User profile website field abuse

[nYXem]

I have seen many users putting "google.com" and "besthostingforums.com" in their website field. Does it make any sense? I think this field should be used only for the sites you "own", not the sites you admire; there's a difference. In my opinion, a rule should be made for this.
Also, we can have another field for "Favourite websites" where you can add links to whatever site you like.
But putting links of sites you don't even "own" is meaningless, and in a way, its "abusing" the feature.

nYXem Reviewed by nYXem on 11th Oct 2011. User profile website field abuse I have seen many users putting "google.com" and "besthostingforums.com" in their website field. Does it make any sense? I think this field should be used only for the sites you "own", not the sites you admire; there's a difference. In my opinion, a rule should be made for this. Also, we can have another field for "Favourite websites" where you can add links to whatever site you like. But putting links of sites you don't even "own" is meaningless, and in a way, its "abusing" the feature. Rating: 5

[Hawk]

I asked el_jentel1 what the website(s) field was for ages ago, he replied that members can add sites they visit frequently, admire, or even if it's their own website. I at first thought it was for websites owned ONLY, but back then he said it was for anything (obv nothing against rules). It should really be sites owned only, if it's for favourite sites etc - They can use their signature to list that.. we don't need a special field for members to put the sites they like etc.

Maybe, KWWHTech could enhance the modification so that if they list a website in the website(s) field, it asks you to upload a file on the server to verify it is your site... just a suggestion.

[Gavo]

It doesnt really matter anyway, only registered users see site links and sigs.

[nYXem]

Yes, we need not have a special field just to put in your favourite sites, sig can make up for it, but still, we should not be putting google.com as our site LOL. Trust me, its not our site

It doesnt really matter anyway, only registered users see site links and sigs.

I didn't get your point, mate.

[Cooper]

ahh nYXem trust me there is nothing we can do about it.
I mean we can do 100 Suggestion threads and even tho most of the community will support us we will be left with our balls in our hands.
All we will get it laughter and insults,but hey that should count for something.

Oh about this current thread,about 2 months ago i sent out PM about it and yeah nothing has changed,hell i didnt even get a reply

[Mr Happy]

Spam, racism, scamming, hacked databases privacy, etc. are issues to worry about. If the person owns the site or not in their profile is not a major cause for concern. Some are moderators or uploaders and some just like the site. It's not abused as nobody posts affiliate links etc. so it's not spamming

It's not even a link to a website. It's just text with some javascript that makes it clickable so it can't be followed by search engines or anything else so nothing to worry about.

[Hawk]

ahh nYXem trust me there is nothing we can do about it.
I mean we can do 100 Suggestion threads and even tho most of the community will support us we will be left with our balls in our hands.
All we will get it laughter and insults,but hey that should count for something.

Oh about this current thread,about 2 months ago i sent out PM about it and yeah nothing has changed,hell i didnt even get a reply

We actually consider suggestions if the majority think that the amendment/modification should be added, we then have a staff discussion and come to a decision.

[Mindy]

I have thought the same thing since I started here...you should only have your own site or the site you work for in that space.

[Webestrian]

Wow. People suggest a lot and lot and lot and lot and keep suggesting. lol . Just remove that websites box and everyone would be at peace . Am sure, if rule is implemented regarding only sites you own, someone else would make another thread to remove this rule
The site is doing well imo. Admins have already brought so many positive changes, and it looks very nice at the moment.

[maverick79]

well there is no point!
if we need to add only our own site address in the website field then how would we decide if the user is truthful or not?
is there any way to decide if he owns it or not?