Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

This is a discussion on Can we ban signature links to non chrome/google content within the Chrome Central section, part of the Chrome Forum News category: I hate spam! and links in signatures to non chrome/google stuff reeks of spam to me. By allowing links of ...


  1. #1
    PAEz's Avatar
    PAEz is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    656

    Default Can we ban signature links to non chrome/google content

    I hate spam! and links in signatures to non chrome/google stuff reeks of spam to me.
    By allowing links of this type you are asking for bots and SEO crap.
    I would like a rule added stateing that links to non chrome/google content is not allowed and youll ban them or something. The only exception I would have to that rule is personal pages about the poster.
    Basically Id like the power to PM a user with an offending link to remove it and if they dont Ill delete all their posts (I dont think I can ban people can I).

    What do others think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Deleting all posts is a bit to harsh... I mean they could be useful... In my opinion I would allow other links. Just keep an eye on them so they are not spam etc.
    Chrome and Chromium FTW!

  3. #3
    Jedi Knight's Avatar
    Jedi Knight is offline Theme Developer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    400

    Default

    I've brought this up at another forum.
    I hadn't mentioned it here, because it hasn't been as much of a problem here.
    But it has been increasing, lately.
    There, I requested that no links in sigs until the user has reached a certain post count.
    But the idea by PAEz is equally as good, and I totally agree.
    Last edited by Jedi Knight; 02-16-2010 at 09:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Waha's Avatar
    Waha is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    788

    Default

    But it's how I figure out if they're bots or not. :S
    ~ Projects ~
    Specialized: Carapass Auction Watcher, Kongregate Chat
    Libraries: bliplib
    Tools: manifest syntax highlighting & snippits
    ~ Happy to make extensions for pay too ;D ~
    Portfolio: Search and Share

  5. #5
    Chrome's Avatar
    Chrome is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    345

    Default

    I dont think that its a good idea to ban signatures which are not related to Google Chrome. We should of-course remove signatures which are "objectionable" such as anything adult in nature, promoting any "health pills", and betting and gambling stuff.

    Regarding SEO spammers and all, one reason why our forum has got limited spam is because of the fact that we got "nofollow" links in signature, as a result even though the links are cached by google it wont be of any "additional SEO benefits".

    As far as bots are concerned, i have till now not got a single "bot user" on ChromePlugins.org - there have been 2-3 occasions of users doing spam posts in bulk but those were not by bots - it was all done manually.

  6. #6
    lahmanwokard is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hi friends
    I personally feel banning of other members really should be up to the admins alone, and no one else. I don't feel an explanation is needed. If a person is really, REALLY irritating you on a site you admin, then that is your right to do as you choose. It may be a bit authoritarian, but I find opening the topic up for discussion
    Anyhow, do what you feel is right for you,.You can't please everyone. If you're concerned what we'll think of you, just say this to yourself "What other people think of me is none of my business."

  7. #7
    sulasno's Avatar
    sulasno is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,759

    Default

    if only admins have the rights to ban spamming members, it would be pointless to appoint moderators :-)

    I moderate one forum where I can only delete spammers but not ban them and it's not making my job easier

    as for members posting links in their signatures (including links, code in their post), there are two schools of thoughts;

    Helpful members (especially newbies) would not be able to post links in their posts if they are not allowed to based on their membership; and that's a negative point

    if anyone feels that signatures should be removed from certain posts, click on the "Report" button

    I kinda like JK's idea; allowing members to put links in their signatures after a certain number of posts; spammers can't get pass the 50 mark :-)

  8. #8
    Waha's Avatar
    Waha is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrome View Post
    ...
    As far as bots are concerned, i have till now not got a single "bot user" on ChromePlugins.org - there have been 2-3 occasions of users doing spam posts in bulk but those were not by bots - it was all done manually.
    There were a few that used automated messages, whether they were bots or not I guess I can't say, but considering the amount of google results for their posts I'd imagine they were bots.
    ~ Projects ~
    Specialized: Carapass Auction Watcher, Kongregate Chat
    Libraries: bliplib
    Tools: manifest syntax highlighting & snippits
    ~ Happy to make extensions for pay too ;D ~
    Portfolio: Search and Share

  9. #9
    Chrome's Avatar
    Chrome is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waha View Post
    There were a few that used automated messages, whether they were bots or not I guess I can't say, but considering the amount of google results for their posts I'd imagine they were bots.
    They might be using what you call copy pastes.. Pr maybe using some semi-automatic forum posting software - which are not bots but semi automated human bots to bypass captcha during registration.

    Either way, i would make the signature available to only members who have atleast 20 posts. I think that is fair enough..

  10. #10
    Waha's Avatar
    Waha is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Sounds fair to me.
    And yeah there's plenty of people who make the account themselves then give the login info to their bot.
    Hmm, maybe you could make it so you have to input a capcha to login for the first 5 posts or something? That might be a little too inconvenient, though. It could always be for the first 5 days after making an account though, too (then just auto deleting the account if they still have 0 posts after five days?). Just trying to think of ways to keep the bots out. >< They really confuse the place.
    ~ Projects ~
    Specialized: Carapass Auction Watcher, Kongregate Chat
    Libraries: bliplib
    Tools: manifest syntax highlighting & snippits
    ~ Happy to make extensions for pay too ;D ~
    Portfolio: Search and Share

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Featuring] HTML SIGNATURE
    By mg2 in forum Chrome Plugins
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 04:58 AM
  2. content script help
    By crackruckles in forum Plugins Development
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 04:31 AM
  3. insecure content
    By mpfizer in forum Chrome Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 04:11 AM
  4. Stuck with content script...
    By rohit in forum Plugins Development
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 03:19 PM
  5. Chrome content scripts
    By mack in forum Plugins Development
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 10:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •