49 replies
Just today, I found two members who had made 300 posts during June -- and every single post was a very generic comment or question in a different WSO thread. No posts or contributions in any other sections.

This WSO sig spamming seems to be increasing. If you see someone doing it, feel free to report it. I have a feeling more people are going to find hundreds of their posts deleted and a bit of time off.
#sig #spammers #wso
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Out of courtesy to the person who paid for the thread, I try to remember to turn my signature off when I comment. I'd like to see more people do that.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4166298].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author azmanar
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Out of courtesy to the person who paid for the thread, I try to remember to turn my signature off when I comment. I'd like to see more people do that.
      Hi,

      If I'm not mistaken, sig files are global.

      So, even if you turn off the sig when you posted, once you turn it on again,
      it will appear in all your posts.

      I'd say, many more who are posting in WSO threads, were asking real questions
      and giving very sincere comments. You can feel it when you read them.

      Thus making it easy for all of us to spot the spammers.

      Because ---->>> Spam comments bulged out like sore thumbs.
      They are always out of context to the subject matter.
      Signature
      === >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4166841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
    Bump......


    Thinking about it, Maybe Sigs could/should be disabled in VB for the WSO forum.
    That would solve the WSO Sig Spam problem.


    Just a thought.
    Have a Great Day!
    Michael

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    I've noticed that since the introduction of banner sigs, there are people who frequently post one line replies in the WSO section, like "This looks interesting, I'm gonna check it out." Then the main thing you notice is their banner ad.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ReachOneMedia
    Yeah I always got some of those too!

    Always in the first 5 post... Always the same people.

    Annoying? Yes and No. If they ask a pertinent question that will help other people out and that I didn't explain in the sales copy that' ok with me.

    But when I receive a message that say "I'm in" Or "I will look at it" It's kind of a non subtle way to say... I'm not interested in your stuff but thanks anyways to let me advertise my stuff for free.... that's pissing me off

    Thanks for that post!

    J

    EDIT: Of course if i would receive $5 each time someone wants to advertise is sig in my wso thread that wouldn't bother me at all!!

    Charge $25/month fee to have the right to have sig in the wso forum and $5 to the wso owner each time a sig is posted in his thread

    I'm a freaking genius
    Signature
    CALLING WARRIORS: I'll Make 10 New Millionaires In The Next 90 Days... Or Look Like An Idiot Trying! CLICK HERE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167662].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    I've noticed several people doing it. Some of these guys have been commenting on so many WSO's that if they HAD actually bought each WSO they commented on, they would be spending a few hundred dollars a day, at least. Yeah right... and it's always the guys with the big ugly banner ads and always conveniently on the first page of the WSO.

    I also think the sigs should be disabled in the WSO section but in the meantime as another poster mentioned, if you have an over-bearing sig then just select to turn it off in WSO posts. The only problem with this is those sneaky people can turn off their signature and then come back at a later date and turn it back on inside that post.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    I just can't believe these guys thought no one would notice... duh!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      I would just focus on cutting out the signature spammers, and not turning off everyone's signatures.

      I mean, let's say there is a WSO on making money as an Amazon affiliate. In that WSO thread, John Smith is talking about how he bought the product and found it seriously lacking and would not recommend it to any one.

      Now, if his signature is turned off, I wouldn't see the link in his signature to his Amazon affiliate money-making WSO. And, thus, I wouldn't know to take his comments with a grain of salt.

      Signatures can be a useful thing. How often do we bust someone for asking how they can make $10 a day online when their signature is promoting a product to teach you how to make $100 a day online?
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167729].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167814].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by Michael Mayo View Post

          Dan, I was talking about turning off signatures in only the WSO forum, not in all the forums.

          Have a Great Day!
          Michael

          Michael, At the beginning of his comment, I believe Dan was talking about the WSO forum too.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167825].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            Michael, At the beginning of his comment, I believe Dan was talking about the WSO forum too.
            Yeah, I noticed that after I posted.

            Eyes are playing tricks on me this fine Thursday Morning...lol

            Have a Great Day!
            Michael
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167837].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Leveragist
        Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

        I would just focus on cutting out the signature spammers, and not turning off everyone's signatures.

        I mean, let's say there is a WSO on making money as an Amazon affiliate. In that WSO thread, John Smith is talking about how he bought the product and found it seriously lacking and would not recommend it to any one.

        Now, if his signature is turned off, I wouldn't see the link in his signature to his Amazon affiliate money-making WSO. And, thus, I wouldn't know to take his comments with a grain of salt.

        Signatures can be a useful thing. How often do we bust someone for asking how they can make $10 a day online when their signature is promoting a product to teach you how to make $100 a day online?

        Yes, the signatures can be a great source of "intelligence" (term used very loosely ). If the signature and comments don't mesh, it's a big red flag.

        Oftentimes, I would totally discount what a poster has to say (however persuasive it may be) once I checked out his/her signature links. Our signatures are our calling cards. It's a reflection of us and our business. If you send me to a crappy site, I'm not going to take you very seriously.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168371].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
      Up to now, I have reported a lot of spammers and as far as I know all of them lost their accounts. I will keep reporting them and they will keep posting spam, this is a fight with no winner but I like fighting and that's what makes me a warrior. I also report members with 1 post and a lot of links in their sig. There should be a limit to having a sig file.

      I am not sure but about 1/3 of my posts do not have a sig attached. I think we really don't have to promote (whatever we have in our sig) every time we make a contribution (big or small). Sometimes, helping others solve their problems and hearing a thank you is more than enough.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167757].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Ken, I know you guys are always on the move, but just a headsup:

    The Buy Sell Links section. Some folks open threads offering a wide variety of services - not links...

    Yesterday some of them caught my attention but most likely some others are using similar techniques around the forum.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167724].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

      Ken, I know you guys are always on the move, but just a headsup:

      The Buy Sell Links section. Some folks open threads offering a wide variety of services - not links...

      Yesterday some of them caught my attention but most likely some others are using similar techniques around the forum.

      Over the years, I have noticed a few eternal laws that should be added to the Internet version of Murphy's Law:
      • If anything can be abused, someone will abuse it.
      • If you build a valuable resource, someone will try to take advantage of it.
      • If one person finds a way to take advantage of what you have done, others will come as if they are sharks who smell blood in the water.
      • Any resource that can be abused by the masses will soon lose its value.
      • The only reason online communities ever have rules, is to provide mechanisms to protect the masses from the few.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167815].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
    I'm definitely against turning off sig files in the WSO forum - unless it really gets to that point where that's the only way to manage the problem. I think that issue should be addressed the with individual violaters. And I don't think having a sig file in a WSO thread is disrespectful at all. This is a marketing forum where people have a wide variety of choices to look at.

    The WSO original post already has all the attention. A person who is interested in the WSO is going to be focused on that WSO and I don't see person's sig files really being a major factor or distraction.

    Warriors just need to step up and do a better job of using the report button. As a community we could all put a stop to this or at least put a major dent in it.

    RoD
    Signature
    "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
    - Jim Rohn
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167835].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WillR
      Originally Posted by Rod Cortez View Post

      I'm definitely against turning off sig files in the WSO forum - unless it really gets to that point where that's the only way to manage the problem. I think that issue should be addressed the with individual violaters. And I don't think having a sig file in a WSO thread is disrespectful at all. This is a marketing forum where people have a wide variety of choices to look at.

      RoD
      If we get rid of the sigs then it puts everyone back on a level playing field. The way I see it, the only people who are really going to complain about it would be those who are doing the very thing we are trying to stop.

      Signatures are used to reward people for adding content to a forum. On the whole, posts in the WSO section are not really adding any informational value to the forum so signatures shouldn't be used. The WSO forum is a marketplace and the WSO threads do not appear unless someone pays $40 for that thread. For that reason the publisher of the WSO thread should at least be able to have full ownership of that thread without any signatures popping up and detracting from their main message.

      Originally Posted by Rod Cortez View Post

      The WSO original post already has all the attention. A person who is interested in the WSO is going to be focused on that WSO and I don't see person's sig files really being a major factor or distraction.
      Exactly. So taking the signatures away shouldn't matter because no one is looking at them anyway, right?

      I am sure the mods of this forum have much better things they would rather be doing than chasing after idiots who are abusing the WSO section. Some of the guys I have come across lately have literally posted tons of posts in the WSO section and no one had picked it up as yet. So you can't just rely on members to report this stuff because clearly that doesn't work.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167897].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        Some of the guys I have come across lately have literally posted tons of posts in the WSO section and no one had picked it up as yet. So you can't just rely on members to report this stuff because clearly that doesn't work.

        We HAVE noticed, but we have been slow on the Report button, because sometimes they add value to the WSO because they ask the questions that we have overlooked answering in our sales copy.

        Additionally, the folks I am thinking of seem to be respected warriors, so we hesitate to report, because we don't want to cause undo harm to someone who is otherwise respectable.



        p.s. I think we are all talking in general about one or two persons, and we can all name those persons. LOL
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167981].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author WillR
          Originally Posted by tpw View Post

          We HAVE noticed, but we have been slow on the Report button, because sometimes they add value to the WSO because they ask the questions that we have overlooked answering in our sales copy.

          Additionally, the folks I am thinking of seem to be respected warriors, so we hesitate to report, because we don't want to cause undo harm to someone who is otherwise respectable.

          p.s. I think we are all talking in general about one or two persons, and we can all name those persons. LOL
          Not sure who the one person is, I've reported about 3 or 4 over the last few days... all as bad as each other.

          I understand people can be hesitant about reporting people who are otherwise popular on the forum but it shouldn't matter. Every bank robber is also a nice guy until they go and rob a bank. If someone is doing something that detracts from the forum then we as members should be reporting it... no matter who they are.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168012].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DR's Fynest
        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        If we get rid of the sigs then it puts everyone back on a level playing field. The way I see it, the only people who are really going to complain about it would be those who are doing the very thing we are trying to stop.

        Signatures are used to reward people for adding content to a forum. On the whole, posts in the WSO section are not really adding any informational value to the forum so signatures shouldn't be used
        . The WSO forum is a marketplace and the WSO threads do not appear unless someone pays $40 for that thread. For that reason the publisher of the WSO thread should at least be able to have full ownership of that thread without any signatures popping up and detracting from their main message.
        This hits the nail on the head...

        It would be an easy solution to the problem. Like Will says, if you're someone who is actually trying to contribute to the forum, then you won't mind the signatures being turned off in the WSO section alone.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167985].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by DR's Fynest View Post

          This hits the nail on the head...

          It would be an easy solution to the problem. Like Will says, if you're someone who is actually trying to contribute to the forum, then you won't mind the signatures being turned off in the WSO section alone.

          I will propose a compromise that will satisfy both arguments.

          I recognize a lot of people by their signature alone -- not necessarily their name or picture. And some change their pictures weekly.

          Instead of turning signatures off, strip the html from their signatures in the WSO forum.

          I will still have enough information available to me to see if the person doing the bad review has a personal interest in destroying the offer.

          It will also allow me to judge the credibility of the person making the comment.

          But since HTML is stripped from the sig file in the WSO section, no one will be grabbing free links on my advertising dollar.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168041].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author swiftimpulse
        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        If we get rid of the sigs then it puts everyone back on a level playing field. The way I see it, the only people who are really going to complain about it would be those who are doing the very thing we are trying to stop.

        Signatures are used to reward people for adding content to a forum. On the whole, posts in the WSO section are not really adding any informational value to the forum so signatures shouldn't be used. The WSO forum is a marketplace and the WSO threads do not appear unless someone pays $40 for that thread. For that reason the publisher of the WSO thread should at least be able to have full ownership of that thread without any signatures popping up and detracting from their main message.



        Exactly. So taking the signatures away shouldn't matter because no one is looking at them anyway, right?

        I am sure the mods of this forum have much better things they would rather be doing than chasing after idiots who are abusing the WSO section. Some of the guys I have come across lately have literally posted tons of posts in the WSO section and no one had picked it up as yet. So you can't just rely on members to report this stuff because clearly that doesn't work.
        I released 2 of my first WSO's and there were the typical 'thanks I'll check it out' comments. I actually didn't mind this as it increased the post count for my WSO and I'm only new.

        I do agree that overbearing signature people who are just going 'yea cheers thx' to everything should be reported.

        A solution could be for the moderators to issue a ban on all sig files in that section. Tell everyone it's indefinitely, then after a month put it back.

        There are many changes that I've seen have been made (reading sticky threads) and all for the better. It may not be a popular decision but would weed out the sig spammers. They most likely wouldn't come back if they believe the function is disabled indefinitely.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168030].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
        If we are to say that the person who buys a WSO thread is the "owner" of that thread, why allow comments at all? Why not just have the original thread and no comments whatsoever?

        That would solve the whole problem, no?

        But, oh, the seller wants some social proof going on. Well, the tradeoff is that some of those posters will have signatures in their posts. Oh, and some people might have some negative things to say.

        That's the risk of posting an offer in a forum as opposed to just handling sales on your own website where you control everything.


        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        Originally Posted by Rod Cortez View Post

        The WSO original post already has all the attention. A person who is interested in the WSO is going to be focused on that WSO and I don't see person's sig files really being a major factor or distraction.
        Exactly. So taking the signatures away shouldn't matter because no one is looking at them anyway, right?
        It may matter to the prospective buyer. Typically, I just skim right past the signatures. Don't pay much attention to them at all. But, if I am trying to decide whether to purchase something and am reading the reviews, I want to know something about the reviewer, especially if the reviewer is someone I don't know. And then I will look at stuff like their signature to see what they may be peddling.

        And, I tend to give more weight to people with signatures than people without them. You have to have a minimum post count to have a signature, so those without them look like someone brand spanking new. They don't have the credibility of someone who has been around. I don't know who they are. For all I know, they could be new accounts a disreputable seller set up to hype their WSO. Who knows?

        So, generally, someone with a signature carries a bit more weight.

        If you eliminate signatures in the WSO section, you are putting members with some amount of credibility on the same level as someone who just signed up. And that may be a disservice to prospective buyers.
        Signature

        Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

        Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168031].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

          You have to have a minimum post count to have a signature...
          Dan,

          There are plenty of usernames with zero post count who have sigs.

          ~Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168083].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            The 0 counts are using the off topic section to push sigs - in fact, it's happening in every section of the forum now and it's increasing every month.

            Requiring a certain number of posts won't work - because many of these folks post without a signature for days by slamming generic comments into threads in every section. THEN they add a signature in their profile and it shows on all those posts. By then, the "member" has 50-300 posts and is not as likely to be shut down.

            Maybe we need a requirement for a number of posts a month for 6 months before you can add a signature. Not many of these folks last that long here. If someone came in one day a month to post nonsense to meet a quota, it would be easy to spot and stop.

            kay
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I'm going to work on being less condescending
            (Condescending means to talk down to people)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168184].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              The 0 counts are using the off topic section to push sigs - in fact, it's happening in every section of the forum now and it's increasing every month.

              Requiring a certain number of posts won't work - because many of these folks post without a signature for days by slamming generic comments into threads in every section. THEN they add a signature in their profile and it shows on all those posts. By then, the "member" has 50-300 posts and is not as likely to be shut down.

              Maybe we need a requirement for a number of posts a month for 6 months before you can add a signature. Not many of these folks last that long here. If someone came in one day a month to post nonsense to meet a quota, it would be easy to spot and stop.

              kay
              You're spot on there Kay.
              Give it another year and we'll be at garbage saturation point.
              There won't be a thing worth reading.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168528].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author WillR
          Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

          So, generally, someone with a signature carries a bit more weight.

          If you eliminate signatures in the WSO section, you are putting members with some amount of credibility on the same level as someone who just signed up. And that may be a disservice to prospective buyers.
          I don't agree with that at all.

          I personally would NEVER base my buying decision off whether someone making a comment has a signature or not. This means absolutely nothing. Even relatively new members (even those with ZERO posts) can have signatures so it doesn't prove anything to me and I'm surprised you use it as a sign of credibility?! I would, and do, take much more notice of how long they have been a member of the forum, how many posts they have made and how many thanks they have received.

          The fact the people who are spamming the WSO threads are people with signatures just proves how little signatures relate to the credibility of a member.

          Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

          If we are to say that the person who buys a WSO thread is the "owner" of that thread, why allow comments at all? Why not just have the original thread and no comments whatsoever?
          Ahh, because people will want to ask questions about the offer and leave their feedback also.

          Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

          But, oh, the seller wants some social proof going on. Well, the tradeoff is that some of those posters will have signatures in their posts. Oh, and some people might have some negative things to say.
          Sellers can still have the social proof if signatures were disabled. It just means the social proof would have more credibility because we know people who have posted comments have not done it for any self-promotional reasons - it actually helps to improve the social proof situation if anything.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168103].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by azmanar View Post

            Hi,

            If I'm not mistaken, sig files are global.

            So, even if you turn off the sig when you posted, once you turn it on again,
            it will appear in all your posts.
            Actually, you have the option of not including a sig in individual posts. If you look under the "Additional Options" (below the box you type your post in and the submit buttons), the first is a checkbox setting whether your sig shows or not. It's checked by default. Unchecking it will remove your sig from that individual post.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168149].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
            Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

            There are plenty of usernames with zero post count who have sigs.
            Yes, it appears I was wrong on that point. I was going by a post someone made yesterday that mentioned a 10-15 post count minimum for sigs.

            Originally Posted by WillR View Post

            I don't agree with that at all.

            I personally would NEVER base my buying decision off whether someone making a comment has a signature or not. This means nothing.
            I don't base it on whether they have a signature, but I weigh their comment against what they might be linking to in their signature.
            Signature

            Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

            Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168153].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author WillR
              Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

              Yes, it appears I was wrong on that point. I was going by a post someone made yesterday that mentioned a 10-15 post count minimum for sigs.

              I don't base it on whether they have a signature, but I weigh their comment against what they might be linking to in their signature.
              Yes but as we all know, even trusted members of the forum will do reviews for products they have been given for free and often at times, have not even really looked over. So it's hard to judge the credibility of any post in the WSO forum. Whenever there is money involved you have to take most of what you read with a grain of salt.

              I've quickly learnt to take most of the stuff you read in a WSO thread with a grain of salt. If the product looks interesting purchase it, if it doesn't do what is says then get a refund. Simple.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168187].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by WillR View Post

            I personally would NEVER base my buying decision off whether someone making a comment has a signature or not. This means absolutely nothing. Even relatively new members (even those with ZERO posts) can have signatures so it doesn't prove anything to me and I'm surprised you use it as a sign of credibility?!

            It is not a matter of making the buying decision based on the credibility of one reviewer.

            It is a matter of considering the preponderance of the evidence connected to an offer, and judging the value of the person doing the review or criticism.


            Originally Posted by WillR View Post

            I would, and do, take much more notice of how long they have been a member of the forum, how many posts they have made and how many thanks they have received.

            Those factors are important, but they never tell enough about the reviewer to firm up the review.

            People like D.Rodman -- who is no longer with us, had more than 1500 posts and he had been thanked about 300 times. By your measure, that would give him credibility... But by his actions elsewhere in the forum, he had very little credibility.

            It is important to understand something more about the reviewer to be able to judge the reviewers credibility.

            For example, right now you are selling a Mobile Business in a Box.

            If I saw you trashing someone else's SMS marketing product, your signature would tell me that I need to look at you a bit closer using other resources.

            And if I saw you singing the praises of someone else's SMS marketing product, I might just give your review more credibility than the reviews of other people in the thread. In fact, your positive review might overwhelm a half dozen bad reviews of the same product, BECAUSE you have specific credibility in that industry that the other reviewers may not have.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168196].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author WillR
              Originally Posted by tpw View Post

              Those factors are important, but they never tell enough about the reviewer to firm up the review.
              I was only saying I would take more notice of them than whether someone had a signature or not. As I mentioned above I personally wouldn't use either bit of information to decide whether I buy something or not. All I'm saying is by removing the sigs from the WSO section there wouldn't be any big problem - everyone would be on a level playing field.

              I do like your idea of just stripping the html out. But anyways, the guys in charge of this forum know exactly how big or small of a problem this is and I'm sure they'll do whatever they think is best.

              EDIT:

              One of the BIG reasons why you need to get rid of them (signatures) altogether is because people can come in and drop all these generic comments in WSO's and select to turn their signature off in each post. No one will see this as spam because there is no signature. Then a month or two later when that WSO is not as lively they can come back in and edit all those posts and activate their sigs inside them. This way they have flown under the radar and their spam will not be detected as easily but is still just as big a problem.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168258].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author tpw
                Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                I was only saying I would take more notice of them than whether someone had a signature or not. As I mentioned above I personally wouldn't use either bit of information to decide whether I buy something or not.

                Sometimes the offer is compelling enough to pull the trigger on the buy button, after having only read the offer itself.

                After reaching the end of the copy, if I am unconvinced, then the reviews become the most important factor for tipping the balance towards "buy" or "pass".

                When I am looking at the feedback on the offer, I want to know as much about the reviewer as there is to know.
                • Is the reviewer a shill for the product?
                • Is the reviewer generally a negative person, who trashes everything within sight?
                • Is the reviewer competent enough to take his/her words seriously?
                • Is the reviewer someone who seems credible and worthy of my trust?

                Often the decision to buy is a matter of gathering enough information to make an informed buying decision.

                And often, the ad copy in itself is not enough information to help us make a good decision.

                When the ad copy falls short, we must take into account as much information as we can take in, to help us make a better educated decision.

                Killing sig files in the WSO section on the surface seems to be a good thing.

                But in the end, it could be a bad thing, because I might miss some products that I really should buy, because I don't have enough information to make a good decision on the product.


                Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                the guys in charge of this forum know exactly how big or small of a problem this is and I'm sure they'll do whatever they think is best.

                Yes, i trust that they will consider all suggestions and then pursue the solutions that make the most sense, without creating any unanticipated problems.
                Signature
                Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168355].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
                Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                EDIT:

                One of the BIG reasons why you need to get rid of them (signatures) altogether is because people can come in and drop all these generic comments in WSO's and select to turn their signature off in each post. No one will see this as spam because there is no signature. Then a month or two later when that WSO is not as lively they can come back in and edit all those posts and activate their sigs inside them. This way they have flown under the radar and their spam will not be detected as easily but is still just as big a problem.
                What's to stop them from flying under the radar and posting their link in the body of their post rather than their signature?
                Signature

                Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

                Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168369].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        If we get rid of the sigs then it puts everyone back on a level playing field. The way I see it, the only people who are really going to complain about it would be those who are doing the very thing we are trying to stop.

        Signatures are used to reward people for adding content to a forum. On the whole, posts in the WSO section are not really adding any informational value to the forum so signatures shouldn't be used. The WSO forum is a marketplace and the WSO threads do not appear unless someone pays $40 for that thread. For that reason the publisher of the WSO thread should at least be able to have full ownership of that thread without any signatures popping up and detracting from their main message.

        Exactly. So taking the signatures away shouldn't matter because no one is looking at them anyway, right?

        I am sure the mods of this forum have much better things they would rather be doing than chasing after idiots who are abusing the WSO section. Some of the guys I have come across lately have literally posted tons of posts in the WSO section and no one had picked it up as yet. So you can't just rely on members to report this stuff because clearly that doesn't work.
        I never stated that no one looked at signature files, I stated that the WSO OP in the thread has all the attention and that people that are interested in that WSO are going to focus on that first.

        Having been a mod here before, I can tell you that we chased (and continue to chase) idiots here all the time. That's a constant. If you turn the sig files off they're just going to find another way to game the system and then you're going to have to create yet another rule or change. We have enough of those already. I don't thinking turning them off is a viable solution at this point.

        But I'm willing to concede that if this trend gets worse, then that's what Allen might have to do.

        RoD
        Signature
        "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
        - Jim Rohn
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168146].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rounak
    Very glade to ensure that i can not write any sig!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WebPen
    I personally hadn't noticed this, but now that Ken mentioned it I'm sure I'll notice it more.

    One way I see it- the WSO owner paid $40 to post/bump his WSO, right? But if everyone who comments can post their sig, they're basically getting free advertising in the WSO section, which hits like 5K (or more) a day.

    Maybe its smart, maybe its dirty, maybe its both, I dunno. But if they took away all sigs in the WSO forum, it'd level the playing field and make it more fair to the guy paying $40/bump.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168020].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Since the discussion is now more open, can I add one idea to WSO rules? Delete each and every post saying how the product is fantastic, etc etc coming from a guy that joined the forum the same week (normally same day) the WSO is launched.

    Just saw one using a HUGE banner on top of his WSO with this "testimonial" saying the guy made almost 20K using the system - problem is, that user joined the exact day the WSO was launched.

    Just an idea.

    Edit: Just checked the WSO in depth and there are several one time posters all saying how good it is... They join that day, post, and never to be seen again.

    Probably not allow users to post there before they have some number? I don't know, just wanted to let one out, it bugs me off to see people getting turned on by scam artists using these techniques.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168417].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author IMWinner
      Any form of spamming, carries a bad face for the member. It doesnt matter if the member knows it or not. It is actually advisable for members to check at their signatures for authenticity.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168674].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author markowe
    It sounds like most of you guys are great detectives when it comes to this type of behaviour. I also take a few seconds to look into someone's posting history if I see a suspicious post - and my Spammer-Sense™ is rarely wrong. And the mods are very good, and very quick, at removing these.

    It does seem though that a great number of members still haven't read those "member moderator" posts and don't know to hit the Report button, or simply don't recognise spam when they see it. A nice big sticky "Spotting spammers" post would increase awareness among members and see a LOT more of this stuff reported. But the sticky section is getting a bit crowded...

    It's just frustrating to see a sig-troll with 120 (conservative example) vacuous posts spaced 2 minutes apart going unnoticed by members, indeed even engaged in conversation on "What is Pagerank" for the 9000th time.

    Anyway, I guess there have to be a few flies in the ointment, this is still an amazing forum.
    Signature

    Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168522].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DavidTT
    lol honestly, as long as you post something of quality or at least give out good info, there shouldn't be any problems.

    If its only for the sake of getting more exposure and not discussion, then I'd understand.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    Just charge $20/yr for sigs or make them be a member for a 6 month and average x posts per day. Spammers wont meet the criteria and random posters wont care.

    Either will stop a lot of the sig spam.
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168830].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alan Petersen
    It's that new course... WSO Sig Domination.

    KIDDING.

    Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my peepers peeled to report them.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4168984].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
    Ken, Except for the War Room which makes sense.

    Have a Great Day!
    Michael
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4169285].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zerofill
    Just turn the signatures off in the WSO section... if people want to see what the person has in their sig then they can just click on their name. It is right at the bottom of the "about me" summary that you first see when you click on someone's name anyway.

    I always thought sigs were annoying in the wso threads anyway... If I want to see something about someone talking I click on them and view their other posts anyway.
    Signature
    Serp Shaker
    The IM World Will Be Shaken to the Core!
    Join my list at: IMCool.Biz
    New Podcast --> podcast.imcool.biz
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4169336].message }}

Trending Topics