Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  No images.

60 (15.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  No images.

100 (25.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  No images.

19 (4.8%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  No images.

15 (3.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

13 (3.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

67 (17.1%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

9 (2.3%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

49 (12.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

18 (4.6%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

7 (1.8%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

4 (1%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

8 (2%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Images as big as the sky.

1 (0.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Images as big as the sky.

13 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 392

[Alfador]

Just as an aside, this poll would have worked better if you'd split out the two parameters. E.g.:

For text signatures, I would prefer:
* Nothing
* 1-2 lines
* 3-6 lines
* etc.

For image signatures, I would prefer:
* Nothing
* Only images shorter than 60 pixels
* Only images shorter than 100 pixels
* etc.

It's nothing you can't figure out after the fact, but I don't want this to be a situation where e.g. the no-images-at-all people "lost" because they split their votes on how big of a text signature they allow, when the image signature people all chose the same thing.

I don't think that's going to be a problem; this is Toady we're talking about, he'll probably perform a full statistical analysis on the results to determine what's most likely to irritate the fewest people.

[Kagus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1FF#An_example_Biffism

I just felt like posting that.  Also, I think it would be very fitting to have ASCII signatures, it would give the sig-makers something more to be proud of than just adding filters to a landscape.

Example:


...☺.....÷÷..E....²..~........
...≈............².~~~²≈☻☻.....
.....i░▒▒▒▓☼.☺........~²...E..

[Toady One]

Yeah, I'm not just going with the plurality winner -- as I alluded to in my first post, I'm going to look at what we've got and do something that seems appropriate.  I didn't want two polls because decoupling the choices does not convey the spirit of each voter in the same way.  In any case, I'll keep this active for some days to make sure everybody gets a chance to vote.  There's no reason to rush it.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think there should be no images, even though I myself don't browse the net with picture display on, to conserve traffic. I've seen some areas where pictures in sigs are annoying even when capped at 20 pixels, because some people made stacks of them. Turning off signatures entirely is a user's choice of course, but many modders have links to their threads in signatures, providing a way to quickly point someone to them.
I think text signatures can be relatively large, but not unlimited. For one, a large signature will allow for one thing I always wanted to add - some ASCII art.

All in all, if there were a way to select "signature images off" in your profile to make everyone's signatures contain only text (maybe by disabling IMG tags for signatures, leaving the text representation?), that option would get my vote.

[Janus]

I've seen some areas where pictures in sigs are annoying even when capped at 20 pixels, because some people made stacks of them.

The number of allowed images in a signature can be capped to any number desired in the admin settings, such as 1 (seems like a good number to me). Signatures with multiple images could indeed easily be an annoyance.

[Another]

I will most likely leave default board settings untouched if it'll end with most 6 lines + up to 75-76 points of signature height. If I'll see something noticeable bigger then no matter the overall signature quality I'll turn all signatures off. Not a big deal for me and I would feel almost sorry for all those efforts someone have put into his sig that at least I will never see.
Now, animated (.gif) sigs and avatars are IMHO just attention- and time- wasters.

[Narushima]

No images, up to two lines in signatures.
If you just have two lines of text, you have to keep only the best and the useful, so that'd be goo, just for the sanity of this board.
and it's always annoying, like it has been said, to have a one-line reply with a big image taking all the space (and bandwidth).
Also, I'd like to insist on my very personal "no .GIF avatars", just to be sure it's heard.

[qwertyuiopas]

I do think that code boxes in signatures need to be better, as I currently have a 1 pixel scroll bat no matter how I resize the screen. This could be fixed.
Although teletype does the same thing better.

[Duke 2.0]

 Is there any way you you have it to signatures only appear in your last post in a page in a thread? Thus large conversations won't have the same sig interrupting them every few seconds.

 

[Dwarmin]

I like the ASCII sigs that some members have-but i dont want animated buffalos jumping into bowls of pudding. No images.

[Okenido]

Keep in mind that one post were half the post was an image itself. Not even a relevant image, just a signature. Inside the post.

You've obviously never see the forums I hang out at.

[Zemat]

As of this reply. There are 74 votes in favor o no image at all against 87 that favor some kind of image. But the way the categories are separated, 4 for no images versus 16 for some sort of image, will favor the no image categories.

[Draco18s]

I'd like to point out guys that if we limit the number of lines of text too small people like qwertyuiopas won't be able to keep their sigs (his is 6 lines).  My old one was 6 lines + all the spacing for the quote box (thought it'd be a more compact here).

[Derakon]

I'd like to point out guys that if we limit the number of lines of text too small people like qwertyuiopas won't be able to keep their sigs (his is 6 lines).

And that's fine. His sig is reasonably clever, but there's no need for us to see it on every post he makes. After the first time you see it, it just becomes so much visual noise, like a banner ad.

He could as easily have made a post in DF Discussion saying "Hey, look, I made some DF ASCII art!" Or as I noted earlier, this forum could do with a subforum specifically for dealing with art; the community fortresses forum is kinda related but it isn't really suited for that kind of thing. I would fully support having a place for people to post their DF-related art; right now we have someone doing artifact sketches in DF Discussion and another person doing a sprite sheet in the Modding forum, and various people making DF art that never even gets posted here.

[dUMBELLS]

I really don't mind if we even have signatures or not, but I'd prefer the second option.