What would you do if we added rel="nofollow" to signature links?

Just had another brilliant idea... maybe only allow signatures after 10 posts (which I just hit ). Or does that mean drupal 6? In that case, I say go for Drupal 6. I'm betting the spammers are too lazy to make 10+ posts. ~ Bill, the trade show displays king

I have a feeling that if you're on that many lists, you will still get hit by the spammers. I don't think that many would notice that the links are now no-follow. I think if it's that bad, you might want to get rid of signatures entirely, which would be a bummer. It's too bad that a few, well, a lot of bad apples can spoil the party, or however the saying goes. But my main point is, as long as there are signature links (follow or no follow) I think there will be spammers.
As an alternative, I use "bad behavior" on my blog, which blocks ip addresses from "bad areas" from even accessing my blog (much less commenting). It has gotten rid of 95% of the spam. Don't know if there's such a thing for forums. Anyway, that's my suggestion... Bill, the trade show displays king

I'm all for no-following sig links. But I'm worried that if you don't nofollow all links in a post, it won't really solve the problem. People will still throw in the fake signature:

-------------------
My Spammy Website
My Other Spammy Website

But maybe that won't happen. I haven't seen anyone do it for a while.

I think the limitations per user post count/time as member etc is a good idea. No sig at all for xx time as member and yy post count etc.

People should be here to get help and advice, chat to others and give help and advice. And although it's nice to have your pride and joy website, blog or forum in your signature, it isn't the main reason to be here.
And if you are to have a sig when you pass the criteria, then you are a regular member anyway, so everything works out perfectly for all concerned.

But I think we need Drupal 6 for anything fancier than a simple rel=nofollow, or no sigs at all.

While I think this is a good idea, what about implementing what Greg K was saying as well? So you have to meet the requirement of having "reasonable" amount of posts after a period of time - say six months - before you can post a signature, which has rel="nofollow" to it anyway.

I would say removing the "benefits" of links in signatures would weed out quite a few spammy posters that only clog up the forums and keep reasonable threads from being noticed. I would certainly come back and post more if there was less junk to have to deal with because of the intentional spammers.

I think those who would object to this wouldn't bother voting, as if it bothers them, they are not here for the right reason anyhow.

Just my opinion.

Another forum I'm on will not let you post any links (signature or even in posts) until you have been around long enough, and you know what, the people that are there to share, don't really mind, they give enough details for you to find the site they are referring to or a mod will post if for them.

-Greg

I have also noticed an increase in low quality posts of recent.

I have been a member of many different forums but TWF is the first where I have stayed and become a contributing member. i recently went over the 100 posts mark. This is in main thanks to the community itself. So I applaud anything that is done in the interest of maintaining this.

People in the main put their website in their signature for the seo benifits (as little as they may or may not be). As a different approach, why not do away with all links in signatures (or nofollow them) and instead provide somekind of wall of fame or members gallery whereby contributing members can have their own site promoted. Perhaps even have a site of the day/week/month to promote further.

This will do away with members solely looking for the backlinks but will also reward the loyal contributing members.