Spammer and Sigpo notification thread?

Gordon

Des wrote: »

As for the idea of SigPo as a whole. Twats, the lot of them. Brown-nosing, lick-arse twats.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

It's the closest many of these sad bastards will get to ever being a mod.

These are same type of wannabes that put themselves forward to be hall monitor/prefect in school - generally just cúnts with no mates.

Eh?! Tone down your attitude and language, or kindly don't post here, thanks.

The sigpo thread has been running for over five years now and hasn't caused that much of a stir in the half a decade it has been running. As time goes on boards gets bigger and bigger so trying to create a community led initiative like this gets more difficult. It seems that the people that report excessive signatures are unfortunately seen as petty and brown-nosing when the people that report posts aren't. That is something I find saddening, people are only trying to help out and they get lambasted for it. Well done to the begrudgers.

I must admit, though, I get the impression that some recent signatures have been reported due to personal reasons/gripes/whatever. This is something I find a little sad. But, at the end of the day - there are rules, and everybody wants consistency, so this is how it is.

For now at least, hopefully Feedforward will come up with the perfect solution to signatures, as I admit that this current half-decade old tradition needs a bit of a polish

As for the spammer thread, it's a direct line to spam removal, otherwise people will report the posts and shunt the spam to the moderator. This could delay action and when spam is concerned speed is of the essence. Sometimes spam is just one post advertising some crappy online store, but sometimes a spammer will post a bucketload of threads which in turn causes even more reported posts. So having the thread in feedback where anyone can help out and report spam really enables us to catch them quickly and cause minimal disruption to the site.

copacetic

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is, I'm pretty sure the posts reported by Des were the obnoxiously large ones, which is fair enough IMO, and that side of sigpo I agree with.

Thats not true from a simple read of the reports.

The Recliner wrote: »

I don't think so

Des pointed out that he sees reporting of sigs as ok when they are in clear breach of rules

He was giving out about people who report tiny breaches of the rules

Thats not true either:

As for the idea of SigPo as a whole. Twats, the lot of them. Brown-nosing, lick-arse twats.

Is simple abuse and as it turns out hypocritical abuse at that, self abuse even! The admins setup a thread asking users to help them out by reporting sigs, admins then act on the reports if they feel action is required. The people who do report issues often get abused for it, it's always been that way. Until an admin decides to close the thread (and/or the system is changed)anyone abusing people for helping out should have pretty harsh action taken against them.

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

The Sigpo is a success because it has run for a couple years now in what I would consider Peace Time: nobody really bored enough to trawl through Threads, scan people's sigs and make sure they're up to par by a few Bytes or Pixels. When people do spring up on sigpo its to report something thats largely distracting.


I dont know how you can possibly claim to "see" a sig being 1kb over the limit. Are you Neo?

Then why are you policing people for being 1px or 1kb out of place if you agree that its bull****?

the mind boggles.

Im absolutely astonished you would say this. Overheal this the op from sigpo thread

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits.

* Text: Including horizontal spaces - 4 lines normal size OR 8 lines small size, and up to 90 chars per line. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. Do not use the

tags. Carriage returns/new lines are a separate line, so if your sig has three lines of text separated by two spacer lines - that's 5 lines. Sorry, I know it's rather pernickety, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere /pun.
* Images: Images totalling up to 500 pixels wide, 125 pixels tall and 20k in size. No animated images are allowed.

These guidelines were drawn up by the admin and now we are being accused of being neos for merely following the guidelines.
End of the day posters were given a lot of scope on that thread to voice their disapproval when they were told to take it to help desk.
Some not only didn't do that but took it up on other feedback threads.
Either there are limits or there is not to re the sigs. As to whether or not I can see the difference its simple enough. Click on the image properties and it tells you.

ShiverinEskimo

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As to whether or not I can see the difference its simple enough. Click on the image properties and it tells you.

People are questioning why you would view the properties of the image in the first place man.

There is no way anyone could look at a 18kb pic and a 21kb version of same and tell them apart. The fact you seem to actively view the properties of images you come across and report the ones that are even minutely outside the guidelines speaks volumes. It's not cool to report a image 1kb over the limit.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Im absolutely astonished you would say this. Overheal this the op from sigpo thread

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits.



These guidelines were drawn up by the admin and now we are being accused of being neos for merely following the guidelines.

You're not merely following the guidelines, you're actively seeking out infringements as well. I don't know how else to explain your recent string of 1px reports.

And have you attempted to contact any of these users, as described in Gordon's new signature rules of last week?

Gordon wrote:

Remember though, boards is a community, why not politely PM the user and give them a chance to adjust their sig themselves? You don't have to, but the Admins don't have time either. Some users would appreciate the chance to keep their sigs within the rules if they knew they were breaking them.

Gordon

Quality > Quantity.

End of the day posters were given a lot of scope on that thread to voice their disapproval when they were told to take it to help desk.
Some not only didn't do that but took it up on other feedback threads.
Either there are limits or there is not to re the sigs. As to whether or not I can see the difference its simple enough. Click on the image properties and it tells you.

Fine if you see something, but you are talking about 1 pixel's different in length or width. Evidently you're actively trawling the website looking for signatures that step in any way out of line.

I don't know what you find so shocking about my response. You demand leeway when it affects you but insist on the full weight of the rules when it doesnt.

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not recommend playing that game, lest the letter of the law be sent right back to you.

Kold

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Im absolutely astonished you would say this. Overheal this the op from sigpo thread

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits.

This made me smirk.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

These guidelines were drawn up by the admin and now we are being accused of being neos for merely following the guidelines.
.

This actually made me laugh out loud.

John Mason

why doesnt boards just switch sigs off permanently ?

i have them turned off because they annoy me and it hasnt affect my viewing pleasure in the slightest but while we are on the subject is there anyway of turning of the annoying man waving at me in the corner of the screen? he scares me sometimes:(

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

You're not merely following the guidelines, you're actively seeking out infringements as well. I don't know how else to explain your recent string of 1px reports.

And have you attempted to contact any of these users, as described in Gordon's new signature rules of last week?Quality > Quantity.

Fine if you see something, but you are talking about 1 pixel's different in length or width. Evidently you're actively trawling the website looking for signatures that step in any way out of line.

I don't know what you find so shocking about my response. You demand leeway when it affects you but insist on the full weight of the rules when it doesnt.

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not recommend playing that game, lest the letter of the law be sent right back to you.

Actually Overheal I have notifield posters and I can send you the PMS if you want.

As for demanding leeway this is what i posted
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66063421&postcount=19

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As for demanding leeway this is what i posted
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66063421&postcount=19

I saw. Which is why the mind boggles.

As I have already asked, if you really believe there should be a leeway, why are you reporting sigs that dont fall within your proposed leeway? One minute you're reporting a sig for being 1px to big and then the next minute saying thats bull**** and it shouldnt be bothered with if the difference is less than 5px?

What the hell, like?

Gordon

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

End of the day there has to be a limit on how big your image can be. The main problem is that a 66 kb image maybe the same size re height and width as a 20kb sig but may be denser in colour.
I would take out the size limit myself and just restrict it to 500 x125. Would maybe allow 5 pixels either way to give posters the benefit of the doubt.

My brain then sees "new sig dimension allowed = 505 x 130" so it's not technically 'benefit of the doubt' it's policy change. Which I'm cool with as I wouldn't report that margin if I was a sigpoer also.

The only reason rules have to exist is to keep some form of global happiness, as much happiness as is possible compared to strife. But there have to be rules, so there have to be margins. And the person/people tasked with actioning on the margins must be actioning the margins, surely.

If anyone is shooting the messengers, why not shoot the system instead and offer real solutions to what you think are bad problems? Bear in mind that this has been discussed already in Feedforward forum, but they haven't made any policy change decisions yet.

Bonito

Wait, so, Des gives out about sigs and says if they annoy you then just turn sigs off. Yet, half his reported sigs had "Bleedin flashin, it's annoyin me bleedin head" or "Bleedin size of it, it's annoyin me bleedin head" written on them.

Why didn't Des just switch sigs off if they annoy him? Not only insulting posters in the SIGPO thread he insults himself (because he is a SIG reporter and according to him they're, wait 'til I go back up and check. Ah yes, brown nosing twats, the whole lot of them) and is being hypocritical. Fascinating stuff altogether. Carry on.

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

I saw. Which is why the mind boggles.

As I have already asked, if you really believe there should be a leeway, why are you reporting sigs that dont fall within your proposed leeway? One minute you're reporting a sig for being 1px to big and then the next minute saying thats bull**** and it shouldnt be bothered with if the difference is less than 5px?

What the hell, like?

Was suggesting the leeway be included if sigpo guidelines were updated. re this border sig reporting.
In case of one post, he had been asked to change his sig, did so and it still didnt meet the standards. Sig is okay now.
And while you're on the subject one poster actually reported a sig of mine saying at 126 pixels in width, that it was too wide. Forgetting that the height dimension limit was 125. Width limit is 500.
That same poster had his original sig reported and remarkably another poster took it upon himself to tell the poster on a totally unrelated thread on feedback that I had reported it and in doing so undermined the good work that is being done on Sigpo thread.
End of the day posters have the option to report these signatures privately. As such are those who report posts in public answerable when those who do it in private aren't?

My name is URL

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

And while you're on the subject one poster actually reported a sig of mine saying at 126 pixels in width, that it was too wide. Forgetting that the height dimension limit was 125. Width limit is 500.

That same poster had his original sig reported and remarkably another poster took it upon himself to tell the poster on a totally unrelated thread on feedback that I had reported it and in doing so undermined the good work that is being done on Sigpo thread

That somewhat highlights why it isn't a great way to deal with sigs.. it creates unnecessary hostilities between people and problems that wouldn't otherwise exist.

I really don't think that members should be tasked with policing sigs, and especially not when the reporting is done publicly.

Spiritoftheseventies

My name is URL wrote: »

That somewhat highlights why it isn't a great way to deal with sigs.. it creates unnecessary hostilities between people and problems that wouldn't otherwise exist.

I really don't think that members should be tasked with policing sigs, and especially not when the reporting is done publicly.

agree but again a simple enough solution is to report the sig via the report button and then the mod in the forum in question passes it on when he/she gets the chance to admin.

Bonito

Scrap the thread. It creates a bad vibe about the site. Give the thread to one person. Then posters Pm the admin/mod of who's sig is too big and then they post it in the forum. Choose someone who's willing to take all the guff from the posters on the chin. Also make sure they have some cop on. For example if they get a report of a sig that's maybe 5-10 kb too big, leave it be.

It'll cut out all this personal grudge shíte.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

agree but again a simple enough solution is to report the sig via the report button and then the mod in the forum in question passes it on when he/she gets the chance to admin.

Bonito wrote: »

Scrap the thread. It creates a bad vibe about the site. Give the thread to one person. Then posters Pm the admin/mod of who's sig is too big and then they post it in the forum.

All that's doing is creating more work for Mods, plenty of whom don't agree with Sigpo in the first place. It's not a duty to report someone who's sig is too big, some people just choose to do it.

Personally if it went down that route and people were reporting sigs in either of the forums I mod I wouldn't be passing it on, just ignoring it and eventually PMing the people doing the reporting to tell them not to bother. Imagine implementing that system in AH or Soccer were there is already massive amounts of reported posts, there'd be faaaaaar too much work to do for Mods of those forums for the sake of a couple of pixels.

Spiritoftheseventies

There are a few simple options as I see it.
One : the sig goes and I dont want to see that.
Two: That any text included with an image is run along side image and not above or below it.
What we have had lately is the situation where some posters literally taking over pages with big chunks of text and images and it just looks awful to look at.
More is less is something that should be pursued.

therecklessone

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

And while you're on the subject one poster actually reported a sig of mine saying at 126 pixels in width, that it was too wide. Forgetting that the height dimension limit was 125. Width limit is 500.

Not the first time that's happened...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65912812&postcount=4295

Nevyn

Sigpo has a long tradition on boards and never has caused this much strife,
if it's being hijacked and abused for petty reasons then those who do it should suffer a weeks site ban for "being a dick" imho.

The system works, if it's being abused then stop the arseholes doing it rather then scrapping it.

There has always been wiggle room with sigs, as along as they aren't huge, flashing animated or offensive being 2 or 3 pixels over was never a huge issue.
Those that are making it so and putting up sigs which are that deliberately to shítstiir frankly need to find something better to do the same with those who are reporting those who are a tiny fraction over.

Sigpo goes back to the day of when the majority of people were on dial up and we didn't have the broadbrand packages we have to day, and it's also about taste and not being an eyesore, big stupid sigs can run a discussion site.

And no turning them off is not fair either as many sigs are works of art, part of the look of someones account and there have been many funny things in sigs, and links to intresting things and campaigns. The lack of all the the above as far as I am concerned would be a loss to the over all boards experience.

So please cop on, we are meant to be grown ups, don't be a dick about sigs.

Spiritoftheseventies

therecklessone wrote: »

Not the first time that's happened...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65912812&postcount=4295

Yes and I clarified it /. . And ideally speaking would like to see the sig size reduced. How the page looks is important and one persons sig should not take over anothers.
Andt what I dont like to see is concrete blocks of text and images encorporated into sigs that as I have already stated just take over. And as PP said the politicizing of sigs are something that need to be looked at to.
As for the current dimensions I assume there is a reason for those limits and they are big enough as it is IMO.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

if it's being hijacked and abused for petty reasons then those who do it should suffer a weeks site ban for "being a dick" imho.

well said thaed.

Xavi6

I agree with Thaed. Rules are rules but the iron fist is unnecessary.

There has always been wiggle room with sigs, as along as they aren't huge,

Someone needs to make that clear to the folk reporting 126 pixel high sigs.

therecklessone

It seems to me that some people spend more time worrying about the word of the rules than the spirit of them.

It has always been the case that some posters need rules spelled out for them, rather than guiding principles that they must interpret themselves and act accordingly (do not do X/do Y vs don't be a dick). It would be far better for community relations if posters exercised a bit of common sense, sadly that is often in short supply around these here parts.

Spiritoftheseventies

tbh wrote: »

well said thaed.

I think if posters are given time to change their sig via a notification then that would clear up a lot of the strife.
Some posters are agreeable to the warning some aren't. And yes the sigpo thread has been hijacked by both sides but mostly by those who simply haven't updated themselves with what clears for a sig and what doesnt.
The sigpo thread I think at this stage has served a very good purpose by opening up the dialogue a bit and explaining to posterss not au fait with the regulations why their sig wasnt cleared.
Maybe it should be included in the FAQ as what goes and what doesnt. I think that would be a very good idea.

tbh

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I think if posters are given time to change their sig via a notification then that would clear up a lot of the strife.
Some posters are agreeable to the warning some aren't. And yes the sigpo thread has been hijacked by both sides but mostly by those who simply haven't updated themselves with what clears for a sig and what doesnt.
The sigpo thread I think at this stage has served a very good purpose by opening up the dialogue a bit and explaining to posterss not au fait with the regulations why their sig wasnt cleared.
Maybe it should be included in the FAQ as what goes and what doesnt. I think that would be a very good idea.

I wasn't talking about the sigs - I've always had sigs turned off. I'm talking about people settling scores through the sigpo thread. If - if - that is happening, the people doing should be sitebanned afaic.

Spiritoftheseventies

tbh wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the sigs - I've always had sigs turned off. I'm talking about people settling scores through the sigpo thread. If - if - that is happening, the people doing should be sitebanned afaic.

Its impossible to prove. Lets say tbh you put down in your sig " posters are responsible for what they post on here". Do I take that to mean you taking a dig at a poster or are you talking in general.
If we are going to go down that route it has to work both ways.
I think the poster should be given "the three strikes and your out" warning here..
If you are continually using sigs to make a point that is likely to inflame a situation yes a siteban should be an option.
But like everything else poster should be given a friendly warning before hand.

tbh

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Its impossible to prove. Lets say tbh you put down in your sig " posters are responsible for what they post on here". Do I take that to mean you taking a dig at a poster or are you talking in general.
If we are going to go down that route it has to work both ways.
I think the poster should be given "the three strikes and your out" warning here..
If you are continually using sigs to make a point that is likely to inflame a situation yes a siteban should be an option.
But like everything else poster should be given a friendly warning before hand.

I'm not talking about that either. I'm talking about when someone gets in an argument with someone, and then reports their sig (whatever it is) as a way of getting back at them.

KevIRL

SOTS I declare shennanigans on your sig reporting. After a run in with monkey59 you reported his sig, when he mentioned this on the SF off topic thread you told him to "take his beating like a man" before quickly ninja editing your post.

A sure sign that your motives behind at least some of your reports are to settle scores.

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Its impossible to prove. Lets say tbh you put down in your sig " posters are responsible for what they post on here". Do I take that to mean you taking a dig at a poster or are you talking in general.
If we are going to go down that route it has to work both ways.
I think the poster should be given "the three strikes and your out" warning here..
If you are continually using sigs to make a point that is likely to inflame a situation yes a siteban should be an option.
But like everything else poster should be given a friendly warning before hand.

That sounds suspiciously like you want us to give people leeway

The same leeway applied to people being slightly over the sig limit that would have prevented this thread turning out the way it has

And the irony is that you also seem to have missed the point of Thaeds post that you thanked, seeing as reporting a sig for being 1kb over is VERY petty.