[Frank4d]

Almost everyday I see threads started by new members that are spam. Some are blatant spam, containing links to third party websites advertising various products, or are links to the poster's own websites.

Sometimes the spam posts seem to contain useful information, like this: http://forums.techguy.org/windows-7/...7-install.html. Except I strongly suspect the thread was started only to promote the website in the poster's signature.

How hard would it be to make a rule that members must have 5 (pick a number) posts before being allowed to post a link to any external website? Or to include a link to any external website in their signature?

I am talking about software that runs the TSG site automatically filtering this type of spam, not rules a user must follow.

[JohnWill]

Probably, but it's within the rules.

I'm of the opinion that links to websites should not be allowed in signatures, which would deal with this issue very well. However, I'm only one of the janitors, so my vote doesn't necessarily count.

Spam is with us all the time, but whenever you see one, feel free to report it.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by Frank4d

Almost everyday I see threads started by new members that are spam. Some are blatant spam, containing links to third party websites advertising various products, or are links to the poster's own websites.

Sometimes the spam posts seem to contain useful information, like this: http://forums.techguy.org/windows-7/...7-install.html. Except I strongly suspect the thread was started only to promote the website in the poster's signature.

How hard would it be to make a rule that members must have 5 (pick a number) posts before being allowed to post a link to any external website? Or to include a link to any external website in their signature?

I am talking about software that runs the TSG site automatically filtering this type of spam, not rules a user must follow.

That's a good idea, Frank. But all the person does then is post five (or whatever number) garbage posts (Thanks!; That's funny!; I agree; Nice pictures!...you get the idea) where they can post what they want.

To me, the best thing is for all to be vigilant, and report that stuff.

[bp936]

I always report if I see someone, it irritates me, that they don't read the rules at sign up.
And I agree, no link in signature.

[ekim68]

Reporting it is the best way, IMO, although I agree with John that we should have limitations in signatures, but I always check on the reports when I sign in...And, PM's...

[TechGuy]

FYI, my quote from a recent thread:

The rules current state:

I like that rule because if I were to spend my time posting in someone else's forum, I'd want to link to my own personal or possibly business site. It seems like a fair trade in most cases. So, per the current rules, I believe that Erik's signature is OK -- although I agree it's a little gray. (I doubt he actually works for Bluehost, but who's to say he doesn't? The Mods sure aren't going to call Bluehost's HR to try to find out.)

This brings up a bigger question, which I think was recently mentioned in Site Comments. Should signature links be allowed at all? I currently think they should, but I'm always open to feedback. I think the discussion of signatures is best placed in that forum, though -- not in this thread.

I just did a quick search and found what I believe is the appropriate thread for this discussion: http://forums.techguy.org/site-comme...m-threads.html

[JohnWill]

Mike, my problem with commercial links in signatures is there are the abusers that really just come here for exposure of their commercial links. I can give you examples if you like.

The problem with singling them out is like being a little bit pregnant. We either have to have a rule against it or not, I don't know what we do with the gray areas.

[redoak]

Couldn't the rules forbid links in sigs that go to a commercial/money making site?

I am biased, but I do not consider the link to my amateurish, non-commercial website to be spam. No one is being forced/encouraged to click on the link.

{redoak}

[Jason08]

I do think it sounds like a good idea to have it setup that a user with little posts cannot have a link in the signature. I also report spam anytime I see it.

[Blackmirror]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

a little bit pregnant. .

Congratulations John

[JohnWill]

Originally Posted by Blackmirror

Congratulations John

I still have time to correct my mistake.

[JohnWill]

How about we have a limitation where a user has to have a number of posts, at least 50, before they can create signatures. This would solve the random spam problem and still allow the other ones for long time members?

[Blackmirror]

Spammers make me laugh
i like the tag team
they post a q and then get the other to answer lol

[Cookiegal]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

How about we have a limitation where a user has to have a number of posts, at least 50, before they can create signatures. This would solve the random spam problem and still allow the other ones for long time members?

I like this idea.

[LauraMJ]

I agree with John's suggestion, though I don't think the post count needs to be quite that high.