tom911

Let me also ask, does anyone on the Talk Board have a handle on how many signatures there are among FT members? A few hundred? Few thousand? How many complaints are received in a random week about signatures? How many of those signatures link to sites outside FT? Could it be that the workload in reviewing signatures is really going take a minimal amount of time to enforce, no matter who the enforcer is?

Are we allowed to talk about the signature committee, or is that like discussing the actions of moderators (not allowed here)?

SkiAdcock

Absolutely no idea. Monitoring how many FTers even have signatures, much less the type, doesn't fall under TB.

My guess, which I think I stated up thread, is that the number of 'foul' signatures is actually pretty tiny.

Cheers.

tom911

Anyone from the signature committee willing to answer some of the questions that have been raised here?

SkiAdcock

The sig committee, AFAIK, isn' t required to monitor TB. I'd say if anyone has concerns that they contact the sig committee via the suggested protocol or contact the Community Director.

Cheers.

mia

I recently joined the Signature Review Committee. I have subscribed to this thread and read all of the posts. I learn more by reading than by posting.

Part of what we are doing now is collecting examples of borderline Signatures or Profiles, and reviewing them with the committee which re-wrote the rules to verify that we unambiguously understand the intent of the rules. This will help identify aspects of the rules which may require clarification.

SanDiego1K

Let me attempt to speak to this. FT rules were several years old. The past version was written before there was an active social media world. Now, we save Facebook, twitter, blogs. We wanted to take a step forward but not such a giant step that we disrupted the FT community. In discussions with Internet Brands, we came to the decision to not permit links that go directly to credit card offers or the like. Was there discussion about eliminating active links altogether? Yes. But there are excellent examples where folks put a link to their community event or to flight memory or to their trip report. Many people have blogs that are discussions of their travels. We didn't want to write a rule so limiting that folks could not share their travel experiences. And if we had decided that any blog with any cash generating links was not permitted, we would have had to constantly check those links. Many folks start with a blog that has no such links and subsequently grow to the point that they can add them.

You'll see that another important change was requiring folks to post content on FT that could stand along before giving a link to their blog. More and more, we were seeing links that were posted simply to drive traffic to blogs, rather than posting any content on FT. The new rule is intended to stop that.

Have we gone far enough in our rules? Perhaps not. But it's a good step, and we can always adjust if future trends require it. For now, the rules were approved by Talkboard, the mods, Internet Brands, and me. I'm happy with the very positive changes.

lin821

Are these 2 signatures borderline at all?

I think not.

What about our Signature Review Committee?

mia

Sorry, I don't understand the question. All the signatures which have been reported will be evaluated and acted upon.

goalie

I think lin821 is asking publicly if the signatures mentioned in his/her post are kosher per the new guidelines

SanDiego1K

I'm sure. But as a matter of courtesy, I prefer to discuss signatures hypothetically than make them specific to a member. The violation might be very clear cut, yet it seems to me to be more gracious to have the member receive a contact directly before seeing a public decision. Perhaps after the member has removed them, folks can ask:

"Is it ok if I mention Obama in my signature?" Um - no, hard to imagine that not being political

"Can I express my disdain for the TSA in my sig?" - uh, no, that's Omni/PR territory.

"Can I have a referral link to the latest AMEX offer in my sig"? Nope, sorry.

And so on.

And for those reading along, please remove emoticons from your signature. I know, I know, I've used them, too, when I thought for sure everyone would want to learn about the next San Diego dinner! But we are asking signatures to be discreet, and that means no bling. How boring of us. I agree.

goalie

I agree completely ^ and in looking back at my post, it's two minutes in the penalty box for me as I forgot to include the part that you included about not discussing certain things publicly

kipper

I think lin821 was pointing out that, based on the new guidelines, the signatures she reported are not borderline and don't need to be reviewed with the committee who re-wrote the rules.

Kagehitokiri

seems some (at least one) are spamming to get exposure for CC affiliate blog (or similar) linked in signature

mia

I am assigned to the Signature Review Committee. You need to file a report using the link provided in the rule:

http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#signatures