Originally Posted by
kokonutz
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.
Originally Posted by
DCann
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.
Originally Posted by
Canarsie
FlyerTalk members should support each other in any way possible, and
I have long advocated that patronizing each other commercially 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.
Originally Posted by
goalie
Bolding mine: Then what pray tell does the "Signature Committee" do?
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.
Originally Posted by
tom911
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.