is up to the individual forum, and if you don't like it, you can choose not to post there.
KLB just said the exact same thing.
Somehow you agree with him, but not with me.
See, Anthony, you have decided that everything I say is "pro-SitePoint" (whatever that means), you have a personal vendetta against SitePoint (for whatever reasons), and thus rather than read things I say, you automatically call them "propoganda" (likely without knowing the true meaning of the word).
I have no "desired conclusion" with my posts. I have stated my opinion. Regarding your "boycott of SitePoint" I think that is silly and will do absolutely nothing. This is my opinion. I could really care less if you carry on with it or not--I am confident it will have little effect on the landscape at SitePoint, or anywhere else for that matter.
I have found you consistently rude, obnoxious and insulting. That, to me, is unacceptable. I'd welcome a debate (though if you agree with KLB, who agrees with me, then it seems on this issue we agree and there is nothing to debate--but as I said, because you have convinced yourself that everything I said is "pro-SitePoint" you have decided that it must be wrong, even if it contradicts with things you just said), but not if you're arguments continue to degenerate into personal attacks and insults. As I have said more times than should be necessary among civil people, ad homenim is an unacceptable method of debate that usually indicates a logical failure in your argument.
Who said he agreed with you, and do you think I care for what you think :confused:
I agreed with his statement of him not liking Sitepoint taking signature links down, not with every word of his post, then you jump up and say that you said the same thing and I disagreed with you!
I did really agree with this part of his post for your information:
I was annoyed when SP did things like hide sigs from anyone who wasn't logged in and I'm certain it reduced the amount of effort I put into posting article type posts
Listen man, I don't really like moderators in the first place, I never have, ask Chris about that!
So if you have something of value to add, please do, but don't try to get me banned or win a debate that you can't really win when facts and truth and public opinion is against your position and that of Sitepoint's for that matter!
PS: I think that you are the one that uses arguments that degenerate into personal attacks and insults.
Bleys
03-05-2006, 09:50 PM
See, I haven't tried to "get you banned" ... I have reported a couple of your posts that were insulting to people. I take offense too those.
What I have said is, and I quote, "What happens here is beyond my control. Chris will do what he wants."
You seem really paranoid. Why do you think everyone is out to get you?
So "value" is what... anything that agrees with you explicity? No thanks.
Someone should report you, you are a Sitepoint manager on a forum that is owned by a man that Sitepoint just fired!
You are the one with zero integrity here, you can't even defend yourself let alone Sitepoint man!
Get real and quit your bias bull**** on an independent forum!
You don't control this forum, I am posting across the entire forum circuit for your information!
You should go to www.SEOrefugee.com www.bandofgonzos.com www.vbwebmaster.com and many other forums to defend Sitepoint while you are at it :eek:
http://www.vbwebmaster.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14277&postcount=73
http://www.bandofgonzos.com/forum/index.php?topic=3724.0
http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/general-off-topic-topics/1759-major-issue-all-forum-members.html
It will be Digital Point in a few days too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bleys
03-05-2006, 10:10 PM
I'm not hear to defend SitePoint nor as a representative of SitePoint. I'm here because Chris is an aquaintance of mine, whom I like, and because I like this forum.
Please, report me if you'd like.
Also, I just did visit those sites. It's the same 5 or 6 people agreeing with eachother, and the majority of outsiders saying what most people have said here: it's not a big deal and no one really cares enough to leave a forum for it.
Further, you are still sadly misinformed in your reporting. On vBWebmasters you call SitePoint forums "the latest forum to deny their members a signature to guest views." This was posted 03-04-06. I have told you many times already that this happened 10 months ago (on about April 20, 2005). You're about a year late to this "news" ... There is nothing remotely "latest" about it.
Well that is even worse, they have played this con game out for almost a year and defrauded members for quite a long time, but for many it is the latest story because they did not know about it! :D
Signatures were down for over 3 months from guest view at VBW before I logged out one day and discovered it, no one told any of the members when it happened if you read the thread! :D
Anthony, Josh, come on guys. I don't see the need for this. Let's cut each other some slack. I don't see any good coming from open hostilities. Josh is right we are all pretty much in agreement about sigs and just because Josh is a SPF advisor doesn't mean he has some special pass to SP's inner circle nor does he always agree with what SP does. So Josh deserves some slack. Anthony has shown a willingness to change his opinions about things and deserves some slack for this.
Anthony, Josh isn't as biased as you think. He tries to be even handed and just because he hasn't resigned as an advisor over this issue doesn't mean he agree with what SP did. Some people like me felt we needed to leave SPF due to the way things are going over there. Other people who may not like what is going on decided to stay around because they hope to be able to change things from within. We each had to make our own decisions base on our personal circumstances.
Anthony if you really knew the people at these forums, Chris included, I think you would find that Josh is very well respected by those who know him and he has a great deal of credibility. People may not always agree with him, but then again it is rare that one agrees with anyone all the time.
In regards to whether or not forums should be moderated; I think most people here will agree that forum moderation is extremely important. Without moderation, a few spammers or trolls will take control of a forum and ruin it for everyone else.
How strictly a forum should be moderated depends on the nature of the forum. For instance a forum like this can be a little more tolerant than other forums. While I probably would NOT have banned you from this site based on your posts, if someone had posted similar posts on GFXContests forum I would have banned them after the first couple of posts. I would have also removed all of the rude posts from that forum as well..
Bleys
03-05-2006, 10:23 PM
As I have also said, this has been common knowledge at SitePoint since that time.
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255796
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270568
and this one with the official reason from one of SitePoint's founders:
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313081
Usually when you boycott something, you research it first. You seem not to know much of anything about the thing you are boycotting.
It's been pretty obvious from reading those threads, and nearly every one of the ones you have started, Anthony, that this is just not an issue that most people care enough about by itself to make them leave a forum. And if they do, they leave, but don't carry a vendetta against that forum. *shrug*
Good post KLB, but no moderator or forum administrator has ever changed my style, and no one ever will.
Sitepoint administration will have to face the music on this issue, if they refuse to address these issues they will have major problems!
They know how to get in touch! :o
Bleys
03-05-2006, 10:25 PM
Ken, thanks for the kind words. :)
And it's true. I have personally asked for sig links back more than once. I would love it is SPF brought them back. But I still think it is their decision, and not having them isn't going to make me leave.
Bleys
03-05-2006, 10:27 PM
Sitepoint administration will have to face the music on this issue, if they refuse to address these issues they will have major problems!
Again, Matt and Mark (the founders of SPF) very likely have no idea who you are and have not heard of this "boycott." Why are you afraid to email or call them? If you care so much about this issue, it seems to me that you would do so.
Also, by address the issue, you mean "change things to your liking," right? That's probably unlikely.
If you mean, give an explanation of their actions, well, I just linked to a post at SitePoint where Matt Mickiewicz does just that.
Those are some very lame excuses that you linked to on the reasons for taking down signatures!
Sitepoint will be forced to put them back up, they may need to limit signatures to 2 or 4 links, but they will face a lot of hell should they choose to continue down this road for sure!
Good post KLB, but no moderator or forum administrator has ever changed my style, and no one ever will.
Maybe they won't change your style, but they can ban you if it interferes with running a civil forum. Moderators' primary responsibility is to the greater good of the forum community they moderate within the bounds laid out to them by the forum's owner.
If there is a disruptive member of a forum that is making participation in the forum unpleasant for other members and the disruptive member is not willing to tone down their "style" then the moderator will be left with no choice other than to ban the disruptive member. Flaming or launching personal attacks at other members (e.g. calling them "cry babies") is disruptive to a forum and creates a hostile forum environment. These types of behaviors can not be tolerated on a forum if the forum is to grow and flourish.
Well go back and read the thread, all they (the Sitepoint goon squad) did was beg for Chris to ban me and lock the thread, I called them cry babies because that is how they conducted themselves, that is in the record, go read it!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 10:53 PM
Actually, the people who posted that the thread should be locked (which it was) were mostly not staff at SitePoint (i.e., "Ben" -- who does not work at SPF). And except for a couple of off-handed jokes, no one called for an outright ban.
A few staff at SitePoint said that if you joined again at SPF you would be banned, because those are the rules of that forum that we must uphold as moderators there.
Perhaps you should read the thread again?
Why would I join a forum that defrauds it's members and steals content from them by keeping signature links from guest view :confused:
Sitepoint sucks man!
Bleys
03-05-2006, 11:03 PM
You shouldn't. I already said about 10 trillion times that if you don't like a forum, don't participate there.
We only said that to make sure you knew since you declared that SitePoint would "have their hands full" ... we wanted to let you know that if that statement included joining SPF there would be a problem. Anything else you want to do... be my guest.
Anyway, you said:
[SitePoint Forums] can bank on it hurting them in a way that will be hard to fathom, it will also happen quickly too!
So, I'm just going to sit back and see how quickly my mind is blown by how much damage you do to the forum.
Well go back and read the thread, all they (the Sitepoint goon squad) did was beg for Chris to ban me and lock the thread, I called them cry babies because that is how they conducted themselves, that is in the record, go read it!
I can't defend or critizes what happened to you over at SPF in the past. All I can do is tell you how I would react in the present under various circumstances to posts you are making in the present here in these forums.
The definition of what is a disruptive influence is extremely subjective. As has been said, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Under certain circumstances your behavior here could be considered extremely disruptive. I do not think; however, any purpose would be served by banning you. I'd rather gain your respect and maybe encourage you to channel your energy and enthusiasm into a constructive direction.
To have good debates you have to have people who are passionate about things and you are very passionate. If you channeled that passion into debating a topic on the merits of the topic rather than launching attacks on individuals' character, you could be a very good debater. All people are bias about things. The purpose of a debate is to better understand an issue and maybe convince people of the merits of one's point of view. Attacking people personally the way Fox News does and you have been doing here is not a successful debating strategy.
Also unlike what our politicians might think, repeating the same claim over and over without providing factual evidence does not make the claim true.
Vinnie
03-06-2006, 06:54 AM
Why would I join a forum that defrauds it's members and steals content from them by keeping signature links from guest view :confused:
Can you please explain the process by which "not showing signature links" = "stealing content"? I'm sure there's some easy mathematical formula or logical proof for it.
Figure it out Vinnie :)
Those that post create 100% of the content, content is the main asset of any forum, if you don't understand that, then you just need to hang around a lot longer so you can figure it out!
Vinnie
03-06-2006, 07:16 AM
Figure it out Vinnie :)
Those that post create 100% of the content, content is the main asset of any forum, if you don't understand that, then you just need to hang around a lot longer so you can figure it out!
Okay, but I don't see how you can honestly equate it to theft when the posters themselves are still posting despite having full knowledge that their signatures aren't being indexed.
What would you think of Chris if you spent your time and effort working hard here for 2 years or so creating thousands of pages of content, then one day he decided to take down the signature links to guest view which are the large majority of page views :confused:
Would you still say he is a great guy while he cashed in on ADSENSE and affiliate income while you got nothing :confused:
On one side of the argument, Vinnie, Josh and others are correct. It is not theft if everyone knows up front that sigs are not visible to the general public and SEs. On the other hand I do agree with Anthony that it is very cheeky to have sigs public for many years thus attract people who are posting in part to help promote their own websites only to suddenly turn off sigs to the general public without warning. Either a forum should leave public sigs turned on, or they should start with sigs turned off. Turning sigs off once one feels their forum has become successful is not right.
With that said we all must accept that this is a risk we take when we participate in a forum. One day a forum might be here and the next it may be gone.
Vinnie
03-06-2006, 07:34 AM
What would you think of Chris if you spent your time and effort working hard here for 2 years or so creating thousands of pages of content, then one day he decided to take down the signature links to guest view which are the large majority of page views :confused:
Would you still say he is a great guy while he cashed in on ADSENSE and affiliate income while you got nothing :confused:
Though I'm personally glad he leaves them on, in the end it's Chris's forum and he's well within his right as the person running this site to do what he wants with signatures.
I don't post in forums just to get my links out. As a matter of fact, there are a couple of forums I've registered at where I don't keep a signature at all. It's just not a huge deal to me at this point in time. Also remember that even on forums that block sigs for guests/bots, there are still logged in users clicking your signature links, and that traffic is probably better than untargetted search engine traffic if you have an interesting enough site.
KLB the webmaster community can also dump Sitepoint and that is going to happen, the word is out on Sitepoint, their founders will have to address this issue and give answers to all of us or their troubles will seem like a snowball rolling downhill chasing the administrators!
They know where they can reach out and communicate, should they decide not to address these issues it will only get worse for them everyday!
The New Guy
03-06-2006, 07:56 AM
Who would want to communicate with you?
KLB the webmaster community can also dump Sitepoint and that is going to happen, the word is out on Sitepoint, their founders will have to address this issue and give answers to all of us or their troubles will seem like a snowball rolling downhill chasing the administrators!
The truth is, that while some individuals may dump them, it is highly unlikely that the "community" at large will dump them. Any body who has joined since SP turned off public sigs (and there have been thousands) has joined with the full knowledge that sigs are not visible to the general public. For many people they get more from SPF than simply being able to promote themselves in their sigs.
Who would want to communicate with you?
Some dummies do! Look at your post! :D :p
Some dummies do! Look at your post! :D :p
He does have a point. It is his threads that are getting the most attention, while threads that try to tackle real issues that really effect us have gotten little attention. Instead of gawking at train wrecks, we could be spending our time discussing issues that effect us as web publishers.
Well that might be because many forums are linking into these threads on WP now, ever thought that the forum circuit is not limited to Sitepoint guys! :confused: :o
Well that might be because many forums are linking into these threads on WP now, ever thought that the forum circuit is not limited to Sitepoint guys! :confused: :o
But most of the responders to your threads are SP members.
The New Guy
03-06-2006, 08:20 AM
Some dummies do! Look at your post! :D :p
Oh, I really didn't "want" to and have resisted it, but I feel your bringing down the good vibe that WPF had with your inane ramblings about the most minor issues.
Oh, I really didn't "want" to and have resisted it, but I feel your bringing down the good vibe that WPF had with your inane ramblings about the most minor issues.
Can you tell the world "the good vibe" you have added to this thread :confused:
It seems to me that you're the one adding inane (INSANE) ramblings with your idiotic comments!
Go find a thread where you get "a good vibe" and stay the hell away from me, do me and the forum a favor!
Chris
03-06-2006, 09:29 AM
You gotta be nice FPU or you'll end up banned here too.
Did you warn the others to stay on topic too :confused:
Chris
03-06-2006, 10:41 AM
Its not about being on topic, its about calling people dummies etc.
A lot of these people are still on SP staff, but they are here supporting me, there is no need to deride them. I don't take offense if they stay on SP staff, I'm just thankful for whatever support they give.
Some people, like KLB & loOol resigned and are now visiting here, thats great. Others haven't resigned but are making an effort to participate here now, and thats fine too.
So, be nice.
I am going to do my best Chris, but when people post suggestions to management in an attempt to have administration ban me I take that as a threat!
I make a great attempt and always have in staying on topic until people are unfair and start taking cheap shots at me!
Bleys
03-06-2006, 11:19 AM
Any body who has joined since SP turned off public sigs (and there have been thousands) has joined with the full knowledge that sigs are not visible to the general public.
About 30,000 new members at SPF since last April.
Also, anyone who posts at forums knows that their ability to do so is a priviledge--not a right. And they know this up front (or they should). If you break the rules of the forum, you may have your account suspended. Similarly, if the forum decides to turn off sigs for whatever reason--that's their right. They don't owe the posters anything, in my opinion. Your use of those sig links was a priviledge, and if they decide to revoke it for their own reasons, that is fine. You don't have to like it, and you can stop posting. You can go back and delete your posts (on most forums--including SitePoint).
Like Vinnie, I'm happy that Chris has sigs viewable by SE Bots turned on. But wouldn't stop coming here if he turned them off. :)
Maybe you should ask these forum members what they think of Sitepoint policy from a Sitepoint managers viewpoint like you are here! :confused:
http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/general-off-topic-topics/1759-major-issue-all-forum-members.html
I bet you can win them over with your sound logic! :p
I am going to do my best Chris, but when people post suggestions to management in an attempt to have administration ban me I take that as a threat!
I make a great attempt and always have in staying on topic until people are unfair and start taking cheap shots at me!
There is a difference between staying on topic and being rude. These two things bare no relation to each other. Threads go off topic all the time. I am afraid; however, most "cheap shots" were started by you not by others. Regardless of who started it, I personally find it is best policy to never reply to cheap shots in kind.
If someone takes a cheap shot at you and you successfully avoid replying with a cheap shot of your own, you will look like the more reasonable individual. Even when personally insulted, regardless of how difficult it is, resist throwing insults back. If you are successful at avoiding the use of cheap shots and personal insults others will respect you for it.
As far as people trying to get you banned, don't worry about it. Chris is very independantly minded and such suggestions wouldn't carry much weight with him. Chris is going to do what Chris wants to do.
Maybe you should ask these forum members what they think of Sitepoint policy from a Sitepoint managers viewpoint like you are here! :confused:
http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/general-off-topic-topics/1759-major-issue-all-forum-members.html
I bet you can win them over with your sound logic! :p
The problem is Beleys and Stymiee are not SPF managers. They are advisors. As such they have no decision making power as to the direction SPF goes in. That control is retained by the owners of SP and paid SP employees.
Well good, those are the people that I want to discuss these issues with anyway! :o
Vinnie
03-06-2006, 11:51 AM
Maybe you should ask these forum members what they think of Sitepoint policy from a Sitepoint managers viewpoint like you are here! :confused:
http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/general-off-topic-topics/1759-major-issue-all-forum-members.html
I bet you can win them over with your sound logic! :p
Gee, a lot of them seem to be taking the "it's not such a big deal" stance that we're taking here. Coincidence?
Sure Vinnie, you have your own version of reality working in your mind man!
Bleys
03-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Maybe you should ask these forum members what they think of Sitepoint policy from a Sitepoint managers viewpoint like you are here! :confused:
http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/general-off-topic-topics/1759-major-issue-all-forum-members.html
I bet you can win them over with your sound logic! :p
I don't think most of those people (except GTAce, who still posts at SPF regularly--14 posts in March so far) are members of SitePoint. So why would it matter what they think of SitePoint?
If that is your strategy, it is akin to getting people who only ride the bus to boycott cars and to publicize their boycott only to other people who ride the bus. Or, in other words, you're talking to the wrong people.
I have yet to see any evidence that you have convinced any currently active member of SitePoint to join your cause.
But I'll say again: it doesn't really matter to me. My opinions about signatuer links (which I've reiterated more times than I care to recall) hold true for any forum, not just SitePoint. I don't really care if you or a few other people subscribe to them. It really is no skin off my back if you decide not to post at the forums I go to--and I know from practice and observation that the forums I go to are not going to fall apart over an issue like this (and haven't). So it really doesn't bother me.
Bleys
03-06-2006, 11:57 AM
Gee, a lot of them seem to be taking the "it's not such a big deal" stance that we're taking here. Coincidence?
Vinnie, I already tried turning him on to that fact... but he came back with something about how I was spreading propaganda.
Vinnie
03-06-2006, 11:58 AM
Sure Vinnie, you have your own version of reality working in your mind man!
If my reality is one where minor issues remain minor then awesome :cool:
I'm definitely against hiding signatures. If there forum member is posting, they're contributing to the forum. In my opinion, it's greedy of a forum administration to hide signatures.
I completely agree Max, if a member has zero value to the forum they should be banned then you don't have the problem!
If a member has unacceptable links in their signature they should be warned to take them down!
Michael
03-06-2006, 04:09 PM
Anthony,
Why do you even care? And why is this about Sitepoint? They started not showing sigs to guests many months ago, why is it only now that you seem to take a stance?
Also, who do you think you are? You constantly go on about "They do not know who I am" Do you seriously think you are going to effect their forum in a large way?
Wow, I think I will quit now, you changed my mind with that post! :rolleyes:
PS: To be honest Mike, I hate liars and greedy people, I hate people that steal from others like the oil executives do to the average citizens and I hate forum owners that take advantage of those who create 100% of their main asset, the threads that members author!
See other reasons why Sitepoint lies to members here!
http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/17190-post33.html
I hope this explains it all to you!
Chris
03-08-2006, 02:55 PM
Don't forget that the majority of SP members do not own business, or at the very least do not care about incoming links. Contrast that to SEOChat's old demographic. That is why people at SitePoint do not care about signatures.
Then why the Sitepoint marketplace, charging folks to advertise, then taking down signatures to make sure they do?
There is more to this story than people know about just as there is with oil companies that rip us off too!
Why give time and good effort to create content for a forum that exploits your work for their own profit, giving no credit back to you?
Michael
03-08-2006, 03:39 PM
The marketplace is to advertise things you are selling, like websites. Not to post links so people will visit your websites.
Sagewing
03-08-2006, 03:42 PM
There is more to this story than people know about just as there is with oil companies that rip us off too!
Oh brother.. what a tangent... Stand by for conspiracy theories! FPU, they are all out to get you!
The marketplace is to advertise things you are selling, like websites. Not to post links so people will visit your websites.
Really???
Thanks for teaching me that, I never seen a site for sale in a signature link before :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.