Dear Puys, There has been a major change; and an equal amount of outrage over it, recently on the PG forums. Signatures were disable for all members some time back, and presently, unless you are a ranked member, like a Madcap, mod, bschool ra…
Dear Puys,
There has been a major change; and an equal amount of outrage over it, recently on the PG forums. Signatures were disable for all members some time back, and presently, unless you are a ranked member, like a Madcap, mod, bschool rank holder, or so, you cannot edit your signatures.
The reason for blocking signatures were the following:
1. Bots would log in onto PG, create an account, copy text from older posts, and then add spam links in their signatures. Signature spam was at an all time high, leading to many other bot attacks thru people clicking those links inadvertantly. One click would leadmany bots to our site, creating a major problem. Most links were either porn, nsfw, or bot links dedicated to flooding the user/site/emails with more bots and spamware.
2. Another, comparatively minor reason was this: competitors, or coaching class personnel, or any other person with a product to sell to MBA aspirants would link to their website in their signature, advertising it. Obviously, this is against the rules. Copyrighted material & commercial links are strictly banned on PG.
3. Even more minor reason: Well, there is a simple format that all users had to follow wrt signatures: simple, plain text format, no images, and max four lines. Some enthusiastic people did not follow those rules, and their signatures were jazzy and loud to the extreme. Having such signatures is quite distracting an experience, trust me.
Taking these points into account, especially the first one, a call was taken to disable signatures. We realised that the spam count on PG fell like a ton of bricks the moment this change took hold.
However, we realise that signatures are basic and probably fundamental need for users, and a mandatory item for many.
Towards this end, we are now asking you: What do you want in your signatures? What do you not want in them?
We are holding a survey for you to tell us what we should be doing for signatures. What do you think, that signatures should be allowed or disallowed, or what should be done about them.
Remember, your suggestions should include the following aspects:
1. Try including as many types of members as possible, don't disallow anyone based on their number of posts or their bschool or their other status.
2. Try giving solutions that are simple, clean, elegant, and automatable. If a rule needs to be enforced, can we make it a part of the system?
3. If you are allowing links, what kind of links should be allowed or disallowed?
Present Signature related rules are linked here: http://www.pagalguy.com/forum/our-announcements-suggestions-and-feedback/1863-rules-posting-guidelines-reloaded.html#post1138033
So go on, post away. Let us know your thoughts on this.
With Regards,
Grondmaster
Few points.
Every user above 25 posts should be allowed a signature. Because most of the spams are from newbies and a user who has posted 25 times will most probably not spam...and in this way no will feel left out also..as reaching 25 posts is not a herculean task and just like you get a new tag called 'trainee pagal '' after reaching there, signatures should also be granted to them
okay, suppose even if a user starts spamming after making 25 posts. Then he in all probabilities will be noticed by some of the active members and can be easily reported...
even if that is not possible..just one simple and best option in my opinion..
''remove the option of providing links in signatures, and limit it to text only,is that possible?'' In this way the permanent users who advertise for coaching and all will also be discouraged :)
Regarding what we want in signature-- Ofcourse everything apart from the spam links 
rahicecream SaysEvery user above 25 posts should be allowed a signature.
This is an approach, but not a very elegant one. I'd prefer to avoid and find a more stronger approach that does not assume the user is guilty
Hi,
Adding to what rahicecream has said:
1) 25 posts or 30 posts as 30 posts is a criterion for becoming a trainee pagal. Now, if a user starts spamming even for 30 posts, best thing is that two criteria to be met: (a) 30 posts and (b) 30 days. So, user should get a feel of PGin 30 days for sure.
In addition to that, we can optionally try to identify a genuine user with:
a) A genuine user usually has at least two contacts/friends
b) A genuine user usually votes in at least one poll
c) A genuine user usually send at least two PMs
2) Signature cannot be edited on daily basis. Once created, it can be edited only after 15 days (or around 12 days).
3) If possible, signature should be approved before being used. Approving rights can be given to tag-holders and may be certified pagals. Or say, initially every certified/addicted pagal (apart from mods/admins etc.) is allowed to refer 10 puys who can have signature. This way, we can control to larger extent.
4) May be maximum two links allowed in signature.
P.S.: Thanks to PG team for coming out with this survey :thumbsup::thumbsup:
My 2 cents
1. Allow only PG links as signatures, that way advertising, blogs, spam can be eliminated while retaining PG Commuity Threads, Mock Scores, City Thread links and others related to PG. I am not sure if this can be implemented easily but it is possible.
2. The time/no. of posts suggested above is still a good idea if not the best, as it miminizes the problems mentioned above to a large extent if not completely
We have a Report Bad Post feature, so we could grant signature privileges to all, but at the same time have a "report signature" feature and the user could be either banned or have his signature privilege revoked if the signature is wrong. For all users we could have a feature to just post signatures having text at first and as the user reaches a threshold number of posts he could be given permission to post links etc. on their signatures. links could be limited to articles(online papers etc.),other posts on PG, youtube and other popular social networking sites.
P.S the report signature feature can be put up as a link on the profile of the user.
I also think that there shouldn't be any hyperlinks option in the signatures.The motive should be that even if you provide signature to newbies, there should not be any concerns.;)
I believe 90% of the problem will be solved by removing 'links' option from the signatures.Fearing this thing, spammers would not have any options but to open a new thread, which can be taken care of by the mods..
Regarding the 3rd point mentioned in the first post, i think PG-coders can limit the users to 4 line exactly. It means that if a user tries to exceed the limit of 4 lines, it should throw a pop-up error box like 'Signature against the PG rules' or something like this. So, yes, the coders can introduce some code-protocols here.:lookround:
There is one more way i was thinking of , though it will take some time and i don't know how much it is feasible but i am sure that PG is running by very brilliant people in the background so it wont be a problem..:cheerio:
The below idea is again attached to coders here..
We can add some filters and catchers in the signature and assign some common bad words to it (Cant write here) and whenever some user gives a link, it should go to the link and match it with the words we have given to the 'filters and catcher'. If it matches, then the user's post should directly go to 'bad post' section and he should not be permitted to go with signature facility.
This should be the in the form of some programmed coding and should execute daily by itself, so that even some users tries to change the signatures with spam on the second day, they should be caught at the same time.:splat: 
Did i sound too technical..??? :lookround:
So that's it...there may be some flaws in my suggestion above, but something this sort of can be done.... isn't it.? But please, signatures should be given back..
Hi,
Adding to what rahicecream has said:
1) 25 posts or 30 posts as 30 posts is a criterion for becoming a trainee pagal. Now, if a user starts spamming even for 30 posts, best thing is that two criteria to be met: (a) 30 posts and (b) 30 days. So, user should get a feel of PGin 30 days for sure.
In addition to that, we can optionally try to identify a genuine user with:
a) A genuine user usually has at least two contacts/friends
b) A genuine user usually votes in at least one poll
c) A genuine user usually send at least two PMs
2) Signature cannot be edited on daily basis. Once created, it can be edited only after 15 days (or around 12 days).
3) If possible, signature should be approved before being used. Approving rights can be given to tag-holders and may be certified pagals. Or say, initially every certified/addicted pagal (apart from mods/admins etc.) is allowed to refer 10 puys who can have signature. This way, we can control to larger extent.
4) May be maximum two links allowed in signature.
P.S.: Thanks to PG team for coming out with this survey :thumbsup::thumbsup:
The 3rd point should be implemented IMO..there can be certain mods who can approve the signatures..
My 2 cents
1. Allow only PG links as signatures, that way advertising, blogs, spam can be eliminated while retaining PG Commuity Threads, Mock Scores, City Thread links and others related to PG. I am not sure if this can be implemented easily but it is possible.
2. The time/no. of posts suggested above is still a good idea if not the best, as it miminizes the problems mentioned above to a large extent if not completely
Allowing only PG links will be a nice option as then the spams would get reduced considerably..if that can be implemented it would be very good or otherwise mods can scrutinize manually and allow only PG links to be posted as signatures..
I agree to the above posts, most of us are disadvantaged as we do not have eligibility to have a signature.
Mods: Please let us have PG links as signatures (this could be limited to trainee pagal and above for now)...
We have a Report Bad Post feature, so we could grant signature privileges to all, but at the same time have a "report signature" feature and the user could be either banned or have his signature privilege revoked if the signature is wrong. For all users we could have a feature to just post signatures having text at first and as the user reaches a threshold number of posts he could be given permission to post links etc. on their signatures. links could be limited to articles(online papers etc.),other posts on PG, youtube and other popular social networking sites.
P.S the report signature feature can be put up as a link on the profile of the user.
More than report signature, why not have a report user link....as has been said by grond, the majority of problematic signtatures are by bots or by users trying to advertise....it wud always be easier to report the user once rather than report every thread/post of his/hers...that way if the user is banned, the mods can also have the option of deleting all/some threads started by said users or mebbe posts.....
Hi,
In addition to that, we can optionally try to identify a genuine user with:
a) A genuine user usually has at least two contacts/friends
b) A genuine user usually votes in at least one poll
c) A genuine user usually send at least two PMs
this cant be assumed by any long shot......there are tons of genuine users who are silent observers/dont mix much....(jaise geminite tha last year and like a lot of us oldies were when we started including myself).....just coz we didnt have friends or didnt send many PMs doesnt make us any less genuine 😃
I have seen some really awesome signatures containing mock scores and inspirational quotes et al. I was very disappointed when they were disabled.
My suggestions for signatures are simple:
- Enable plain text with limits on size
- Disable hyperlinks since they are a nuisance
The 3rd point should be implemented IMO..there can be certain mods who can approve the signatures..
Allowing only PG links will be a nice option as then the spams would get reduced considerably..if that can be implemented it would be very good or otherwise mods can scrutinize manually and allow only PG links to be posted as signatures..
with the number of users on PG, monitoring signatures becomes a pain for the already burdened mods who ban users, remove threads and do lots of other stuff and also even experienced users have abused the signature feature in the past so approval would have to be a constant thing, if it is put in place, the best way for a user driven forum should be to give users the power to monitor the forum for abusive users.
More than report signature, why not have a report user link....as has been said by grond, the majority of problematic signtatures are by bots or by users trying to advertise....it wud always be easier to report the user once rather than report every thread/post of his/hers...that way if the user is banned, the mods can also have the option of deleting all/some threads started by said users or mebbe posts.....
this cant be assumed by any long shot......there are tons of genuine users who are silent observers/dont mix much....(jaise geminite tha last year and like a lot of us oldies were when we started including myself).....just coz we didnt have friends or didnt send many PMs doesnt make us any less genuine :)
reporting a user becomes a bit too harsh, because some users may not have malicious intent when they put up something in their signature and it may be against PG rules/user sensibilities. Also the report user feature could be abused.
All I want to do is post my mock scores link, and look at other people's mock links, and a little bit of gyaan maybe.
PG to PG links should be allowed I guess, because you guys take care of all the content on pg.
As far as when to allow signatures is concerned,you can start that maybe after 30 posts like the others are suggesting.
Signatures are really cool you know, it makes the place look 10x more happening and even if it's not the purpose of PG, it sure will help. =)
techgodajay Sayswith the number of users on PG, monitoring signatures becomes a pain for the already burdened mods who ban users, remove threads and do lots of other stuff and also even experienced users have abused the signature feature in the past so approval would have to be a constant thing, if it is put in place, the best way for a user driven forum should be to give users the power to monitor the forum for abusive users.
True...the "report signature" or "report user"(users who are not complying with the signature rules) feature will have to be implemented...that would make the task easier..and as mentioned a select group of people should be there to monitor the signatures..if not mods then certified pagals or other puys(the selection of whom can be left to the moderators) as mentioned a couple of posts back...in this way i guess the problems will get reduced..
I think 30 days limit is a good option. No spammer would wait for 30 days to advertise his/her links.
Also, if links are restricted only to PG links, it should not be a problem then. I waited a very long time for getting my signature and I think genuine people should not be made to do so. Its like punishing the whole class for mischief of few kids.
s_k_ SaysTrue...the "report signature" or "report user"(users who are not complying with the signature rules) feature will have to be implemented...that would make the task easier..and as mentioned a select group of people should be there to monitor the signatures..if not mods then certified pagals or other puys(the selection of whom can be left to the moderators) as mentioned a couple of posts back...in this way i guess the problems will get reduced..
Can anybdy let me know in which section we can include signature ... ?
in the options sections of "My account", u can find the signatures on the left side..just browse down..
this cant be assumed by any long shot......there are tons of genuine users who are silent observers/dont mix much
Valid points... That's why I said 'usually'.. And also, usually (
) silent users may not mind not having signature One more suggestion coming to my mind, some people might find it a bit harsh but still I am posting it. So, here it is:
Why not PG take some security deposit for signatures? It can be less.. I am not saying puys should pay much. Say, around Rs. 200 for plain signatures and Rs. 300 for signatures with links. The moment a signature is found violating rules, that signature is history.. and deposit is added to PG server maintainance fund
I guess, if puys can pay for internet access (as we use PG), plus most of us pay large fees for coaching/mocks/forms etc., or some are already in B-schools, we can surely pay some amount as security deposit for PG..
P.S.: If this suggestion is accepted, final amount can be decided by admin team or there can be a poll for amount