goalie

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.

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.

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.

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're beginning to sound like a broken record . 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.

A thought ^

See, someone gets it ^

Agreed ^

Also agreed ^

Jenbel

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

tom911

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.

Jenbel

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.

Jenbel

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.

tom911

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.

kipper

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.

kipper

Then perhaps the forum description should be changed.

tom911

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.

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.

lin821

Just 2? Are you sure?

Here's some of my thought from another earlier thread.

FWIW, IMHO, referral links are of commercial nature.

SkiAdcock

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.

nsx

+1

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

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.

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.

kokonutz

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!

nsx

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.