I have turned signatures off!!! - DPChallenge Forums

05/22/2005 09:13:24 PM · #51

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I have to turn off the 95% of signatures I'd like to see, because 5% of the people abuse the feature.

So then turn them off...or leave them on...mine have always been on, and I've never been annoyed by anyone's signature. Seriously, is it this important?

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

05/22/2005 09:17:25 PM · #52

I did put this in the rant forum right? Turn off the rant forum if you don't like listening to people bitch!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/22/2005 09:37:21 PM · #53

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I have to turn off the 95% of signatures I'd like to see, because 5% of the people abuse the feature.

So then turn them off...or leave them on...mine have always been on, and I've never been annoyed by anyone's signature. Seriously, is it this important?

Yes -- I think that having a tiny group of people engage in a specific behavior which inconveniences the vast majority of site users is rude and antisocial.

The lack of voluntary consideration on the part of a few leads to repressive solutions, such as simply banning images in the signatures.

Some signatures drastically degrade site performance. Those who wish to use that space as an advertisement rather than a statement of personal philosophy are abusing the purpose of that feature/field.

grandmarginal

Nikon D500

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

05/22/2005 09:39:41 PM · #54

Originally posted by deapee:

To some of us, yes.

Jewellian

Pentax *ist DL

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

05/22/2005 09:41:25 PM · #55

It's apparently important enough for people to keep posting about one user's decision to turn them off........

05/22/2005 10:01:10 PM · #56

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I think that having a tiny group of people engage in a specific behavior which inconveniences the vast majority of site users is rude and antisocial.

That is your OPINION. The VAST MAJORITY? On what statistic do you base that on, the 5 people who chimed in and agreed with the original poster?

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

05/22/2005 10:04:21 PM · #57

Originally posted by rex:

I did put this in the rant forum right? Turn off the rant forum if you don't like listening to people bitch!

Unfortunately, that wouldn't solve the problem. People crying litter this site's forums. Just go through the main page the day after a challenge, or look for words like "DQ" or "site suggestions" that are completely bogus such as changing the name to dpediting.com

You're never going to please everybody.

If you want to cry about wasted time...complain about a shot that was entered illegally (where you wasted 20 seconds looking at it) or worse yet, a genuine comment on an image that took you a minute or more to write where the photographer didn't find it helpful...not the millisecond it takes you to scroll past their 'large' images in their signature.

edit: which, by the way, I still haven't seen an 'annoying signature' where are these annoying signatures you are crying about anyway? Give me an example. I highly doubt someone has a 600 pixel photo in their sig...come on...most sites allow avatars -- some upto 200 pixels in size...what ever would you do if that were to happen here? Then your pages would take 2 milliseconds longer to load...and don't cry me a river about dial-up because that has nothing to do with your original complaint -- it's about scrolling.

Message edited by author 2005-05-22 22:06:21.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

05/22/2005 10:10:57 PM · #58

Why don't we just have a site poll on this issue? If the majority votes against having image or banners in signatures, then the possibility of inserting images into signatures should be discontinued.

05/22/2005 10:12:02 PM · #59

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

Why don't we just have a site poll on this issue? If the majority votes against having image or banners in signatures, then the possibility of inserting images into signatures should be discontinued.

I agree -- have a poll...

Signatures...

A) Leave as is
B) No more than 3 photos and limit to 150 pixels in size max
C) Text Only

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/22/2005 10:16:43 PM · #60

D) text only - limited to X number of characters

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/22/2005 10:20:01 PM · #61

Would having a poll really resolve everything... think about it. Just a short while ago you stated:

"Unfortunately, that wouldn't solve the problem. People crying litter this site's forums. Just go through the main page the day after a challenge, or look for words like "DQ" or "site suggestions" that are completely bogus such as changing the name to dpediting.com

You're never going to please everybody"

Something to ponder...don't you think??"

Ray

Message edited by author 2005-05-22 22:26:36.

grandmarginal

Nikon D500

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

05/22/2005 10:25:52 PM · #62

Originally posted by deapee:

That is your OPINION. The VAST MAJORITY? On what statistic do you base that on, the 5 people who chimed in and agreed with the original poster?

Right now, you seem to try to speak for the vast majority. Take a break and see where this is going. You allready commented on this so many times... You are bitching about people who bitch... You have explained your position and we all hear ya.

Nobody here represent the vast majority by themself. That's why each of us are posting our position. Do you feel yours to be that weak that you have to attack the one of everyone else?

05/22/2005 11:32:29 PM · #63

Just skimmin' through this thread. Hmmmm, turn off me siggy will ya? I'll just put my cute little siggy in every post!
----------------------------

05/22/2005 11:55:06 PM · #64

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

Originally posted by deapee:
That is your OPINION. The VAST MAJORITY? On what statistic do you base that on, the 5 people who chimed in and agreed with the original poster?

Right now, you seem to try to speak for the vast majority. Take a break and see where this is going. You allready commented on this so many times... You are bitching about people who bitch... You have explained your position and we all hear ya.

Nobody here represent the vast majority by themself. That's why each of us are posting our position. Do you feel yours to be that weak that you have to attack the one of everyone else?

No, genius, but when people keep quoting me and encouraging my response, I feel I should respond. If you just read my response and let IT soak in instead of asking for my repsonse to your response, I will quit responding. Until then ;-)

05/22/2005 11:57:49 PM · #65

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Would having a poll really resolve everything... think about it. Just a short while ago you stated:

Yeah, a poll will solve it. I think it's a stupid idea, and all I ask is my fair vote. If we have 9 site council members who think it should be a certain way, I don't care -- their vote shouldn't count any more than any other person...and just because someone bitches about something, doesn't mean their voice should be louder either.

We all should get an even vote, anything less is not acceptable. Sure drew or langdon could just go and do it -- and probably will just to spite me, but in all honesty, if the majority doesn't want it, I see that as a counterproductive step.

If the majority really wants it a certain way, have a vote -- where we all have an equal voice. If *we* decide it should be a certain way, based on the majority, then so be it.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

05/23/2005 12:05:08 AM · #66

Originally posted by kpriest:

Just skimmin' through this thread. Hmmmm, turn off me siggy will ya? I'll just put my cute little siggy in every post!
----------------------------

OMG, dude you are just too funny.

BTW, I have never really even noticed the sigs, so I dont care one way or another.

Message edited by author 2005-05-23 00:26:03.

05/23/2005 12:24:39 AM · #67

For the record, I am annoyed as James (Rex) is and I could turn them off, but I also agree with this:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I have to turn off the 95% of signatures I'd like to see, because 5% of the people abuse the feature.

That's rather like saying I should not drive the freeway because a few other people insist on driving 95 in a 65 zone.

Then again, I do think GE should stay off the freeway, but I digress... ;-)

Man, DP, I think rectal cysts are the least of your problems - you should really have that chip on your shoulder removed.

Since you like honesty and straightforwardness, deapee, I am just yanking your chain, but it also has a ring of truth to it, IMO. Go back and read everything you wrote in this thread and be honest with yourself about how you are coming off here.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

05/23/2005 12:39:24 AM · #68

or maybe if you see someones signature that is obtrusive or maybe a little over the top you could do as was recently done to (for) me. I recently received a VERY polite PM stating that my signature image seemed too large and was a little bothersome when viewing threads. I took this as constructive critism and quickly resized it and asked for another look at it to see if it was still too large.

I do feel you should be able to share your image or whatever in your signature if you want but I also agree that it should be kept at a considerate-to-others level. I would again resize my image if I believed that someone honetly thought it was too large, but I believe if you have the option to turn off other people's signature why do I need to remove it?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/23/2005 01:15:35 AM · #69

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think that having a tiny group of people engage in a specific behavior which inconveniences the vast majority of site users is rude and antisocial.

That is your OPINION. The VAST MAJORITY? On what statistic do you base that on, the 5 people who chimed in and agreed with the original poster?

Also on reports from other SC members, and seconhand from those they've communicated with outside the forums. We've been discussing this very issue in another thread.

It was already clear that this was my opinion -- the first to words of my post were "I think ..." -- so I think reinforcing that in ALL-CAPS was probably unnecessary, but that's just MY OPINION.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/23/2005 01:21:52 AM · #70

Originally posted by deapee:

We all should get an even vote, anything less is not acceptable.

This site is not a democracy. It is wholly-owned by two people, and they have complete and final say over how (and if) it operates.

If I were one of those people, I would not respond faorably to threats from the membership over how the site should be run.

To state that a certain state of things is "not acceptable" goes beyond expressing your OPINION, in my opinion.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/23/2005 01:26:39 AM · #71

Originally posted by kpriest:

For the record ... I do think GE should stay off the freeway, but I digress... ;-)

But then I'd never get shots like these:

Message edited by author 2005-05-23 01:29:03.

05/23/2005 02:14:16 AM · #72

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kpriest:
For the record ... I do think GE should stay off the freeway, but I digress... ;-)

But then I'd never get shots like these:

Hmmm. I rest my case. :P

suemack

Canon EOS-20D

05/23/2005 02:31:22 AM · #73

Originally posted by kpriest:

Just skimmin' through this thread. Hmmmm, turn off me siggy will ya? I'll just put my cute little siggy in every post!
----------------------------

Hey Ken.....I just wanna know how many people have clicked on your sig? Love the link. How do you make the legs look like they've got motion blur?

05/23/2005 02:35:28 AM · #74

Originally posted by suemack:

How do you make the legs look like they've got motion blur?

PS Filter plug-in from Eye Candy called Motion Trail and some tweaking with opacity.

I don't know how many people clicked on it, we'll find out tomorrow when the virus is set to go off. ;-)

suemack

Canon EOS-20D