Learn Japanese with JapanesePod101.com

View topic - image signatures

image signatures

Spotted any errors or found anything that doesn't work?

Re: image signatures

Postby hyperconjugated » Sat 07.12.2008 10:15 am

Feba wrote:If you really feel that images are immature, or that they're just cluttering up the page, why would the inclusion of them be so horrible even if you are given the option to disable them? Heck, Clay could even put a notice at the top of the page for the first few weeks saying "Hey, I turned on [IMG]s in signatures. If you don't like it, go here to turn them off". Or you could use something like adblock to block them on an individual level.

I think it should be the other way around. The forum should look quite plain by default to irritate the least amount of users&random surfers and those who'd like to turn the xmas lights on would have to log in and flick the switch.
Irgendwann fällt jede Mauer
User avatar
hyperconjugated
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri 05.06.2005 5:12 pm
Location: Finland
Native language: Finnish

Re: image signatures

Postby Feba » Sat 07.12.2008 1:13 pm

yeah, that could be done just as easily. It's not a big deal either way. The only reason I'd have it default to ON is so people can see the difference.
Feba
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat 07.08.2006 4:43 am
Native language: English

Re: image signatures

Postby phreadom » Sat 07.12.2008 2:49 pm

Well, either way it's not going to happen for now. phpBB currently lacks the fine grained control required to limit possible abuse of the system.

When we can turn it on, set a small image/file size limit and limit it to 1 image (no animation) or something, then maybe it would seriously be considered. But I don't feel like going through the hassle of trying to hack in some mods to get it working correctly.

Maybe we'll revisit this later on. It wouldn't kill me, and if the vast majority (and Clay etc) really wanted it, obviously I'd turn it on... but that's not happening for now due to the aforementioned reasons.
猿も木から落ちる
User avatar
phreadom
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun 01.29.2006 8:43 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Native language: U.S. English (米語)
Gender: Male

Re: image signatures

Postby clay » Sun 07.13.2008 2:15 am

Well, if it came down to it, we could make a poll about it to see what people think. I don't care too much, but I won't be around here much for the next week or two. (There's a baby a-comin')
TheJapanShop.com- Japanese language learning materials
Checkout our iPhone apps: TheJapanesePage.com/iPhone
User avatar
clay
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri 01.21.2005 9:39 am
Location: Florida

Re: image signatures

Postby phreadom » Sun 07.13.2008 3:21 am

The problem is that right now a person could put as many signature images as they wanted, or make them as large, file size, as they wanted. The only thing we can constrain with the stock code is the number of links, the character count, and the size (dimensions) of the image(s) used. We can't control how many images of that size they use however, beyond simply constraining them by the number of image tags they can fit within the character limit etc.

We would have to find a good mod to phpbb and manually hack that in to try to deal with image signatures in any remotely useful sense.

Those are the hard facts beyond my personal distaste for them for all the aforementioned reasons I've listed in this thread ad nauseum. ;) And I admit, I used one in the past, but it was nothing more than my user name on that forum done in Old English type calligraphy, as my user name was Dante Alighieri (never mind that he was Italian) and my avatar was a famous portrait of the author. I didn't have any silly pictures or anything, just a *gasp* signature.

So yes, it can be done with extra work... I just felt there were better uses of our time. ;) But hey... if people keep pestering and you want it done, just let me know and I'll take care of it. :)
猿も木から落ちる
User avatar
phreadom
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun 01.29.2006 8:43 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Native language: U.S. English (米語)
Gender: Male

Re: image signatures

Postby Wakannai » Sun 07.13.2008 6:48 am

So yes, it can be done with extra work... I just felt there were better uses of our time. ;) But hey... if people keep pestering and you want it done, just let me know and I'll take care of it. :)



I really don't see the need to program in these hard limits. There's a reason hard limits are only worth the effort in very busy forums with thousands of posts made daily. When we had signatures on before, how often did we have to moderate them? Once or twice a week max. So maybe 4 minutes or so of a admin's time a week. But it seemed more like once or twice a month. There would have to have been a LOT of infractions for the man hours of moderation to justify the man-hours of programming in such a cap. Besides, most of the lame, stupid big, "clutter" sigs are first posts from idiots that refuse to read the "read first" messages. If you feel the need to put in a cap, a simpler cap would be simple to limit to signatures to people with more than 10 posts or so.

That said. My desire for them to be re-implemented is lower than Phreadom's desire for them to stay away. I never had a picture-sig before here, so not having something I never had to begin with isn't that big of a deal. It's more a matter of not having the opportunity to do something that I had the opportunity to before that irks me. That's why I say it's not worth raising a stink over. To me all the "logical" arguments are easily countered, the only legitimate argument against them is the opinion"I don't like them." for whatever reason. "clutter, they are childish, etc.."
Wakannai
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu 10.18.2007 6:38 am

Re: image signatures

Postby Feba » Sun 07.13.2008 8:06 am

Wakannai wrote:To me all the "logical" arguments are easily countered, the only legitimate argument against them is the opinion"I don't like them." for whatever reason. "clutter, they are childish, etc.."


Well, no, even that isn't an issue as long as you give people the ability to disable them. The only legitimate argument is "I don't want to spend time programming this in", which is perfectly valid, although phreadom seems to be vastly overestimating the amount of control that needs to be automatic, compared to the amount of control that lies in the banhammer.
Feba
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat 07.08.2006 4:43 am
Native language: English

Re: image signatures

Postby Wakannai » Sun 07.13.2008 9:38 am

I dunno, I consider "I don't like them" a legitimate argument for a community standard. We are all friends here, so if a friend doesn't like something at the gathering, I give their opinion some serious consideration.

I think it is my attitude. I think of everyone here as friends to greater or lesser extent, not strangers. So my expectations are a bit different than on a forum that is too big to "know" everyone.
Wakannai
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu 10.18.2007 6:38 am

Re: image signatures

Postby Feba » Sun 07.13.2008 12:00 pm

Wakannai wrote:I dunno, I consider "I don't like them" a legitimate argument for a community standard. We are all friends here, so if a friend doesn't like something at the gathering, I give their opinion some serious consideration.


Yes, but what does it matter if they dislike it if they can simply disable it? To compare it to a gathering, it's like saying "Man, this music is awful", when you could just take off your headphones.
Feba
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat 07.08.2006 4:43 am
Native language: English

Re: image signatures

Postby AJBryant » Sun 07.13.2008 6:42 pm

Feba wrote:If you really feel that images are immature, or that they're just cluttering up the page, why would the inclusion of them be so horrible even if you are given the option to disable them? Heck, Clay could even put a notice at the top of the page for the first few weeks saying "Hey, I turned on [IMG]s in signatures. If you don't like it, go here to turn them off". Or you could use something like adblock to block them on an individual level.


Because I don't want to disable some functions of the forum -- which I otherwise am satisfied with -- for the sake of doing something that is not necessary.
User avatar
AJBryant
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5313
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 11:29 am
Location: Indiana
Native language: English
Gender: Male

Previous

Return to Problems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests