Signatures used for advertising

[Hitech_luddite]

Let me make a forecast on what will happen if there is a ban on images in signatures. Those who wish to advertise will stop using the signature feature and simply append the graphics to the end of their posts. After you have done it once you have the code and it is painless to keep it in a notepad file and paste it into place. Now however you will face a debate about the use of graphics in main posts which is a much harder area to regulate. Particularly as there are many legitimate reasons why someone might use images, for example seeking comments on a choice of book cover.

The fact is the signature is optional. No one needs to see either images or witty quotations if they do not want to. They have the facility to switch them off. I personally think it is a loss but for those who want to suppress them there is that option.

I also do not like the idea that authors should make their book cover their avatar. Whilst it is another opportunity to publicize, the avatar is supposed to represent me in some way. I am not my book.

Though some people find the advertising annoying I often find it informative, not only for suggesting other material I might read, but for the insight it gives me into other people's writing experience and background, their personality, artistic tastes and motivations. Sometimes the signature can say considerably more about the person than their posts.

That is not to say signatures should be a free for all. There should be simple guidelines laid down. For example: no more than two cover images (though other books may be mentioned and linked to). Total signature size should not exceed space taken up by five lines of normal text.

If you do something like that, then the vast majority of authors will comply. The minority who do not clearly don't have any interest in participating in the forums sensibly and can be safely banned with no loss.

[thinkpad]

Now I'm going to sound old and grumpy but I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to flash excessive info with every post they're making. Isn't it better to put it on the profile-page. People who's interested can go there to read more. I really don't see the need for sigs at all unless it's to display your real name.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by thinkpadx

I really don't see the need for sigs at all unless it's to display your real name.

Well, take mine as an example: I post a lot in the calibre section, often giving advice to new users. A very significant percentage of those users' problems stem from trying to mess with calibre's private library files. I may be flattering myself, but I seem to have noticed a decrease in questions like that since I wrote up an explanation and linked it from my .sig, so that people can and do see it before they ever poke at those files in the first place. The part about DRM ... well, that's just my attempt at being clever and snarking on the fact that DRM "manages" rights by exterminating them.

So one public service announcement, and one bit of industry-political snark. A little bit of personality, which I think has a lot more to do with how I relate with MR members than my real name would.

[Sweetpea]

Since I updated my stylish template, I didn't see any images anymore in any sig. Makes the browsing a lot easier.

And a "need" for sigs? a good signature is just that, a signature. Which will say something about the poster, mood, personality, stages of life... And there are some really funny ones out there!

[thinkpad]

There's another thing. Sig:s are less intrusive with longer posts. Take your post for example Worldwalker. I don't find the sig annoying at all because your post is longer than your sig and it doesn't contain any pictures.

On the other hand If a user with a long sig all of a sudden starts to make many short posts in the same thread the sig starts to get annoying because it's all you see effectively drowning the other information.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by thinkpadx

Now I'm going to sound old and grumpy but I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to flash excessive info with every post they're making. Isn't it better to put it on the profile-page. People who's interested can go there to read more. I really don't see the need for sigs at all unless it's to display your real name.

Originally Posted by thinkpadx

There's another thing. Sig:s are less intrusive with longer posts. Take your post for example Worldwalker. I don't find the sig annoying at all because your post is longer than your sig and it doesn't contain any pictures.

On the other hand If a user with a long sig all of a sudden starts to make many short posts in the same thread the sig starts to get annoying because it's all you see effectively drowning the other information.

I think you are right thinkpadx. I have a flag to a purpose. I will be more attentive and disoption the signature when I am posting in threads where I know that they are already aware or for repeated posting.

Thank you for signalling an unpleasant thing, that obtains the opposite result. I might take the flag away altogether.

[beppe]

@ thinkpadx. Hei, I just found a wonderful feature of the User CP.
Go down to Edit Options. click it. descend the long window on the right to Thread Display Options. See Visible Post Elements. it says

You have the option to show or hide various elements of messages, which may be of use to users on slow internet connections, or who want to remove extraneous clutter from posts.
Show Signatures
Show Avatars
Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)

So it is really in your hand to have other members posts suited to your actual preferences.

I am very happy because this thread gave me the impression that was behaviours like mine to annoy fellow members, while it is really in the power of the viewer to choose what he wants.

No need to forbid anything. The good surveillance of the moderators should be enough to keep things in good order.

[thinkpad]

Wont you exclude every image with this option. Even the once that's included in a post.
My wish is to only exclude pictures in signature posts.

[astra]

Adblock Plus rocks.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by thinkpadx

Wont you exclude every image with this option. Even the once that's included in a post.
My wish is to only exclude pictures in signature posts.

I tried before posting it and all the thread became barren.
Now I excluded signatures and the flag that is sported in his signature by my friend nrapallo (who created it) disappeared. So that should be enough,

let me state this more clearly (I have been named whirlwind by common friends, well behaved mind you)

If you uncheck just signature, avatar and pretty pictures are displayed normally, signature and picture in the signature, puff, disappear. Smart eh.

This would be just what you want. As you said the signature is displayed in the personal page.

Tell me what you think. I'll live my signature on so you can check. then I will take it away anyhow.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by beppe

@ thinkpadx. Hei, I just found a wonderful feature of the User CP.
Go down to Edit Options. click it. descend the long window on the right to Thread Display Options. See Visible Post Elements. it says

You have the option to show or hide various elements of messages, which may be of use to users on slow internet connections, or who want to remove extraneous clutter from posts.
Show Signatures
Show Avatars
Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)

So it is really in your hand to have other members posts suited to your actual preferences.

I am very happy because this thread gave me the impression that was behaviours like mine to annoy fellow members, while it is really in the power of the viewer to choose what he wants.

No need to forbid anything. The good surveillance of the moderators should be enough to keep things in good order.

You won't see any more images. Anywhere. Not a desired thing for me.

Originally Posted by thinkpadx

Wont you exclude every image with this option. Even the once that's included in a post.
My wish is to only exclude pictures in signature posts.

that's what I wanted too.

Originally Posted by astra

Adblock Plus rocks.

Wouldn't you have to block individual images?

And that's where Stylish does come in handy.

  .vb_postbit + div img
  {
    display: none;
  }
  .vb_postbit + div fieldset img
  {
    display: block;
  }

did the trick to me.

(the second I had to add because the first also blocks images in attachments

[beppe]

Originally Posted by astra

Adblock Plus rocks.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

You won't see any more images. Anywhere. Not a desired thing for me.

Oh no, I am sorry to contradict you. Please examine https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=55

[astra]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Wouldn't you have to block individual images?

Yes, I do have to block them individually.
Then again, how often do they change signatures?
Once you have blocked it is blocked.
I am in control.

I don't understand anything about coding so I don't use scripts.

Morning beppe!
Adblock Plus is an add-on in Firefox. It blocks probably 99% of any adds, pop-ups etc., when I browse the Internet. It also can block pictures if you want to do it manually.
When somebody puts pics in their signatures or have ugly avatars, I just right-click it, select Adblock Plus: block image. Done.

In this way, I see avatars&signatures I like and don't see the irritating ones.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by beppe

Oh no, I am sorry to contradict you. Please examine https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=55

But I do want to see signatures! I only don't want to see the images in those signatures...