Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Signature

Jul 30, 2007 9:48AM PDT

Just a question, why can't we have signatures with a simple link to our website in them? I don't see why this would be a problem. It would actually encourage users to post.

John K

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It falls under the advertisement rule...
Jul 30, 2007 2:27PM PDT

As per the forum policies, advertisements are strictly prohibited. That includes not only entire posts dedicated to directing members to a particular website or product but signatures and taglines as well. The reason is simple: The forums are here to provide support and a place to discuss issues with others, not facilitate the spread of spam. If being permitted to advertise his/her websites/products is the determining factor of participation then the individual is not truly interested in being part of the community; He/she holds spamming members above actually helping them, and that's not what these forums are about.

John

- Collapse -
Hmm
Jul 30, 2007 4:18PM PDT

I doubt the addition of a simple link to the authors website after he/she contributes a valid reply constitutes as spam, but I do see the need to draw the line some where. I only asked because most forums permit it. But, CNET forums is among the best, so they must know what they are doing I suppose.

- Collapse -
On a personal note
Jul 31, 2007 7:56PM PDT

I often see these signatures in other forums but I find them distracting. I don't want to visit other web sites unless it refers to the question in hand, and I take no notice of them.

Is it spam? I agree with John. Constantly advertising your own site, or some web site you may be affiliated to, is a form of spam.

Mark

- Collapse -
Actually it DOES NOT fall under advertising or ...
Aug 6, 2007 4:51AM PDT

even SPAM nor even Competing Services unless your site includes advertising, offers services or products, or forums.

The Forum Usage Policies - http://forums.cnet.com/4520-6035-6656401.html?tag=dir.forum - specifically state:

Posting Links
Our policy on linking to other forums is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of general interest to members of that particular forum. One of the most basic tenets of the Web is the open exchange of information, and the CNET forum managers wholeheartedly support this type of exchange.

The only type of linking (besides porn and spam, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site and join a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to paste flyers all over his walls. However, people are always welcome to link to any online resource, whether it's on our site or any other site, in order to share useful information with fellow members.


That said, like MarkFlax, I and most others find the inclusion of most such links distracting and usually completely unnecessary as such can be added to your CNET profile should anyone want to check and within the profile is the logical and likely place for such a link to be.

Unlike Mark, I do not see it as SPAM because its inclusion in a signature is no different than his Mark nor John's John signature other than unnecessary length.

Having said all this and pointing out that it really isn't proscribed, I agree that the signature is no place for such links because if one is good how about 5 or 10 or 50 such "signature" links - where to draw the line? Let's draw it at none and leave it in the profile.

- Collapse -
Actually, it does...
Aug 6, 2007 5:52AM PDT

1.) The "Posting Advertisements" section states that "blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited." That includes telling others to visit your site, regardless of the topic being discussed. (And note the next sentence specifies "whether or not a fee is charged for the product or service.")

2.) The site in question is a collection of tips and guides, similar to Cnet's Tips and Tricks section, so it could be argued it is a competing 'service.'

3.) Posting the same message, to the effect of 'Visit my website, myfakewebsite.com, to view and contribute FAQs, guides, and tutorials,' at the end of every reply is indeed spamming. ("Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.")

4.) Such taglines have been prohibited since before I joined, deemed as advertising and spam by consensus, including Lee. There are a few exceptions, though, such as in the Home Installation forum where extra leeway is given at the request of TPTB.

John

- Collapse -
Hello John ...
Aug 8, 2007 2:33AM PDT

RE: 3.) Posting the same message, to the effect of 'Visit my website, myfakewebsite.com, to view and contribute FAQs, guides, and tutorials,' at the end of every reply is indeed spamming. ("Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.")

Yes, that exact tag could be construed as against policy and rules BECAUSE it is essentially advertising and requesting use and offering "products and services" and promoting a potentially "competing service". Even if the verbage was left off a "visit" to the URL would show the link to be in default of accepted policy IN THIS CASE.

On the other hand simply including an unannotated link to personal pages that offer nothing but viewing and possibly signing a "guest book" (but without forums, downloads, interactive usage, etc.) is not advertising and as indicated is indeed within accepted usage by CNET's own terms and wording. CNET can change the allowed links but they can't change the legal definition of advertising. The following link included in a "signature" for instance could IN NO WAY be considered "advertising" IF NOTHING below You can't go any further from here. were on the page. It is ONLY what follows that line that makes it a form of advertising or competition. It would not be SPAM (any more than your own "John" signature despite the number of times it shows up nor the number of forums it shows up in) because WE, the readers, CHOSE to read the post - it was not forced on us. It is a "signature" and not a "message" - QUOTE - "Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited." (on Usage Policies under Posting Advertisements http://www.cnetnetworks.com/editorial/terms.html )


The Forum Usage Policies - http://forums.cnet.com/4520-6035-6656401.html?tag=dir.forum - STILL specifically state:

Posting Links
Our policy on linking to other forums is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of general interest to members of that particular forum. One of the most basic tenets of the Web is the open exchange of information, and the CNET forum managers wholeheartedly support this type of exchange.

The only type of linking (besides porn and spam, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site and join a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to paste flyers all over his walls. However, people are always welcome to link to any online resource, whether it's on our site or any other site, in order to share useful information with fellow members.


As long as that remains, arbitrary deletion without cause of postings with a URL in the signature (simply because the "signature" contains a URL) becomes a legal issue despite any "Hold Blameless" clauses in the Terms of Use.

Easy (and legal) fix is to simply add to Forum Posting Policy that links to personal pages MUST be confined to a member's profile page because any lawyer will tell you how quickly "Hold Blameless" and "Reserve the Right" clauses fail in court because of vagueness thus attaching blame and pecuniary liability.

- Collapse -
A couple things...
Aug 8, 2007 5:07AM PDT

Ed, in this case that is quite close to the actual tagline used in all but two of the posts, so we agree on that one. And I see your point, considering the forum policies or terms of service to not specifically address taglines, but I still disagree with your argument.

1.) I don't know what the 'legal definition' of advertising is, but the general concept is quite clear: Drawing public attention to your product, service, website, etc. through the various forms of media. Traditionally that meant billboards, newspapers, 20-second commercials, etc, but now it's expanded to t-shirts, carefully-placed items in television shows, and even tattoos on people's foreheads. Advertisements are not just their own entities any longer, being inserted into otherwise germane displays. Thus, a tagline containing simply a URL is also eligible to be labeled as advertising.

2.) In all of the mod alerts I've received and discussions I've read I've never once seen the argument that an offensive post should remain because the offended individual(s) was/were not forced to read it. Just think of the number of ways people could insult you if that were to be deemed a valid reason to leave posts alone. Not one post would ever be deleted as a violation of the forum policies. In short, that's not a valid argument.

3.) Since you brought the consideration up, what is the 'legal definition' of message? Does that mean the entire post submission, verbatim, or just a particular 'message' (concept, idea, etc.) someone is trying to get across? It can be argued either way, but as enforced it is the latter. Remember, someone could have their posts deleted as spam even if no two have a single phrase in common.

4.) As you pointed out in your previous post, where would the line be drawn? At some point the taglines would overcome the rest of the post and become the 'message.' And even if that didn't happen there are those who post replies such as 'I agree!' just to avoid having their following tagline flagged. Once again we come back to "blatant advertisement."

5.) In regards to your entire 'Posting Links' argument, you cannot use it is the sole policy concerning URLs as you seem to be suggesting, for all of the forum policies apply. For instance, that section of the forum policies does not mention links to pirated content, only porn and spam. However, posts containing such are edited or deleted based on the 'Piracy or Unlawful Activities' section. Likewise for advertisements that are not for 'competing services.'

Now, as I said before, such taglines are edited/deleted based on the policy put into effect long before I joined. It's not explicitly stated in the forum policies, but neither are others such as linking to unverifiable downloads or direct linking to downloads. (Yes, there are exceptions.) I doubt anyone would file, much less win, a lawsuit against Cnet because of a deleted post, but the forum policies may be amended to include these prohibitions based on this discussion. The one thing I do not see changing, though, is the policy itself.

John

- Collapse -
Hello again John ...
Aug 9, 2007 4:56AM PDT

and I would like to see the policys changed for clarification. "Policies" that are not readable by users and that can only be referred to as "not stated anywhere but we always ..." are again a legal impediment (and while like you I seriously doubt anyone would sue the chance is always there for someone looking to make a name for themselves or even simply for nuisance factor). The PURPOSE of policies and terms of use are to CLARIFY any possible question a user or potential user may have, not to confuse things. If you were ever in the military or even many businesses you would be well aware of how often SOPs got altered and re-worded because someone pointed out an ambiguity that lessened the effect or purpose of the policy.

The Terms of Use and CNET forums & TalkBack usage policies actually do pretty much spell out what CNET expects from users and CNET personnel.
ToU -- http://www.cnetnetworks.com/editorial/terms.html?tag=ft
usage Policies -- http://forums.cnet.com/4520-6035-6656401.html?tag=dir.forum

Some things though appear to be understood differently and thus become contradictory.

CNET has defined Advertising and mentioned it both places cited above and state their linking policy separately. NO ADVERTISING but ALL OTHER LINKS ok except as indicated. The sections build on each other.

Regarding your item number two, apparently you have missed some of DK's posts and stated "reasoning" - thus you missed what you didn't see. Wink

Regarding "message" that would (according to the language of Member Names and Personal Information on the policies page) consist of everything entered into the Subject Title box and the Message Body by the author as well as identifying profile information included via programming.

A slight change of policy would clarify where any line would be drawn (hopefully that all links to personal sites would be limited to a user's profile information page) as to length and number of links other than those pertinent to the message body itself such as a link to a recommended HJT log analysis site or such.

- Collapse -
These forums are a nice place.
Aug 13, 2007 4:19AM PDT

Nice because of the low to nonexistence spam you see on some boards.

Unrelated links in the signature is ADVERTISING. Plain and simple. To allow this we begin to erode the no spam allowed stance.

If it's related and is not a blatent for sale link then each moderator can make the call in their forums. Unrelated? It's an ADVERTISEMENT.

Bob