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

[Draco18s]

Human brains are wired to focus on motion and contrast and other things people would normally refer to as "eye catching". It's not even a conscious decision to look at those things, you have no choice in the matter, you will look there.

Surprisingly enough, it's also wired to read text automatically.

And yes you CAN ignore it.  I do just fin---oh, shinies~!

[Mikademus]

Well, this thread is over, then. 3-6 lines of text won.

No way. The real issue here is whether or not we can have images in signatures. There are 136 votes for no images vs. 150 for images of any sort, so we win.

Images or no images is moot:

OK, important message: you will be in fact able to disable within your profile the display of images with signatures. So there's really no point in arguing any further. I'll say it again: anybody who wants to see signatures but doesn't want to see any images whatsoever within them will have the option of having them automatically stripped out.

[Merlon]

Images or no images is moot:

OK, important message: you will be in fact able to disable within your profile the display of images with signatures. So there's really no point in arguing any further. I'll say it again: anybody who wants to see signatures but doesn't want to see any images whatsoever within them will have the option of having them automatically stripped out.

With half the userbase not logged in at any one time, this solves only half the problem for half the users.

Even with the ability to opt-out you'll still be forcing a large portion of users to log in when it wouldn't normally be needed for their activity. Think of the people without accounts or the ones that browse from a public place or otherwise wouldn't log in.

To me, a better solution would be to reverse the mod, so that people would have to opt-in to signatureimages instead. That way it would default to a less conflicting view when not logged in.

[qwertyuiopas]

Well, those with slow connections are forgetting the option fo the number of posts displayed.

Reducing this number would have helped even WITHOUT the images optional mod.

[Draco18s]

I fail to see logic there.  Half of the userbase logged in or not doesn't matter and "half the problem for half the users?"  WTF does that mean?

[Slartibartfast]

I fail to see logic there.  Half of the userbase logged in or not doesn't matter and "half the problem for half the users?"  WTF does that mean?

It means that the half that isn't logged in can't take advantage of the "turn off signature images" option because it isn't logged to any profile to choose that option from.

[Tylui]

<Annoying, inaccurate depiction of a healthy community's "average signature">

Slartibartfast: have you EVER seen a signature like this on the Gaming Steve forums?

This won't happen here.  They'll all be DF related, I'm sure, or at least just have the person's name in them.  And if they are that annoying, they'll be taken down.

Literally two clicks for Toady.  Maybe even one.

[Slartibartfast]

Slartibartfast: have you EVER seen a signature like this on the Gaming Steve forums?

No, but that might have something to do with not being registered to the Gaming Steve forums

If you ask about any ol' forum then the answer is yes, though not for the last several years, since all the forums I go to have signature images disabled.

[Mikademus]

Images or no images is moot:

OK, important message: you will be in fact able to disable within your profile the display of images with signatures. So there's really no point in arguing any further. I'll say it again: anybody who wants to see signatures but doesn't want to see any images whatsoever within them will have the option of having them automatically stripped out.

With half the userbase not logged in at any one time, this solves only half the problem for half the users.

Even with the ability to opt-out you'll still be forcing a large portion of users to log in when it wouldn't normally be needed for their activity. Think of the people without accounts or the ones that browse from a public place or otherwise wouldn't log in.

To me, a better solution would be to reverse the mod, so that people would have to opt-in to signatureimages instead. That way it would default to a less conflicting view when not logged in.

That's got to be one of the most nit-picky, whiniest and problem-seeking arguments I've ever come across. If they read-and-run they'll not care about some sigs, and --to dig as deep as you into the Pandora's box of what-ifs-- what if they're looking for their friends they know by signature? They could be members of a witches' coven or freemasons or something. :rolleyes:

Point is, the option is for regulars.

[MaxVance]

Both of those sigs seem absolutely loathesome to me.  Banner ads in your sig?  That should be an autoban.  I don't come to the forum to see a pageful of repeated banner ads for people's websites or blogs or MyMiniCity or whatever; certainly nobody would seriously suggest that people should be allowed to post the same banner ad for their website multiple times in the same thread, whether it's part of their 'sig' or not.  If you want to tell people about your website, you can use a text link or start a thread devoted to it; wanting to be able to plaster a banner ad at the bottom of every post you make is unreasonable.

You really have a misconception of what a banner ad is. Take a look at Vellos's signature again.

Webpage  Drawing

Vellos's image does not link to anything. His site links are text. So why do you loathe it, again?

[Draco18s]

It means that the half that isn't logged in can't take advantage of the "turn off signature images" option because it isn't logged to any profile to choose that option from.

Gives them a reason to log in, don't it?
If they aren't logged in, they don't have much of a say in the matter now do they?

[Aquillion]

You really have a misconception of what a banner ad is. Take a look at Vellos's signature again.



Vellos's image does not link to anything. His site links are text. So why do you loathe it, again?

It is, nonetheless, a large glaring banner ad; it's shaped like a banner ad, garishly-colored like a banner ad, and has the same deleterious impact on the appearance of any page where it appears.  The fact that it is intended to advertise the poster and not their website makes it, if anything, even worse.

I do not loathe it, specifically.  It is within a category of items that are entirely loathsome, worthy of loathing, a state that all unnecessary banner ads intrinsically share, regardless of what they advertise.  The concept that someone could seriously consider such a glaring banner-ad to be acceptable as a sig is hard to fathom; I can accept, perhaps, that some people have gotten so used to such things that their eyes simply glide over the wretched thing without really seeing it, but that does not change the fact that it makes every place where it appears worse.

It is a banner-ad no matter how you look at it.  Why would anyone accept unnecessary banner-ads?

Slartibartfast: have you EVER seen a signature like this on the Gaming Steve forums?

This won't happen here.  They'll all be DF related, I'm sure, or at least just have the person's name in them.  And if they are that annoying, they'll be taken down.

Literally two clicks for Toady.  Maybe even one.

My understanding is that Toady has already said that he doesn't want to have to put too much work into police image signatures (understandable, since really, who would?  It would require looking at the things.)  It would be more work than you imply, too; the user who created the banner-ads he removes would have to be contacted, warned, probably discussed with if they object, and so forth (there might even be the occasional explosion if a user throws a tantrum and starts knocking buildings over in a rage over not being allowed to show their "I am a Unicorn!" banner.)  All of that is both a bother and not a particularly fun task; simply disabling banner ads on posts entirely is a vastly superior option.

Users who make happy images they want to show people can do so in a thread devoted to those images; users who want to identify themselves can get as much as they need from the avatar (which was, as I recall, itself controversal little more than a week ago -- how have we reached this point?)  That requires no work on anyone's part and has served this forum perfectly well for the past seven years without complaints.

The majority of sigs that I've seen on most forums come down to two things, both of which are equally loathsome:

1.  Banner ads, generally for the user's own pet projects, favorite websites, blogs, MiniCities, their own ego, etc.  As I said already, I would go so far as to say that sigs like these could be banworthy; no forum would ever accept a user advertising something in every single post if they did it in any other way, but suddenly a banner ad at the bottom of every one of your posts is acceptable when it's done via the forum's sig system?  It makes no sense.  Banner ads in your sig -- whether for your website or something else -- plainly should not be allowed.

2.  Horrible web-memes, from polls such as "My spirit creature is a unicorn!" or "I am the color blue!", to lolcats and random anime images.  These things just don't belong in a sig -- they fall into the "funny the first time (if that)" category.

Toady can't be expected to take the time to remove every single image, especially since the above two things are, overwhelmingly, what sigs are used for, and all of them would warrant removal; even if Toady had the time or inclination to remove every garish user banner-ad like the one Vellos gave above and warn the poster not to do it again, what would be the point?  There would be few sigs left after that, because overwhelmingly that is simply what they are.

I still find it hard to believe the discussion has gone on this long.  Users should not have to log in and "opt out" of seeing banner ads at the bottom of every single post; people who insist on trying to advertise their websites and minicity and whatever with banner ads at the bottom of every post they make should get warned and, if they persist, banned.

Forcing people to log on and manually turn banner ads off is a terrible idea.  Why would anyone want to see banner ads on the forum at all, much less ones that are eye-gougingly interspersed with the actual useful text?

Gives them a reason to log in, don't it?
If they aren't logged in, they don't have much of a say in the matter now do they?

Nonsense.  How the forum looks to them is every bit as important as how it looks to everyone else.

It seriously did not occur to me that we would even have to discuss this.  If I had known that someone would suggest image signatures, I would have raised it as a strenuous objection back when the forum-change was first suggested; I would have found the older, cleaner-looking forum a far preferable alternative.

[Janus]

Ooh, such drama still going on. 

An addendum: since the mod strips out all images from signatures under posts, it will also incidentally strip out smileys, like it or not.

[Kagus]

I didn't even know we had 292 users.

In any case, it does seem rather strange to me that everyone seemed to agree on not having sig images in the new forum, and that now more people want sig images than those who don't.  What happened?

[Aquillion]

I don't know, but I should say:

Naturally, I don't think that simply "majority rules" should be enough for this poll.  Adding sig-images to the forum -- when it has gone for years without them, with no complaints -- is a major change, in some ways more serious than upgrading to the new forum software (which was, after all, carefully managed to minimize changes beyond technical improvements, and didn't do much to interfere with reading or posting the way many people have indicated image-sigs would.)  And that change, naturally, required extended discussion and didn't happen until we were sure that almost everyone agreed; it should work the same way here.

Images should only be allowed in signitures if there is a broad consensus in favor of them, not just a bare majority; stats quo ought to win by default without an overwhelming consensus otherwise, since the forum ran that way without complaint for seven years, while many people are plainly quite annoyed at the proposed changes.