sig links

[pittbug]

Why not disable the ability to create/edit a sig until x posts or y rep has been achieved?

This may save mods a bunch of time editing sigs of new posters. Let's face it, no one really reads the terms.

[earlpearl]

I agree. Good idea.

[Wit]

We have tried that in the past, but it needs careful fiddling with usergroups and promotions AFAIK.

We'd also need a new rule that says you can't post links AND you have to wait with the sig, instead of the current policy which states you cannot post links BUT are welcome to link out from your sig.

[dominating_seo]

Why not disable the ability to create/edit a sig until x posts or y rep has been achieved?

This may save mods a bunch of time editing sigs of new posters. Let's face it, no one really reads the terms.

I agree with Pittbug. It's a good idea and will save lots of time of Mods & Admin's, which can be spent for some constructive use of forum.

But this is have some side effect, IMO, this will not motivate spammers to post irrelevant threads/posts to get "n" number of post, so that they can get access to signature.

My 2 cents.

[pittbug]

I believe that most spammers arrive, make 1 post with sig links and are never seen again. Of course there will be those who will try to game whatever system we try to put in place, but the intent is to apply the 80/20 rule.

[Wit]

In fact, most drive-by spammers just post a link or two and never bother with a sig.

[A.N.Onym]

Yeah, those who do something are in the minority (but possibly more noticeable, because they aren't immediatelly banned or their links defused).

[AnnM]

It's already enforced here that new members cannot have signatures till they have contributed meaningfully in the forum first- I think that's a fair policy. I know spamming is the biggest problem right now and some kind of a rule has to be in place to avoid this.

[tcyonline]

After how much posts & reputation, signatures are allowed.

[Wit]

Lots.........