Do you think signatures should allow images?

omg my eyes r buggin' out with all these banners

Careful, Michi. If you criticize the IMG tag use in sig with a clever image in your sig, you are "worse than w-hat."

So they say!

i guess there is no way to use these live weather thermometers and weather thingies on your sig huh?

I would like to meet They someday.

Crap, Aces. You not only pwn3d me, but made me maximize my browser.

All of 'em? Rolled into one signature?

Would that be taller than your first example or wider then your second or both?

Nah. More likely it'd just be a link to the Super-Soaker Flamethrower.

That pretty much summarizes their behavior.

Nothing is more annoying than a huge banner-add signature. I say "nuke-em!"

They are attractive yes, and if someone likes art, it's certainly me.
BUT THEY DO! Gosh! Yours and a few others I am already seeing are freakin' HUGE!
*turns them off, sadly*

I agree with this. I like them. If limits need to be imposed then limit the pixel dimensions. It's just another way for people to be self expressive. I always enjoy looking at people's sig images in other forums. I can always turn them off if it annoys me.

Lindens, please re-disable this "feature". Obviously, people are going to abuse it, and it makes the forums less pleasant than they already are. It's hideous and disruptive in every single forum I've ever seen that allows this.

I now have three choices: 1) Disable signatures entirely, missing out on the useful information about users who have restraint enough to not use images. 2) Put up with giant gaudy ads (ain't gonna happen). 3) Add every user who puts an image in their signature to my ignore list.

I'd prefer not to go with #3, but that's the only choice that makes sense right now.

RUR RUR RUR

Anyone else here seen the sigs in the Tranceaddict Forums? Total raver eye candy, I tells ya!

Just be thankful that I don't use one of these:










and one for Torley

OMG THAT'S TORGASMIC

~spasms~

Whats the difference between your 10 line ad/info on your sig, and say a sig like mine?

I like them and I hope they stay. I am kind of excited about making my own, once I find some time. SL is very much about creativity, and it will be fun to see some of that creativity spill over into the forums. It's true that some people will abuse their freedoms here (as they do in-world). But I am looking forward to seeing what people will come up with for their signatures. Please keep 'em!

Text, by merit of its uniformity, is pretty easy to skim. Images, on the other hand, are completely non-uniform and thus pose distraction. To say nothing of animated images.

Additionally, text will wrap itself appropriately. On the other hand, vBull doesn't want to constrain the proportions of the table cells that contain the sig, so you can ruin the flow of the thread layout just by having a larger image in your sig (something I demonstrated to ridiculous effect last night by placing a 1x10,000 gif in my sig).

Well there certainly should be a size limit and some sort of guidelines, I know when I played UO, thier forums allowed sigs, and there was a size limit, if it were oversized the moderator would remove and send a message explaining the guidelines, if you fail to follow them eventually you will get removed from the forums..

Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me, because I have signatures turned off...

I think, though, that our moderation is already spread pretty thin. I hate to lose the value of signatures, but I think at this point I'm just going to have to turn them off. The images are way too distracting and garish.

I already had avatars, signatures and inline images all turned off so I didn't even notice what all the complaining was about. In fact, with all those annoyances turned off, I find the SL forums to be one of the most legible forums I frequent.

For what it's worth, I've always hated signatures. Hated them. There is absolutely no benefit to them what-so-ever. They add nothing to the conversation and most of the time they simply make threads more difficult to read.

Images aside, most people have multi-line text signatures. As someone who develops users interfaces, nothing is more of a slap in the face to me than when I see someone who posts a single line or word only to have it followed by six lines of useless signature text. I guess people think it's flashy or something. To me, it just gets in the way of the conversation.

I don't see the problem.

Down with sig images!!

I like IMGs in sigs so long as they are used responsibly.

-Ghoti

What's wrong with just turning off inline images?

That lets you see text-based signatures, and doesn't show images either in the sig or in the main text. Main text images are replaced with a link you can click on to see the image.

- Jon

Your previous text signature was also an ad/info. Actually, your image isn't bad because you at least made it close to the background color. The problem with images in signatures is that they are visually distracting, especially if you have a thread filled with them. Your eye goes right to them, while it skips over text. As you can see from this poll, a lot of people don't like them. Any forum I have ever seen that allowed them was rather chaotic to read, which is why you don't see many high traffic forums allowing them.

I just think it was an odd stretch to go from "oops we have an exploit let's turn off the formatting altogether" to 5 minutes later coming back and turning on images for no particularly good reason. If they stay, I will just turn off signatures altogether, though I didn't mind the text ones and would actually use them to visit people's stuff. If you don't mind being blanketed by banner ads, more power to you.