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

[Slartibartfast]

Don't you think it is a bit pointless to argue about why I did something on another forum in the scope of this forum?

[OverrideB1]

While no fan of animated avatars and signature-images, as long as there's an option to turned them off so I am not afflicted by them I'm perfectly happy to allow people to have whatever flashing, blinking, bleeping images they want as signatures.

As to animated avatars, providing they're not epilepsy-inducing, I can live with them if there's no option to turn off just animated ones.

[Elvenshae]

Because there is a majority of voters (at the time of this post) who want images available in .sigs (an even larger majority if you discount the "1-2 lines of text, no images" votes; those people are really voting for "No sigs at all, ever").

Oh, dear. Silly me, I thought I was voting for 2-line sigs. What WAS I thinking?!? Good thing I had you here to set me straight about what I REALLY meant.

Allowing max 2-line .sigs invalidates most of the Dwarf Fortress-themed ASCII art that people have in their .sigs.

It prevents the "Think outside the Box!" sig, it prevents the "Adventurer in a Fort" sig, it prevents the "Urist is surrounded by Humans and looks confusing" .sig.  I think you all know which ones I'm talking about, because they've been around for a while and are among my favorites.

These are all low-key, ASCII-art, no-kidding DF-related stuff (though Aquilllion might [accurately?] point them out as being "off-topic" and therefore wasted bytes).

How can you vote against these things?  That's like being against Elephants and Mom's Plump Helmet Biscuits.

Now, I do admit that the overlap between the "Don't want .sigs at all" and "Just want highly-regulated .sigs" is probably not 100%; accordingly, not everyone who voted for "1-2 lines, no images" doesn't want to totally elimate all .sigs, everywhere.  So, yes, I apologize for exaggerating [slightly].  However, the overlap is certainly not 0%, either; I think we can accurately predict which option Aquillion picked, for instance, and (s)he's indicated a preference for the removal of all .sigs, everywhere, as wasted bandwidth and screen real estate.

Begging your pardon, but might you please deign to notice that those wanting to eliminate sigs all together would have an opinion (if in fact that's what no-images-1-2-lines does mean)? Just as much as those wanting to add image sigs where there were none before?

Yes, and the option to completely eliminate .sigs from all posts is already present as an option.  Since that group's needs* are already met, there's not much more that needs to be done for them.

* Other than those who want to prevent others from having or enjoying .sigs, of course.

EDIT:

Regarding Toady's latest post, and opt-in for .sig images is just as acceptable as an opt-out; I can't see any issues that would arise should the default setting being easier on those who find .sig images completely distasteful and those who aren't logged in.

I also agree that this forum is not 4chan or Something Awful or ... etc.

As for rules on .sig "tastefulness" (text or otherwise), I like EN World's Grandma Rule (though fouler language is allowed here than is there, generally speaking).

[axus]

I was worried that the new board would have a bad memory and keep requiring me to login, but that hasn't been the case, so I'm not so concerned about signatures.   I turn them off, they can grow to 1900x1200 for all I care.

Signatures off for guest users seems like a good idea, because some people don't like having a login/password... understandable in this age of keyloggers and password stealing.

I think it's best to follow democratic principles.  If a majority want some kind of image signature, allow the lowest common denominator.  That means small image signatures, right?  Same for text signatures, take the largest text size that a majority support, and go with that.  Of course a minority is going to be unhappy if they aren't in the majority, but we will get over it.

Summary:
More than 50% support text sigs 3-6 lines or more, but less than 50% support higher than that.
More than 50% support images of 60 pixels, but less than 50% support more than that.

[Mikademus]

The easy solution:

* Opt-out, since it is how it works atm and seems just fine to me
* If it degenerates, which is very unlikely but who knows, then change to opt-in

[Lazer Bomb]

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

Sigs: all the cool kids are doing it!

But seriously, it would be the best idea, in my opinion, to have a message when you're uploading a sig image, that says "Don't forget that other people have to see this every time you post. If it is annoying and pointless, you can choose to have something smaller and less annoying."

[MaxVance]

About the only problem I can see with opt-in for signature images is new users going "DURRRRR HOW I MAKE SIG APPEAR ITS ON MY PROFAIL BUT I DONT SEE IT LOL" when they join. Like Mikademus said, opt-out seems like it would work just as well.

[slMagnvox]

About the only problem I can see with opt-in for signature images is new users going "DURRRRR HOW I MAKE SIG APPEAR ITS ON MY PROFAIL BUT I DONT SEE IT LOL" when they join.

I'd hate to see the image a user with that kinda thought process is struggling to upload.  Not a good arguement for making them opt-out.

Can't we all just agree to dislike sig images?  Its so much more logical than supporting them.

[Mikademus]

Can't we all just agree to dislike sig images?  Its so much more logical than supporting them.

No. And no.

[Keizo]

How about a run-off poll with the current top 4 results?

[Draco18s]

How about a run-off poll with the current top 4 results?

Bad idea, because it doesn't represent what we're trying to get.  All you do there is smoosh all the "no images" into one option and still have "images" as three (and thus dividing the vote).

[Slartibartfast]

159 for signature images (conflicting about size, though), 157 against, at the time of this post.

Like Mikademus said, opt-out seems like it would work just as well.

It wouldn't work as well because it wouldn't "work" for people that aren't logged in or don't have a profile, like was previously explained several times.

[Qmarx]

Enable spoiler blocks in signatures.  Require anything beyond the limit to be inside a block.

Done.

[Mikademus]

Like Mikademus said, opt-out seems like it would work just as well.

It wouldn't work as well because it wouldn't "work" for people that aren't logged in or don't have a profile, like was previously explained several times.

An opt-in wouldn't work as well [as an opt-out] because it wouldn't "work" for people that aren't logged in or don't have a profile, like was previously explained several times.

[Kagus]

So forcing non-logged people to see images is better than forcing them to not see them...  Not quite sure I follow.