goalie

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)

tom911

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.

tom911

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.

kokonutz

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.

tom911

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?

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?

tcook052

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.

Jenbel

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 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.

Jenbel

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?

seanthepilot

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.

kipper

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."

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

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

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?


I have to say, this made me giggle. Don't worry, we know who the controllers are. :*

kipper

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.

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?

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.

tom911

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?

kipper

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.