Forum Signatures? Yes Or No?

[Amistyrja]

We really don't need them here to be honest. Unless you want every page to be flooded with bishies, ponies, naruto, cars, pokemon, everything etc.

[_Absolom_]

Default=OFF.

[Khunvyel]

If signatures? Then only text based please. The only way I could think about allowing images should be if they are susceptible to a reasonably size limit (resolution and file) and reserved to be .jpg and .png only to avoid stupid(ly) animated gifs. On top of that, it has to be made sure that we don't get signatures spreading through half of our screen.

 

The fix should be standardized in pretty much any forum:

• Disable images in signatures.
• Limit signatures to a certain amount of characters, like 500
• Enable maximum height limit so people who write 500 characters with two words per line do not cause the forum to break.

 

In this case I know what I am talking about, considering I've administered and modded forums for close to a decade, which makes me cringe and powerfrown when looking at this forum here (but that is prone to happen in another topic). The first two things are usually done within the adminCP. The third fix, if not part of the adminCP, can be easily done doing the following:

 

Find the signature template (this is easy. In the case of doubt, export your theme including templates. This generates an XML file. Open the file and search for "signature" and if that is not found, search for "sig". The template that has something to do with the post bit and not the profile bit is the one you are searching for).

Find something that looks like this:

{$post['signature']}

 

Then replace it with this:

<div class="signature">{$post['signature']}</div>

 

This makes the signature being wrapped in whatever CSS code you want to have forced onto it, and naturally is only required if the signature code doesn't already have a div class. If it has? Wonderful.

Then you go to the CSS of your theme and add the following (or edit it, if there is already a div class)

.signature{max-height:100px;overflow:auto;}

 

If the signature exceeds a height of 100 pixel, you get scrollsbars. This is enough to fix text-based signatures. People using images could still break the forum layout in width, but if you add the appropriate width limitation to the CSS, even that is no problem.

 

Voilá!

[_Absolom_]

-snip-

+1.

[Phoenix86]

there's a guy with a wolf as signature... he pastes it in every single post he does... that's the only way i guess...

 

edit: K_Shiro, here's a quick link to one of his posts: https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/122841-update-1050-the-gradivus-dilemma/?p=1453070

Edited October 24, 2013 by Phoenix86

[Grilleds]

stuff

Even text based signatures would be kind of annoying. I can't be the only person who finds ZyloWolfzan little signatures at the end to be annoying (no offense, not trying to call you out, just needed an example), and I'm sure other people will purposefully try to annoy others with their sigs.

Signatures in forums are just plain annoying. I can't for the life of me figure out a good reason to have them, unless you are leaving some sort of contact information in them like an email, in which case you can just throw it on your profile page.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Grilleds

[Khunvyel]

Well I just posted "stuff" because of several reasons, the most prominent being to maybe ease the concerns of some people who think that activating a signature automatically means people throwing page-long pictures or walls of text into it.

To be fair, my very own opinion about signatures would be me leaning out of the window and saying:

 

I'd keep the user control of signatures locked out and use the signature space to parse information of the player from the game database into it. Why? Because not everything can fit below the avatar, and a single long row of signature can take as much info as several rows of profile-bit text below the avatar. So you could throw in things like which clan, which rank, etc.

I doubt the current usertitles display the actual rank in the game but are rather build up by post counter, so one could get rid of these titles or make different ones.

 

So, really just scarce food for thought, just dropping this bit without elaborating on it too much. It is possible with database queries and caching to avoid server stress,

[K_Shiro]

there's a guy with a wolf as signature... he pastes it in every single post he does... that's the only way i guess...

 

edit: K_Shiro, here's a quick link to one of his posts: https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/122841-update-1050-the-gradivus-dilemma/?p=1453070

 

At least someone notices my effort :) I would be damned to ever change this and go back to edit all my previous posts (not talking about the ones already locked :D).

____________  _ _  ____________

 

Edited October 25, 2013 by K_Shiro

[Khunvyel]

I'll play the scapegoat here and say:

 

"You are aware that by attaching this to any post, you are enforcing everyone to look at this image and they cannot even chose NOT to since they are unable to do so. Essentially you are 1) bypassing the restriction of signatures and 2) waste lines that an undefined amount of people do not want to see."

Even though the apparent majority is against signatures in this feedback topic, I still say "undefined."

I personally think you are lucky that no moderator has taken action yet as you basically cheat yourself past the no-signature restriction.

[Llyssa]

It would increase the server load unnecessarily.

[K_Shiro]

...

I personally think you are lucky that no moderator has taken action yet as you basically cheat yourself past the no-signature restriction.

 

Don't like that small pic? Sure, you have all the rights to do so.

"No-signature restriction" as? Since no such rule is present in the rules & guidelines section, I would prefer if you wouldn't spread rumors based on you biased opinion like it's law - you are no DE, I prefer their rules above yours on Their forums any day. They don't even remotely hint that they don't like someone posting their clan's logo.

 

Besides it looks cool. I would say start with the "I'm first" "Cool patch" guys first before worrying about non-existent rules.

____________  _ _  ____________

 

[SlyKon]

Funny how most of the people here dont agree. Thats a fail +18

[Bibliothekar]

reserved to be .jpg and .png only to avoid stupid(ly) animated gifs

APNG or gif renamed as jpg (works, I've seen it). So yeah ...

[Jofnir]

No way - not in a million years - they make forums extremely untidy/messy looking ! ! !

[Valiant]

Don't like that small pic? Sure, you have all the rights to do so.

"No-signature restriction" as? Since no such rule is present in the rules & guidelines section, I would prefer if you wouldn't spread rumors based on you biased opinion like it's law - you are no DE, I prefer their rules above yours on Their forums any day. They don't even remotely hint that they don't like someone posting their clan's logo.

 

Besides it looks cool. I would say start with the "I'm first" "Cool patch" guys first before worrying about non-existent rules.

____________  _ _  ____________

 

 Seems a bit excessive and unnecessary though if there isn't signature function. No point.

[MueR]

No. Signatures are annoying. Certainly no images.

[K_Shiro]

 Seems a bit excessive and unnecessary though if there isn't signature function. No point.

 

Since such function tend to exist on forums and people tend to use it there must be a point in doing that right? You can disagree but I hardly see pressing ctrlV once at the end of my posts as an excessively complicated method. Sure i am lazy but not that lazy.

 

Believe me, the moment they implement the signature function on forums I will gladly stop copying it every time. Until then...

 

 

____________  _ _  ____________

 

 

No. Signatures are annoying. Certainly no images.

 

You disagree, no problem with that. Let's hope they implement a signature function together with a "hide signatures" function so we can all be happy. I can be content with that. Don't think you have a problem with that?

____________  _ _  ____________

 

Edited October 28, 2013 by K_Shiro

[MueR]

You disagree, no problem with that. Let's hope they implement a signature function together with a "hide signatures" function so we can all be happy. I can be content with that. Don't think you have a problem with that?

 

There is a "hide signature" function in Invision by default. The problem is, the default for guest users (and by proxy: search engines) is to show signatures.

[Valiant]

Since such function tend to exist on forums and people tend to use it there must be a point in doing that right? You can disagree but I hardly see pressing ctrlV once at the end of my posts as an excessively complicated method. Sure i am lazy but not that lazy.

There isn't a point to doing it now. It's unnecessary.

[Blatantfool]

As far as I have been told signatures are not allowed.

[AnkyPanky]

It would increase the server load unnecessarily.

^ This. How many players are in the forums? Even if they have a max kb upload, that is still wasting server space for silly little signatures. When it could be used for other things, like more forums pointing out bugs, or the fan fiction, or even ideas for the game. Or even space to add things to the game. Granted yes, eventually they will need more space if the game keeps growing. But why waste what they already have? Just for forum custom-ability? We already see in game how they want more modern and slim. The forums are just another extension of that.

[K_Shiro]

^ This. How many players are in the forums? Even if they have a max kb upload, that is still wasting server space for silly little signatures. When it could be used for other things, like more forums pointing out bugs, or the fan fiction, or even ideas for the game. Or even space to add things to the game. Granted yes, eventually they will need more space if the game keeps growing. But why waste what they already have? Just for forum custom-ability? We already see in game how they want more modern and slim. The forums are just another extension of that.

 

I see where you are coming from and to the hell with it I agree with you to some extent - offensive signatures can cause problems, though their length is a different question. Saying that the servers won't have enough space because of an extra line is just an excuse (a weak one - if you don't see how so, I don't see a point in a conversation detailing that). Since the forums are already full of "I'm first, haha", "+" and "Cool patch" like constructive and deep posts I would say worry about those first.

 

So all in all my points:

- Most people like uniquity and the option for that. Since no avatars can be uploaded on forums, signatures seem like a rather easy way out.

- A signature function is consuming relatively no space since it's not actually recorded every time but only referenced from the forum post so you only see it (with hide function you can even counter that).

- Pictures are not stored on server either so picture-signatures consume even less space.

 

So to solve all our problems is still to introduce the signature feature with hide function included. Of course if I see a rule on the R&G section explicitly forbidding signatures I will stop - again, such a rule would be just hypocrisy because of the flood of mentioned +,1st etc. posts. 

____________  _ _  ____________

 

[MueR]

- Pictures are not stored on server either so picture-signatures consume even less space.

 

That's something you _really_ do not want. The potential for abuse is enormous, the potential for annoyance even higher.

 

The effect of external images in signatures can be:

- Slow page loads due to a lot of DNS requests

- Slow page loads due to slow external servers

- Safe Browser warnings if a domain is found to spread malware (even if the image itself is fine)

- People harvesting data on every image request (easy to do if you are somewhat decent at programming)

- Potential phishing attempts. I could add a HTTP authentication to the image, which will pop up in your browser. You would be surprised how many people actually blindly type in their account details.

 

So that leaves whitelisting domains where images can be hosted, or hosting everything on DE's servers. I doubt DE will want to waste a lot of diskspace because some people want images in their signatures. Whitelisting would require DE to customize the forum software, which makes patching a lot harder.

 

In the end, images and other crap in signatures are a bad idea. They add nothing, just take up space.

[K_Shiro]

That's something you _really_ do not want. The potential for abuse is enormous, the potential for annoyance even higher.

 

The effect of external images in signatures can be:

- Slow page loads due to a lot of DNS requests

- Slow page loads due to slow external servers

- Safe Browser warnings if a domain is found to spread malware (even if the image itself is fine)

- People harvesting data on every image request (easy to do if you are somewhat decent at programming)

- Potential phishing attempts. I could add a HTTP authentication to the image, which will pop up in your browser. You would be surprised how many people actually blindly type in their account details.

 

So that leaves whitelisting domains where images can be hosted, or hosting everything on DE's servers. I doubt DE will want to waste a lot of diskspace because some people want images in their signatures. Whitelisting would require DE to customize the forum software, which makes patching a lot harder.

 

In the end, images and other crap in signatures are a bad idea. They add nothing, just take up space.

 

I partially agree - as you are partially right.

Let's take this step by step, in detail, so it's not just the usualy "you are wrong, I'm right" pattern!

 

Slow page loads due to a lot of DNS requests:

Pictures are loaded only once, a page has limited posts and signatures can be (and usually are) limited to certain number of pictures, for example 1pic of 128x128 max. That shall not cause any problems - besides picture linking is already live and well on these forums regardless of the existance or non-existance of a signature feature. Also if some pic is slow to load, pages still load fine, only that picture will take a while to appear (that's normal actually).

Slow page loads due to slow external servers:

Please refer to last sentence of previous part.

Safe Browser warnings if a domain is found to spread malware (even if the image itself is fine):

Since pictures are already present on these forums, this has nothing to do with the signature feature. If nothing else, the panel where you prepare your signature feature can automatically precheck these sites, not that hard, we do this all the time here at school - children/students tend to wander to places they shouldn't :). Actually if such a problem appears it can be automatically tracked to the object causing the error, thus blocking that particular link/signature till it was changed and rechecked. Main thing is, that this problem is present because of image linking and has nothing to do with signatures.

People harvesting data on every image request (easy to do if you are somewhat decent at programming):

If people want to do this, it doesn't matter if there is a signature feature (with even pics) or not as long as pictures can appear in the forums (also pics only load once per rig) .

Potential phishing attempts. I could add a HTTP authentication to the image, which will pop up in your browser. You would be surprised how many people actually blindly type in their account details:

Same as before, this can be done without a signature feature the same way. Honestly don't know how or if this can be prechecked automatically so I won't say these appearing in the signatures would be easier to handle but one thing is certain: having a signature feature wouldn't make this problem any more problematic even the slightest.

 

So what you wrote are very real threats and I completely agree that we must be aware of the possibilities - but they have absolutely nothing to do with the signature feature thus the argument at hand.

Also please refer to previous posts on the "space" issue if infested... err interested.

 

So to cover most parts and summarize the whole stuff:

I believe (honestly!) that a signature feature would be actually benefical since that would provide a controlled area where users could express themselves, their uniquity, their clan (like in my case - see, it's not even unrelated to Warframe so even less of a problem) whatever etc.

 

I know some of you still disagree, can't help that, this is not some kind of crusade, not like I have to make everybody believe in my ideas (I won't burn you, I promise). But I still think that staring at walls of texts without anything to break it up, signatures to catch my attention, humour me (let's face it, there are some incredible signatures out there) etc. is pretty much a torture. For example, how many of you read this text all? :P That's how I feel when looking at the forums, consisting only of dry text. I don't even know where the next post begins sometimes...

____________  _ _  ____________

 

[Grilleds]

Quick question for pro signature people... What exactly is the benefit for the forum as a whole if signatures are allowed? I mean for the entire community, not just for individual users. Because allowing signatures seems like a whole lot of trouble just so somebody can put some silly picture that annoys others in their sig.

Yeah, you can turn sigs off, but that won't eliminate the problem entirely, it would just make it somewhat bearable. All I can see is possibly including contact information in your sig, but that could also be included in your profile.