Bring back text-only signatures?

  • Total voters


Level 35
Content Creator
The majority that voted so far is in favor for the idea and of course if implemented it must be moderated as otherwise genuine spammers and scammers can and will sooner or later abuse it but, I gave this an extra thought and I agree members should be allowed have a bit of fun and this is possible one way of several. Still, I'm not so sure it actually will be fun and enlightenment to watch and read some peoples obvious 24/7 automatic spam with what they think and believe is words of wisdom or funny comments etc. Considering this forum has an international audience consisting of both members and guests and it's too easy to drive people away if one is not careful enough but as I also agree with for example what @Gandalf_The_Grey and @plat1098 mentioned, I'm gonna vote no.

That dosen't mean it won't get implemented as the staff hasen't said anything yet but, I do recall they removed signatures for a reason and not so sure they are happy chappy and want to switch back even if it's now text only.


Community Manager
Staff member
I jumped in on this and voted "No" and here is why
  • Prevents spam.
  • I imagine not having signatures saves some bandwidth.
  • With or without images,having no signatures makes the forum pages easier to read because you are not having to look past signatures.
  • Last but not least is the moderation factor,even without images it required extra moderation as some had to push the limits.
  • Signatures have advantages mainly that they can increase traffic to ones website. Even though that would require @Jack approval there are some who would test those limitations also.
  • The downside to that,looking at it from Jack's perspective,is that should a spammer make it past registration they can insert a link to anything in their signature legit or malicious.

Efilnikufesin (N.F.L.)

Level 1
I'd like the signatures back. Why? because we are not, or should not be numbers or statistics. each member is unique and unrepeatable, so I think it's perfect that whoever wants to write their signature, in fact, facilitates the work of identifying each member.

I have deactivated receiving notifications about what the members I follow do because I am overwhelmed with so much information, the signatures would help me find the comments shared by those I like to read.

I think there should be some rules, an ethical code, a maximum size, but I consider that MalwareTips is so big because of the people who compose it, there are other more "professional" forums on the net that bore me so much that I only visit them once a month.

For all this, I vote "yes" and I know that it is not going to be of any use, that this option is not going to be added to us, the members.


Level 21
I'm throwing in with Gandalf, Upnorth, & Exterminator.

While it could be interesting to see highlights of people's security setups in a signature...

... it could also be an unwieldy mess with space and verbiage that is unnecessary to the thread.

Now that I've limited my MT time somewhat, I prefer a cleaner and quicker style of forum -- as it is now.

So that would be a 'No' vote.


Level 29
Content Creator
Thanks everybody who has voted so far, and special thanks to those who took the time to justify their vote (for yes or for no).

I strongly think that text-only signatures wouldn't affect as much as some think, if certain criteria is implemented, for example:
  • Not allowed to use links (can be automatic, doesn't need moderators to check signatures, if it detects https or www then throw an error)
  • Include a words filter (automatically decline signatures with insults, references to several dates like history, terrorism, etc)
  • Option to hide all signatures (save bandwith, you don't like them)
Also there are several places in a post where the signature can be placed, which doesn't necessarily have to consume extra space. Please refer to the picture below.


Level 21
I'm changing my vote to "No" based on this point. Some sigs over at Wilders are too big and messy.
Yeah, dat right.

Like I've always said.... 'Oldschool is da Man.'

Speaking of Oldschool being da Man... and forum development...

... did you (Oldschool) plan to open us a separate forum for uBlock Origin? I'm surprised there is not one.

Probably Raymond Hill (gorhill), the developer of uBlock Origin is waiting for a go-getter like you to make this happen.

I volunteer Windows_Security to assist in this project. (if we ever see him again)

~~Back on topic~~


Level 19
I'm changing my vote to "No" based on this point. Some sigs over at Wilders are too big and messy.
But if the site layout is same it will take same space. It will only fill the empty space. Also with the option to "disable signatures" in the setting you won't have to see them anymore. Plus as they are text only I don't see it causing any bandwidth issues. But you are right it can be messy, which will be bad. Still I like the idea.


Level 36
... did you (Oldschool) plan to open us a separate forum for uBlock Origin? I'm surprised there is not one.
Already have one here uBlock Origin/Nano Adblocker - User Tips, Questions and Issues Thread

I volunteer Windows_Security to assist in this project. (if we ever see him again)
And he has one too:



Level 10
Very compelling arguments, for and against. You wonder if signatures can dilute the power of a given message. I've perceived that at Wilders a few times. You want the message to be pure. I could not picture Mr. Andy Ful with a signature, for example. Every post of his is a signature already. :)

How about hiding a sig, after it's been screened for no-nos? ** Like those at TechPowerUp? Here, an example, the info is hidden under an up-down arrow:

system spec.PNG

Sticking with the neutral vote. **sorry, I scanned everyone's post again. If this idea has been raised before, I apologize. I didn't see it, though. Edit: OK, DeletedMessiah offered the suggestion to hide it. I think this would be a good compromise.
Last edited: