Forum Signature Graphics

[cjmaddy]

EDIT!
Well it will have to stay there for now, during the voting!, ....... Morgan's included it in the choices!!
Panthera, - You had better put yours back, for now also!
(I think the one with the caption to the right of the pic looked best, - better balanced design! - after all, if they do stay, they have to be as pleasing to the eye as possible! )

ps, I am strongly coming around to having just small text only!!! ..... The 'Turn off Signature graphics' seems the answer!

[Socrates]

Signature graphics are always distracting clutter that make it harder to scan quickly through a thread. Every board I have ever been on runs into this issue eventually. In almost every case, once the people "rise up" the sig graphics leave.

[BigScreen]

I think it boils down to what priority the various information in the list of posts has.

In the links that were provided as samples of what can happen when many people start using graphical sigs, it was close to impossible to sort out the messages from the signatures.

The really important material in any forum is the message itself, isn't it? If so, then anything that obscures the really important material is an unnecessary distraction, IMHO.

For those into personal expression, avatars should suffice, no?

However, if graphical sigs will be allowed, I liked the idea of limiting their size and position, so it's easier to pick out the actual message.

[Jav400]

Well so far it looks like the majority of people that have voted would prefer to have them turned off. I think that in the next upgrade of vB there is an option to do this very thing, but to me it seems counterproductive to allow something that 90% of your users are going to turn off anyway. It's a waste of time and effort if thats the case.

[cjmaddy]

Mmmmmmmmm! ...... 12 out of 27 = a majority = 90% ....... mmmmmmmmm! - Open and shut case, isn't it?

[Jav400]

lol @ Cliff,

I didn't say that we had 90% of the people voting that way, although the majority of votes in one choice at this point are that they don't like them and want to know how to turn them off. I was making an example that having them and people turning them off was counterproductive. I personally don't mind small ones like yours, partly because at this point yours is about the only one here, and partly because it is small and isn't overwhelming either.

But I do have to agree with BigScreen's comments also. If you look at your post from a purely rational standpoint, lets say that on my screen which I run @ 1600x1200 your post is about 2" tall, of which your comments take up 1/4th of that area. Now if every post down the line was the same and there are 25 posts per page, then out of 50" per page you have 37 1/2" worth of flashing distractions and 12 1/2 inches worth of information spaced in that area to find.

[cjmaddy]

Of course! - I'm using the English 'maths' - silly me!

ps, ....... It's now 13 out of 31 ......... wonder what that is in American 'math'?

[Jav400]

73.484% Gosh can't you do math at all?

[Wizwad]

I think some people have been listening to Tom Lehrer too much. This is clearly his version of "New Math"!

[cjmaddy]

73.484% Gosh can't you do math at all?

? ......................

13+1 = 14 out of 34 .......... 14/34 x 100/1 = 41.18% .... Against!

2+5+8+5 = 20 out of 34 .... 20/34 x 100/1 = 58.82% .... For!

[feldon34]

So then the question becomes, do we allow a double avatar and 3 text fields on the left and keep signatures to text-only?

[Jav400]

With the vote choices that are available the results are slightly skewed. There are 2 choices totally against, 3 choices for some form of limitations, and 1 choice for unlimited. So comparing for and against from the choices is slightly off center. If you compare totally against next to totally for then you have 14 to 2. The inbetween selections have to be considered differently.

[peter piscis]

Michael and Morgan may be on to a reasonable compromise: 1) there is space for a double avatar/signature in the left column; 2) signature graphics no larger than avatars; 3) signatures should not make posts much longer than they would have been without them.

I must say I've enjoyed Cliff's and Panthera's signature evolution, and might appreciate more splendid graphics in the future, but I'd enjoy them most in their own thread.

[cjmaddy]

Michael, I'm sorry to disagree with you here, but that is a most unfair way to twist the stats to your liking. IMHO
We were NOT given a clear for or against. There is one option for those that 'Hate em' and want to switch them OFF. One option for those who have been mislead into thinking their downloading will be noticeably slowed down. - And for those who are happy to see them in some form or other, - you have created a four way split!

The in between, are not 'in between' at all! .... They have all voted them OK in one form or another. To say they, ".... have to be considered differently." - is what would make the results 'skewed'

I have no problem at all with banning Signature Graphics completely, - but lets not distort the poll to justify the ban!

[feldon34]

Well what poll answers should there have been?

Either people will tolerate any, A, or B, or they won't. I can't see any need for a further grey area since whatever is decided will weigh heavily on whether we allow graphics or not.

The middle of the road is not a safe position.

Sorry if the poll choices didn't make that clear.

[cjmaddy]

The poll options we have are fine, - I see nothing wrong with them. - I don't see how they can be misinterpreted.

To stick with your analogy, - I don't see anyone standing in the middle of the road. - They have either said yes (with some limitation) or no, I hate them.

Michael appears to be misinterpreting what people are saying, - that is my point!

I think the poll choices are perfectly clear.

I also think the sooner this is all resolved the better, and preferably by NOT allowing any graphics at all. I think the suggestion to limit the text to 3 lines (or 5 small ones) is also an excellent idea. - (I think they should ALL be small!)

Perhaps you would elaborate on your comment, - "... do we allow a double avatar and 3 text fields on the left and keep signatures to text-only?" - As Peter pointed out, - it sounds a good compromise.

[Jav400]

Cliff,

I am not trying to skew results, just trying to make sure that all votes are considered appropriately. If I am looking at something wrong, than I am more than happy to adjust my way of thinking.

I will be honest and say that I do not particularly like animated flashing graphics as a whole. My reasons are two fold, 1) which is personal... is that I must read every post here, no exceptions, to make sure that nothing has been posted that is outside acceptability. If I have to hunt for words then it makes my duty more difficult. But in reality that is the job, so if thats what is prefered, then that is what I will gladly do, no objections. 2) To me, the main reason de etre, for the whole place has always been the screensavers and the information about them contained in the posts. If we allow the information to be overwhelmed by other items then to me that defeats the purpose of the forum.

Now, that being said, I also want the members here to be relaxed and be able to express themselves and have an enjoyable time. That also is a function of any good forum in my opinion, and I hope so far that everyone is benefiting and enjoying the membership and the information both. I would hope this forum is able to maintain a balance between information and community, with the priority leaning towards information. There again, those are my interpretations.

Those things being said, and I hope I got my intentions worded properly, its been a long day......... I do not want to arbitrarily veto your sig, or any others, or graphics in general. I think yours, and the one that Panthera had, showed good taste and judgement and were well done. These and ones like them are not the ones to which I am refering, or are wary of in the long run.

[feldon34]

Michael and I have these discussions behind-the-scenes and they play out similarly to these threads. I think we are ultra-conservative, he thinks we are at the limits of how much freedom there should be. It makes trying to decide things interesting. Despite his automatic deferral to my ideas, I think there is an expression... the person who only follows himself has a fool for a leader?

#1 I like star 'ratings', 'member since', and post counts. When someone makes an off-the-wall comment, I admit I do look at this info to refresh my memory a bit. I worked in a coffee bar for a while and had trouble remembering customers that came in a couple times a week.

#2 Most forums have a handful of troublemakers who keep coming back and posting negative things everywhere under different names. So far we've had one or two. Most forums have 1-2 critical problems with a member *each day* to be dealt with. That happens 2-3 times a month here. Even if we had to be "cops" with the avatar/signature graphics, it wouldn't completely ruin my day. The forum guidelines would be very clear about signatures and basically "if you don't understand these guidelines, don't put anything until you have e-mailed one of us first."

#3 I think, within reason (boy, isn't that a moving target!) animated avatars are the minimum amount of personality we should allow here. 65x65 pixels out of your day isn't much. Everything else is pretty uniform.

I guess people are hypersensitized to banner ads and popups and all the annoying TV ads and they have a viceral reaction to someone trying to express themselves with a bit of animation.

If someone put an avatar that flashed like some banner ads then we would, of course, ask for it to be removed.

If you don't want ANY animation on your pages, you can turn off GIF animation under Internet Options if you are running IE, or once the page loads, before you do anything else just press the ESC key. We will have more options in vB3 about what you can filter out as you are browsing the forum.

#4 The only way I'd do signature graphics on a more widespread basis is if they were in a clearly marked location. I, too dislike forums where it's impossible to tell which part is the message and which part is the signature.


Hmm...

We could make it so that signature graphics are only seen in the Coffee House.

[Panthera]

Well I'm puttin' mine back while I still have time


/Panthera carolus

[patscarr]

Signature graphics only in the Coffee House is an interesting idea. Can that be done? They would still have to be small, docked, and non-flashing though, right?