TalkBoard Topics - Can the TB revisit the Commercial links in Signatures issue?

I'm beginning to think that commercial links, as well as referral links, affiliate links, and links to blogs that contain affiliate links has gotten out of hand. I'm starting to see them all over the place in the forums I visit.

This is no more than free advertising and/or trolling for new business. FT is now for-profit, and if any entity is going to make money on FT members, well, IMHO, it should be FT itself, or at least a charity that FT supports.

There was a time when signatures could not contain any commercial link, and I was told this was changed several years ago, and I must have missed the discussion about it.

Can this be discussed again?

I agree with you on all points ^

If it's becoming that intrusive, can't you just turn off signatures?

There was little discussion on TB about this change, which was not promulgated by them. The problem of signatures was repeatedly brought to TB, which refused to do anything to clarify/improve the situation - signatures were a massive grey area, where the TOS was unclear and the mods had real difficulty intepreting the TOS. As a result Randy took the decision to change the TOS to allow commercial links, but to limit how these could be displayed.

I have to say, is there a real difference between my signature, drawing attention to two Dos in Edinburgh, and someone else drawing attention to a bar say in the US? Visually they look the same. I don't really see why one is seen as an imposition and one is not. And until recently, I had a signature promoting a charity I am associated with - that also would not have been allowed under the previous rules without getting all kinds of permissions which no-one actually had time to look into the charity to give.

They're not intrusive, I just don't think FT should be a source of new business or income for people.

They're not intrusive, I just don't think FT should be a source of new business or income for people.
There are limits in place on those who can show signatures - mainly to prevent people signing up just to advertise their companies. Signatures will not appear until you've been on the board a number of days and a number of posts.

We already have a thread in Cbuzz which encourages people to promote their businesses on FT - should we delete this also? (this is clearly a rhetorical OMNI type question as moderation decisions are outwith the scope of TB ;)).

And shouldn't you take the advice in your own signature? :p

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all the people with referral and affiliate links in their signatures, plus those with links to their businesses. I'm not talking about new members.

We have a small team working on a rewrite of the FyerTalk guidelines. The signature policy is being examined for the reasons that you give. Input is welcome.

There are limits in place on those who can show signatures - mainly to prevent people signing up just to advertise their companies. Signatures will not appear until you've been on the board a number of days and a number of posts.

We already have a thread in Cbuzz which encourages people to promote their businesses on FT - should we delete this also? (this is clearly a rhetorical OMNI type question as moderation decisions are outwith the scope of TB ;)).

And shouldn't you take the advice in your own signature? :pBut who enforces/moderates the signatures to ensure they are "in compliance"?

They're not intrusive, I just don't think FT should be a source of new business or income for people.Agreed ^

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all the people with referral and affiliate links in their signatures, plus those with links to their businesses. I'm not talking about new members.And again I agree

But who enforces/moderates the signatures to ensure they are "in compliance"?

We have a team of two or three mods each year who serve as our signature committee. This way, we ensure consistency in the guidelines for the signatures - though, of course, there are always tricky ones. The same people look at handles when requested to do so. We recently had a handle reported that was NSFW. Fortunately, we've got UrbanDictionary to refer to for some of us not familiar with current terms, sexual and otherwise. I blush now and again.

Signatures are handled very much on an exception basis. A mod will notice a sig while reading FT and will report it. Or a member will get in touch and ask us to review something and we do.

We have a small team working on a rewrite of the FyerTalk guidelines. The signature policy is being examined for the reasons that you give. Input is welcome.
My general input on signatures:

No referral links to sites where the referrer receives an incentive of some sort for each new referral as we usually have congas for those in S.P.A.M., and if we don't the person should start one
No "PM me for a referral to XYZ" as again, we usually have congas for those in S.P.A.M. or the person should start one
No "vist my blog for XYZ," be it various offers for points, miles, cheap hotels, cheap airfare, whatever.
No advertising for bars, pubs, hotels, restaurants, airlines, pet stores, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc., to mean no commercial advertisements at all.

IMO, referrals should be done in S.P.A.M., in conga fashion. Should one not participate in the conga, they should not be allowed to list their referral in their signature, potentially earning several referrals, when those who play by the rules in S.P.A.M. can only earn one referral. Same concept for the "PM for me a referral," that is very popular, when there is a conga for those sites in S.P.A.M.

I would think that those who were concerned about people "gaming" their post counts by using OMNI games should support a change like that, since currently, many people are "gaming" the referrals.

You might want to read the thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1209129-referral-links-signatures-clarification-needed.html) for additional discussion about referral links in signatures.

We have a team of two or three mods each year who serve as our signature committee. This way, we ensure consistency in the guidelines for the signatures - though, of course, there are always tricky ones. The same people look at handles when requested to do so. We recently had a handle reported that was NSFW. Fortunately, we've got UrbanDictionary to refer to for some of us not familiar with current terms, sexual and otherwise. I blush now and again.

Signatures are handled very much on an exception basis. A mod will notice a sig while reading FT and will report it. Or a member will get in touch and ask us to review something and we do.
It might be helpful to know which mods are on the signature committee each year, so that those who have concerns about a signature can send a PM to them. I realize that we can send a PM to you, but If those who were on the signature committee were listed on the "view forum leaders" link, a PM could be sent to all at once, rather than sending it to you, and you taking the time to forward it.

I doubt many members are aware that there is such a committee, and that rather than RBP'ing something due to a signature, they can contact the committee concerning it, as sending an RBP may or may not actually be communicated to the proper people.

...I'm starting to see them all over the place in the forums I visit.

You just notice it now, Mary? I've been bugged by it since 2009 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16309708-post5.html).

...we ensure consistency in the guidelines for the signatures -
The current guidelines for signatures apparently "outranks" SPAM Forum's, as far as referral links are concerned. When I raised this particular issue, it was too small a potato for either the admin or TB to take it seriously nor form any action. :(

I personally don't think consistency across all FT TOS and Guidelines is too much to ask. However, I seem to be the minority.

We have a small team working on a rewrite of the FyerTalk guidelines. The signature policy is being examined for the reasons that you give. Input is welcome.

My early input had been falling on deaf ears so I am not going to retype my frustration. I had explained my POVs clearly in this thread:

Referral links in signatures - clarification needed (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1209129-referral-links-signatures-clarification-needed.html)

I just wanted to add something to my original post, as I just noticed a long thread about bloggers and affiliate links.

My post had nothing to do with that at all. I may have read it at the beginning, but after seeing it again today and going to the most recent part of the conversation, people were complaining about affiliate links.

I posted this because I noticed a pretty dramatic increase in the types of links I mentioned over the past few months.

No ulterior motive on my part - I don't even read the blogs.

We have a team of two or three mods each year who serve as our signature committee. This way, we ensure consistency in the guidelines for the signatures - though, of course, there are always tricky ones. The same people look at handles when requested to do so. We recently had a handle reported that was NSFW. Fortunately, we've got UrbanDictionary to refer to for some of us not familiar with current terms, sexual and otherwise.
Could it be possible to perhaps "farm" this job, and other such jobs, out to a committee(s) made up of "other" volunteers? Perhaps something along the lines of the Ambassador program?

If it's becoming that intrusive, can't you just turn off signatures?.

I didn't even know such a thing existed. :o

I can see the OP's point but to be honest I stopped clicking on signature links after finding 99.9% of them very boring.

Could it be possible to perhaps "farm" this job, and other such jobs, out to a committee(s) made up of "other" volunteers? Perhaps something along the lines of the Ambassador program?

I like that idea, and it might serve as a good way to involve additional people who want to give back to FT.

Having had direct experience of serving on the committee, I don't really think that's feasible. At times, review of signatures is associated with other moderator activity and issues which may have arisen with members and incidents which mods have dealt with, and that is obviously considered confidential to moderators.

And perhaps more sadly, you do need (and way more often than I expected :() to have more tools available than simply asking to get members to conform to the signature rules as some can and do refuse to change their signatures.

And also, having done it for 18 months, it is an exceptionally dull job. I'm not sure I would wish it on enthusiastic people! :o

IMHO, there shouldn't be any advertising (or referral links) to any other sites other than direct links to FlyerTalk in peoples signatures.

IMHO, (and emphasis on the IMHO) the reason the rule was changed is because it wasn't consistenly enforced and some mods just didn't seem to care if people were posting things in the sigs that other mods did (at least that's what it seemed like).

Personally, I think they're a bad thing.

Having had direct experience of serving on the committee, I don't really think that's feasible. At times, review of signatures is associated with other moderator activity and issues which may have arisen with members and incidents which mods have dealt with, and that is obviously considered confidential to moderators.

And perhaps more sadly, you do need (and way more often than I expected :() to have more tools available than simply asking to get members to conform to the signature rules as some can and do refuse to change their signatures.

And also, having done it for 18 months, it is an exceptionally dull job. I'm not sure I would wish it on enthusiastic people! :o

Of course after the new volunteer committee rules on what is appropriate they can then ask the senior moderator(s) to action the ruling. No need for other volunteers to be involved.

Having had direct experience of serving on the committee, I don't really think that's feasible. At times, review of signatures is associated with other moderator activity and issues which may have arisen with members and incidents which mods have dealt with, and that is obviously considered confidential to moderators.

And perhaps more sadly, you do need (and way more often than I expected :() to have more tools available than simply asking to get members to conform to the signature rules as some can and do refuse to change their signatures.

And also, having done it for 18 months, it is an exceptionally dull job. I'm not sure I would wish it on enthusiastic people! :o
Why not try adding one or two non-moderator volunteers to the committee, and only have it deal with the signature portion of any issues?

As Q Shoe Guy said, that committee would make a ruling, and then senior moderators would implement it.

Of course after the new volunteer committee rules on what is appropriate they can then ask the senior moderator(s) to action the ruling. No need for other volunteers to be involved. And I'm saying as someone who spent 18 months on the review team, that that is not a workable solution. Having to farm out all aspects of enforcement to a group of mods who are not part of the decision making process is not a good step forward and given the inevitable delays with working with a group of people online would really lengthen out the whole process.

In addition, having a group of people who are not moderators manage this would actually make the situation more confused. At the moment, if you (or anyone) has a problem with a signature then you report it to any moderator. They notify the review team, but all other mods can also see the notification, so you know if someone has already alerted on a signature or not. The review team deliberates and acts if they consider it appropriate. If the member refuses to comply with their request then the review team discuss, cajole, warn, suspend and ultimately permanent ban as required in an escalating process where they are in control of the process.

Under your idea, someone sees a signature they don't like. They probably won't know about this volunteer group (there's a significant proportion of members who don't even know who/what mods are afterall, let alone TB and we have a TB election every year - some members are entirely focussed on the important things about FT and not the management and regulation), so would probably still report it to their mod, who would then have to forward on the concerns to the volunteer group. There's then no co-ordination between mods, so they don't know if anyone else has reported the concern, and if the signature is concerned with something in particular that is happening on a specific forum, then the review team cannot be told of the background which might provide mitigation.

The review team would then start the process of review and deciding to act - if they decided that action was required, they'd have to ask the senior mods to start engaging with the member to change the signature, since I don't think a non-mod person can act officially to try and enforce the TOS. At that point it effectively moves firmly back into mod control, and a group was not tasked with this originally due to their workload already is now having to run the whole thing. Even if you allow that a non-mod volunteer could make the original approach to the member but the member remains unresponsive (and given that it's a non mod making the request, the response from many members might be to tell them to get lost since the paradigm of mod as TOS enforcer is the accepted one, anyone else might look like they are butting in), it would be against mod practice just to ban on command - it's not something as a mod I would be able to do - we are expected to communicate with the member to inform them how and why they have been banned etc. And we obviously could not share any communication about that banning with the non-mod committee.

So I foresee a number of practical difficulties, from my experience on the committee and what the work generally entails. Yet, you don't seem prepared to listen to that, substituting what you think should/does happen, with what actually happens.
Why not try adding one or two non-moderator volunteers to the committee, and only have it deal with the signature portion of any issues?

As Q Shoe Guy said, that committee would make a ruling, and then senior moderators would implement it.
kipper, the signature committee already does deal only with the signature portion of the problem. But as a completely fictitious example, a mod might say to the review team 'Member A has a bit of a thing for Member B. They had a spat recently in which they both got warned and now member A has a signature referencing the incident - is this acceptable?' and we'd go and check the signature and if it said something like 'Member B is a big fat troll' it wouldn't be; if it was a veiled but negative illusion then it probably wouldn't be; if it said something like ' there are big fat trolls on FT' then it probably would be as being too generic to be traceable back to one member. If you didn't know the full background between the pair though, you would not necessarily know the second one was still an attack - but member B could and would still feel attacked and harassed (which could lead to levels of further escalation etc). So sometimes, you need to know the context to be able to see what is the message behind a signature and that the member may be using their signature to send a message - and not one which is necessarily welcomed on FT.

Adding 'lay people' to the review team could be a better option than turning it over entirely to them, but the bigger the team gets, the more complicated it becomes also. Would the benefit of doing so be greater than the cost of enlarging the team? It's hard for most to judge since they don't see the deliberations - I would say it's better to ensure you have a group who have divergent opinions, so on contentious issues you get a good discussion from all points before you reach a group decision than the mod/non-mod divide you seem to be seeing again.

Jenbel, thank you for the peek behind the moderator curtain. I know there is a reluctance to allow posters to see how mods run things, but even someone as sceptical of moderation as me can appreciate the challenges mods face when we are permitted to hear about how things are dealt with.

IMHO, there shouldn't be any advertising (or referral links) to any other sites other than direct links to FlyerTalk in peoples signatures.

IMHO, (and emphasis on the IMHO) the reason the rule was changed is because it wasn't consistenly enforced and some mods just didn't seem to care if people were posting things in the sigs that other mods did (at least that's what it seemed like).

Personally, I think they're a bad thing.When I first found out about the liberal policy with regard to sigs, I was shocked. I put an ad for my local pub up for a while just to see if I could and...I could.

I am still not comfortable with sig lines being allowed to be used for profit. But I don't know that an outright ban of off-FT links is appropriate. I have such a link in my sig line currently, but it's not for profit (unless getting my promised, pinkie-swore LIFETIME benefits back is a considered 'for profit' ;))

So while I am not comfortable with the status quo, trying to create standards to allow some off-FT links but disallow others would put the mods even more in the position of picking winners and losers. And I am loathe to do that. So this may well be a case of 'perfect is the enemy of good enough...'

IMHO, (and emphasis on the IMHO) the reason the rule was changed is because it wasn't consistenly enforced and some mods just didn't seem to care if people were posting things in the sigs that other mods did (at least that's what it seemed like).
That has been my impression as well, and both you & I seem to be of minority opinion.

Even before the current sig policy went into effect, not all MODs took consistent action toward referral links in sig that I'd RBPed. That is very frustrating from a general member's POV, a policy that's not universally reinforced on FT.

Now we spell out and move on to a more "liberal" policy w/r/t links in sig, lumping line-cutting referrals, self-promo links and free ad under this blanket and open-to-interpretation coverage. Has FT become a better place because of it? Not in my book.

Jenbel, thanks for explaining how it all works "behind the scenes" re: signature committee.

On a different note - TB doesn't pick moderators, ambassadors, volunteers, so any suggestions re: those should go to the Community Director directly via PM.

Cheers.

On a different note - TB doesn't pick moderators, ambassadors, volunteers, so any suggestions re: those should go to the Community Director directly via PM.

Cheers.

Agree, but there IS value in the TB talking about amendments to the TOS, including sig guidelines. ^

As I say, I am personally not comfortable with the current policy. But am also hard pressed to come up with something better....so I hope suggestions continue to be discussed.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE71-2/300.21.012; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)



On a different note - TB doesn't pick moderators, ambassadors, volunteers, so any suggestions re: those should go to the Community Director directly via PM.

Cheers.

Agree, but there IS value in the TB talking about amendments to the TOS, including sig guidelines. ^

As I say, I am personally not comfortable with the current policy. But am also hard pressed to come up with something better....so I hope suggestions continue to be discussed.

i agree w/ you koko re: discussion re: signatures. Someone may have an idea the committee can use. I was just pointing out that discussions re: mod, ambassadors, mods should go to the community director. Cheers

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE71-2/300.21.012; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)



i agree w/ you koko re: discussion re: signatures. Someone may have an idea the committee can use. I was just pointing out that discussions re: mod, ambassadors, mods should go to the community director. Cheers

What about something like, "no referrals, disclosed or undisclosed, that benefit the referring member, and no encouraging members to request a referral from the poster will be permitted" as a start?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE71-2/300.21.012; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)



i agree w/ you koko re: discussion re: signatures. Someone may have an idea the committee can use. I was just pointing out that discussions re: mod, ambassadors, mods should go to the community director. Cheers
Dammit, you could have posted that before my mega long post ;) :mad:

Dammit, you could have posted that before my mega long post ;) :mad:

Actually I thought your long post was very informative ^

Cheers.

What about something like, "no referrals, disclosed or undisclosed, that benefit the referring member, and no encouraging members to request a referral from the poster will be permitted" as a start?

Rules are only good if they're actually enforced. :(

I have to agree with that. Previously, signature rules banning advertising were sporadically enforced and when they were, took an awful lot of moderator time, for, to be honest, very little return.

This is a big ask, to go back to moderating signatures as closely as this. What is the big benefit from doing so? People who don't like seeing adverts always have the option of turning them off so they can no longer see them. The rules are set up so they cannot be too intrusive (and that is enforced). People are somehow offended by seeing blue words in a sig which says 'click here for a referral' instead of 'come to the BMI do'? That's a don't sweat the small stuff for me :confused:

Rules are only good if they're actually enforced. :(
Exactly, and per previous discussions, they weren't enforced then.
I have to agree with that. Previously, signature rules banning advertising were sporadically enforced and when they were, took an awful lot of moderator time, for, to be honest, very little return.

This is a big ask, to go back to moderating signatures as closely as this. What is the big benefit from doing so? People who don't like seeing adverts always have the option of turning them off so they can no longer see them. The rules are set up so they cannot be too intrusive (and that is enforced). People are somehow offended by seeing blue words in a sig which says 'click here for a referral' instead of 'come to the BMI do'? That's a don't sweat the small stuff for me :confused:
If moderators don't want to or are unable to devote the time to enforcing the rules, I'm sure there are numerous other FT members who would be happy to step up and help.

I get annoyed by the people who either don't participate in a conga that's set-up in S.P.A.M. for referrals, or who do that, but think they're special enough that they should be able to receive additional referrals, rather than sending those who want referrals to the conga in S.P.A.M., so that more people can benefit.

If we allow people to do that, where is the incentive to participate in, or start congas in S.P.A.M. and the motivation to follow those congas?

People who don't like seeing adverts always have the option of turning them off so they can no longer see them.

While the oldtimers know how to use this feature, new posters don't have a clue.

While the oldtimers know how to use this feature, new posters don't have a clue....then please refer them to here (www.flyertalk.com/forum/technical-issues/310493-new-flyertalk-helpful-hints-tips-suggestions-enhance-your-experience-post2709928.html#post2709928).

I have to agree with that. Previously, signature rules banning advertising were sporadically enforced and when they were, took an awful lot of moderator time, for, to be honest, very little return.

This is a big ask, to go back to moderating signatures as closely as this. What is the big benefit from doing so? People who don't like seeing adverts always have the option of turning them off so they can no longer see them. The rules are set up so they cannot be too intrusive (and that is enforced). People are somehow offended by seeing blue words in a sig which says 'click here for a referral' instead of 'come to the BMI do'? That's a don't sweat the small stuff for me :confused:

+1
After all, we already see adverts from FT, so why not see ones that benefit FTers?

+1
After all, we already see adverts from FT, so why not see ones that benefit FTers?

There are many differences between ads from FT and ones in signatures. Ads on FT generate revenue for FT, and if you had FT Premium previously, you don't see ads, as they are blocked. Basically, you could, and will again eventually, be able to pay a certain amount to not see the ads at all.

For the ones that benefit only one individual FTer, well, it benefits 1 person, can perhaps not benefit the next person in line in the conga in S.P.A.M., and allows people to skirt around the whole idea of congas in S.P.A.M.

And do we have any empirical evidence that people who put their referral links in sigs actually get any responses?

In other words, is this a problem of perception, or one of reality?

And do we have any empirical evidence that people who put their referral links in sigs actually get any responses?

In other words, is this a problem of perception, or one of reality?

If you were milking it, would you admit it? Why, when we have rules concerning congas, would we allow others to manipulate the system by using their signatures? Does it matter if there is proof that they are receiving referrals, when they're manipulating the system and showing that either the conga referral isn't enough to them, or that they simply don't care if there is a conga?

FWIW - I rarely read signatures of anyone. My guess is I'm not the only one. BTW - I'm not saying there aren't some issues w/ signatures, but I am saying my guess is 99% of FTers don't bother reading signatures. Of course I need to point out that's only a guess.

Full disclosure - I rarely read post counts either. Someone had to tell me when I reached 20K & 30K post counts respectively because while I don't read others' post counts, I sure as heck don't read my own.

FWIW - I just checked S.P.A.M. & there seem to be 2-3 conga lines per page, but what they're about is all over the place in terms of content. I'm not sure most folk who are promoting themselves in signatures are eating much into individual congas. But again I just heard about congas, don't really understand them, and am probably too lazy to start one - other than at a FT wedding :D

Cheers.

And do we have any empirical evidence that people who put their referral links in sigs actually get any responses?

In other words, is this a problem of perception, or one of reality?If you were milking it, would you admit it? Why, when we have rules concerning congas, would we allow others to manipulate the system by using their signatures? Does it matter if there is proof that they are receiving referrals, when they're manipulating the system and showing that either the conga referral isn't enough to them, or that they simply don't care if there is a conga?Agreed and perhaps a "re-review" of the signatures is in order?

FWIW - I rarely read signatures of anyone. My guess is I'm not the only one. BTW - I'm not saying there aren't some issues w/ signatures, but I am saying my guess is 99% of FTers don't bother reading signatures. Of course I need to point out that's only a guess......
Cheers.As (imho) probably the case with most F/t'ers hence those signatures which "don't fit the guidelines" are still out there ;)

If you were milking it, would you admit it? Why, when we have rules concerning congas, would we allow others to manipulate the system by using their signatures? Does it matter if there is proof that they are receiving referrals, when they're manipulating the system and showing that either the conga referral isn't enough to them, or that they simply don't care if there is a conga?
So the answer is no, you don't.

And they aren't manipulating the system - they are acting within the rules of FT. That you don't like what they are doing morally does not mean they are in breach of the rules, nor they are manipulating the system.

Before you start asking others to enforce your moral code, I ask again, what is the benefit to be derived from doing so? You are asking others to undertake work on your behalf - as one of those being asked, I don't think I'm asking a great deal for a better quantification of the issue than 'I don't like to see it'.

There are many things I don't like to see on FT - I don't call for them to be banned however (ok, I'll admit (in the interests of disclosure), the one line link to a blog, I have suggested should be banned).

As a data point, I had a signature asking for support for a charity in which I'm associated with for a while. Wasn't asking for money, just for people to click through and vote for that charity. So far as I know, only one person did so - and that was someone with a similar interest in the issue to mine. If that's a measure of the effect that referral links have, then it's not a very big one and IMHO, does not warrant the work you are asking for moderators to carry out on your behalf.

So the answer is no, you don't.

And they aren't manipulating the system - they are acting within the rules of FT. That you don't like what they are doing morally does not mean they are in breach of the rules, nor they are manipulating the system.

Before you start asking others to enforce your moral code, I ask again, what is the benefit to be derived from doing so? You are asking others to undertake work on your behalf - as one of those being asked, I don't think I'm asking a great deal for a better quantification of the issue than 'I don't like to see it'.

There are many things I don't like to see on FT - I don't call for them to be banned however (ok, I'll admit (in the interests of disclosure), the one line link to a blog, I have suggested should be banned).

As a data point, I had a signature asking for support for a charity in which I'm associated with for a while. Wasn't asking for money, just for people to click through and vote for that charity. So far as I know, only one person did so - and that was someone with a similar interest in the issue to mine. If that's a measure of the effect that referral links have, then it's not a very big one and IMHO, does not warrant the work you are asking for moderators to carry out on your behalf.
We're telling people in S.P.A.M. that they need to post referral links as a conga, and that they must disclose those links. However, by not restricting the referral link issue in signatures, we're allowing them to post their sometimes non-disclosed referral link in other forums, where they can, and/or will receive multiple benefits.

As I've said before, if people are unable or unwilling to do any additional work in regards to their moderator duties, I'd guess there are many others who would happily step up and give back to the community.

I think there seems to be some confusion here as to whether referral links in a signature constitute a "commercial" post as defined by the FT rules? My own opinion is that they do, since the referral usually benefits the poster in some way, whether it's points, money, or some other "currency".

Or is there another rule that I'm missing that would prevent referral links from being posted in any forum other than S.P.A.M.?

So to bring this thread full-circle, if what I described above is the problem, does the TB want to a) eliminate the rule about commercial postings, b) keep the rule as is, or c) keep the rule and add referral links to the examples, d) keep referrals to signatures and S.P.A.M. only and nowhere else, or e) other?

We're telling people in S.P.A.M. that they need to post referral links as a conga, and that they must disclose those links. However, by not restricting the referral link issue in signatures, we're allowing them to post their sometimes non-disclosed referral link in other forums, where they can, and/or will receive multiple benefits.

As I've said before, if people are unable or unwilling to do any additional work in regards to their moderator duties, I'd guess there are many others who would happily step up and give back to the community.
Ok, but I don't read SPAM, I don't use SPAM, and the rules specific to the SPAM forum are not actually part of the TOS. Why should I be bound by the rules of one forum I don't actually participate in and have no intention of participating in?

We have rules in Cbuzz about do threads. However, we can only ask that those rules be applied in other forums, and we have no way of enforcing them, because they are not TOS rules - if a mod doesn't want to do it, then we cannot make them. I see the SPAM rules as similar. It's great they are there for the SPAM threads, and they're really necessary for that forum, but it does not mean they are applicable outside of SPAM.

And we still haven't established if this is actually a benefit they are receiving - based on my experience promoting a charity, you get bugger all from people clicking on links in your signature. If the problem is one of perception - you and a very small number of other people don't like it, then I still say it does not warrant adding to moderator's workload unless you can establish a much greater effect than your own opinion.

Your usual canard about 'not wanting to do it resign and we'll find others to do it' ignores the fact that the moderator role is a volunteer role, and I don't think it's too much that we ask that the rules the moderators are required to enforce actually address issues, not perceptions and are reasonable to enforce. It would not be the first time that a section of the TOS has been amended when it was found too impractical to enforce, for no real benefit. I don't mind spending time and effort giving my free time when there is a clear benefit to doing so - but to be told I'm expected to do something as tedious as signature rule enforcement because a few people don't like a few people posting referrals - which may or may not generate any benefit - and from my own experience do not - I have to say feels like a large imposition for no real benefit. What is the benefit to FT - that a few members don't get upset that someone might be working the system? That's really all the benefit we can find for 'criminalising' a group of FTers who currently have perfectly legitimate signatures? Given the very limited number of people who are complaining about the issue, which is apparently prevalent (although I can't say I've actually ever seen such a signature), it would seem the complainers are very much in the minority. If TB is meant to represent the members, then surely on this they should consider that if the issue is so prevalent, and the number of those who don't like it are so small, then it would not be representing the members to ban it :confused:

I'd much prefer TB spend their time looking at posting links to blogs, as that's a bigger issue for FT in terms of the effects it has on the community.

I think there seems to be some confusion here as to whether referral links in a signature constitute a "commercial" post as defined by the FT rules? My own opinion is that they do, since the referral usually benefits the poster in some way, whether it's points, money, or some other "currency".

Or is there another rule that I'm missing that would prevent referral links from being posted in any forum other than S.P.A.M.?

So to bring this thread full-circle, if what I described above is the problem, does the TB want to a) eliminate the rule about commercial postings, b) keep the rule as is, or c) keep the rule and add referral links to the examples, d) keep referrals to signatures and S.P.A.M. only and nowhere else, or e) other?
lo2e - they don't. Although it's not stated explicitly in the TOS (because we don't necessarily want to advertise the fact) it has been decided that a commercial signature does not make a commercial post.

Ok, but I don't read SPAM, I don't use SPAM, and the rules specific to the SPAM forum are not actually part of the TOS. Why should I be bound by the rules of one forum I don't actually participate in and have no intention of participating in?

We have rules in Cbuzz about do threads. However, we can only ask that those rules be applied in other forums, and we have no way of enforcing them, because they are not TOS rules - if a mod doesn't want to do it, then we cannot make them. I see the SPAM rules as similar. It's great they are there for the SPAM threads, and they're really necessary for that forum, but it does not mean they are applicable outside of SPAM.

And we still haven't established if this is actually a benefit they are receiving - based on my experience promoting a charity, you get bugger all from people clicking on links in your signature. If the problem is one of perception - you and a very small number of other people don't like it, then I still say it does not warrant adding to moderator's workload unless you can establish a much greater effect than your own opinion.

Your usual canard about 'not wanting to do it resign and we'll find others to do it' ignores the fact that the moderator role is a volunteer role, and I don't think it's too much that we ask that the rules the moderators are required to enforce actually address issues, not perceptions and are reasonable to enforce. It would not be the first time that a section of the TOS has been amended when it was found too impractical to enforce, for no real benefit. I don't mind spending time and effort giving my free time when there is a clear benefit to doing so - but to be told I'm expected to do something as tedious as signature rule enforcement because a few people don't like a few people posting referrals - which may or may not generate any benefit - and from my own experience do not - I have to say feels like a large imposition for no real benefit. What is the benefit to FT - that a few members don't get upset that someone might be working the system? That's really all the benefit we can find for 'criminalising' a group of FTers who currently have perfectly legitimate signatures? Given the very limited number of people who are complaining about the issue, which is apparently prevalent (although I can't say I've actually ever seen such a signature), it would seem the complainers are very much in the minority. If TB is meant to represent the members, then surely on this they should consider that if the issue is so prevalent, and the number of those who don't like it are so small, then it would not be representing the members to ban it :confused:

I'd much prefer TB spend their time looking at posting links to blogs, as that's a bigger issue for FT in terms of the effects it has on the community.
The rules about congas and pure referrals in S.P.A.M., at least to me, serve to help the community, not just one individual. Shouldn't we try to help the community, not allow a few to reap all of the benefits?

As far as if people are receiving a benefit, I wouldn't expect those who are to chime in and admit that they are to demonstrate that TB should look at revising the TOS. Your experience is simply 1 experience, and does not prove or disprove whether others receive a benefit or not.

I could say the same thing about your usual, "asking others to do work." I realize this is a volunteer position, however I don't see how difficult adding this would be, when there already is a signature committee, and when posters could simply PM those on the signature committee when they saw something against the TOS, if the membership was made public. A committee usually signifies that there's more than one person responsible for it, so no one person would be required to do all of the "tedious" work themselves. Likewise, you argue against further limiting moderators, but then also argue against things like this that would give moderators more power. Which is it? I've cut the quote below so this post doesn't go even longer

This seems a very contrary position, and seems to be more about limiting moderators... again :rolleyes:

So, just because a limited number of people are "complaining" about something makes them the minority and doesn't mean there is an issue? IIRC, even hot button topics like post counts in OMNI drew only a small fraction of registered FT members to the discussion. Simply because a small number of people participate in a discussion does not mean it isn't a problem. It may mean they've not seen this thread or don't realize that there might be a way to modify the TOS.

Shouldn't we try to help the community, not allow a few to reap all of the benefits? Please provide proof to show that is actually happening. I've asked over and over and over again for it, and so far you've been unable to provide. I've pointed out that I had (that I know of) one response to my signature when I asked for support for a charity. The ball is in your court to provide any evidence which would suggest that this is a an actual problem, rather than you just not liking the situation.

Also, please feel free to provide your evidence to contradict my experience on the Sig committee which would suggest you are right and I am incorrect about the level of work which monitoring signatures entails, and how your request would apparently not increase the work load of those mods for no discernible benefit. I am left wondering, if this is such a rampant problem as some have suggested, why it would also be such a small problem that the workload would be minimal :confused: Are some of you overstating the problem to encourage a rule change, or are you understating the problem to try and counter the problem about the mod workload for no real benefit? It certainly appears like you are making arguments which appear to be contradictory.

Until you can answer those two points, I doubt this debate is ever going to get beyond you saying 'I think this should happen' or 'I don't like this happening', and neither of those are good reasons to change the rules of FT.

Please provide proof to show that is actually happening. I've asked over and over and over again for it, and so far you've been unable to provide. I've pointed out that I had (that I know of) one response to my signature when I asked for support for a charity. The ball is in your court to provide any evidence which would suggest that this is a an actual problem, rather than you just not liking the situation.

Also, please feel free to provide your evidence to contradict my experience on the Sig committee which would suggest you are right and I am incorrect about the level of work which monitoring signatures entails, and how your request would apparently not increase the work load of those mods for no discernible benefit. I am left wondering, if this is such a rampant problem as some have suggested, why it would also be such a small problem that the workload would be minimal :confused: Are some of you overstating the problem to encourage a rule change, or are you understating the problem to try and counter the problem about the mod workload for no real benefit? It certainly appears like you are making arguments which appear to be contradictory.

Until you can answer those two points, I doubt this debate is ever going to get beyond you saying 'I think this should happen' or 'I don't like this happening', and neither of those are good reasons to change the rules of FT.
You want me to prove something that requires people to step up and admit they're reaping a benefit from it, when if they admit that they are, it adds fuel to the fire to do away with it. Most people would probably either decline to answer, or would suggest that if they received a benefit, it was a small one, in the hopes of cooling the issue. I don't think there really is a way to prove or disprove it in either direction, unless there's a way to monitor clicks on links in signatures without asking people to self-report.

Considering that moderator actions, including apparently, the names of those on the signature committee, are private, how could anyone, other than moderators provide evidence on anything dealing with moderator actions? I am suggesting that if the names of those on the signature committee were public, it would be very easy for members, upon seeing a signature with a referral link, to send a message to those moderators. Upon viewing the signature, it should be a fairly standard PM to that member stating something like, "Your signature is in violation of our TOS as it contains a referral link. Please remove it. Failure to do so can result in XYZ punishment." Then, it's a simple search and check in a few days to ensure compliance, or discipline escalates. I'd bet you could even cut and paste the same PM to each person in violation, minimizing the time you'd need to spend typing each PM. Not a lot of extra work, unless moderators put the time into checking every signature themselves. However, if you follow a correct it when caught method, it's a few minutes each time you're on FT, probably. Oh, the horror of spending a few extra minutes doing work! :rolleyes:

Likewise, you failed to answer my question--Why do you argue against further limiting moderators, but then argue against giving moderators additional power, other than you don't want to do the extra work?

Last night, while a the UNITED HKG mistake thread was temporarily locked, the signature that announced the lock included a link to MilePoint.

It looked like this:

***thread temporally closed***
__________________
FM Stats | MilePoint <hotlinked>
Naughty Airlines? Naughty Banks?

Without commenting on the relative wisdom of temporarily closing a thread at during a period of high activity (as that is not the purview of the TB, is a TOS violation, etc) my concern (and it is a deep concern) is that while the thread was temporarily closed, people were being directed to another commercial site.

Think of this from the perspective of a poster, because there were approximately 1200 posters logged on to the MP forum when this occurred:

You are actively following breaking news and are having a conversation about it.

Suddenly without warning the thread is temporarily locked.

Ok, you are frustrated, but whatever.

Wait!

What is that under the announcement that the thread is temporarily locked....a link to 'MilePoint'...interesting...let's go there. Hey, look, a copycat website with a copycat thread! Awesome. I don't ever need to go back to FT.

It is rather ridiculous that the very last thing on that thread for 30-40 minutes last night during the height of activity while the thread was locked was a link to a competing web site.

I see that the last post on the locked thread no longer has a sig line that contains a link to MP.

And while I am gratified that the barn door was closed after the stampede, I still would like to see this issue addressed on a systemic rather than one-off basis so this sort of ridiculousness does not happen again.

So I am highly motivated to see links in sig lines regulated in some manner, at the very least to prohibit links to competing IBBs.

Last night, while a the UNITED HKG mistake thread was temporarily locked, the signature that announced the lock included a link to MilePoint.

It looked like this:


Without commenting on the relative wisdom of temporarily closing a thread at during a period of high activity (as that is not the purview of the TB, is a TOS violation, etc) my concern (and it is a deep concern) is that while the thread was temporarily closed, people were being directed to another commercial site.

Think of this from the perspective of a poster, because there were approximately 1200 posters logged on to the MP forum when this occurred:

You are actively following breaking news and are having a conversation about it.

Suddenly without warning the thread is temporarily locked.

Ok, you are frustrated, but whatever.

Wait!

What is that under the announcement that the thread is temporarily locked....a link to 'MilePoint'...interesting...let's go there. Hey, look, a copycat website with a copycat thread! Awesome. I don't ever need to go back to FT.

It is rather ridiculous that the very last thing on that thread for 30-40 minutes last night during the height of activity while the thread was locked was a link to a competing web site.

I see that the last post on the locked thread no longer has a sig line that contains a link to MP.

And while I am gratified that the barn door was closed after the stampede, I still would like to see this issue addressed on a systemic rather than one-off basis so this sort of ridiculousness does not happen again.

So I am highly motivated to see links in sig lines regulated in some manner, at the very least to prohibit links to competing IBBs.
I can understand your frustration.

What about simply banning links that point somewhere other than FT in signatures?

What about simply banning links that point somewhere other than FT in signatures?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment - what if someone is doing a charity run & has posted in Flyertalk Cares, but decides to post a link directing to their follow me or donate here. Same w/ Kiva etc. There are a # of links that might not be competitive in nature - ie, someone posts a link to their travel photography site.

I understand koko's frustration & I do think signatures need to be addressed & koko gives a good reason why. Having said that, I'm not totally convinced that no links is the answer (just as I'm not totally convinced allowing all links is the answer).

Presumably the Community Director's committee re: the subject is following this thread - or hopefully they are.

Cheers.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment - what if someone is doing a charity run & has posted in Flyertalk Cares, but decides to post a link directing to their follow me or donate here. Same w/ Kiva etc. There are a # of links that might not be competitive in nature - ie, someone posts a link to their travel photography site.

I understand koko's frustration & I do think signatures need to be addressed & koko gives a good reason why. Having said that, I'm not totally convinced that no links is the answer (just as I'm not totally convinced allowing all links is the answer).

Presumably the Community Director's committee re: the subject is following this thread - or hopefully they are.

Cheers.
They could post a link to their FT thread about the event or the Kiva thread, rather than linking directly to a charity event or to Kiva.

So I am highly motivated to see links in sig lines regulated in some manner, at the very least to prohibit links to competing IBBs.

Would you include prohibiting links to various blogs that have discussion threads, too? Why limit it to just another frequent flyer forum? How can you prohibit one and not the other? Don't those bloggers make money off their sites, too?

What about simply banning links that point somewhere other than FT in signatures?

So a link to my non-commercial photo site (not a single ad there) should be banned? Don't like that idea.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment - what if someone is doing a charity run & has posted in Flyertalk Cares, but decides to post a link directing to their follow me or donate here. Same w/ Kiva etc. There are a # of links that might not be competitive in nature - ie, someone posts a link to their travel photography site.

I understand koko's frustration & I do think signatures need to be addressed & koko gives a good reason why. Having said that, I'm not totally convinced that no links is the answer (just as I'm not totally convinced allowing all links is the answer).

Presumably the Community Director's committee re: the subject is following this thread - or hopefully they are.

Cheers.I agree with both of your points and perhaps turning off of all signatures and having a global review done? Yeah I know, it's a b!thc of a project but kokonutz addresses a very valid point and concern-and if I may add, not only another competitive site but also various blogs which are "signature linked" which are offering services where the "blog holder" gets revenue from folks visiting their blog and/or from the services offered on said blog

I agree with both of your points and perhaps turning off of all signatures and having a global review done?

Turning off signatures is not a solution. It's a way to avoid dealing with the issue that was raised here 3 months ago. Come back to the table with some options and let the membership offer input. Also, decide "who" will be tasked with enforcing the regulations you come up with.

Let me take you back to the discussion of the news article posting policy about 5-6 years back. The Talk Board came out with a policy on where to post, and the moderators were not obligated to follow it. Are you going to task moderators with enforcing a signature policy you create? Will you have moderator buy-in to whatever you come up with?

Personally, unless the link is offensive in some manner (like to an X-rated site), I think we can make our own decisions what to click on or not.

As to the revenue generated at a linked site, is your concern that they're depriving Internet Brands from advertising income? Why should the Talk Board be concerned about revenue generated at other sites that are linked in a signature line?

We have a small team working on a rewrite of the FyerTalk guidelines. The signature policy is being examined for the reasons that you give. Input is welcome.

So is this something the Talk Board really needs to spend any time on?

As to the revenue generated at a linked site, is your concern that they're depriving Internet Brands from advertising income? Why should the Talk Board be concerned about revenue generated at other sites that are linked in a signature line?
I couldn't care less about IB's revenue.

I care about losing posters to competing sites when threads are closed and the very last thing on that closed thread is a link to a directly competing site.

There were a LOT of brand new posters in the HKG thread (and yes, I did go out of my way to welcome them to FT! ;)). Do we really want to direct those new folks away from FT like that?!

Or as my wife put it last night: "Holy crap. first truly fascinating thread on FT in some time and it gets locked with a link to MilePoint being the last thing in the locked thread...as a member of the TB are you guys TRYING to lose posters?"

This needs fixed, as they say in Pittsburgh.

Turning off signatures is not a solution. It's a way to avoid dealing with the issue that was raised here 3 months ago. Come back to the table with some options and let the membership offer input. Also, decide "who" will be tasked with enforcing the regulations you come up with.

Let me take you back to the discussion of the news article posting policy about 5-6 years back. The Talk Board came out with a policy on where to post, and the moderators were not obligated to follow it. Are you going to task moderators with enforcing a signature policy you create? Will you have moderator buy-in to whatever you come up with?

Personally, unless the link is offensive in some manner (like to an X-rated site), I think we can make our own decisions what to click on or not.

As to the revenue generated at a linked site, is your concern that they're depriving Internet Brands from advertising income? Why should the Talk Board be concerned about revenue generated at other sites that are linked in a signature line?
I realize that any change is going to upset some people; however not enacting some form of change is also going to upset some people.

As far as if a link is offensive in some manner, oftentimes, it's not known that it's offensive until someone has already clicked on it, at which point, they may be offended and are outraged that there was no policy in place to prevent that sort of thing.

Since you seem to not like any of the suggestions thus far (turning off signatures completely for a period of time to review them, banning links to non-FT threads, or banning links to competing IBB's), what do you suggest? How would you solve the problem of commercial links in signatures, some directing users to competing sites?

In regards to your travel photos, there's a whole forum devoted to travel photography on FT. I'd think that links to your photos could and should be posted there to share with more people.

That thread was, fortunately, temporarily closed for maintenance and ultimate splitting into two threads to better serve the members. The specific thread issue seems to have been quickly resolved, and is not so much a topic for this Forum.

The germane issue here continues to be whether and how commercial links in signatures should be regulated on FT, and defining what a commercial link consists of.

Thanks!

JDiver, Moderator

I'm not totally convinced that no links is the answer (just as I'm not totally convinced allowing all links is the answer).


Agree with Sharon. There has to be a better solution than allowing nothing at all but that is just MHO.

Turning off signatures is not a solution. It's a way to avoid dealing with the issue that was raised here 3 months ago. Come back to the table with some options and let the membership offer input. Also, decide "who" will be tasked with enforcing the regulations you come up with.

Let me take you back to the discussion of the news article posting policy about 5-6 years back. The Talk Board came out with a policy on where to post, and the moderators were not obligated to follow it. Are you going to task moderators with enforcing a signature policy you create? Will you have moderator buy-in to whatever you come up with?

Personally, unless the link is offensive in some manner (like to an X-rated site), I think we can make our own decisions what to click on or not.

As to the revenue generated at a linked site, is your concern that they're depriving Internet Brands from advertising income? Why should the Talk Board be concerned about revenue generated at other sites that are linked in a signature line?Yes, turning off signatures is not a solution but that's not what I was alluding to but rather as a stop-gap measure until a review of signatures could be done and as I also said, it's a b!tch of a project but if there is a signature review committee, then they should review.

As to "enforcement", yes, I think the moderators should be the ones involved as they review posts and delete as needed (or as not needed but I digress ;)) and if reviewing posts where there is a link in a signature, they should follow thru by reviewing where the link goes and make a determination to keep or not to keep and if not to keep, notify the poster about their signature and why it needs to be changed. This to me this goes under the "other duties as assigned" category of any job-paid or voulteer

As to IB being deprived of any revenue, I look at it as someone getting a free ride to their site and them getting revenue off of us (you, me and IB)

I couldn't care less about IB's revenue.

I'm glad to hear that. It was goalie that raised the topic of revenue at competing sites. I'm still interested in why he is concerned about revenue at competing sites.

There were a LOT of brand new posters in the HKG thread (and yes, I did go out of my way to welcome them to FT! ;)). Do we really want to direct those new folks away from FT like that?!

So whatever rule the Talk Board comes up with here will apply equally to travel blogs that are linked or only to Milepoint? Where do you draw the line in what is an appropriate travel site link to post? I post FlyerTalk links over on Milepoint and no one cares. Yet here on FlyerTalk the reg flag is raised when a Milepoint link is posted.

I don't think we need this new level of regulation.

As far as if a link is offensive in some manner, oftentimes, it's not known that it's offensive until someone has already clicked on it, at which point, they may be offended and are outraged that there was no policy in place to prevent that sort of thing.

Good point. If someone notices such a link, they can alert a moderator to deal with it. We all know moderators have tools to edit posts. Do they have the same tools to edit/delete an inappropriate signature? If not, could they alert the person that has those tools?

what do you suggest? How would you solve the problem of commercial links in signatures, some directing users to competing sites?

It really doesn't bother me as long as the links are not offensive. I think those in the "offensive" category would be so few that you could task a handful of moderators in dealing with them (maybe the same ones that are on the signature committee). I've yet to click on an offensive link myself, but can't discount that they exist somewhere here.

I've yet to see anyone spell out how they're going to decide what is a commercial link that should be banned. Is a link to Frommer's web site commercial? They have ads on it, but they have some travel articles that one might want to link to. If we're going to not allow links to competing travel sites, will that include all travel blogs and travel sites with discussion areas?

In regards to your travel photos, there's a whole forum devoted to travel photography on FT. I'd think that links to your photos could and should be posted there to share with more people.

That's a pretty slow forum with only 10 active threads in the last 24 hours. Currently there are 3 members and 10 guests on line there (compare that to UA where right now there are 967 members and guests on line). If someone wants to view my Olympic photos, they would get much more exposure in the signature line versus my starting a new thread in the Travel Photography forum. I get a lot of positive feedback from FTers that have looked at my photos via the signature link here.

I'm glad to hear that. It was goalie that raised the topic of revenue at competing sites. I'm still interested in why he is concerned about revenue at competing sites.



So whatever rule the Talk Board comes up with here will apply equally to travel blogs that are linked or only to Milepoint? Where do you draw the line in what is an appropriate travel site link to post? I post FlyerTalk links over on Milepoint and no one cares. Yet here on FlyerTalk the reg flag is raised when a Milepoint link is posted.

I don't think we need this new level of regulation.

Please note, this thread is only about commercial links in signature lines.

I include links all to places over the web in posts. Those posts are governed by the TOS. http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q71

Commercial and Charitable Messages - link to this guideline
a. Commercial posts. Posts containing promotional messages for commercial products or services - including but not limited to Internet sites, business advertisements and solicitations to donate miles or points – are prohibited and will be removed. FlyerTalk is not a marketplace and nothing is to be offered for sale or conditioned on an exchange of money or barter. Nothing in this rule is intended to prohibit exchange of travel coupons as allowed by the rules of Coupon Connection. If you spot a commercial post, please report it.

Signatures are governed separately:
http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q79
Signatures, any links they contain and the content of the linked site are subject to the FlyerTalk content standards concerning decency, obscenity, the furthering of illegal activities and offensive language. As with any postings on FT, personal attacks are never permitted. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the ultimate decision on the permissibility of a signature rests with the administrators.

Note that commercial prohibition is specifically excluded.

This whole issue is fairly easily fixed, imho, by amending tos 79 thus:

Signatures, any links they contain and the content of the linked site are subject to the FlyerTalk content standards concerning decency, obscenity, the furthering of illegal activities, commercial and charitable messages and offensive language. As with any postings on FT, personal attacks are never permitted. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the ultimate decision on the permissibility of a signature rests with the administrators.


It makes no sense to me that there is one standard for posts and a totally different standard for sig lines.

Which takes us, again, back to the question of "what is a commercial signature"? I still have not seen that defined. Has the moderator committee working on signatures come up with a definitive answer on this? Are they allowed to discuss this publicly or only on the moderator forum? If there is a moderator committee working on this, are they sharing their results with the Talk Board? Do we even know if the Talk Board and moderator signature committee are on the same track? What happens if the moderator signature committee comes up with a different solution than the Talk Board? Who wins?


The germane issue here continues to be whether and how commercial links in signatures should be regulated on FT, and defining what a commercial link consists of.

I just don't see that anyone has defined what a commercial signature is yet. If you can't define it, how do you regulate it?

This whole issue is fairly easily fixed, imho, by amending tos 79 thus:

I dislike the inclusion of charitable messages in your rewrite. I have no qualms about reexamining the topic of commerical posts in signatures and possibly imposing some limits on them but would be very opposed to banning charitable links in signatures.

Yes, turning off signatures is not a solution but that's not what I was alluding to but rather as a stop-gap measure until a review of signatures could be done and as I also said, it's a b!tch of a project but if there is a signature review committee, then they should review.
What are you meaning a 'review of signatures'? We've kind of been there, done that and arrived at the current policy. And had it tweaked once it went operational to remove the english language requirement. And now, the TOS group will have the opportunity to review again.

I know - having served on the sigcom - that many, many members enjoy their signatures. To hear someone who is elected to represent us even suggest that they should be forcibly turned off across the board - well, I think anyone voting for that would find themselves unelectable at the next election. This would make the OMNI storms seems like teacups! It would certainly raise the visbility of TB, but not in a good way.

Can I just remind you - you are elected to represent us. Nowhere, did I vote for any of you to vote to turn off a feature I, and many others, make use of and enjoy on FT, because a few people don't like it. The needs of the many, not the needs of the few whiners?

How many people have complained about this? How many people have signatures - you don't think depriving those of us who use sigs of them to satisfy the complainers - who don't need to view sigs themselves if they find them so distasteful - is a bit of a hammer to crack a nut?

You are our reprsentatives, not our controllers :td: :mad: Please remember that you represent more than the very small number of people complaining here about sigs - you are also supposed to represent the silent majority, a very large number of which have signatures.

Please note, this thread is only about commercial links in signature lines.

I include links all to places over the web in posts. Those posts are governed by the TOS. http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q71



Signatures are governed separately:
http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q79


Note that commercial prohibition is specifically excluded.

This whole issue is fairly easily fixed, imho, by amending tos 79 thus:

Signatures, any links they contain and the content of the linked site are subject to the FlyerTalk content standards concerning decency, obscenity, the furthering of illegal activities, commercial and charitable messages and offensive language. As with any postings on FT, personal attacks are never permitted. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the ultimate decision on the permissibility of a signature rests with the administrators.


It makes no sense to me that there is one standard for posts and a totally different standard for sig lines. Except that's what it used to be, and the moderator experience was it doesn't work in practice for reasons enumerated earlier.

So, given we know it doesn't work, why are we proposing to return to something we already know doesn't work?

The problem koko talks about was more a symptom of the situation. The milepoint link would be absolutely of no interest to anyone if the thread was not locked. I would guess that the link is of little interest or value to members on a fair weather day.

Had the thread not been locked, the link would have not stood out. The problem wasn't the link, but that the thread was closed at a time of high activity.

Nobody is questioning the locking of the thread. This is the job of the moderators, who have and require enough autonomy to carry out their tasks, as they seem fit.

Reactive management would see the problem as the link, when really the link wasn't really the issue. Looking at the same link out of that specific situation shows that the link is pretty harmless, which reinforces my point. It then seems like your concerns are critical of moderation (comments like the number of people on the forum when the thread was locked, etc) and not relevant to this conversation.

Why not just say that signatures cannot contain links? If someone wants to link to a 'Do, or a thread, or another site, their signature can always mention, "View my member profile for my link to XYZ."

Good point. If someone notices such a link, they can alert a moderator to deal with it. We all know moderators have tools to edit posts. Do they have the same tools to edit/delete an inappropriate signature? If not, could they alert the person that has those tools?

It really doesn't bother me as long as the links are not offensive. I think those in the "offensive" category would be so few that you could task a handful of moderators in dealing with them (maybe the same ones that are on the signature committee). I've yet to click on an offensive link myself, but can't discount that they exist somewhere here.

I've yet to see anyone spell out how they're going to decide what is a commercial link that should be banned. Is a link to Frommer's web site commercial? They have ads on it, but they have some travel articles that one might want to link to. If we're going to not allow links to competing travel sites, will that include all travel blogs and travel sites with discussion areas?

That's a pretty slow forum with only 10 active threads in the last 24 hours. Currently there are 3 members and 10 guests on line there (compare that to UA where right now there are 967 members and guests on line). If someone wants to view my Olympic photos, they would get much more exposure in the signature line versus my starting a new thread in the Travel Photography forum. I get a lot of positive feedback from FTers that have looked at my photos via the signature link here.
There have been posts from others that they've reported signatures previously, but nothing has been done about it.

As far as what defines a commercial link, why not start with things like blog links, referral links, advertising for businesses, or other IBB's?

If I want to look at photographs of the Olympics, I wouldn't search signatures of posts, I'd go to the Travel Photography forum, or would search for a Trip Report about the Olympics. YMMV

What are you meaning a 'review of signatures'? We've kind of been there, done that and arrived at the current policy. And had it tweaked once it went operational to remove the english language requirement. And now, the TOS group will have the opportunity to review again.

I know - having served on the sigcom - that many, many members enjoy their signatures. To hear someone who is elected to represent us even suggest that they should be forcibly turned off across the board - well, I think anyone voting for that would find themselves unelectable at the next election. This would make the OMNI storms seems like teacups! It would certainly raise the visbility of TB, but not in a good way.

Can I just remind you - you are elected to represent us. Nowhere, did I vote for any of you to vote to turn off a feature I, and many others, make use of and enjoy on FT, because a few people don't like it. The needs of the many, not the needs of the few whiners?

How many people have complained about this? How many people have signatures - you don't think depriving those of us who use sigs of them to satisfy the complainers - who don't need to view sigs themselves if they find them so distasteful - is a bit of a hammer to crack a nut?

You are our reprsentatives, not our controllers :td: :mad: Please remember that you represent more than the very small number of people complaining here about sigs - you are also supposed to represent the silent majority, a very large number of which have signatures.
He's not pushing to turn them off permanently, but rather, temporarily, until all signatures can be reviewed.
Except that's what it used to be, and the moderator experience was it doesn't work in practice for reasons enumerated earlier.

So, given we know it doesn't work, why are we proposing to return to something we already know doesn't work?
In reading back through your posts, I see that it didn't "work in practice," because, "signature rules banning advertising were sporadically enforced and when they were, took an awful lot of moderator time, for, to be honest, very little return." So, because it took a lot of moderator time, for very little return, and at least some of the moderators don't want to put that time into it, we should all just turn a blind eye to it?

I realize that being a moderator can be a thankless job, can result in angry emails/PM's, and can take a bit of time. However, enforcing the TOS or site guidelines should not be cut because moderators don't want to take the time. If a lack of time would keep things from being enforced, then perhaps either additional moderator should be added or those moderators who feel they don't have enough time to enforce things should step aside for the good of FT.

The problem koko talks about was more a symptom of the situation. The milepoint link would be absolutely of no interest to anyone if the thread was not locked. I would guess that the link is of little interest or value to members on a fair weather day.

Had the thread not been locked, the link would have not stood out. The problem wasn't the link, but that the thread was closed at a time of high activity.

Nobody is questioning the locking of the thread. This is the job of the moderators, who have and require enough autonomy to carry out their tasks, as they seem fit.

Reactive management would see the problem as the link, when really the link wasn't really the issue. Looking at the same link out of that specific situation shows that the link is pretty harmless, which reinforces my point. It then seems like your concerns are critical of moderation (comments like the number of people on the forum when the thread was locked, etc) and not relevant to this conversation.You make a good point.

Would it be wrong to insist on a more strict set of rules for moderators' signatures than for posters' signatures?

I get it that they are members 'first and foremost,' but when a thread is locked, their sig line is the last thing anyone sees on that thread.

As such, they have an extra responsibility to be judicious in what is contained in that sig line.

Something like: 'Moderators signatures must comply with every TOS and should not link to alternative IBBs, blogs or other sites where locked thread discussions can continue.'

I know I am going to get the whole knee-jerk 'you can't tell moderators what to do....only moderators can do that.' But how about just a friendly suggestion for an addition to the Moderator Best Practices document?


You are our reprsentatives, not our controllers :td: :mad:
I have to say, this made me giggle. Don't worry, we know who the controllers are. :p :*

You make a good point.

Would it be wrong to insist on a more strict set of rules for moderators' signatures than for posters' signatures?

I get it that they are members 'first and foremost,' but when a thread is locked, their sig line is the last thing anyone sees on that thread.

As such, they have an extra responsibility to be judicious in what is contained in that sig line.

Something like: 'Moderators signatures must comply with every TOS and should not link to alternative IBBs, blogs or other sites where locked thread discussions can continue.'

I know I am going to get the whole knee-jerk 'you can't tell moderators what to do....only moderators can do that.' But how about just a friendly suggestion for an addition to the Moderator Best Practices document?

I have to say, this made me giggle. Don't worry, we know who the controllers are. :p :*
:D I think your suggestion is a good start, because yes, when a thread is locked, their signature is the last thing that someone sees on the thread.

Why not just say that signatures cannot contain links? If someone wants to link to a 'Do, or a thread, or another site, their signature can always mention, "View my member profile for my link to XYZ."

Seems like a rather awkward way to post a link to one's own web site or own FT event. If it's right there on the signature line it's much easier to get to. I still haven't seen that there's a demand to have signatures removed. Can the Talk Board members share how many complaints they have received on this issue? Hundreds? 2? How many in the last 30 days?

Can't you still turn signatures off? Seems like an easy workaround if you don't want to view them.

There have been posts from others that they've reported signatures previously, but nothing has been done about it.

Reported to moderators, correct? That takes us back to the moderator signature committee. Have they interfaced with the Talk Board and reported their findings to the Talk Board? Do those folks talk with each other? If the moderators have resolved this issue (and I don't know if they have as I don't have access to their private forum), why is the Talk Board taking it on, particularly when the moderators are not bound by decisions made by the Talk Board (i.e. news article posting policy in the past).

As far as what defines a commercial link, why not start with things like blog links, referral links, advertising for businesses, or other IBB's?

That's a good starting point IF the Talk Board is taking on this issue. If they elect to do so, what happens the first time a moderator decides not to go by their policy and elects to follow the policy developed on the moderator forum instead? The Talk Board does not have an enforcement tool (discipline) at its disposal.

Would all internet bulletin boards include all blogs with discussion forums or ads or only blogs without discussion forums? Would you allow blogs without ads but be against blogs that don't have ads? As to businesses, suppose it's a nonprofit or hosting an FT event? I can think of all sorts of variations that would have to be addressed in a signature policy to take discretion away from the moderators. You would need to be that detailed if the Talk Board was to give instructions to the moderators (which I still don't think the moderators have to follow and we know the Talk Board does not exercise any control over moderation).

If I want to look at photographs of the Olympics, I wouldn't search signatures of posts, I'd go to the Travel Photography forum, or would search for a Trip Report about the Olympics. YMMV

I don't want you to search at all. If you frequent the same forums I do I want you to see the photos the same day I post them. I'll update my signature when I start adding photos. If you want to look at them, click the link. If not, don't click the link or turn photos off.

What are you meaning a 'review of signatures'? We've kind of been there, done that and arrived at the current policy.

I know - having served on the sigcom - that many, many members enjoy their signatures.

Can you confirm that the moderator signature committee is done with the topic of signatures? If so, can you recall if anything was posted publicly with their findings?

Seems like a rather awkward way to post a link to one's own web site or own FT event. If it's right there on the signature line it's much easier to get to. I still haven't seen that there's a demand to have signatures removed. Can the Talk Board members share how many complaints they have received on this issue? Hundreds? 2? How many in the last 30 days?

Can't you still turn signatures off? Seems like an easy workaround if you don't want to view them.

Reported to moderators, correct? That takes us back to the moderator signature committee. Have they interfaced with the Talk Board and reported their findings to the Talk Board? Do those folks talk with each other? If the moderators have resolved this issue (and I don't know if they have as I don't have access to their private forum), why is the Talk Board taking it on, particularly when the moderators are not bound by decisions made by the Talk Board (i.e. news article posting policy in the past).

That's a good starting point IF the Talk Board is taking on this issue. If they elect to do so, what happens the first time a moderator decides not to go by their policy and elects to follow the policy developed on the moderator forum instead? The Talk Board does not have an enforcement tool (discipline) at its disposal.

Would all internet bulletin boards include all blogs with discussion forums or ads or only blogs without discussion forums? Would you allow blogs without ads but be against blogs that don't have ads? As to businesses, suppose it's a nonprofit or hosting an FT event? I can think of all sorts of variations that would have to be addressed in a signature policy to take discretion away from the moderators. You would need to be that detailed if the Talk Board was to give instructions to the moderators (which I still don't think the moderators have to follow and we know the Talk Board does not exercise any control over moderation).

I don't want you to search at all. If you frequent the same forums I do I want you to see the photos the same day I post them. I'll update my signature when I start adding photos. If you want to look at them, click the link. If not, don't click the link or turn photos off.
It might be awkward, but it's a solution. I've still not read your solution, other than people turning off signatures if they don't want to see them. Perhaps some people enjoy reading signatures as far as quotes or Do's, but don't want to see "click here for a referral to..." or, "read my blog here..."

I would guess that yes, the signatures have been reported to moderators.

What if people aren't interested in seeing your photos though? I understand that you want to showcase your photos. However, you and I apparently disagree about how to do that. I think the appropriate place is in the Travel Photography forum, you think it's in your signature.
Can you confirm that the moderator signature committee is done with the topic of signatures? If so, can you recall if anything was posted publicly with their findings?
I'd guess they wouldn't have posted anything, in that discussing moderator actions is usually not published.

What are you meaning a 'review of signatures'? We've kind of been there, done that and arrived at the current policy. And had it tweaked once it went operational to remove the english language requirement. And now, the TOS group will have the opportunity to review again.By a "review of signatures", I mean exactly what it says. Review them and if any are deemed (for lack of a better expression) "not correct", then appropriate action should be taken (i.e. notifying the member, explaining the reason, asking the member to edit their signature and if no action by the member, the signature should be removed). It's really that simple but imho, it's not working as there are numerous signatures out there which refer to a member's travel blog where they receive revenue each time someone clicks over to that site and sorry, but I just don't think someone should get a free ride.

I know - having served on the sigcom - that many, many members enjoy their signatures. To hear someone who is elected to represent us even suggest that they should be forcibly turned off across the board - well, I think anyone voting for that would find themselves unelectable at the next election. This would make the OMNI storms seems like teacups! It would certainly raise the visbility of TB, but not in a good way.First off, I never said that signatures should be forcibly turned off but again, I'm suggesting that they be temporarily turned off so that they can be reviewed. You want to call it "forcibly", that's up to you but I'll call it "feature temporarily disabled while a review is being performed". Now as being elected to serve all the members of Flyertalk, you are 100% correct but I am, just like Moderators, first and foremost also a member and I am entitled to my opinion and there have been issues which I personally did not agree on but decided that it was in the best interest of Flyertalk to vote for or against an issue so with all due respect, don't play that card with me as you won't win.

Can I just remind you - you are elected to represent us. Nowhere, did I vote for any of you to vote to turn off a feature I, and many others, make use of and enjoy on FT, because a few people don't like it. The needs of the many, not the needs of the few whiners?You are 100% correct but I am, just like Moderators, first and foremost I am also a member and entitled to my opinion and there have been issues which I personally did not agree on but decided that it was in the best interest of Flyertalk to vote for or against an issue so with all due respect, again-don't play that card with me as you won't win.

you don't think depriving those of us who use sigs of them to satisfy the complainers - who don't need to view sigs themselves if they find them so distasteful - is a bit of a hammer to crack a nut?Where did I say I would be depriving anyone of anything? I'm simply saying that folks need to play by the rules-and the rules are there but imho, they are not being enforced!

You are our reprsentatives, not our controllers :td: :mad: Please remember that you represent more than the very small number of people complaining here about sigs - you are also supposed to represent the silent majority, a very large number of which have signatures.You're beginning to sound like a broken record :rolleyes:. As I said above, I was elected to serve all member of Flyertalk and that also includes the "complainers" and "whiners" you refer to but it sounds to me like you are falling into those categories as you have something now which I propose having reviewed but you say "no, you can't do that". What I propose isn't perfect but show me something that is and for that matter YOU propose something and whether or not I agree with it, if it has merit and will work for the greater good of Flyertalk, I'll vote for it.

Why not just say that signatures cannot contain links? If someone wants to link to a 'Do, or a thread, or another site, their signature can always mention, "View my member profile for my link to XYZ."A thought ^

He's not pushing to turn them off permanently, but rather, temporarily, until all signatures can be reviewed.See, someone gets it ^

In reading back through your posts, I see that it didn't "work in practice," because, "signature rules banning advertising were sporadically enforced and when they were, took an awful lot of moderator time, for, to be honest, very little return." So, because it took a lot of moderator time, for very little return, and at least some of the moderators don't want to put that time into it, we should all just turn a blind eye to it?Agreed ^

I realize that being a moderator can be a thankless job, can result in angry emails/PM's, and can take a bit of time. However, enforcing the TOS or site guidelines should not be cut because moderators don't want to take the time. If a lack of time would keep things from being enforced, then perhaps either additional moderator should be added or those moderators who feel they don't have enough time to enforce things should step aside for the good of FT.Also agreed ^

Can you confirm that the moderator signature committee is done with the topic of signatures? If so, can you recall if anything was posted publicly with their findings? there's a group who are charged with ongoing policing of the current sig rules. Until members are able to keep to the rules themselves, I doubt their work will be done ;)

I've still not read your solution, other than people turning off signatures if they don't want to see them.

I don't have a solution as I don't see a problem. I can decide what signature link to click or not click. The only suggestion I've offered is that offensive signatures be deleted. I don't need the Talk Board to protect me from blogs or referral links. If any member does not want to view signatures, why would they not just turn them off? Do you have signatures turned off today?

I would guess that yes, the signatures have been reported to moderators.

But how many complaints to Talk Board members being that it's up for discussion here? Why is the Talk Board taking on a moderation issue?

I think the appropriate place is in the Travel Photography forum, you think it's in your signature.

True.

By a "review of signatures", I mean exactly what it says. Review them and if any are deemed (for lack of a better expression) "not correct", then appropriate action should be taken (i.e. notifying the member, explaining the reason, asking the member to edit their signature and if no action by the member, the signature should be removed). It's really that simple but imho, it's not working as there are numerous signatures out there which refer to a member's travel blog where they receive revenue each time someone clicks over to that site and sorry, but I just don't think someone should get a free ride. You might not think that, but that's what the current TOS permits.

And I was afraid you meant that. How much time should moderators devote to reviewing all signatures on the site? There are 411k registered members. Signatures are not displayed until someone hits 90 posts/90 days... so let's assume that that removes a really large proportion (75%?) That still leaves about 100k members whose signatures would need to be manually reviewed. How do you propose that happens? And how long should it take?

While you are a member, in this place, and on this board, you act as an elected representative. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I would suggest you fail to represent the members you are supposed to represent if you consider your own preferences are more important than their enjoyment of FT. Sometimes, you don't get to be a member first when you are acting as a TB member - you have to consider what those members you were elected to represent would want.

If you feel the rules are not being enforced, then I'm afraid you are not understanding the TOS. The rules are being enforced. They are just not what you would want.

What if people aren't interested in seeing your photos though? I understand that you want to showcase your photos. However, you and I apparently disagree about how to do that. I think the appropriate place is in the Travel Photography forum, you think it's in your signature. the Travel Photography forum is primarily for the discussion of matters related to travel and photography, by those interested in such matters. It's not a flickr site, nor a trip report site. I suspect the photography geeks who hang out there would get rather dismayed if we all started trooping into it to post links to our photographs.

golaie-

As you are representing the members, can you share how many complaints about signatures you have received via PM or e-mail in the last 30 days? Maybe that would help us grasp how concerned the members are about this topic and the extent they have corresponded with Talk Board members about it.

I don't have a solution as I don't see a problem. I can decide what signature link to click or not click. The only suggestion I've offered is that offensive signatures be deleted. I don't need the Talk Board to protect me from blogs or referral links. If any member does not want to view signatures, why would they not just turn them off? Do you have signatures turned off today?

But how many complaints to Talk Board members being that it's up for discussion here? Why is the Talk Board taking on a moderation issue?

True.
Again, perhaps members like seeing general signatures, but don't like seeing the, "click here for my blog, referral, whatever."

TalkBoard is looking at this as a TOS/guidelines issue, not a moderation issue. It's much like TalkBoard looking at creating an OMNI/Games forum and recommending that threads that are games be moved to that forum.

the Travel Photography forum is primarily for the discussion of matters related to travel and photography, by those interested in such matters. It's not a flickr site, nor a trip report site. I suspect the photography geeks who hang out there would get rather dismayed if we all started trooping into it to post links to our photographs.
Then perhaps the forum description should be changed.

Share your travel photos and discuss the techniques and equipment you used to take them.

Again, perhaps members like seeing general signatures, but don't like seeing the, "click here for my blog, referral, whatever."

Why aren't all those non-Talk Board members here complaining about those links? Where have all of them been the last 3 months since this thread started if it's such an important issue to them? Other than you and Mary2e, I can't see any other complaints about commercial signatures on this thread. When we had the OMNI post count thread we had a hundred posters turn out to support changes. Here, just 2.

TalkBoard is looking at this as a TOS/guidelines issue, not a moderation issue.

And when Talk Board members are not happy with how moderators enforce the TOS? It still comes down to being a moderation issue no matter what the Talk Board writes up. We can disagree on that one, too. :)

Other than you and Mary2e, I can't see any other complaints about commercial signatures on this thread. When we had the OMNI post count thread we had a hundred posters turn out to support changes. Here, just 2.
Just 2 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18374631-post11.html)? Are you sure? :confused: ;)

Here's some of my thought from another earlier thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17388791-post13.html).

FWIW, IMHO, referral links are of commercial nature.

golaie-

As you are representing the members, can you share how many complaints about signatures you have received via PM or e-mail in the last 30 days? Maybe that would help us grasp how concerned the members are about this topic and the extent they have corresponded with Talk Board members about it.

I can't speak for goalie, but I can for myself. I have received only one complaint re: signatures via PM or email & that person has posted in this thread.

I should also note that I rarely look at signatures, but that's just me. Of course I could make a guess that that might be more the norm rather than the exception amongst the 400,000 members of FT. I still think most come for the content in the forums. @:-)

I'm of a mixed mind re: the signatures, but am starting to lean the way I did with regard to keeping the mileage run forum open to all rather than restricting it.

I give FTers enough credit to decide whether they want to click on a link or not, and if they're taken somewhere else decide to read a blog, book a flight or a hotel, buy or not.

I guess I'm also of the 'let's make a bigger pie/not afraid of competition' mindset. There is enough room in the world for multiple travel websites. I personally think FT is the best. But if someone goes to MP or a different site & find it better meets their needs, then they should stick w/ the site (or multiple sites; there is more than just MP ;)) that best meets their needs.

That no one has a clear, clean-cut solution to signatures also shows that signatures can indeed be a thorny issue, which is presumably why there was/is a signature committee taking a look at it.

Cheers.

The germane issue here continues to be whether and how commercial links in signatures should be regulated on FT, and defining what a commercial link consists of.

+1

It makes no sense to me that there is one standard for posts and a totally different standard for sig lines.

I disagree. An irritating post appears once. An irritating signature appears many, many times. They are different quantitatively if not qualitatively.

That no one has a clear, clean-cut solution to signatures also shows that signatures can indeed be a thorny issue, which is presumably why there was/is a signature committee taking a look at it.

Full disclosure: I'm currently on the signature committee, aka the signature police. I don't make the rules but I can comment on what's enforceable and what's not.

Half our work is to inform members that they are not permitted to create signatures manually: They need to meet the tenure and post count threshold. Banning signatures would cause this workload to skyrocket.

My personal preference would be to allow commercially motivated signatures which have a clear benefit to readers and to ban signatures which will clearly irritate some readers. In short, make it pleasant or make it valuable. Would I want to police that? Maybe not. "Your signature has an unpleasant tone" is a PM that will trigger a time-consuming debate.

The rules for what is allowed and not allowed need to be clear enough that members will make the right decision on their own 98% of the time. Fuzzy rules are not realistically enforceable. Banning signatures has the problem I already mentioned.

There may be no good solution possible.

I'm a relatively new member but I've been a participant on multiple forums. I think this question is a solution without a problem. Few people if anyone appear to really be complaining (officially) and there's no requirement for people to click on people's signatures either, for that matter.

I hate this issue because it comes down to moderators creating policies and taking decisions that are not shared with the posters at large.

And while I appreciate Jenbel alluding to and hinting around them, in many ways that just makes matters worse, because the implication is that things are happening in a way that we are not meant to know about. "Sig police?" That follow standards that deviate from "post police?" Oy.

I will say that if Carol were to inform us that she has created a policy for moderator sigs similar to the one I suggest above, that would solve the issue of sig links being the last thing posters see in locked threads. Simple. But I won't hold my breath for any disclosure of even the most basic moderator policy one way or the other.

The commercial links issue is thornier. But, again, since I have no idea what the moderator police policy is, nor, as Tom says, can i have confidence that any TOS amendments would be affect the sig police's own internal policy or activity...

Some days I'm really not sure why I even bother. Alas, there is always MilePoint! ;):p

I hate this issue because it comes down to moderators creating policies and taking decisions that are not shared with the posters at large.

And while I appreciate Jenbel alluding to and hinting around them, in many ways that just makes matters worse, because the implication is that things are happening in a way that we are not meant to know about.

koko, where in the world did you get the idea that the signature rules are anything other than what is written in the Terms of Service? As Carol says, revisions may occur but the current rules are enforced as written, no more and no less. I would know firsthand if things were any different. I don't necessarily agree with every rule, but as I tell people rules are rules.

There's nothing secret about the signature rules. This thread is or should be about whether particular changes in those rules would be beneficial. Please discuss that so we don't lose this thread to specious and pointless theorizing.

FWIW, I think that signatures should not be allowed to have links at all...and if they do have links, they should definitely not be allowed to have commercial posts.

I think the policy changed a while back to allow links/commercial type posts for 1 major reason (and this my assumption, not facts):

Mods were not actively enforcing the previous TOS because it was a pain in the neck to do so, so rather than actually enforce the "law", the "law" changed to suit the norm.

FWIW, I think that signatures should not be allowed to have links at all...and if they do have links, they should definitely not be allowed to have commercial posts.

I think the policy changed a while back to allow links/commercial type posts for 1 major reason (and this my assumption, not facts):

Mods were not actively enforcing the previous TOS because it was a pain in the neck to do so, so rather than actually enforce the "law", the "law" changed to suit the norm.
If your assumption is the reason for the change, it tells me that there's something broken in the system. Rules shouldn't change simply because it's a pain to enforce them how they are written. It's like saying, "This poster violates the TOS once a week. Rather than edit or delete their post every week, I'll just ignore all TOS violations because it's easier."

I think the policy changed a while back to allow links/commercial type posts for 1 major reason (and this my assumption, not facts):

Mods were not actively enforcing the previous TOS because it was a pain in the neck to do so, so rather than actually enforce the "law", the "law" changed to suit the norm.FlyerTalk members should support each other in any way possible, and I have long advocated that patronizing each other commercially (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html) should be included as part of that support — as long as FlyerTalk members have significantly contributed to the community and supported fellow FlyerTalk members as well.

I realize that “significantly contributed to the community” and “supported fellow FlyerTalk members” can be rather vague and interpreted in different ways by different FlyerTalk members, but I will leave that up for discussion.

FlyerTalk members should support each other in any way possible, and I have long advocated that patronizing each other commercially (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html) should be included as part of that support — as long as FlyerTalk members have significantly contributed to the community and supported fellow FlyerTalk members as well.

I realize that “significantly contributed to the community” and “supported fellow FlyerTalk members” can be rather vague and interpreted in different ways by different FlyerTalk members, but I will leave that up for discussion.
Which FT'er would you prefer to support? The one who posts a referral link in a conga, after participating in said conga, or the one who posts their referral link in their signature, bypassing the conga?

FWIW, I think that signatures should not be allowed to have links at all...and if they do have links, they should definitely not be allowed to have commercial posts.

I think the policy changed a while back to allow links/commercial type posts for 1 major reason (and this my assumption, not facts):

Mods were not actively enforcing the previous TOS because it was a pain in the neck to do so, so rather than actually enforce the "law", the "law" changed to suit the norm.
I think you said to more clearly than I did.

But I agree with you. It seems the rules were made to fit the practice rather than the other way around.

According to Jenbel, this is how we got where we are:

There was little discussion on TB about this change, which was not promulgated by them. The problem of signatures was repeatedly brought to TB, which refused to do anything to clarify/improve the situation - signatures were a massive grey area, where the TOS was unclear and the mods had real difficulty intepreting the TOS. As a result Randy took the decision to change the TOS to allow commercial links, but to limit how these could be displayed.


Is the rule that was created to fit the practice a best practice? Evidently it was not vetted through the TB process but rather was a unilateral Randy decision.

It is still not clear to me why the TOS gets so complicated in sig lines in a way it is NOT complicated in posts.

I would tend to think applying all TOS requirements to sigs (including the commercial links TOS) would be best practice. Mods apply those standards to every post every day.

So I come back to this:

This whole issue is fairly easily fixed, imho, by amending tos 79 thus:

Signatures, any links they contain and the content of the linked site are subject to the FlyerTalk content standards concerning decency, obscenity, the furthering of illegal activities, commercial and charitable messages and offensive language. As with any postings on FT, personal attacks are never permitted. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the ultimate decision on the permissibility of a signature rests with the administrators.


It makes no sense to me that there is one standard for posts and a totally different standard for sig lines.

My assumption is based on the numerous times I RBP'd signatures with commercial links & no one did anything about it.

The challenge was the following (IME as a Mod & my assumption as a member):

1) A member would have a signature that violated the TOS
2) Another member would see this & use the RBP to report the TOS violation
3) That RBP only went to the mods of the forum (or Senior Mods if it wasn't a moderated forum)
4) The mod of the particular forum or the Senior Mod didn't feel like taking the time to address what was clearly a commercial link as it wasn't an issue with their forum in particular
5) It doesn't get addressed...or it does...and if a mod did send a note to the member or bothers to log it in their records (which I'm sure mods don't log EVERY time they have a communication with a member, but only when they suspend or "verbally warn" a member) they sent a note, no one is actually monitoring it unless that same mod keeps an eye out for that poster again
6) Everyone moves on
7) It's determined that rather than regulate what kind of links/signatures are being used (are they links to commercial sites, referral links, links to threads about FT Do's, or links to their photo albums or even links to their profiles on MilePoint), to just allow all links since no one wants to bother policing it.

So the solution? Either 1) Get rid of all links....OR....2) Get rid of all signatures...because no one has the time or inclination or energy to monitor links & determine whether they are commercial in nature or not.

Personally, I'd vote for #1 if it was technically feasible (which I assume it is, but don't know).

Sounds like you're saying that if the moderators don't have time to deal with signatures, it's best to not have signatures. I think the non-problem signatures here on FT far outweigh the problem signatures, however you define them. If the moderators aren't doing their job, replace them. The solution is not to eliminate signatures because the moderators don't like dealing with them.

I'm a relatively new member but I've been a participant on multiple forums. I think this question is a solution without a problem. Few people if anyone appear to really be complaining (officially) and there's no requirement for people to click on people's signatures either, for that matter.

Thank you for your input. It's good to hear from all members, but we appreciate those who are new who take time to provide us their thoughts.

Cheers.

If your assumption is the reason for the change, it tells me that there's something broken in the system. Rules shouldn't change simply because it's a pain to enforce them how they are written. It's like saying, "This poster violates the TOS once a week. Rather than edit or delete their post every week, I'll just ignore all TOS violations because it's easier."Well said ^

Sounds like you're saying that if the moderators don't have time to deal with signatures, it's best to not have signatures. I think the non-problem signatures here on FT far outweigh the problem signatures, however you define them. If the moderators aren't doing their job, replace them. The solution is not to eliminate signatures because the moderators don't like dealing with them.Im'm not saying it's best not to have signatures if the moderators don't have time to review posts with signatures but if the moderators truly don't have the time, then my question is why and again, if truly not enough time, add more moderators or add more folks to the signature review committee

My assumption is based on the numerous times I RBP'd signatures with commercial links & no one did anything about it.

The challenge was the following (IME as a Mod & my assumption as a member):

1) A member would have a signature that violated the TOS
2) Another member would see this & use the RBP to report the TOS violation
3) That RBP only went to the mods of the forum (or Senior Mods if it wasn't a moderated forum)
4) The mod of the particular forum or the Senior Mod didn't feel like taking the time to address what was clearly a commercial link as it wasn't an issue with their forum in particular
5) It doesn't get addressed...or it does...and if a mod did send a note to the member or bothers to log it in their records (which I'm sure mods don't log EVERY time they have a communication with a member, but only when they suspend or "verbally warn" a member) they sent a note, no one is actually monitoring it unless that same mod keeps an eye out for that poster again
6) Everyone moves on
7) It's determined that rather than regulate what kind of links/signatures are being used (are they links to commercial sites, referral links, links to threads about FT Do's, or links to their photo albums or even links to their profiles on MilePoint), to just allow all links since no one wants to bother policing it.

So the solution? Either 1) Get rid of all links....OR....2) Get rid of all signatures...because no one has the time or inclination or energy to monitor links & determine whether they are commercial in nature or not.

Personally, I'd vote for #1 if it was technically feasible (which I assume it is, but don't know).
It seems to me, just from reading these threads, that at some point a 'sig police' group of mods was assigned the task of handling all sig complaints.

I would assume that means that all such complaints get forwarded by the forum mods to the sig mods.

So those sig mods ought to be be able to enforce to whatever TOS the TB creates.

But who the hell knows.

Like I said, that's why I hate this issue. It lays bare the problems with the disconnect between the 'deciders/recommenders' and the 'controllers/enforcers.'

Like I said, that's why I hate this issue. It lays bare the problems with the disconnect between the 'deciders/recommenders' and the 'controllers/enforcers.'

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." :D

I agree with both of your points and perhaps turning off of all signatures and having a global review done? Yeah I know, it's a b!thc of a project but kokonutz addresses a very valid point and concern-and if I may add, not only another competitive site but also various blogs which are "signature linked" which are offering services where the "blog holder" gets revenue from folks visiting their blog and/or from the services offered on said blog

It might be awkward, but it's a solution. I've still not read your solution, other than people turning off signatures if they don't want to see them. Perhaps some people enjoy reading signatures as far as quotes or Do's, but don't want to see "click here for a referral to..." or, "read my blog here..."

I would guess that yes, the signatures have been reported to moderators.

What if people aren't interested in seeing your photos though? I understand that you want to showcase your photos. However, you and I apparently disagree about how to do that. I think the appropriate place is in the Travel Photography forum, you think it's in your signature.

I'd guess they wouldn't have posted anything, in that discussing moderator actions is usually not published.

Here's one idea: why not turn off the display of signatures for all members by default? Those who want to be bombarded by sigs, evil or otherwise, can choose to do so by going in their profile and checking the box? Thats what I do when signing up on any bbs: look to switch off all the annoying matter: avatars, signatures, ads, etc by whatever intended or unintended way...@:-)

Here's one idea: why not turn off the display of signatures for all members by default? Those who want to be bombarded by sigs, evil or otherwise, can choose to do so by going in their profile and checking the box? Thats what I do when signing up on any bbs: look to switch off all the annoying matter: avatars, signatures, ads, etc by whatever intended or unintended way...@:-)Interesting concept and I like it ^ as (in theory) that would start everyone with a "clean slate and (again, in theory) make it easier to "police" (assuming all 400,000 members don't turn this option on all at the same time ;)). So with that, I'm wondering if a pop-up box (or sub-check box) stating something along the lines that one agrees that by showing their signature, they agree to abide by the rules set forth in the ToS (not that it would mean much but still...)

Im'm not saying it's best not to have signatures if the moderators don't have time to review posts with signatures but if the moderators truly don't have the time, then my question is why and again, if truly not enough time, add more moderators or add more folks to the signature review committee. We don't have time to 'review posts with signatures' as there are thousands of such posts made everyday.

If there were a system that all posts with signatures got trapped and had to be manually reviewed by mods, then mods would probably spend all their free time reviewing posts and clicking to free them onto the boards. And of course, that would make for terribly disjointed conversations, as posts would be appearing out of sequence.

At the end of the day, are signatures really such a massive problem that we want to effectively stop mods having time to read FT, because all their time is spent approving posts with signatures in them? There are actually very few signatures which cause concern - there are a fair few which get pulled up for formatting breaches but fewer ones are found to be in breach.

It just seems like it's an artificial problem, being promulgated by a very few people, but where the solutions will impact on many more people's enjoyment of FT. Our elected representatives are meant to represent the majority, not the minority, and do things for the benefit of FT, not a few folks who want to exercise control.

(And if mods had to sit and approve thousands of posts everyday, I'm sure there would be complaints about the levels of censorship on FT and frankly, quite rightly too :( )

Which FT'er would you prefer to support? The one who posts a referral link in a conga, after participating in said conga, or the one who posts their referral link in their signature, bypassing the conga?

[I've never heard such chains referred to as a conga before, good term..]

But to respond to your point:

Assuming I am reading a posters signature, them I'm probably making use of (reading) usefull content they have posted in a thread somewhere. Personally I would much rather support thouse who make usefull contributions on FT than someone participating in a conga, even if that means someone (not contributing much) is missing out.

I'm fine with conga threads, and people wanting to pair up, etc. However you need to remember signatures should be small.

But general FT posts should be on topic and usefull. [I don't think any of us want to see comercial posting.]

If they are so, then I don't see the problem with people promoting/linking to their own travel blogs etc in their signatures. Signature visibility will be proporitonal to contribution.

To be honest, I don't personally mind if they even had affiliiate links to their airlines of patronage in their sigs either - just so long as sigs are small, and people are not begging/asking for them to be clicked. [And they are not too big or blinking.]

I would assume that means that all such complaints get forwarded by the forum mods to the sig mods.

So those sig mods ought to be be able to enforce to whatever TOS the TB creates.

Your first assumption is correct. The intent of the signature committee was and is to improve consistent application of the signature rules. Consistency is a noncontroversial objective. Perfection is not achievable here without consistent reporting by members, so that source of variation will always remain.

Your second assumption is a stretch. It is not true that any rule is enforceable. Whoever makes the rules should consider both the workload required from volunteers and the likelihood that members will understand, agree with, and follow the rules.

As a silly example, if the TOS were to require that FT always be spelled out as FlyerTalk, that would not be enforceable. The rules need to make obvious sense, and they need to be clear. This is much easier said than done.

We don't have time to 'review posts with signatures' as there are thousands of such posts made everyday.

If there were a system that all posts with signatures got trapped and had to be manually reviewed by mods, then mods would probably spend all their free time reviewing posts and clicking to free them onto the boards. And of course, that would make for terribly disjointed conversations, as posts would be appearing out of sequence.

At the end of the day, are signatures really such a massive problem that we want to effectively stop mods having time to read FT, because all their time is spent approving posts with signatures in them? There are actually very few signatures which cause concern - there are a fair few which get pulled up for formatting breaches but fewer ones are found to be in breach.

It just seems like it's an artificial problem, being promulgated by a very few people, but where the solutions will impact on many more people's enjoyment of FT. Our elected representatives are meant to represent the majority, not the minority, and do things for the benefit of FT, not a few folks who want to exercise control.

(And if mods had to sit and approve thousands of posts everyday, I'm sure there would be complaints about the levels of censorship on FT and frankly, quite rightly too :( )Bolding mine: Then what pray tell does the "Signature Committee" do? :confused:

And as to the rest of your post, imho, it appears to me that you're saying "I don't want to do any more work because it's hard and I won't have time to do it" so with that, I see two options. One is the old saying that if one doesn't like the heat in the kitchen and the other is employ more moderators and/or folks on the Signature Committee plus you keep saying that this (and other issues which you disagree with) are voiced by "a few people" and in the same breath, you say that I was elected to serve all members of Flyertalk so with that, don't "the few" deserve to be heard and/or have a voice as well?

Your first assumption is correct. The intent of the signature committee was and is to improve consistent application of the signature rules. Consistency is a noncontroversial objective. Perfection is not achievable here without consistent reporting by members, so that source of variation will always remain.

Your second assumption is a stretch. It is not true that any rule is enforceable. Whoever makes the rules should consider both the workload required from volunteers and the likelihood that members will understand, agree with, and follow the rules.

As a silly example, if the TOS were to require that FT always be spelled out as FlyerTalk, that would not be enforceable. The rules need to make obvious sense, and they need to be clear. This is much easier said than done.
But the Mods apparently have no problems enforcing the TOS in posts. It does not create any sort of unworkable burden.

My question is why it causes so much MORE burden to enforce those exact same TOS in sigs such that it is going to take up all of their free time? :confused:

To me it's like you are saying there is no problem enforcing the speed limits in the left, middle and right hand lanes of traffic. But woe is me, we cannot possibly enforce the same speed limits for folks driving on the shoulder of the highway, so we let folks there go 30mph faster before we pull them over.

It's a bit ponderous.

Why is this discussion constantly drifting into the enforcement area? Set the policy as you see fit, enforcement will implement what is finally decided by TB,IB,CD, etc....?

To me signatures are in the same drawer as titles, avatars and other niceties people long for. The scouts have badges, the military medals, the fashion industry wouldn't exist if we didn't long for such things. Why people feel the need to decorate their posts with such bling is beyond me, as it probably distracts from any content within it :)

Why is this discussion constantly drifting into the enforcement area? Set the policy as you see fit, enforcement will implement what is finally decided by TB,IB,CD, etc....?



Only because the only argument I have seen against applying all TOS (including the commercial link TOS) to sigs is that it is too hard to enforce.

If that is not actually the case, then alls the better. ^

Why is this discussion constantly drifting into the enforcement area? Set the policy as you see fit, enforcement will implement what is finally decided by TB,IB,CD, etc....?



Unenforced rules aren't really rules.

If the TB were to recommend that signatures not be allowed to contain commercial messaging or links (which is what the TOS used to say, IIRC), then if that were to be implemented by IB/CD, it would have to be enforced. I believe 99% of the reason the rule changed was because it wasn't being enforced before.

You make a good point.

Would it be wrong to insist on a more strict set of rules for moderators' signatures than for posters' signatures?

I get it that they are members 'first and foremost,' but when a thread is locked, their sig line is the last thing anyone sees on that thread.

As such, they have an extra responsibility to be judicious in what is contained in that sig line.

Something like: 'Moderators signatures must comply with every TOS and should not link to alternative IBBs, blogs or other sites where locked thread discussions can continue.'

I know I am going to get the whole knee-jerk 'you can't tell moderators what to do....only moderators can do that.' But how about just a friendly suggestion for an addition to the Moderator Best Practices document?

When I opened up this thread and started reading, this was actually the first idea that came to my mind.

I do not support prohibiting commercial links in signatures (I believe there is value in allowing it, a cause continually championed by Canarsie), but I do not think it is unfair to expect community leaders to abstain from promoting direct competitors to the entity for which they volunteer. That must be narrowly defined, though, to only include direct brand and category competitors and not be broadened beyond that. Frankly, I'm mildly surprised that hasn't already been instituted, even informally, by the Community Director.

I'm a relatively new member but I've been a participant on multiple forums. I think this question is a solution without a problem. Few people if anyone appear to really be complaining (officially) and there's no requirement for people to click on people's signatures either, for that matter.

Exactly. The "problem" described by kokonutz is a rare and narrowly-defined problem that if it even needs a solution should be a narrow one.

FlyerTalk members should support each other in any way possible, and I have long advocated that patronizing each other commercially (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html) should be included as part of that support — as long as FlyerTalk members have significantly contributed to the community and supported fellow FlyerTalk members as well.

I realize that “significantly contributed to the community” and “supported fellow FlyerTalk members” can be rather vague and interpreted in different ways by different FlyerTalk members, but I will leave that up for discussion.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Bolding mine: Then what pray tell does the "Signature Committee" do? :confused:

The point made by Jenbel is that the Signature Committee can't proactively monitor EVERY post that gets posted with a signature--there are tens of thousands of those per day. The committee acts on signatures posted for review on a dedicated thread in the private moderator forum, PMed to them, or presumably otherwise encountered by them on their travels around FlyerTalk.

Seems like a rather awkward way to post a link to one's own web site or own FT event. If it's right there on the signature line it's much easier to get to. I still haven't seen that there's a demand to have signatures removed. Can the Talk Board members share how many complaints they have received on this issue? Hundreds? 2? How many in the last 30 days?

...

I don't want you to search at all. If you frequent the same forums I do I want you to see the photos the same day I post them. I'll update my signature when I start adding photos. If you want to look at them, click the link. If not, don't click the link or turn photos off.

Agree 100%. It's awkward, unnecessary, and beyond overkill for the small issue being raised here (that a moderator's signature included a link to a direct brand competitor of FlyerTalk and that signature was displayed at the end of a locked thread for a short time).

And I'll answer how many complaints I have received on this issue: zero. In fact, aside from the small handful of posters complaining about this issue in this thread--a majority of whom may actually be TalkBoard members--I can answer how many complaints I have seen on this issue across the entirety of FlyerTalk in the last two years: zero. Not a single one of the 300 FlyerTalk members I've met in person has mentioned this as a problem, too, even when I specifically solicit feedback from them.

Last, I think the idea of turning all signatures off, even temporarily while this "problem" is "resolved," is a bit histrionic. I also vehemently disagree with the idea of turning signatures off by default for new registrants and requiring people to opt-in to signatures. The vast, vast majority of signatures are so unobtrusive as to make this of very little value, and many signatures add significant value to the FlyerTalk experience (the link in my signature to our recent DO in Alaska, for example, which brought over two dozen people to the the land of gold mining, giant bird-sized mosquitos, vans with spare tires that don't fit [not a good thing to discover 20 miles from the nearest outpost of civilization with no cell service], crazy people swimming in the Bering Sea, baseball games that take place at midnight with no artificial light, and other wild adventures). With signatures turned off, many more FlyerTalkers would be unaware of such community-building activities and fewer would learn about valuable resources.

And I'll answer how many complaints I have received on this issue: zero.

So we have one Talk Board member that has not received any complaints (jackal), and another Talk Board member, SkiAdock that has received one complaint from a member that has also complained in this thread. Is that the total of all complaints received my PM by all Talk Board members in the last 30 days?

Could it be that the majority of FT just doesn't care about this issue to communicate privately with Talk Board members and think it's an issue, as it has been in the past, for the moderators to deal with?

Tom in the Flagship Lounge at ORD

In all of the years I have been a FlyerTalk moderator — eight years this month, for those of you keeping track — and during my tenure as a Senior Moderator, I am not sure I even dealt with signature issues reported by FlyerTalk members more than two dozen times, if that.

Could it be that the majority of FT just doesn't care about this issue to communicate privately with Talk Board members and think it's an issue, as it has been in the past, for the moderators to deal with?

Yes, it could very well be and I'd wager a poll of the wider FT membership would confirm as much.

In all of the years I have been a FlyerTalk moderator — eight years this month, for those of you keeping track — and during my tenure as a Senior Moderator, I am not sure I even dealt with signature issues reported by FlyerTalk members more than two dozen times, if that.
I've reported a few, some early on, and some after commercial links were allowed.

I only heard back after the TOS were changed and I was told as much.

I never heard a word from the other, pre-changed TOS reports.

Maybe it's me, but should a member's signature include a link to the member's blog where the blog is a boardingarea blog?

Is there a difference between a boarding area blog and any other blog?

Is there a difference between a boarding area blog and any other blog?Last time I looked, it's run by the same company that runs milepoint

OK.

But TB are here to improve the FT experience for members.

Why are you concerned with trying to control the signatures of members to stop them publicising other sites? How does that improve the FT experience for members?

And why just milepoint? Why not mft, v-flyer, canflyer, the german site (VFF?), AFF, or sqtalk (or any of the other myriad sites out there? They're just the ones I know about). And if you are saying no boarding area links in signatures, can we still post v-flyer links on the VS board?

OK.

But TB are here to improve the FT experience for members.

Why are you concerned with trying to control the signatures of members to stop them publicising other sites? How does that improve the FT experience for members?

And why just milepoint? Why not mft, v-flyer, canflyer, the german site (VFF?), AFF, or sqtalk (or any of the other myriad sites out there? They're just the ones I know about). And if you are saying no boarding area links in signatures, can we still post v-flyer links on the VS board?And if a ft member links over to a blog run by milepoint and from there joins milepoint and never gives ft the light of day again? Yes, an extreme example based on the number of members in ft but still, the way I see it is that ft as a whole (tb, mods, sig police and etc) did not (imho) do their job. I am not proposing censorship by any means-all I want is for folks to play by the rules and with that, my question to you is-why do you not want folks to play by the rules? Is it too hard? If yes, then someone shouldn't take the responsibility and have others who are willing to do it take on the responsibility. The system imho is currently broken and has been for a while and with that it takes more work to fix it and the longer it goes on, the longer it will take to fix it as the problem keeps growing)

And if a ft member links over to a blog run by milepoint and from there joins milepoint and never gives ft the light of day again?

I believe this is a logical fallacy termed a "slippery slope" argument, or perhaps it is an "appeal to probability." Just because you can dream up a worst-case consequence doesn't mean it is actually likely (at all!) to pass.

Plus, news articles linked on FT occasionally mention both FT and MP. What if an FT member clicks on a link to an article in the USA Today which mentioned MP and from there joins MP and never gives FT the light of day again? Should we ban people from linking to USA Today articles, too?

If people truly are "never giving FT the light of day again," then maybe we need to address some of the root causes of that. That said, if people truly are "never giving FT the light of day again," I think we would have seen the effects of that already. I actually do visit MP on occasion and know a few people who have truly left FT, but the vast majority of people there still participate in both sites and have no beef with FT (they just prefer the more modern look of the software, the generally friendlier tone of the forum there, and the looser restrictions on the members there, but they still read and participate in FT, where most of the real discussion about issues happens).

And if a ft member links over to a blog run by milepoint and from there joins milepoint and never gives ft the light of day again?

I believe this is a logical fallacy termed a "slippery slope" argument, or perhaps it is an "appeal to probability." Just because you can dream up a worst-case consequence doesn't mean it is actually likely (at all!) to pass.

Plus, news articles linked on FT occasionally mention both FT and MP. What if an FT member clicks on a link to an article in the USA Today which mentioned MP and from there joins MP and never gives FT the light of day again? Should we ban people from linking to USA Today articles, too?

If people truly are "never giving FT the light of day again," then maybe we need to address some of the root causes of that. That said, if people truly are "never giving FT the light of day again," I think we would have seen the effects of that already. I actually do visit MP on occasion and know a few people who have truly left FT, but the vast majority of people there still participate in both sites and have no beef with FT (they just prefer the more modern look of the software, the generally friendlier tone of the forum there, and the looser restrictions on the members there, but they still read and participate in FT, where most of the real discussion about issues happens).First of all, if you're going to quote me saying my example is a fallacy, at least acknowledge the sentence I posted which you didn't quite where I acknowledge this as an extreme example but even extreme examples can (and do) happen

Yes, you are correct that there are many news articled which mention both Flyertalk and milepoint but what I am getting at is that a blogger from milepoint (and possibly subsidized by milepoint) is linking their blog sponsored by milepoint (or mepoint's parent company) in their signature on Flyertalk and the last time I looked, Flyertalk and milepoint are two separate companies not owned by the same parent and thus are competitors so with that, why give a free ride to a competitor. What this all boils down to is not "we're gonna take your signatures away" but rather enforcing the rules-and if the rules aren't clear, folks are too lazy to do their job enforcing the rules and/or it is too much for the current folks to handle then change the damn rules so they are clear, remove those who are too lazy to enforce the rules and put people in place who will do the job

First of all, if you're going to quote me saying my example is a fallacy, at least acknowledge the sentence I posted which you didn't quite where I acknowledge this as an extreme example but even extreme examples can (and do) happen

Yes, you are correct that there are many news articled which mention both Flyertalk and milepoint but what I am getting at is that a blogger from milepoint (and possibly subsidized by milepoint) is linking their blog sponsored by milepoint (or mepoint's parent company) in their signature on Flyertalk and the last time I looked, Flyertalk and milepoint are two separate companies not owned by the same parent and thus are competitors so with that, why give a free ride to a competitor. What this all boils down to is not "we're gonna take your signatures away" but rather enforcing the rules-and if the rules aren't clear, folks are too lazy to do their job enforcing the rules and/or it is too much for the current folks to handle then change the damn rules so they are clear, remove those who are too lazy to enforce the rules and put people in place who will do the job

Yes, FlyerTalk and MilePoint are two separate companies not owned by the same parent. How does that have any relevance to the argument?

If you are arguing that representatives of FlyerTalk (i.e. TalkBoard members, moderators, employees of Internet Brands, etc.) should not link to competing sites, then you probably do have a point. But I fail to see how limiting the general membership is constructive.

As to your last point, are you really insinuating that nsx--who is one of the hardest-working moderators and TalkBoard members I know--is lazy for volunteering to assist with what very few signature issues (most of which are antagonistic towards other FT members and have nothing to do with any external links) crop up?

We are all part of a community of frequent fliers, and we should act as such, regardless of which Internet bulletin board we choose to be members.

I never heard a word from the other, pre-changed TOS reports.

But were the signatures changes or removed? That's the real question, not whether there was feedback to the reporting member surely.

And if a ft member links over to a blog run by milepoint and from there joins milepoint and never gives ft the light of day again? Then as jackal says, look at how to improve FT. Don't try to censor FT to try and force members to stay here - do your job properly to improve the FT experience.

Yes, an extreme example based on the number of members in ft but still, the way I see it is that ft as a whole (tb, mods, sig police and etc) did not (imho) do their job. I am not proposing censorship by any means Yes, you are. You have decided that mention of one board should be verboten and now want us to enforce your wishes. As I said, why just Boarding Area/milepoint? I know people who have links to some of the other competing boards I mention above (and which you failed to address) Would we have to censor those too, in case any FT member saw them as well? And in what way have we faied to 'do our job'? It is currently not against the rules to link to blogs in signatures - and generally never has been actually.

-all I want is for folks to play by the rules and with that, my question to you is-why do you not want folks to play by the rules? Is it too hard? No, it's because your rules are not the same as my rules. You have a set of rules in your head as to what should happen, and are now trying to enforce those on all of us. That is not the role of a TB member. That's not about improving the FT experience, that's about remaking the board how you want it to work. When you say the system is broke, you mean it doesn't work how you think it should.

Please define the detriment to the members of FT. This should not be about rules and how you think things should work and you controlling what is allowed in signatures - this should be about you trying to improve things for FT members, and I haven't seen one idea from you on this which is not about your own preferences and which considers the wider FT membership.

I am still waiting (very patiently, by my standards ;)) for someone, anyone, to explain to me why the TOS as applied to posts are clear and enforcable.

But those exact same TOS as applied to sigs are suddenly grey and unenforcable, leading to sigs being treated differently from posts.

As an example of how absurd this double standard is, for a time I placed an advert for my favorute local pub in my sig line. Such blatant commercialism would of course subject me to discipline if I were to manually type such a blatant TOS violation in the body of my post. But suddenly, because the IB software automatically adds the text to my post rather than my manually typing it, different standards of conduct apply.

This is clearly illogical to my mind.

So, please, someone explain why typing things into a post is subject to one standard while having it automatically added to every post after submitting reply is subject to a different standard!?

Further, why just the specific commercial TOS? If sigs are going to be wild west because they are so difficult to enforce, I want to be able to criticize moderation and moderators, use curse words and insult other posters in the sigs, too.

But were the signatures changes or removed? That's the real question, not whether there was feedback to the reporting member surely.
IIRC, no, they were not.

I am still waiting (very patiently, by my standards ;)) for someone, anyone, to explain to me why the TOS as applied to posts are clear and enforcable.

But those exact same TOS as applied to sigs are suddenly grey and unenforcable, leading to sigs being treated differently from posts.

As an example of how absurd this double standard is, for a time I placed an advert for my favorute local pub in my sig line. Such blatant commercialism would of course subject me to discipline if I were to manually type such a blatant TOS violation in the body of my post. But suddenly, because the IB software automatically adds the text to my post rather than my manually typing it, different standards of conduct apply.

This is clearly illogical to my mind.

So, please, someone explain why typing things into a post is subject to one standard while having it automatically added to every post after submitting reply is subject to a different standard!?

Further, why just the specific commercial TOS? If sigs are going to be wild west because they are so difficult to enforce, I want to be able to criticize moderation and moderators, use curse words and insult other posters in the sigs, too.
We have told you. You just don't want to accept the ascertain that it is more difficult to police signatures than it is to police posts so only the really key features - the things you would like to be able to do but which would cause way more issues on the board - are enforced.

Mind you, I'm still waiting for one of the TB members to explain why it is detrimental to the members they represent.

We have told you.

You telling us and us buying it are two very different things. :D

HOWEVER, I personally see this is as a solution in search of a problem, so I'd have to be really, really convinced by other TB members and more than one or two FTers why the TOS needs to be addressed to deal with this.

We have told you. You just don't want to accept the ascertain that it is more difficult to police signatures than it is to police posts so only the really key features - the things you would like to be able to do but which would cause way more issues on the board - are enforced.

Mind you, I'm still waiting for one of the TB members to explain why it is detrimental to the members they represent.

Why is it so difficult to police signatures, when it isn't difficult to police posts? I'm not an IT person, but I'd think that an alert could be created, and sent to all on the signature review committee, any time someone creates or edits a signature. This alert could prompt a review of it, and if it is a TOS violation, then that member is alerted to it, along with possible actions, if they fail to revise it. You'd need to wade through the existing signatures before such a link would be effective, but I'd guess that it's also possible for those on the signature review committee to be given a list of all members who currently have signatures, so those could be reviewed as well.

We have told you. You just don't want to accept the ascertain that it is more difficult to police signatures than it is to police posts so only the really key features - the things you would like to be able to do but which would cause way more issues on the board - are enforced.

Mind you, I'm still waiting for one of the TB members to explain why it is detrimental to the members they represent.

The question is WHY is it so much more difficult to enforce the TOS in sigs than in posts?

WHY are TOS violations in the body of a post suddenly grey when there is a

"______________"

inserted by the software!?


_________________
When you click on this (http://www.visitscotland.com/), I get paid. So please click on this (http://www.visitscotland.com/).




Have I violated the TOS? Because I typed that "_____________"?

the problem

FWIW I don't believe this issue is a "problem" and it's only this thread that has magnified it to the point where some might believe it to be one.

Why is it so difficult to police signatures, when it isn't difficult to police posts? I'm not an IT person, but I'd think that an alert could be created, and sent to all on the signature review committee, any time someone creates or edits a signature. This alert could prompt a review of it, and if it is a TOS violation, then that member is alerted to it, along with possible actions, if they fail to revise it. You'd need to wade through the existing signatures before such a link would be effective, but I'd guess that it's also possible for those on the signature review committee to be given a list of all members who currently have signatures, so those could be reviewed as well.

I would caution you against expectations that technology will fix the problem.

For one, I highly, highly doubt that the functionality you describe already exists in the software platform. And if it doesn't, there are many, many items much, much higher on the "fix it" list.

And even if the functionality does exist or were implemented, on a board with 300,000 members, there are probably thousands of signature changes each day. It would likely require several people working full-time in order to review these changes. The vast, vast majority of them are small and inane changes, and it'd be silly to spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars on paid staff to sit around and do nothing but review these thousands of tiny changes.

FWIW I don't believe this issue is a "problem" and it's only this thread that has magnified it to the point where some might believe it to be one.

It may be a narrow problem as in the instance I noted above. Or it may be no problem. Or it may be a big problem.

What keeps this thread alive is that the answer to the question of why the TOS are applied differently to posts and sigs is that 'sigs are more difficult to enforce.'

But no reason is ever given as to why sigs are more difficult to enforce.

If the answer is, for example, 'technical limitations of the IB software,' well then ok.

If the answer is, for example, 'it's boring,' well then not ok.

I would caution you against expectations that technology will fix the problem.

For one, I highly, highly doubt that the functionality you describe already exists in the software platform. And if it doesn't, there are many, many items much, much higher on the "fix it" list.

And even if the functionality does exist or were implemented, on a board with 300,000 members, there are probably thousands of signature changes each day. It would likely require several people working full-time in order to review these changes. The vast, vast majority of them are small and inane changes, and it'd be silly to spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars on paid staff to sit around and do nothing but review these thousands of tiny changes.

It seems to me that the TOS ought to be enforced in sigs the same way they are in the typed part of posts: by a combination of mods coming across them combined with RBP button pushes.

Is that NOT how they are enforced currently?

You telling us and us buying it are two very different things. :D Yes, I noticed that. Sadly, I don't find it a laughing matter.

If the TB distrusts mods so much they cannot accept the experiences of the mod team at face value, but instead will disbelieve everything they are told simply because it is the mods who are saying it, then that says an awful lot about the chances of the two groups being able to work constructively together.

Yes, FlyerTalk and MilePoint are two separate companies not owned by the same parent. How does that have any relevance to the argument?

If you are arguing that representatives of FlyerTalk (i.e. TalkBoard members, moderators, employees of Internet Brands, etc.) should not link to competing sites, then you probably do have a point. But I fail to see how limiting the general membership is constructive.

As to your last point, are you really insinuating that nsx--who is one of the hardest-working moderators and TalkBoard members I know--is lazy for volunteering to assist with what very few signature issues (most of which are antagonistic towards other FT members and have nothing to do with any external links) crop up?First off, No, no, no, no, no - I'm definitely not insinuating (or going farther/further-accusing) nsx of being lazy or anything else negative as what you say about nsx is absolutely 100% correct ^ :) but what I am saying is that there have been posts by others saying (for simplicity's sake) "it's too hard" and as to the other point of linking to a "competing site", that's it in a nutshell

Then as jackal says, look at how to improve FT. Don't try to censor FT to try and force members to stay here - do your job properly to improve the FT experience.I have never said anything about censoring and/or censorship! I am simply saying that folks need to play by the rules, the rules need to be enforced or the rules need to be changed and with that, all you can say is that it's not right to change things when the "things" shouldn't be there in the first place yet you don't offer any suggestions

As I said, why just Boarding Area/milepoint? I know people who have links to some of the other competing boards I mention above (and which you failed to address)Regarding milepoint vs other competing boards-fair statement and my answer is that I am unfamiliar with boards other than milepoint but if there are links to other boards as well, then my statements and sentiments apply to them as well

No, it's because your rules are not the same as my rules. You have a set of rules in your head as to what should happen, and are now trying to enforce those on all of us. That is not the role of a TB member. That's not about improving the FT experience, that's about remaking the board how you want it to work. When you say the system is broke, you mean it doesn't work how you think it should.First-they are not "my rules"-it is my opinion and as to enforcing something "on all of us", if a "rule" is a rule", shouldn't it apply to all even if they disagree with it? As I have said there are issue which I have voted on which I personally did not agree with but voted in favor because it was in the best interest of F/t and not simply "for me". Now when I say the system is broken, I mean simply this-if there is a procedure in place but for what ever reason, the procedure is not being followed, then it's not working and if it's not working, it's broken and needs to be fixed

Please define the detriment to the members of FT. This should not be about rules and how you think things should work and you controlling what is allowed in signatures - this should be about you trying to improve things for FT members, and I haven't seen one idea from you on this which is not about your own preferences and which considers the wider FT membership.This is not about me controlling anything but rather (imho) you thinking I want to control but again, all I'm saying is that if there is a procedure in place then it needs to be followed, if there is not a procedure in place but someone (i.e. a member) thinks there should be a procedure in place-discuss it and if a viable argument can be made, act on it and if there is a detriment to Ft as you put it, it will come out in the discussion but as to the "detriment" I personally don't see one

I am still waiting (very patiently, by my standards ;)) for someone, anyone, to explain to me why the TOS as applied to posts are clear and enforcable.

But those exact same TOS as applied to sigs are suddenly grey and unenforcable, leading to sigs being treated differently from posts.

As an example of how absurd this double standard is, for a time I placed an advert for my favorute local pub in my sig line. Such blatant commercialism would of course subject me to discipline if I were to manually type such a blatant TOS violation in the body of my post. But suddenly, because the IB software automatically adds the text to my post rather than my manually typing it, different standards of conduct apply.

This is clearly illogical to my mind.

So, please, someone explain why typing things into a post is subject to one standard while having it automatically added to every post after submitting reply is subject to a different standard!?

Further, why just the specific commercial TOS? If sigs are going to be wild west because they are so difficult to enforce, I want to be able to criticize moderation and moderators, use curse words and insult other posters in the sigs, too.Agreed and I'll see your favorite pub to a blues band that I have been following for 30 years where prior to running for TB and changing my signature to link to my "platform", I had a link to the band's website and no one gave me anything remotely related to "a shame on you"

We have told you. You just don't want to accept the ascertain that it is more difficult to police signatures than it is to police posts so only the really key features - the things you would like to be able to do but which would cause way more issues on the board - are enforced.

Mind you, I'm still waiting for one of the TB members to explain why it is detrimental to the members they represent.Why is it so difficult to police signatures, when it isn't difficult to police posts? I'm not an IT person, but I'd think that an alert could be created, and sent to all on the signature review committee, any time someone creates or edits a signature. This alert could prompt a review of it, and if it is a TOS violation, then that member is alerted to it, along with possible actions, if they fail to revise it. You'd need to wade through the existing signatures before such a link would be effective, but I'd guess that it's also possible for those on the signature review committee to be given a list of all members who currently have signatures, so those could be reviewed as well.Bolding mine: My question exaclty! Jenbel-it is not "we" have told you that it is too difficult but rather you have stated it's too difficult but you have yet to say how, why and etc. As kokonutz asks below, why is it so difficult?????


The question is WHY is it so much more difficult to enforce the TOS in sigs than in posts?

WHY are TOS violations in the body of a post suddenly grey when there is a

"______________"

inserted by the software!?


_________________
When you click on this (http://www.visitscotland.com/), I get paid. So please click on this (http://www.visitscotland.com/).




Have I violated the TOS? Because I typed that "_____________"?Again, why can't someone "in the know" answer this very simple question?

It may be a narrow problem as in the instance I noted above. Or it may be no problem. Or it may be a big problem.

What keeps this thread alive is that the answer to the question of why the TOS are applied differently to posts and sigs is that 'sigs are more difficult to enforce.'

But no reason is ever given as to why sigs are more difficult to enforce.

If the answer is, for example, 'technical limitations of the IB software,' well then ok.

If the answer is, for example, 'it's boring,' well then not ok. Actually the answer was given, but it was disbelieved, so I'm not going to repeat it again.

Sadly, any explanation a mod will give will be disbelieved so there is little point in us trying to explain it. If we did explain again, you'd ask question after question after question, seeking justification for every single comment. RichMSN's comment above would apply to whatever was said - exactly as happened when an explanation was provided.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for an answer about my question of there being a detriment to FT members.. no-one seems keen to answer that. You (collectively) just think it's wrong, and because you think so, make the jump to it being detrimental to the members.

You seem to be in a very small minority.

Yes, I noticed that. Sadly, I don't find it a laughing matter.

If the TB distrusts mods so much they cannot accept the experiences of the mod team at face value, but instead will disbelieve everything they are told simply because it is the mods who are saying it, then that says an awful lot about the chances of the two groups being able to work constructively together.

I don't have enough details of your experiences to draw my own conclusion. And since the moderator group isn't willing to be more forthcoming and answer questions and let us "see for ourselves" I guess this is where we are.

I have never said anything about censoring and/or censorship! I am simply saying that folks need to play by the rules, the rules need to be enforced or the rules need to be changed and with that, all you can say is that it's not right to change things when the "things" shouldn't be there in the first place yet you don't offer any suggestions The signature you reference does play by the rules of FT - just not your rules. Your rules are not the rules which are enforced or in the TOS however.

The fact you want to change the rules to stop that particular website being linked to is censorship pure and simple. You disapprove of the link, so you want to ban it. Simples. Censorship. Great to see an elected representative trying to censor the members ^

This is not about me controlling anything but rather (imho) you thinking I want to control but again, all I'm saying is that if there is a procedure in place then it needs to be followed, if there is not a procedure in place but someone (i.e. a member) thinks there should be a procedure in place-discuss it and if a viable argument can be made, act on it and if there is a detriment to Ft as you put it, it will come out in the discussion but as to the "detriment" I personally don't see one I really don't understand this sentence, I think better punctuation might have made it more understandable. But, we follow the procedures in place. You want to change those procedures, but even you say you cannot see a detriment. So why are you wanting to change the rules? :confused: There is a detriment to changing the rules however, and that is the difficult the mods have in enforcing the rules you want. This is our experience - if you could come up with a reason for doing so other than 'I don't approve' then it might be justifiable, but no-one actually has.

So as I've continually said. There is a cost to changing these rules. Please identify the benefit which would result to offset the considerable cost?

I don't have enough details of your experiences to draw my own conclusion. And since the moderator group isn't willing to be more forthcoming and answer questions and let us "see for ourselves" I guess this is where we are. Sadly, when we answer questions, we aren't believed and we only ever get more questions and snarky comments. It's a pattern frequently repeated in TB conversations. So why should we ever bother frankly when we are not being communicated with in good faith but just so people can use our answers to beat us across the head more?

There's a point when you realise it just isn't worth the hassle engaging anymore, because you are just going to be beaten with whatever answer you give.

Again, why can't someone "in the know" answer this very simple question? It has been answered and was disbelieved. What's the point in repeating that experience over again?

Why dont you try answering the questions I've been posing about harm to FT/detriment to the members instead?

Agreed and I'll see your favorite pub to a blues band that I have been following for 30 years where prior to running for TB and changing my signature to link to my "platform", I had a link to the band's website and no one gave me anything remotely related to "a shame on you"

I always wondered who the Nighthawks were and why you liked them enough to put them in your signature, but I figured that if it was that important to you, if I ever stumbled across them, I should make it a point to check them out. :)

So as I've continually said. There is a cost to changing these rules. Please identify the benefit which would result to offset the considerable cost?

What is the cost to changing these rules, other than it creates additional work in some way?

Maybe it's me, but should a member's signature include a link to the member's blog where the blog is a boardingarea blog?

I don't see a problem. FT exists to serve our members. I'd hope and expect milepoint to reciprocate by treating FT the same as any other travel-related site.

What is the cost to changing these rules, other than it creates additional work in some way? Your 'other than' would be a cost.

Unless you can identify a solid benefit, then the cost outweighs the benefits.

And you (and everyone else I have asked) has singularly failed to do so.

So lets stop obessing about the cost side - where even you have just conceded there is a cost, and focus on the benefit side. What would be the benefit to FT? We know this is a problem for 1-2 members so it's not something the members are finding problematic. So what would be the benefit?

And if a ft member links over to a blog run by milepoint and from there joins milepoint and never gives ft the light of day again?

If a FTer links to a blog on MP (or any other travel site for that matter; there are more than just MP ;) ) & feels that site better meets their needs, then I have no problem with that.

Each person should utilize whichever blog or bulletin board best meets their travel needs. It might be MP, it might be FT, it might be some of the other ones that Jenbel mentioned, it might be individual bloggers, or it might be a combo of all of the above.

I happen to believe that FT is the best travel BB out there so I think they'll get the most info from FT, but it's really up to every individual to determine which or which multiple sites/bloggers provides them w/ the info they need.


If you are arguing that representatives of FlyerTalk (i.e. TalkBoard members, moderators, employees of Internet Brands, etc.) should not link to competing sites, then you probably do have a point. But I fail to see how limiting the general membership is constructive.

Agreed.

We are all part of a community of frequent fliers, and we should act as such, regardless of which Internet bulletin board we choose to be members.

Agreed.


HOWEVER, I personally see this is as a solution in search of a problem, so I'd have to be really, really convinced by other TB members and more than one or two FTers why the TOS needs to be addressed to deal with this.

Agreed.

FWIW I don't believe this issue is a "problem" and it's only this thread that has magnified it to the point where some might believe it to be one.

Agreed.

Cheers.

I'm not sure how or why this thread has become so confrontational. Probably my fault. Things usually are. :)

How about this: If we were to start with a blank slate, what do we think would be best practices for signatures and commercialism on FT in general?

Not allowing sigs at all, or not allowing any links at all in sigs, or only allowing internal links in sigs seem to be off the table as too limiting.

Here is my thoughts, from a blank slate perspective:

With the sole guide being: what is in the best interest of the posters, I think it makes sense to apply the same TOS to sigs as we do to posts, whatever those TOS may be.

So if we are going to ban on commercial links in sigs, we ought to do so in the body of posts as well. And vice-versa. To do otherwise is illogical and breeds confusion.

Which begs the question: What is the line between a commercial venture and a non-commercial venture.

That was pretty well discussed here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1195158-what-do-when-does-do-become-commercial-venture.html

From that (and other!) thread the notion of a commercial forum came up where posters could go in and get commercial to their heart's desires. But keep it in there, like we keep the politics in OMNI/PR.

In this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html this same idea evolved in the (highly successful, if I do say so myself! :)) Travel Tools forum. Time to finish the other half and create the non-travel commercial forum!

This would give he posters that want it the outlet they want to go all commercial on each other, sell their wares in the open rather than skirting around the TOS. And at the same time allow the rest of FT to go pretty much commercial free.

And then we can apply that more stringent standard totally consistently across all other forums of FT, including in sigs.

And by that I mean that amateur blogs are allowed, but commercial ones are not. That links to travel photos are allowed, but links to professional photographers are not. Basically, if the link is a commercial for a product or service or makes the poster money, it goes in commercial and is not allowed in regular forums or sigs.

By creating a commercial forum, we can afford to be tight on the limits in sigs as well as in posts, and inform posters that if they want to get commercial, they should go to the commercial forum and keep it there, just like political debates are kept in O/PR. Heck, make it a sub-category of OMNI...OMNI/commercial. @:-)

That's one idea, anyway.

I'm certainly open to other ideas.

That was pretty well discussed here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1195158-what-do-when-does-do-become-commercial-venture.html

From that (and other!) thread the notion of a commercial forum came up where posters could go in and get commercial to their heart's desires. But keep it in there, like we keep the politics in OMNI/PR.From my perspective, it is not so much to allow FlyerTalk members to “get commercial to their heart’s desires.” Rather, it is about supporting each other as a true community outside of FlyerTalk as well as within FlyerTalk.

This discussion (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html) might be more apropos to your support for a separate commercial for-profit forum on FlyerTalk.

For example, I have no idea what you do for a living or a profession. What if I need a product or service which you offer? Would it not make sense for me to patronize your business or the company of which you are employed and support you over someone whom I do not know or about whom I have not even heard? Would it not make sense to strengthen the overall “economy” of the FlyerTalk community by patronizing each other, resulting in more trips for more FlyerTalk members due to increased income?

Similarly, I believe that applying that concept to signatures could — not yet definitively will — be helpful for all of us.

As the OP of this thread, I think it turned into something else than what I was asking about. Here's my original post:

I'm beginning to think that commercial links, as well as referral links, affiliate links, and links to blogs that contain affiliate links has gotten out of hand. I'm starting to see them all over the place in the forums I visit.

This is no more than free advertising and/or trolling for new business. FT is now for-profit, and if any entity is going to make money on FT members, well, IMHO, it should be FT itself, or at least a charity that FT supports.

There was a time when signatures could not contain any commercial link, and I was told this was changed several years ago, and I must have missed the discussion about it.

I made no mention of wanting to see no links at all in signatures.

From my perspective, it is not so much to allow FlyerTalk members to “get commercial to their heart’s desires.” Rather, it is about supporting each other as a true community outside of FlyerTalk as well as within FlyerTalk.

This discussion (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html) might be more apropos to your support for a separate commercial for-profit forum on FlyerTalk.

For example, I have no idea what you do for a living or a profession. What if I need a product or service which you offer? Would it not make sense for me to patronize your business or the company of which you are employed and support you over someone whom I do not know or about whom I have not even heard? Would it not make sense to strengthen the overall “economy” of the FlyerTalk community by patronizing each other, resulting in more trips for more FlyerTalk members due to increased income?

Similarly, I believe that applying that concept to signatures could — not yet definitively will — be helpful for all of us.

Yes, I must have re-found that thread and added it to my post whilst you were posting your reply.

I think it is an idea whose time has come, now that the travel tools forum has shown how successful FT can be at meeting the commercial...for both FT customer and the FT member venture!

And to Mary's OP, it give a place for those commercial to live and breath, rather than being stuck opaquely in sigs.

I agree with having a commercial area. But that still won't take care of referral links and links to personal businesses, etc. We still need rules for them :)

With the sole guide being: what is in the best interest of the posters, I think it makes sense to apply the same TOS to sigs as we do to posts, whatever those TOS may be.

So if we are going to ban on commercial links in sigs, we ought to do so in the body of posts as well. And vice-versa. To do otherwise is illogical and breeds confusion.
So you cannot actually identify a benefit except it's illogical.

That's not really a benefit.

And there isn't really a reason why logic is good here. There's a very clear downside to commercial links in posts which does not exist for signatures. But enforcing signatures to the standards of posts does carry a down side in that it's been tried, and it doesn't work well. So we still need to say 'what is the benefit for preventing commercial links in signatures which is greater than the cost involved in policing them'?

The downside to allowing commericial posts is that we can't stop spam - in fact, you might as well label koko's suggested 'commercial forum' to 'post your mobile phone prices and pharmaceuticals here' because it sounds like a spammers heaven. Would certainly give us a place to move all the spam threads to. Non mods don't get to see spam - mods can. There are also other measures taken behind the scenes to try and prevent some spam even getting to the point where mods see it.

So I realise that non-mods might not realise how often FT does get hit by spammers. It's actually quite a lot, and any 'commercial forum' would have to have rules written carefully to either allow that (if that is the intent) or disallow it (if the person suggesting such an idea had forgotten about spam).

I'm not in favour of a commercial forum. I think it will create problems and it's a distraction from the fact that we are forum for travellers.

Commercial links in posts are generally the sole reason why the post was made. There's no value to other members of FT, someone is just trying to flog something. So most members find them annoying.

Commercial links in signatures are only allowed once a member is established on the board. Signature spammers used to be a big problem, and a large amount of time was taken up hunting and killing them, hence the change in rules to prevent sig spam. As a result, people posting commercial signatures are generally long time members, whose posts are contributing to FT and the other members are getting something out of those posts, regardless of the commercial link which is not the point of the post - just a by product.

And that's the difference between a commerical post - spam - and a commercial signature and why the rules are different between the two. Because the differences for them appearing on FT are different.

But you'd try to treat them the same way, for no good reason other than your sense of propriety is offended. It's not good. That's not a good reason to act, particularly when you are asking others to shoulder a burden on behalf of your sense of propriety.

Please do explain to me what the benefit is of banning commerical links in signatures. Why is it in the best interests of the members to do so? Given so many seem so wedded to the idea, I'd have thought that was a simple question to answer? :( Surely you wouldn't try to act unless you can annunciate a benefit for doing so? Who knew a TB could be so capricious? :(

I agree with having a commercial area. But that still won't take care of referral links and links to personal businesses, etc. We still need rules for them :)

Well, the rule could be: take it off your sig and put it in the commercial area! @:-)

I agree with having a commercial area. But that still won't take care of referral links and links to personal businesses, etc. We still need rules for them :)I would not be averse to links to referrals in signatures, as long as the FlyerTalk member:

Proactively contributes to the community, and
Clearly disclaims that the link in the signature is a referral link

According to my experience as a FlyerTalk moderator, FlyerTalk members are quite good at alerting moderators to fellow members who do not contribute to the community but attempt to take from it.

As for links to personal businesses...For example, I have no idea what you do for a living or a profession. What if I need a product or service which you offer? Would it not make sense for me to patronize your business or the company of which you are employed and support you over someone whom I do not know or about whom I have not even heard? Would it not make sense to strengthen the overall “economy” of the FlyerTalk community by patronizing each other, resulting in more trips for more FlyerTalk members due to increased income?

Similarly, I believe that applying that concept to signatures could — not yet definitively will — be helpful for all of us.

I agree that definitive rules are needed for commercial links in signatures regardless of what is finally decided.

So you cannot actually identify a benefit except it's illogical.

That's not really a benefit.

And there isn't really a reason why logic is good here. There's a very clear downside to commercial links in posts which does not exist for signatures. But enforcing signatures to the standards of posts does carry a down side in that it's been tried, and it doesn't work well. So we still need to say 'what is the benefit for preventing commercial links in signatures which is greater than the cost involved in policing them'?

The downside to allowing commericial posts is that we can't stop spam - in fact, you might as well label koko's suggested 'commercial forum' to 'post your mobile phone prices and pharmaceuticals here' because it sounds like a spammers heaven. Would certainly give us a place to move all the spam threads to. Non mods don't get to see spam - mods can. There are also other measures taken behind the scenes to try and prevent some spam even getting to the point where mods see it.

So I realise that non-mods might not realise how often FT does get hit by spammers. It's actually quite a lot, and any 'commercial forum' would have to have rules written carefully to either allow that (if that is the intent) or disallow it (if the person suggesting such an idea had forgotten about spam).

I'm not in favour of a commercial forum. I think it will create problems and it's a distraction from the fact that we are forum for travellers.

Commercial links in posts are generally the sole reason why the post was made. There's no value to other members of FT, someone is just trying to flog something. So most members find them annoying.

Commercial links in signatures are only allowed once a member is established on the board. Signature spammers used to be a big problem, and a large amount of time was taken up hunting and killing them, hence the change in rules to prevent sig spam. As a result, people posting commercial signatures are generally long time members, whose posts are contributing to FT and the other members are getting something out of those posts, regardless of the commercial link which is not the point of the post - just a by product.

And that's the difference between a commerical post - spam - and a commercial signature and why the rules are different between the two. Because the differences for them appearing on FT are different.

But you'd try to treat them the same way, for no good reason other than your sense of propriety is offended. It's not good. That's not a good reason to act, particularly when you are asking others to shoulder a burden on behalf of your sense of propriety.

Please do explain to me what the benefit is of banning commerical links in signatures. Why is it in the best interests of the members to do so? Given so many seem so wedded to the idea, I'd have thought that was a simple question to answer? :( Surely you wouldn't try to act unless you can annunciate a benefit for doing so? Who knew a TB could be so capricious? :(

No one wants a spam forum. That is silly. Now a SPAM forum, sure. ;):p

What is being suggested here is a place where real FTers, with a posting history similar to that needed to gain entry to coupon connection, could create a commercial community to go along with the other off topic but community building aspects of OMNI, etc. Hey, why not buy sell my used mobile to another FTer?! Why not buy stamps from Ozstamps? Why not buy wine from Gaucho?

I'm done debating the hows and whys of current practice. IMHO, it was done in an ad hoc and non-transparent way. And it seems rather arbitrary. The way you describe it makes it seem as though moderators have infinite discretion in deciding if someone is a long time member or contributing member, or if their commercial link is the point of the commercial link or a by-product of it.

So to me it is much more interesting to me to start with a clean slate and decide what is in the best interest of FTers, then make that happen.

And to me, best practices are typically simple and consistent. I would think that any moderator would agree with that notion, as simple and consistent practices are the easiest to enforce.

As you say, FT is primarily about sharing travel information altruistically, so keeping sigs on-topic related to travel or personal (like a quote, etc), non-commercial, non-political and in conformance with the TOS seems like a simple and consistent best practice.

Giving posters a forum to flog their books or plumbing skillz or their drop shipping web site seems to me like a good way to build community. Yes, rules to keep spam out will be required. But with post minimum to play, that is easily overcome.

There is no reason that FTers cannot have their cake (tos enforcement applied consistently) and eat it too (have a proper and well defined place to be commercial with each other, provide commercial links, etc).

And mods can tell those who wish to be commercial in their sigs or posts or profiles or anywhere else that such activity is welcome on FT, but only in the proper forum.

As the OP of this thread, I think it turned into something else than what I was asking about.So that we respect the original purpose of this discussion and not further detract from the original topic, may we please continue the discussion of a commercial forum on FlyerTalk here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html)?

Thank you in advance.

So that we respect the original purpose of this discussion and not further detract from the original topic, may we please continue the discussion of a commercial forum on FlyerTalk here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1203411-proposal-should-commercial-profit-forum-created-flyertalk.html)?

Thank you in advance.

The problem with that is that I see the two issues as inexorably linked.

Perhaps a new thread addressing both topics!? :)

The problem with that is that I see the two issues as inexorably linked.

Perhaps a new thread addressing both topics!? :)I have no objection to that — I just want to respect the topic of the discussion launched by Mary2e.

And to me, best practices are typically simple and consistent. I would think that any moderator would agree with that notion, as simple and consistent practices are the easiest to enforce. Not always, this would be a perfect example of one which is not. Or to look at it another way, it's been made simpler by removing commerical signatures as something which is not allowed. If we are saying something that is simpler is better, then stopping mods have to define what is and is not 'commercial' - itself a grey area with considerable debate at times - is better if the commercial signatures are not causing a problem. And since only a very few people are seeing problems (which apparently are as undefinable as the benefits of banning them) then it seems like commercial sigs are not a problem.

I really must ask again - what is the benefit in banning commercial signatures?

Not always, this would be a perfect example of one which is not. Or to look at it another way, it's been made simpler by removing commerical signatures as something which is not allowed. If we are saying something that is simpler is better, then stopping mods have to define what is and is not 'commercial' - itself a grey area with considerable debate at times - is better if the commercial signatures are not causing a problem. And since only a very few people are seeing problems (which apparently are as undefinable as the benefits of banning them) then it seems like commercial sigs are not a problem.

I really must ask again - what is the benefit in banning commercial signatures?

What is the benefit in banning commercial links in posts?

FT's core function is points, miles and travel.

We keep it that way by letting folks go off topic (and somewhat off-TOS) in specific forums. This proposal (creating a commercial forum but enforcing the TOS in sigs) follows that model.

No one wants a spam forum. That is silly. Now a SPAM forum, sure. ;):p

What is being suggested here is a place where real FTers, with a posting history similar to that needed to gain entry to coupon connection, could create a commercial community to go along with the other off topic but community building aspects of OMNI, etc. Hey, why not buy sell my used mobile to another FTer?! Why not buy stamps from Ozstamps? Why not buy wine from Gaucho?

I'm done debating the hows and whys of current practice. IMHO, it was done in an ad hoc and non-transparent way. And it seems rather arbitrary. The way you describe it makes it seem as though moderators have infinite discretion in deciding if someone is a long time member or contributing member, or if their commercial link is the point of the commercial link or a by-product of it.

So to me it is much more interesting to me to start with a clean slate and decide what is in the best interest of FTers, then make that happen.

And to me, best practices are typically simple and consistent. I would think that any moderator would agree with that notion, as simple and consistent practices are the easiest to enforce.

As you say, FT is primarily about sharing travel information altruistically, so keeping sigs on-topic related to travel or personal (like a quote, etc), non-commercial, non-political and in conformance with the TOS seems like a simple and consistent best practice.

Giving posters a forum to flog their books or plumbing skillz or their drop shipping web site seems to me like a good way to build community. Yes, rules to keep spam out will be required. But with post minimum to play, that is easily overcome.

There is no reason that FTers cannot have their cake (tos enforcement applied consistently) and eat it too (have a proper and well defined place to be commercial with each other, provide commercial links, etc).

And mods can tell those who wish to be commercial in their sigs or posts or profiles or anywhere else that such activity is welcome on FT, but only in the proper forum.

^^

IIRC, no, they were not.

Then you need to report them again I am afraid. If I get one as a Mod in Hyatt or Star Alliance, I report it to the sig committee for action. If they choose not to action, then they accept it as valid.

And mods can tell those who wish to be commercial in their sigs or posts or profiles or anywhere else that such activity is welcome on FT, but only in the proper forum.

Is it possible to limit sigs to appear in just one forum?

What is the benefit in banning commercial links in posts? I explained that in the post I gave some moments ago:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19029066-post155.html

See the third or fourth paragraph and also further down where i highlight the differences between someone making commericial posts and someone with a commericial sig making posts that add value.

Now I've answered your question, can you answer mine?

What is the benefit of banning commercial sigs?

I've never asked a question of a TB, some of which members seem SOOO determined to act, but who cannot actually identify a benefit for the course of action they seem determined to pursue. This is just not logical that some members seem determined on a course for something they cannot actually describe a benefit for :confused: Surely it's not much to ask that you can describe the benefit to us, the members you represent, before you actually make a change which negatively impacts on members using commericial links and on the mods you expect to enforce the change you make.

Is it possible to limit sigs to appear in just one forum?No, which is why I believe they ought to be in full conformance with the TOS.

It is ok to talk about abortion in O/PR, but it does not serve the community well to allow abortion talk in sigs, which also appear in airline forums, hotel forums, etc. It's distracts from the core function of FT, the altruistic sharing of points, travel and miles knowledge.

By the same token, it should be ok to promote your commercial venture in a commercial forum but not in sigs, which also appear in airline forums, hotel forums, etc. It distracts from the core function of FT, the altruistic sharing of points, travel and miles knowledge..




What is the benefit of banning commercial sigs?

I've never asked a question of a TB, some of which members seem SOOO determined to act, but who cannot actually identify a benefit for the course of action they seem determined to pursue. This is just not logical that some members seem determined on a course for something they cannot actually describe a benefit for :confused: Surely it's not much to ask that you can describe the benefit to us, the members you represent, before you actually make a change which negatively impacts on members using commericial links and on the mods you expect to enforce the change you make.

I have answered that question twice now (including once in the post that you selectively quote in your post!):

And to me, best practices are typically simple and consistent. I would think that any moderator would agree with that notion, as simple and consistent practices are the easiest to enforce.

As you say, FT is primarily about sharing travel information altruistically, so keeping sigs on-topic related to travel or personal (like a quote, etc), non-commercial, non-political and in conformance with the TOS seems like a simple and consistent best practice.

Giving posters a forum to flog their books or plumbing skillz or their drop shipping web site seems to me like a good way to build community. Yes, rules to keep spam out will be required. But with post minimum to play, that is easily overcome.

There is no reason that FTers cannot have their cake (tos enforcement applied consistently) and eat it too (have a proper and well defined place to be commercial with each other, provide commercial links, etc).

And mods can tell those who wish to be commercial in their sigs or posts or profiles or anywhere else that such activity is welcome on FT, but only in the proper forum.

FT's core function is points, miles and travel.

We keep it that way by letting folks go off topic (and somewhat off-TOS) in specific forums. This proposal (creating a commercial forum but enforcing the TOS in sigs) follows that model.

I'd like to see examples of signatures that are (or were) a problem. Can someone point me to some of those?

I'd like to see examples of signatures that are (or were) a problem. Can someone point me to some of those?

Being that the two Talk Board members that have posted the number of complaints they received were zero and one, maybe some of the other Talk Board members that are getting all the complaints can post a dozen or so here to better explain the problem. Excellent idea.

I wish I could find the problem signatures, but the last I reported, for being an ad for a personal business, apparently was OK because the TOS had been changed to allow it and I was unaware.

However, I had reported a few when I'm certain it was against the TOS and never received a reply and the signature remained.

I wish I could find the problem signatures, but the last I reported, for being an ad for a personal business, apparently was OK because the TOS had been changed to allow it and I was unaware.

However, I had reported a few when I'm certain it was against the TOS and never received a reply and the signature remained.

Who did you report it to?

If you reported it to the forum moderator, perhaps the moderator wasn't aware of the proper channel to then pass the information along to the appropriate parties. (Regular moderators don't have any direct oversight of signatures.)

Also, before there was the sig com it would be up to the mod who it was reported to to review it. Perhaps they reviewed it and their view of it differed from yours?

I know I spent a fair amount of time killing signature spam before the rules were changed.

Sorry, I can't remember. It was a while ago.

If someone is advertising a personal business, and it clearly says so, well, that was a violation of the TOS at the time. If their view differed, well, then they weren't abiding by the rules. At a minimum, I would have expected a response from the mod, such as I got when I was told the TOS were changed.