DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> I have turned signatures off!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 165, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/23/2005 11:38:19 PM · #126
@Deapee: David, please lighten up a bit. Muck was, in a humorous way, trying to point out that large attention-grabbing graphics in sigs are in fact a distraction. I believe he succeeded.
 05/23/2005 11:41:09 PM · #127
Originally posted by kirbic:
@Deapee: David, please lighten up a bit. Muck was, in a humorous way, trying to point out that large attention-grabbing graphics in sigs are in fact a distraction. I believe he succeeded.


Ya think..........hehehehe.
 05/23/2005 11:41:31 PM · #128
Originally posted by kirbic:
@Deapee: David, please lighten up a bit. Muck was, in a humorous way, trying to point out that large attention-grabbing graphics in sigs are in fact a distraction. I believe he succeeded.


Anything's annoying when you try to be. My whole point is I see nothing wrong with a 200x80 banner under someone's posts.

*shrugs* I'm leaving for a while. I'm all worked up now and don't feel I can properly communicate without getting more angry. I know, I know, stupid to get angry over this...but I think my point has been made time and time again...whatever. I'll get over it. My vote doesn't count, never has, never will...take it easy.
 05/24/2005 07:03:48 AM · #129
Couple of posts hidden because they contained reference to a personal attack. Play nice. We are all entitled to our opinions. :)

Clara
 05/24/2005 10:22:38 AM · #130
Perhaps a volunteer panel can be put together that could review signatures that are excessive. Not all signatures cause that would waist time. But like the "report post", someone could click "inappropriate signature" it would mark it for review. But once the review had been done it'd be flagged as reviewed.

"not a democracy here if so we would have to pay taxes to support SC"
[[[They call it - membership fees. ;) Of course, the site council members are mere puppets enslaved by the dark king of the realms of Deepeecee. *tongue-in-cheek* As I think DPC's member fees are very fair.]]]

"allowing signatures to degrade into a contest of "my banner ad is better than your banner ad" does nothing to benefit the site or its users"
[[[I think VERY FEW members with signatures use it in such a way. And for your big annoying signature. Sure that's possible. But I have yet to see such a signature. And if I did (outside the context of this debate) I'd probably "report post" and I am sure the site council would instruct said user to tone it down.]]]

1) they detract from the readability of the forums, which are arguably one of the biggest benefits of this site
[[[and are fine and quite useful if kept minimal]]]

" THAT is why we are working to define some parameters for sigs"
[[[I think that's fine. But don't totally kill graphics or signatures. They have their uses. I think a more passive method. Set a guidelines and recommendation. Create a page to demonstrate. "Example: signatures are to be no more than three lines in height. Any graphics used should be less than 5k. in size." Then allow for the option of a signature to be flagged for "report/abuse" just like a post. This way, SC or appointed agent there of, only needs to look at a select handful when reported as opposed to a "prior approval" method.]]]

05/24/2005 11:34:53 AM · #131
I personally think that if you turn off signatures but have your own signature is wrong... you are criticizing them but using one anyway

05/24/2005 11:37:14 AM · #132
Mine is small and text only. I was bitching about photos being in there. I saw your post on CJ and it is a shame that I miss that signature for the few that want to post photos in there.
 05/24/2005 11:38:31 AM · #133
Not wrong...if I'm using a single line or two of text I'm not putting anybody out. On the other hand if I have sig's off I don't have to see all the animated image loaders and large file loads.

Originally posted by di53:
I personally think that if you turn off signatures but have your own signature is wrong... you are criticizing them but using one anyway

05/24/2005 11:40:54 AM · #134
So you're submitting others to what you dont wnat to look at?
it may only be one line... but if you have sigs turned off... you shouldnt have a sig either thats MY opinion
05/24/2005 11:44:37 AM · #135
Originally posted by di53:
So you're submitting others to what you dont wnat to look at?
it may only be one line... but if you have sigs turned off... you shouldnt have a sig either thats MY opinion


I have them turned off because I don't want to see the images in certain people's post. I don't have any photos in my signature. How is that submitting people to stuff I don't want to see?
 05/24/2005 11:51:43 AM · #136
Originally posted by di53:
So you're submitting others to what you dont wnat to look at?
it may only be one line... but if you have sigs turned off... you shouldnt have a sig either thats MY opinion


[stepping up on soap box]
I don't think that's the point rex is trying to make. He is just saying that he feels that to avoid a very few number of signatures he has to turn signatures off. That is the only option, on or off. Feeling that he has to turn sigs off shouldn't preclude him from having his own sig as long as he abides by the rules he feels all sigs should follow. Now, if he had an intrusive sig while complaining about other intrusive sigs then that would be a different story.

I too like most of the signatures and have chosen to leave sigs turned on. Those that take up too much real estate in the forums (and there aren't that many) or are bothersome in some way (intrusive colours, lengthy text etc) I report a post containing it rather than turning all sigs off.

I don't think a vote is needed since sigs impact on the look and feel and performance of the site so decisions related to this issue should be left to D & L and the SC.

[stepping down from soap box]

As always, just my opinion.
 05/24/2005 11:55:24 AM · #137
Not at all. I don't want to have to load and scroll thru a bunch of images in sig lines, nor do I want to have animated images flashing in my face. Do you see either of those in my sig? Didn't think so...

By the way - ALL opinions are appreciated. ;^)

Originally posted by di53:
So you're submitting others to what you dont wnat to look at?
it may only be one line... but if you have sigs turned off... you shouldnt have a sig either thats MY opinion

05/24/2005 11:55:44 AM · #138
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I report a post containing it rather than turning all sigs off.


I have chosen to do this instead and have turned mine back on because I miss some important stuff there sometimes.
 05/24/2005 11:58:28 AM · #139
its still my opinion that its hypocritical to have a sig when you turn them off.... that should go hand in hand... if you turn em off.. you dont have one

Message edited by author 2005-05-24 12:01:21.
 05/24/2005 12:02:49 PM · #140
In general I would agree with you but the point was not really to have sigs turned off but to avoid looking at certain ones. The only option available to avoid certain sigs is to turn all sigs off. Not the same thing.

Message edited by author 2005-05-24 12:03:46.
 05/24/2005 12:14:03 PM · #141
I will repeat myself.... IN MY OPINION... your own signature should be turned off if you have turned off sigs..for whatever reason..whether its to avoid a picture in a signiture or to avoid advertisements in a sig... if you have a sig and turn them off... your own should be too.
Its hypocritical to have a sig while you do not see others. Period.

Message edited by author 2005-05-24 12:15:42.
 05/24/2005 12:29:53 PM · #142
I'm a 'hypocrite'... ;^)
 05/24/2005 12:32:36 PM · #143
I post mine occasionally, when it is particularly relevant to that post or discussion. Otherwise, I leave mine off. But I also see nothing wrong with using a single line of text as a sig at any time, regardless of whether one has suppressed the viewing of other sigs -- that's why the site provides that feature.

I'm sure if there was an option to "only display single-line text sigs" many people would opt for it, but as it is, if you want to see those, you need to wade through the Billboard Jungle as well ...
 05/24/2005 12:47:21 PM · #144
why on earth did i read this whole frickin' thread?
 05/24/2005 12:56:01 PM · #145
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
why on earth did i read this whole frickin' thread?

For the same reason people watch soap operas?
 05/24/2005 01:32:24 PM · #146
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
why on earth did i read this whole frickin' thread?

For the same reason people watch soap operas?


So they have something to clean themselves with in the shower while listening to opera music?

(corny...i know...but does ANYONE know how soap operas got their names?)
 05/24/2005 01:38:13 PM · #147
Originally posted by theSaj:

(corny...i know...but does ANYONE know how soap operas got their names?)


Because they were frequently sponsored by soap companies.
 05/24/2005 01:40:48 PM · #148
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
why on earth did i read this whole frickin' thread?


Maybe just to look at everyone's signature?
 05/24/2005 03:24:38 PM · #149
no reply.

just wanted to show my signature.
 05/24/2005 03:46:47 PM · #150
ever thought of trying a hugh grant instead?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 11:44:50 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 11:44:50 AM EDT.