What's the deal with some forums suppressing signatures

[SenseiSteve]

What's the deal with some forums suppressing signatures on various topics. I just responded to a thread about colocation and noticed all of the responses had their signatures suppressed. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason.

 

[easyhostmedia]

What's the deal with some forums suppressing signatures on various topics. I just responded to a thread about colocation and noticed all of the responses had their signatures suppressed. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason.

I noticed some forums dont allow advertising or links within signatures, but is that not the point in you sign a post with a link to your own services.

 

[server]

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason.

Are you talking about WHT? There are many specific rules there, but, I guess, we can do nothing about it. Some may be annoying, but in many cases they prevent flood of spam and advertising and just lets for professional opinion to thrive.

 

[SenseiSteve]

Are you talking about WHT? There are many specific rules there, but, I guess, we can do nothing about it. Some may be annoying, but in many cases they prevent flood of spam and advertising and just lets for professional opinion to thrive.

I did not mention the name of any forum, only the inconsistency with which some forums manage the display of its member's signatures.

 

[Artashes]

I think that there is an underlying notion that signatures might push disingenuous contributions. Someone may post something just for the sake of pushing his/her signature, instead of focusing on quality advice. If you take that self-benefiting motivator away, then the desire to contribute and help becomes 100% pure and intrinsically driven.

I remember I participated in a webmaster forum a lifetime ago that prohibited signatures of any kind. It was cool and the advice in general was pretty good. Of course there is the other side of the coin, where members that go out of their way to be helpful deserve some level of recognition and noticeability.

Which is why I am a fan of a balanced approach in letting everyone know why they are being helpful in the first place. Plus, if the playing field is equal, you will still easily spot a more quality advice versus one that was driven by that other reason.

 

[easyhostmedia]

I think that there is an underlying notion that signatures might push disingenuous contributions. Someone may post something just for the sake of pushing his/her signature, instead of focusing on quality advice. If you take that self-benefiting motivator away, then the desire to contribute and help becomes 100% pure and intrinsically driven.

I remember I participated in a webmaster forum a lifetime ago that prohibited signatures of any kind. It was cool and the advice in general was pretty good. Of course there is the other side of the coin, where members that go out of their way to be helpful deserve some level of recognition and noticeability.

Which is why I am a fan of a balanced approach in letting everyone know why they are being helpful in the first place. Plus, if the playing field is equal, you will still easily spot a more quality advice versus one that was driven by that other reason.

Yes, and then how many times has a signature tripped up a users.

i.e. I have found this site **** and been using it for several months and it is great.

but in their signature they have a URL link to the very site they recommend

 

[server]

If you take that self-benefiting motivator away, then the desire to contribute and help becomes 100% pure and intrinsically driven.

Exactly. You can find out who contributor is if you really want this and if contributor also wants it.

Often signatures are longer than posts. Text in signatures is colored, in bold, it turns forum to a mess.

 

[Artashes]

Yes, and then how many times has a signature tripped up a users.

i.e. I have found this site **** and been using it for several months and it is great.

but in their signature they have a URL link to the very site they recommend

In which case it clearly becomes spam and should be treated as such.

Often signatures are longer than posts. Text in signatures is colored, in bold, it turns forum to a mess.

I know what you mean. I think a healthy management of signatures should be able to prevent that circus. Of course not every community does.

PS: The absolute worst is allowing images in signatures.