Do you think signatures should allow images?

Just out of curiousity, now that they have added image tags, did they also relax the whole restriction on posting private messages?

Considering the fact that the person sent that exact same message to *every* person that had an image in their sig line (even if only for a short time - and of course not to those complaining about them but being obnoxious while trying to prove a point), doesn't seem to me that the message is very private.

I pay about as much attention to them as I do any other annoying banner-ad on any web page, which is to say, next to none. (Except for Pete's, which is kinda cool!)

Hm. Remind me to stick a lil' picture in my sig for a short period of time.

I figured it was the same form letter sent to each and every IMG user, not a private message to me alone. If it breaks the rules I'll remove it.

-Ghoti

At the moment I'm just "eh" about it.

Some people already have huge-ass signatures anyway.

Though I agree with the fact that my eye gets drawn to the image in the signature.

There is a simple solution to your specific problem.

http://www.mozilla.org/firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&id=10

Thank you, and have a nice mug of ... whatever you're drinking.



Ok, that's a diversionary technique. Quit begging the question and follow normal logical discussionary patterns.

Someone shouldn't have to switch browsers and download new software just to have a good user experience.

Not sure what you're drinking, but I'm sorry the effects are so permanent!

I think they should not allow signatures to be used as an opportunity to belittle other residents, make fun of other residents, or deride other residents, in perpetuity.

coco

I have to say I'm really very suprised by some people's reactions to this issue, for a number of reasons. Some of the same people who are big advocates of in-world freedom of expression (against forced zoning and the like) are taking an opposite point of view about sig images. I don't get that. If you're an advocate of freedom and personal responsibility then that should apply across the board.

Some of the arguments against it seem a bit silly to me also, such as the notion that it's an impediment to usability, or that images are too distracting. People using this argument must never read newspapers, magazines, or any other websites that mix text and images. I don't seem to have any problems flipping past the ads in magazines or newspapers, and I'm quite able to read online articles with inline images (ads or otherwise) without becoming confused or losing my place

Maybe, though I'm not really one of those people. My views on managing SL have always been... authoritarian. In any case, I see a lot of ugly stuff on the grid because not everyone is good at making things pretty. Guess how attracted I am to ugly builds. This unfortunate state of affairs is well-evidenced with the introduction of image signatures as well.



It's not that people aren't used to avoiding advertisements. They are simply not used to avoiding them here, and that's kind of the point. It's always been easy to avoid the sigspam, such as it has been, since text is fairly homogeneous, even with formatting applied. We have now lost the forums as a place where we can be free of such pestering

There's also a matter of taste involved. I've already seem some damn garish and painful signatures. Also, signatures that were completely gratuitous and self-indulgement and contributed nothing but "Oh shit, I can use images!" to the signature.

How is that any different than 99.99% of all images inserted in any posts in the forums. I have no problems scrolling past sig images or text sigs and I don't in any way feel put upon by it. It just seems a bit overly-sensitive to me to be bothered by them. *shrug*

By the way, I think this is about the first issue I've ever disagreed with you on, hehe.

The difference is, you need to work to insert images. Click the little button, type in the URL, etc. You only really post an image, then, if you have a point to make, and thus images in the forum actually mean something.

This, on the other hand, is auto-spamming on a grand scale.



That is because you are a sunny cheerful artist and I am a stiff and dour dollar chaser.

I never see any signatures. By default, that means they aren't a problem. Anyone who thinks they ARE a problem can just choose to not see them, just like me.

I've never been a fan of the images inserted into posts either, there was a point at which they were out of hand and can seriously affect a thread - it becomes nearly impossible to read and derails a thread ultimately once the picture wars start. However, with the signatures, it's a different problem - they are repeating images over and over in the same thread if a person replies more than once. An example is here. It gets obnoxious very quickly, and makes it difficult to read anything in that thread.

What bothers me about it ultimately, and why my reaction to it has been so strong when ordinarily I am pretty much an anything goes person is that its addition was pointless. There was no clamoring in the forums to ad signature images. We have never had them in the 3+ years of the forums. Yet now, as you can see from the results of the poll at least, a large number of people responding do not like or want them, and have only the option of turning off signatures or inline images altogether to get rid of them (or use a third party hack). I actually liked looking at people's signatures - I used them to learn about where their things are in world, their web sites, etc.. However, because of turning on this feature for no reason - just on a whim, I have now turned them off to avoid having to look at the spammed images.

Even in the case of banner ads on web pages, they are not repeated over and over again on the same page - and again, too many of them is very distracting in any environment - web page, print, or anywhere else. I have been in forums before that allowed signature images, and often times they removed the feature in time because they got out of hand. Hopefully a future version of their forum software will allow just blocking images from signatures. Until then, I do look at the classifieds forum often enough that I am not willing to give up on inline images just to not have to look at the signature images. If there were the ability to do so, I wouldn't say a word. As there is not, it is not exactly about the choice and freedom you are claiming, Chip, as one of my choices was taken away.

It wasn't diversionary, it was sarcasm, and thanks for the order on what to do, but I'll stick to responding however I choose to, without your tacit approval.

I think that the majority of heavy posters in this forum, who respond to important topics, are not going to be the ones abusing this new feature. So I doubt serious discussions are really going to be harder to read. I would rather wait and see if we as forum users will use the feature responsibly. If it were to really get out of hand, I'd be one of the first to step up and say "well, looks like we were not really adults here, take it away!".

I doubt it'll get used responsibly. Too many trolls

Obviously, you know my opinion.

I didn't see a problem with images on signatures until you posted the link to the thread in the classifieds.
I see other ads in Aces post, which is very distracting, you see her post her new items as an attachment, then her sig image, and multiple sig images with ads, one even with their newest line... hmmm.....

That's my point - by themselves, not so bad. In any kind of combination, ugh.

The gloriously beautiful examples presented in this thread by Enabran Templar are the exact reason why.

There is an option to turn off signatures in the forums. I had done that but then sadly I'd see some cool new thing showed off in a thread and someone would say, see the link in my signature for location so I gave up and turned them back on, for now. Until the signatures are longer than the comments :/

I think they should be allowed but more size regulations and better options for blocking them should be put in place. The forum software should be upgraded if that's the only way to regulate the sizes of externally linked images and to block images in just signatures.

Personally, I don't mind them - I'm a visual person and I like the visual diversity and expression they can offer. I think they can be a cool addition to the forums - if done with subtlety, taste and within a reasonable size. Namssor's is a perfect example of a simple, elegant, unobtrusive use of it.

I like the constructive feedback I was getting on this post. Let's stay back on track with telling me why I should and should not keep images enabled in the signatures, rather than the other stuff. =) I'm a tough Linden, I can take critcism- but uncivilized forum posting makes me cry!

Do keep in mind, folks who are reading this, if you find the signatures are annoying you greatly, you can turn them off by clicking on User CP > Edit Options > unchecking the "Show Signatures" checkbox in the Thread Display section. =)

Jeff,

Do you have any ability whatsoever to control the size of images that can be included? While turning off signatures altogether is an option, I don't have a problem with text signatures and actually like them. I have a problem with the image ones, and it is not possible to selectively turn them off without turning off all inline image support, correct?