Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kilbey · Nov 9, 2003, 01:39 AM

Should members be allowed to have images in their signatures that are advertisements and link to other websites?

Simple question.

Vote!

I am going to bed now, discuss on your own.

philzilla · Nov 9, 2003, 01:44 AM

absolutely not.

no. wait.

maybe.

no. wait.

who cares.

no. wait.

FYAD.

yeah.

Misanthrope · Nov 9, 2003, 01:45 AM

FYAD FYAD LOL

Zimphire · Nov 9, 2003, 02:01 AM

Hey, it's the only chance some have.

tintub · Nov 9, 2003, 02:04 AM

Absolutely. It's your 140x40 patch. If it is inoffensive and not unsuitable, then what's the problem?

Zimphire · Nov 9, 2003, 02:07 AM

I guess some don't like the feeling of being spammed every time they open a forum link.

Misanthrope · Nov 9, 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey, it's the only chance some have.

what

Macfreak7 · Nov 9, 2003, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by tintub:
Absolutely. It's your 140x40 patch. If it is inoffensive and not unsuitable, then what's the problem?

the problem: a certain kilbey has nothing to advertise about, hence he thinks it is unfair that others are able to make more use of their sig.

Misanthrope · Nov 9, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
the problem: a certain kilbey has nothing to advertise about, hence he thinks it is unfair that others are able to make more use of their sig.

This is the right answer.

Mohammed Atef · Nov 9, 2003, 02:19 AM

if it's their own stuff, software, services, or site, I don't mind. If it's just to hawk warez, pr0n, or annoy us to death with Flash or gif adverts, then they should be burned at the proverbial stake.

tintub · Nov 9, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Should members be allowed to have images in their signatures that are advertisements and link to other websites?

Simple question.

Vote!

I am going to bed now, discuss on your own.

is this pointed at anyone in particular, or do you think that moki for example shouldn't be allowed to advertise ambrosia software, or CharlesS shouldn't be allowed to advertise Pacifist.

Let me guess, you don't like the BBQ.

Mastrap · Nov 9, 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I guess some don't like the feeling of being spammed every time they open a forum link.

As you have to actively click on a sig to have anything happen it can hardly be described as 'spamming'.

Stop projecting, silly.

NYCFarmboy · Nov 9, 2003, 08:27 AM

If the link is to a commercial/for-profit site then it would annoy me..but hey..this is a community..not a commune...no one is forcing you to click on the link?

Mrs_Vod[k]a · Nov 9, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
if it's their own stuff, software, services, or site, I don't mind. If it's just to hawk warez, pr0n, or annoy us to death with Flash or gif adverts, then they should be burned at the proverbial stake.

I love your signature the best, Mohammed.. i crack up every time I see it!

Eciton · Nov 9, 2003, 08:47 AM

Advertising one's own website - fine.
Advertising one's own freeware / shareware - fine.
Advertising one's company's commercial software - a bit sad, but fine.
Advertising annoying pages (porn, whatever) - not so fine.

Basically, as long as it's within reason, I don't mind. I always like the opportunity to find new things to look at on the net, and it's interesting to find out more about people too.

chris v · Nov 9, 2003, 09:38 AM

There' are way too many members who design web pages, and when you want to know a little more about someone, then what better way than to have a look at their own websites? 99.9938% of the links in people's sigs are merely to sites created by the poster, with (maybe) the exception of MOKI, but he's arguably contributed enough to MacNN and the Mac community at large that it could hardly be construed as spamming.

As far as the BBQ goes, it even performs a service around here. When people feel like being more outlandish or off-balance that is usually acceptable in the lounge, it gives them someplace to do it without cluttering this place up with threads that might make the humor-impaired MacNNers angry. I've always viewed it as a sub-lounge anyway, since 96.73% of BBQ mewmbers are MacNNers or ex-MacNNers who got chased off.

Besides, how would you stop people from linking to sites in their sigs? you'd either have to turn off sigs entirely, or turn off vB code, both of which would be more detrimental to this site (not to even mention the upheaval) than losing a few eyeballs to links.

CV

boots · Nov 9, 2003, 10:37 AM

Sure. It's unobtrusive and passive advertising. For some, it is convenient to put it in the sig, and it offers us a little more information about who the person is and what hey do.

If they were huge banner- or poop-up ads, I'd say no.

MacGorilla · Nov 9, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by boots:
Sure. It's unobtrusive and passive advertising. For some, it is convenient to put it in the sig, and it offers us a little more information about who the person is and what hey do.

If they were huge banner- or poop-up ads, I'd say no.

I agree.

Slaveway · Nov 9, 2003, 12:34 PM

I'm undecided on this question.

Kilbey · Nov 9, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
the problem: a certain kilbey has nothing to advertise about, hence he thinks it is unfair that others are able to make more use of their sig.

Actually I make custom furniture. And I do have ads elsewhere. I just don't think it appropriate here.

thePurpleGiant · Nov 9, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Actually I make custom furniture. And I do have ads elsewhere. I just don't think it appropriate here.

Well, I for one wouldn't give a **** if you had a link in your sig "Look at my custom furniture". It's your place dude, go for it.

philzilla · Nov 9, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I just don't think it appropriate here.

why?

Kilbey · Nov 9, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by tintub:
is this pointed at anyone in particular, or do you think that moki for example shouldn't be allowed to advertise ambrosia software, or CharlesS shouldn't be allowed to advertise Pacifist.

Let me guess, you don't like the BBQ.

I'll admit, the bbq got me thinking about it. But mostly I think that a site supported on ads wouldn't be too fond of people putting ads to their places on it's web pages.

Why would MacNN allow other ads on it's site? That is mostly the reason I ask. They don't get any more moeny for it and it draws part of the audience away.

thePurpleGiant · Nov 9, 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Why would MacNN allow other ads on it's site? That is mostly the reason I ask. They don't get any more moeny for it and it draws part of the audience away.

Because the ads are by forum members. If you annoy the members, they don't come here as much, and hence there wont be anyone to see MacNN's own advertising!

Kilbey · Nov 9, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
Because the ads are by forum members. If you annoy the members, they don't come here as much, and hence there wont be anyone to see MacNN's own advertising!

I disagree. MacNN has the strictest signature policies of any forum I have seen and yet has some of the highest population numbers on the net.

The poll results are interesting.

Axo1ot1 · Nov 9, 2003, 06:31 PM

Kilbey, get a life. Fools that link to other stuff aren't making any money off the fact that they are. Nobody sees the OMG link in phillz sig and goes to the BBQ and buys a T-Shirt, and even if they did, he wouldn't see any profit off of that. I challenge you to find a member of this forum who actually makes money linking to another site in their sig. Go ahead. Try it.

I link to the website I made for a short film I'm working on. I'm proud of both the movie and the site. The site sells stuff, but I have no illusions that linking to it from my sig is going to actually sell T-Shirts.

Macfreak7 · Nov 9, 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:

The poll results are interesting.

Actually the poll is flawed.
It says "should sig images contain ads". now if i answer yes, that implies that even those that DON'T have an ad SHOULD have an ad. That's pretty stupid.

chris v · Nov 9, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Actually the poll is flawed.
It says "should sig images contain ads". now if i answer yes, that implies that even those that DON'T have an ad SHOULD have an ad. That's pretty stupid.

It's annoying when people pick apart other's posts because they can find a semantical aberration. It serves no purpose, and no one in the thread seems to be confused by it. Why not let Kiljoy have his thread without useless bashing?

As far as losing eyeballs goes, everything clicked on in the fora opens in a new window, and Teh NN stays open in the background. I like this. I can click a link to someone's page in their sig, then close the window when I'm done and be back where I was. I think it's a fine arrangement, besides the alternatives are not viable, as I stated above.

CV

soul searching · Nov 9, 2003, 07:01 PM

I actually don't care and don't think it should be an issue for anyone (except maybe MacNN).

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Actually the poll is flawed.
It says "should sig images contain ads". now if i answer yes, that implies that even those that DON'T have an ad SHOULD have an ad. That's pretty stupid.

The actual poll question says, "Should members be allowed to have ads in their signatures?"

Macfreak7 · Nov 9, 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
It's annoying when people pick apart other's posts because they can find a semantical aberration. It serves no purpose, and no one in the thread seems to be confused by it. Why not let Kiljoy have his thread without useless bashing?
CV

You might not mind constructing a building with a weak foundation. I do.

Kilbey · Nov 9, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Actually the poll is flawed.
It says "should sig images contain ads". now if i answer yes, that implies that even those that DON'T have an ad SHOULD have an ad. That's pretty stupid.

Then you should have answered no!

Actually, that is the thread title. The poll question is in the first post of the thread. I was trying to keep the title as short as possible, like the headline of a newspaper.

You might have missed that in your rush to critique me. That is pretty stupid.

Kilbey · Nov 9, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
It's annoying when people pick apart other's posts because they can find a semantical aberration. It serves no purpose, and no one in the thread seems to be confused by it. Why not let Kiljoy have his thread without useless bashing?

*snip*
CV

Thanks!

Originally posted by chris v:
Kiljoy

I think.