CMK10

I agree. Here's what I've written before:

Mary2e

^^

I'll give an example... I saw a signature advertising a travel agency business and reported it, as I believe those types of ads are generally frowned upon. Since then, that person changed their signature, and now there is a Big Crumbs referral link in it.

I don't know if it was a result of my report or if the person made more money with the Big Crumbs link, but still, this person, and a whole lot of others, are using signatures to make money.

mia

Everywhere I go on the Internet I see advertising. Everywhere. I can install ad blocking software on my browser.

Flyertalk gives me the identical option to block Signatures, and to block specific members. The FT population sees these Signatures only if they choose not to use the available tools.

Why do you choose to view Signatures? (I direct this question to everyone, not only to Mary2e).

Mary2e

FT isn't everywhere Signatures used to be information on community events, DOs, links to posts with good deals, cute sayings (see mine )

The point is not that I don't want to see them - it is that people are using them to run a business and make money. I think that goes against everything FT stands for. I guess I wasn't clear with my example above.

I don't know why you think that it's the signature that is bothersome - it's what it is being used for that is bothersome.

lowside67

There would be fewer clicks, but the default setting is to show signatures and there are a great deal of forum members that do not know how or do not care enough to turn off signatures so there is still an implicit motivation to continue posting. In addition, the behaviour that is absolutely most frustrating to me is the useless posts that are simply an excuse to have the opportunity to show a signature.

If I turn signatures off, I don't see the signature, but the thread is still bumped to the top (even if I ignore that user), and as time goes on, the forum gets further bloated with unnecessary posts that make it harder to search and find pertinent information.

In my opinion it is not that there aren't bandaid solutions to help make it moderately more bearable, but my point is what is the motivation to FlyerTalk to allow these in the first place? They make no difference to FlyerTalk itself, but are beneficial to a few (those who place the links) and detrimental to the majority (all who are affected by the bulk and frequency of the shill postings).

Mark

mia

I haven't said what I think . At this stage I am just asking questions, because the description of the problem, and the proposed solutions, seem too vague for action.

If this were changed do you think it would help?

lowside67

I think it would make a difference. However, like Mary, I believe Signatures are a valuable and nice thing - I would much prefer to see signatures from all of the many people that do things like post their name, their trip reports, a quote, whatever is unique to them. As I said - many bandaids are possible, but virtually all that deal with this issue in a secondary way affect more legitimate people across the board.

Mark

CMK10

I like signatures too, I like the quotes (I reused one on Facebook just the other day), upgrade percentages etc. I only disagree with referral links. And I don't think turning off ALL signatures is the right solution.

SkiAdcock

Re: signature links. I've never had as big a problem w/ them as some FTers because my thought is that just because someone has a link in their signature doesn't mean other FTers will automatically click on it. And if they do, they may or may not follow through with whatever the link is for. And if they do, that's their decision. FTers are adults (well most of them) & can make decisions for themselves.

I do have more sympathy/understanding of those who are opposed to signature links when it involves 'congos', where there are official referral threads links for that & they say we're playing by the rules, why should others get an unfair advantage. But I'm still of mixed mind on that, getting back to FTers can make decisions for themselves & if they want to click on a link in a congo that's fine & if they want to click on a link in a signature that's fine.

FT has over 500,000 members, with (a guess) approximately 10,000 active members. I seriously doubt the majority of the 10,000 active members have affiliate links in their signatures so I also don't think it's as overwhelming an issue as others seem to think it is, although I understand it's irritating to some.

I do agree that turning off signatures entirely to avoid seeing some is not an optimal solution because FTers do have links to dos, quotes, their upgrade status, etc, which would also disappear.

Cheers.

goalie

This nails it! ^ tho I'll add a question-does F/T gain from this (and I mean other than internet traffic or more specifically, does F/T gain monetarily the way a "click the link in my signature" poster does?)

I choose to view signatures because I want to, simple as that but that is not the issue that folks are concerned about. They are concerned about folks with a business getting a free ride on advertising and making money of off said free advertising.

I don't like ad's on my internet pages and I have adblocker software installed but the beneficiary of those ad's is the internet company (or in our case IB) and the ad supplier who is in business to make money and afaic, the same applies to those who post referral links and unless there is a contract between IB and the poster with said referral link(s) the way there is between IB and the ad supplier, it should not be occurring (and turning off the ability to view a signature does not accomplish that)

SkiAdcock

I think you meant to say shouldn't be occurring? (guessing you're on phone or tablet). If it's between IB & the ad supplier, then it's between IB & the ad supplier & contracts or no contracts isn't the business of 3rd parties (aka, FTers) Just playing a bit of devil's advocate there.

Cheers.

mia

Not all solicitations are links. Is the objection only to links, or to any commercial content?

CMK10

For me, commercial content. A link to your FlightMemory is fine. But I don't think people should be using their signatures to line their own pockets.

Mary2e

It's commercial content that may also contain links. In my example above, the poster advertised a travel agency by indicating to PM them for more info.

Signatures aren't an issue and neither are links. It's signatures with links that are commercial or ads without links that say "PM or Contact Me"

nsx

I have nothing against people making money, but I agree that commercial links in signatures are likely to diminish the value of FT if they have not already done so. The reason is simple: members with such links have a financial incentive to post excessively.

It's true that a smart business owner would want to impress FT members with the quality of his or her posts. Such members are going to increase the value of FT to readers. But I believe that purveyors of marginally useful or even useless blogs and links will far outnumber the members who diligently deliver value here on FT and on their own sites.

Another point is that if FT is a commercially demilitarized zone, bloggers will be more likely to direct their readers here. Links from blogs to FT may diminish if bloggers fear that readers who visit FT will be quickly led to competing blogs.

There's no perfect solution here. The best I can think of is to allow commercial links only in one forum, probably the new EMPR forum. kokonutz, as the Ambassador for that forum and as a TalkBoard member, what do you think?