If I Ran a Webmaster Forum
Published on September 30th, 2009 in Personal Thoughts
As a veteran of several Webmaster forums, it surprises me to no end the depths that spammers and so-called “SEO & Internet Marketing Experts” will sink to in order to hock their useless product or (non-)service. Rather than take an especially draconian approach and just ban everything (and everybody) in sight, I’d take a surgical approach to combating spammers and various other snake oil peddlers.
Obviously this post has nothing to do with SitePoint Pty. Ltd. or SEO.com — or my associations with either company. What you are about to read are merely my personal opinions. Opinions, I might add, that have been based on the past few years as a member of various communities, rather than as a moderator or administrator. Just so we’re clear, these are my thoughts, okay?
Ban Self Promotional “Articles”
Have you ever browsed a thread on a forum only to see what looked like an informative thread title, or a thread that appeared to ask a question? Since it obviously piques your interest, you decide to click on the thread link only to stare down the face of the Beast itself — a poorly written article written by some self-proclaimed “marketing guru” trying to get you to buy their garbage. The vast majority of these threads are posted by people who have insanely low post counts (usually new “members”), so banning these types of threads (and warning/infracting/banning the people who post them as needed) will help cut down on the clutter and keep a forum clean.
Outlaw Non-Related Signature Links
You know what grinds my gears? No, it’s not when I can’t find those droids I’m looking for, but rest assured that is on the list. 
It’s seeing nonsense like “buy tramadol and viagra online” or “(username) on free credit repair” with links on the keywords they’re trying to target. Are they related to Web site design, development, and marketing? Information architecture, accessibility and usability, search engine optimization or even social media? Not just no, but Hell no!!! Get rid of them. If people don’t have to wade through post after post filled with nonsensical links that have nothing to do with the forum’s main topics of discussion, chances are they’ll be more likely to click on the links and possibly learn or find something useful.
Prohibit URL Shortened Links
While I value and appreciate people trying to save bandwidth and post space by using a URL shortening service like bt.ly or TinyURL, they have no place on a forum. The potential for abuse is far too great, especially by marketers looking to conceal an affiliate link, or miscreants trying to plant malware onto your computer. Like the old saying “show me the money” says — give me the link. I’ll decide if I want to click it or not, and I’m sure my members would too.
Restrict Access to Profile Links For New Members
I don’t know if you’ve heard of such “SEO link building services” such as those provided by Angela Edwards (I won’t link to her site) of “Angela’s and Paul’s Link Building Services” fame (or as I like to think of it, infamy), but it basically works by flooding blogs with comments and dropping links on forum profiles. What’s the best way to combat this? To use a blog commenting policy and to restrict access to forum profile links for new members. I don’t know what the ideal time limit or post count is — or the ideal combination of the two — but being able to link to your own Web site and social media profiles should be a privilege, not a right.
This is obviously just a small list of the things I’d not allow if I were to run my own Webmaster forum, but I do feel it would cut down on the number of spammers and people looking to hock their own refuse. What do you think? Would you add or change anything? Feel that I’m a crazed lunatic who needs to step away from the keyboard and do something far less dangerous, like safeguard America’s nuclear launch codes? Have your say in the comment area below. Just make sure you follow the rules, though. 
- Previous Post: Why Is This Guy Going to Jail?
- Next Post: Jurassic Fart
October 1st, 2009 4:18 PM
You are WAY to kind to shortened url’s - I **** HATE that ****… The only reason anyone would actually ‘need’ that type of asshattery is if they are trying to rickroll you at best, spam you at worst.
It’s also just annoying as all git… Kind of like Digg links (Which I’d toss on the list) - Every time someone sends me a digg link I basically blow up at them with “Oh for **** sake, just link to the ACTUAL article!”
October 1st, 2009 4:24 PM
As far as I’m concerned, the only place URL shorteners have is on sites that restrict the number of characters you can use in a given message such as Twitter.
As for Digg, I do have to agree with you. Though I see StumbleUpon as by far the biggest offender these days. Everyone’s using Firefox and have the plugin installed, so they go “point and click” and voila! Instant crapola.
October 7th, 2009 3:51 PM
Calm down ladies.
October 9th, 2009 3:26 AM
In general I agree with the whole article… so, are you going to do a follow-up with how best to keep up with these (let’s say a rather large forum with a handful of moderators). Is it better to write a helpbot who automatically removes posts with for example viagra words, or marks them for humans to check first, etc?
I haven’t understood why a Certain Forum still allows siglinks at all. No matter how many times someone states they have zero search-engine value, enough spammers don’t listen/realise this and you still get crap. Simply stopping most or all links gets everyone’s attention.
October 9th, 2009 3:29 AM
I’ve thought about it, but not that much. Perhaps I should. By the way, you don’t have to beat around the bush here using phrases like “certain forum” and such. Just go ahead and say it!
October 9th, 2009 7:33 AM
I think no matter what you do on a website spammers are going to find ways to take advantage.
I agree on the tinyurls and the self-promotional articles (unless you want to put it in the introductions thread, I’ve no problem with that) but I’m not sure banning irrelevant sigs is the way to go. It is an incentive for people to get involved and post more. You wouldn’t have much of a forum if people didn’t post on it. True you get a lot of people taking advantage and spamming, (like on the forum I just came here from) but you also get a lot of diversity. You don’t want to throw out the good with the bad. And besides, it’s also useful from a networking pov - by checking someone’s sig you can see what line of business people are in and so perhaps you *will* find the droids you are looking for.
Agreed, however, that people should be active and trusted members before having the opportunity to link to their site/blog. Or how’s this - you get trusted members to “sponsor” you, or would that be too masonic?
Tbh any web forum worth bothering with would or should have a clause in it’s T&Cs forbidding certain types of sigs anyway, i.e. viagra, gambling, adult sites, dodgy “finance” etc. I can’t think of any way to automate the link-relevance checking process so it would have to be checked by mods anyway, especially to ensure the forum is not inadvertently linking to a malware or phishing site or something like that.
So imo the only real way to keep to spammers at bay is more police than policy.
The more active and attentive the mods are the better the experience is for the rest of us.
Provided, of course, the mods don’t turn the place into a police state altogether, as I’ve seen so many other forums go before.
October 11th, 2009 2:01 AM
Hi Dan,
I totally agree with the shortened URLs, you are one of the few that I look out for as you seem to know how to do SEO really.
The only point that I make, is that we don’t all have relevant websites to put in our signatures. I have a kamagra website in my signature, because that is my SEO project, been working on it for 4 months and doing extremely well, and I am proud of my work!
I do have 92 other websites, but this is the only one, where I get paid serious money, therefore, I like to show it off!
October 15th, 2009 11:09 AM
Dan,
I don’t get what you mean about Stumble Upon.
Are you talking about people who link to items in their own SU profiles in forums or what?
I am one of those Firefox & SU toolbar people though I dispense with the Social part and use it pretty much 100% for Bookmarking. My browser favourites are a joke at this stage which is why I find it such well-handy way of tagging things. I mainly use it so I can go back and look at stuff again later, like if I find a video I like or some useful information I may want to refer to later.