Signature guidelines updated, Google search engine added

[SameOldStory]

The graphics in my signature is automatically reduced to 133 pixels width x 100 pixels according to the properties that I see when I right click on it. Left clicking the picture takes you to a larger size version in my "Photos and Albums" section.

The quotes are, more often than not, picked to reflect my whimsical mood and avoid controversy. Of course it's impossible not to tick someone off now and then.

The overall intent, in my signature, is to brighten the day, and hopefully make others smile. And, occasionally (but not so often as to cause mental stress), to give people something to contemplate.

As I read the guidelines I can't decide if I've overstepped them or not. Asking for general comments from MR members would be of no use, as some of my friends like only the most innocuous signatures, while I've gotten notes and karma from many who enjoy the thumbnail pictures.


And the verdict from the greenies is . . . . . . ?
.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

on both updates.

I don't suppose there could be a clause added to the signature guidelines, about not editing a faux-signature into the bottom of posts, which is very annoying for those of us who have actual signatures turned off?

If I'd wanted to know that someone's penname was X and they were the author of such-and-such books, available to buy at Amazon for only 99 cents via these convenient links every time I saw a post from that poster, I'd have sigs turned on.

I agree!

And thanks for the list of basic search syntax! I'm always forgetting.

[Worldwalker]

Y'know, there's a "no smilies" option for one's posts, though that is usually used to prevent something that shouldn't be a smiley from turning into one. But how hard would it be to have something like that be a setting for readers, as well? While I normally don't find the lil' guys offensive, there are occasionally posters who feel compelled to use one or more after every sentence, and there are times I just want to make it all stop.

[Donnageddon]

Ban the lolPanda. The lil bugger creeps me out.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

The graphics in my signature is automatically reduced to 133 pixels width x 100 pixels according to the properties that I see when I right click on it. Left clicking the picture takes you to a larger size version in my "Photos and Albums" section.

The quotes are, more often than not, picked to reflect my whimsical mood and avoid controversy. Of course it's impossible not to tick someone off now and then.

The overall intent, in my signature, is to brighten the day, and hopefully make others smile. And, occasionally (but not so often as to cause mental stress), to give people something to contemplate.

As I read the guidelines I can't decide if I've overstepped them or not. Asking for general comments from MR members would be of no use, as some of my friends like only the most innocuous signatures, while I've gotten notes and karma from many who enjoy the thumbnail pictures.


And the verdict from the greenies is . . . . . . ?
.

Your signature is using too much vertical space; the guidelines specify that its vertical size should be no more than 4 to 5 lines of normal-sized text. Perhaps you could downsize it to fit it within these measurements?

Thanks!

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Ban the lolPanda. The lil bugger creeps me out.

Heh, but it's our small contribution to save the Panda.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/enda.../whatyoucando/

[Ea]

Thanks for the updated signature guidelines! They seem very reasonable, even for someone like me who can hardly get it small and discreet enough.

[badgoodDeb]

@SameOldStory: if you halve the height and halve the width of your picture (and then ask the greenies again if it's ok) ... that might help. I do enjoy clicking on that picture and seeing what the text line is referring to! It's cute.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your signature is using too much vertical space; the guidelines specify that its vertical size should be no more than 4 to 5 lines of normal-sized text. Perhaps you could downsize it to fit it within these measurements?

Thanks!

Thanks, Harry.

When I load pictures in MR's "Edit Signature" section it automatically shrinks the image down to 133 pixels x 100 pixels. Perhaps you could adjust the automatic size reduction to a more suitable number?

As you can see I cut it down to 67 X 50, but that may not be enough.

"Keep it small. The total height of a signature should not exceed four to five lines of non-bold default size text."

If you know of any way to have all text to the side of the image I could probably fit it within the requirements. But if the current signature is still offensive I could do away with it completely.


While reducing all signatures to a few bland lines might satisfy a few complaints it will certainly make MR a less visually interesting and inviting site.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Thanks, Harry.

If you know of any way to have all text to the side of the image I could probably fit it within the requirements. But if the current signature is still offensive I could do away with it completely.

If you want mixed text and graphics, the best way to do it is to use a graphics program to add the text to the graphic. Look at WT.Sharpe's signature for an example of this.

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

When I load pictures in MR's "Edit Signature" section it automatically shrinks the image down to 133 pixels x 100 pixels. Perhaps you could adjust the automatic size reduction to a more suitable number?

Hi SameOldStory,

It's somewhat difficult to define "more suitable". For someone who only uploads a signature picture without text attached to it, the measurement would probably work well. What did you have in mind?

If you know of any way to have all text to the side of the image I could probably fit it within the requirements.

It's been suggested and we'll be looking into it.

But if the current signature is still offensive I could do away with it completely.

Please don't. The new guidelines are not meant to alienate users from using signatures at all; they are required for setting some common sense limits to avoid oversized signatures filling post contents.

While reducing all signatures to a few bland lines might satisfy a few complaints it will certainly make MR a less visually interesting and inviting site.

I hope you don't consider any signatures containing fewer than 5 lines bland. We have been contemplating very long to find limits that are suitable for most of us.

Cheers,
Alex

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

Hi SameOldStory,

It's somewhat difficult to define "more suitable". For someone who only uploads a signature picture without text attached to it, the measurement would probably work well. What did you have in mind?

I reduced the current image down to 67 X 50. That looks to be as small as possible and still get an idea of what the picture is. On smaller monitors and laptops it may be too small to tell what it is. I'm sure some only "click the pic" if the image looks inviting.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you want mixed text and graphics, the best way to do it is to use a graphics program to add the text to the graphic. Look at WT.Sharpe's signature for an example of this.

My total height matches his. That I could live with. However using a static image in my case would be less than desirable, as I frequently change the quote, or the picture, and not always at the same time.




As I said earlier, the signature graphics on MR is set to automatically reduced images to 133 x 100. I would imagine that changing it to 67 X 50 (or what ever you guys can live with) should just be a value adjustment for that field as opposed to hard coding it.


On the one hand you have some that want little, if any, space taken up in the signature area. On the other extreme you have some that have loaded up the signature area with flashing book covers.

My view (obviously) is that some non-animated graphics and a limited amount of text can add to the visual appeal of MR. But given the choice between a very small graphic OR a limited amount of plain text I would choose neither.

Whatever the consensus of the greenies may be, it'll be. But I would vote against a bland homogeneous mixture where one post differs from any other only by it's length and the posters avatar.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Whatever the consensus of the greenies may be, it'll be. But I would vote against a bland homogeneous mixture where one post differs from any other only by it's length and the posters avatar.

Surely the reason for these forums is the contents of the messages, not the visual appearance of peoples' signatures?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

...My total height matches his. That I could live with. However using a static image in my case would be less than desirable, as I frequently change the quote, or the picture, and not always at the same time.

....

At the moment, your signature looks fine. The total size of mine is 500 x 85, which fits within the guidelines. In the following two photos, the slight variation in appearance is due to the fact that the first is snapped from Internet Explorer windows, the second is snapped from Foxfire windows, but both look okay in my opinion. (Click on either one to enlarge in a new window.)






Here's an idea to play around with in order to get longer quotes in your signature: Try putting all the text and the "click the link" picture into one graphic, and then linking the entire graphic to the single photo you want to offer as an enlargement in a new window.

[WT Sharpe]

And, of course, for those members who still don't wish to see our artistic and creative endeavors, they can always unckeck the "Display Signatures" option by going to User CP > Settings & Options > Edit options > Thread Display Options > Visible Post Elements; although really, our signatures are such wonderful works of aesthetic perfection that I can't imagine why anyone would want to.