Your view on signature pictures

**Charlie F** · 09-02-2008

Well people have started putting pictures in their signatures, and I'm just wondering what people think about it.

To be honest, I find them a little annoying (especially when it means that someone's signature is larger than their post!), and I don't see the point in them. Why do we really need to see a picture after every post?

We already have avatars, and then their the profile picture as well. Surely anything else in picture form can just go in the gallery? Plus extra images means it's takes longer for the pages to load.

I know, I know, I can just disable viewing signatures... but the other aim of this poll is to see how many people do this already do this...

So yeah, what do you think?

~~Monkey~~ · 09-02-2008

I like picture signatures. I'm not just saying that as I'm using one either!

On another forum I frequently visit, totally unrelated to infantilism signature pictures are enabled and some of them are ****ing huge. They don't bother me in the slightest, perhaps because most of them are in good taste and look pretty awesome. I like avatar and signature pictures so long as their are in good taste and follow a related trend. I'm not a big fan if their totally unrelated to each other but that's just me being picky.

If I was in charge of TBDL I'd make signature pictures even bigger.

Honestly, if their's a working option to disable signature pictures then I don't see why anyone has the right to complain.

I'm so totally going to be in the minority.

I even like animated avatars.

Angelicus · 09-02-2008

As long as the picture is not uberly big or anything that would take up a good space for a post or are offense, the I'm fine with the signiture pictures. Some of them are sort of funny!

**Raccoon** · 09-02-2008

They provide another means to say who you are. Many people who are bad with names rely on avatar pics to keep track of who you are. In a land full of foxes and multiple masterchiefs, anything that makes the image in peoples' heads of a particular person more individual and specific to them is a good thing. I suspect that when a person finds sigs annoying they are in fact finding only a few sigs annoying.

I say let's keep 'em.

Point Blanch · 09-02-2008

I like signature, so you can do things like... A pirate crew! Yay!

But really, if you can disable them then really it doesn't matter does it?

~~DarkSunDS~~ · 09-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey

I like picture signatures. I'm not just saying that as I'm using one either!

On another forum I frequently visit, totally unrelated to infantilism signature pictures are enabled and some of them are ****ing huge. They don't bother me in the slightest, perhaps because most of them are in good taste and look pretty awesome. I like avatar and signature pictures so long as their are in good taste and follow a related trend. I'm not a big fan if their totally unrelated to each other but that's just me being picky.

If I was in charge of TBDL I'd make signature pictures even bigger.

Honestly, if their's a working option to disable signature pictures then I don't see why anyone has the right to complain.

I'm so totally going to be in the minority.

I even like animated avatars.

Took me a long time because of my F***ING connection but yeah, what he said.

**Moo** · 09-02-2008

I enabled images in signatures because someone requested them.

Signatures are meant for short bursts of good content, such as haikus, links to the ADISC wiki, quotes from smart people, and similar.

Signatures are not meant for being flashy. They are not meant to help you recruit people for anything except perhaps contributing on the ADISC wiki.

Spammy signatures can be countered. I might be able to set a maximum size for images used in a signature. I know I can disable certain tags (like the ones making text bigger or change color). If sigs get too large, I will look into this.

Corri_aka_Drew · 09-02-2008

I am all for it as long as sig pics are kept below a 450x450 size.
And all signatures below 5 lines.
I also think we should allow more characters then our previous amount. Cause; I had a whole lot going on on my sig, and the tags were the most of it....I had about 300 characters of text to display, but the other 200 was all in tags and http addresses. So it was of no help.

Lukie · 09-02-2008

Sure, go for gold! Allow image sigs.

I just adblock them anyway. :p

Mickal · 09-02-2008

A decent sigpic is nice. But I like them. As long they are not too big.

View Poll Results: Your view:
I love them, we need them.	14	51.85%
They don't bother me because I don't really care about them.	9	33.33%
They don't bother me because I've diabled viewing signatures anyway.	0	0%
I dislike them.	4	14.81%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

09-02-2008	#1 (permalink)
Charlie F Indecisive Historical Donor Senior Staff Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: England, UK Age: 18 Posts: 1,868 Threads: 30 Gallery Uploads: 11 Wiki Edits: 45 Blog Entries: 58	Your view on signature pictures Well people have started putting pictures in their signatures, and I'm just wondering what people think about it. To be honest, I find them a little annoying (especially when it means that someone's signature is larger than their post!), and I don't see the point in them. Why do we really need to see a picture after every post? We already have avatars, and then their the profile picture as well. Surely anything else in picture form can just go in the gallery? Plus extra images means it's takes longer for the pages to load. I know, I know, I can just disable viewing signatures... but the other aim of this poll is to see how many people do this already do this... So yeah, what do you think?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-02-2008	#2 (permalink)
~~Monkey~~ Deleted Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Hidden Village Age: 19 Posts: 338 Threads: 9 Wiki Edits: 5 Blog Entries: 8	I like picture signatures. I'm not just saying that as I'm using one either! On another forum I frequently visit, totally unrelated to infantilism signature pictures are enabled and some of them are **ing huge**. They don't bother me in the slightest, perhaps because most of them are in good taste and look pretty awesome. I like avatar and signature pictures so long as their are in good taste and follow a related trend. I'm not a big fan if their totally unrelated to each other but that's just me being picky. If I was in charge of TBDL I'd make signature pictures even bigger. Honestly, if their's a working option to disable signature pictures then I don't see why anyone has the right to complain. I'm so totally going to be in the minority. I even like animated avatars.

09-02-2008	#3 (permalink)
Angelicus Lurker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: My Own Little World Age: 18 Posts: 129 Threads: 7 Reputation: 5	As long as the picture is not uberly big or anything that would take up a good space for a post or are offense, the I'm fine with the signiture pictures. Some of them are sort of funny!

09-02-2008	#4 (permalink)
Raccoon Regular Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Alberta, Great White North Posts: 775 Threads: 34	They provide another means to say who you are. Many people who are bad with names rely on avatar pics to keep track of who you are. In a land full of foxes and multiple masterchiefs, anything that makes the image in peoples' heads of a particular person more individual and specific to them is a good thing. I suspect that when a person finds sigs annoying they are in fact finding only a few sigs annoying. I say let's keep 'em.

09-02-2008	#5 (permalink)
Point Blanch Regular Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arizona, USA Age: 16 Posts: 1,031 Threads: 22 Gallery Uploads: 2 Wiki Edits: 121 Blog Entries: 4	I like signature, so you can do things like... A pirate crew! Yay! But really, if you can disable them then really it doesn't matter does it?

09-02-2008	#7 (permalink)
Moo Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: New York Posts: 858 Threads: 84 Wiki Edits: 55	I enabled images in signatures because someone requested them. Signatures are meant for short bursts of good content, such as haikus, links to the ADISC wiki, quotes from smart people, and similar. Signatures are not meant for being flashy. They are not meant to help you recruit people for anything except perhaps contributing on the ADISC wiki. Spammy signatures can be countered. I might be able to set a maximum size for images used in a signature. I know I can disable certain tags (like the ones making text bigger or change color). If sigs get too large, I will look into this.

09-02-2008	#8 (permalink)
Corri_aka_Drew Regular Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Here be Anthrocons Age: 18 Posts: 872 Threads: 79 Gallery Uploads: 12 Wiki Edits: 1 Blog Entries: 19	I am all for it as long as sig pics are kept below a 450x450 size. And all signatures below 5 lines. I also think we should allow more characters then our previous amount. Cause; I had a whole lot going on on my sig, and the tags were the most of it....I had about 300 characters of text to display, but the other 200 was all in tags and http addresses. So it was of no help.

09-02-2008	#9 (permalink)
Lukie Aysc.qm Historical Donor Staff Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Australia Age: 19 Posts: 2,318 Threads: 30 Gallery Uploads: 7 Wiki Edits: 154 Blog Entries: 39	Sure, go for gold! Allow image sigs. I just adblock them anyway. :p

09-02-2008	#10 (permalink)
Mickal Regular Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: London, England, UK, Earth Age: 20 Posts: 941 Threads: 17 Gallery Uploads: 34 Blog Entries: 16	A decent sigpic is nice. But I like them. As long they are not too big.