User base poll: Signature images or no?

[Matt]

For a time now, the Moderators have been experimenting with forum options relating to the use of images in signatures.

We've taken quite a few comments from users and moderators alike about this matter and experiments continue.

Please fill in the poll in this thread with your opinion on this matter. Please note, this poll will not dictate forum policy in any way. Instead, it is to serve as a gauge of feeling amongst server members. The final call will be up to the Moderators, Super Mods and Administrators (and finally, the Boss Man Jonah!).

Cheers!

[rick]

I don't even know if I would do anything in my signature, but if the server could handle it, I would love to have the option.

[Chris N]

It was stated in the other thread by some, but to add my vote to the matter:

I like seeing people's signatures. I don't really want to see images in them. But if people want to see/display images, more power to them. I do however want to see images in posts, as they're relevant and not images I have to see over and over again.

So could the "no image in sigs" option be added to my own display options if images in sigs are allowed.




If not, then my favourite option is obviously "only for moderators and CotM members".

[GozertheGozarian]

I'm on another board that has images in signatures and find it annoying and a waste of space.

[Mormel]

I share Chris Nowlin's opinion on this. I like signatures, but I wouldn't like to see images in them. I dislike them on other message boards that use pics in sigs.

I voted 'I prefer not, but don't really care' although I am slightly leaning toward the 'No. Only text, no images'. But if other users want to have images in their sigs, I'm cool with that. I'd settle for turning off the signatures in my options, but the option to not display the signature images would be nice. :)

[Pwood]

I voted that there should be images in sigs, but just so long as they are not animated (people getting crazy with the cheese whiz) and we have an options to turn the image part of the signature off. I think that if people want them, sure why not. Just allow those of us who don't want to see the images there an option for them to be turned off...

I still like the text, so I'd like to see that. And I don't care if people have images, just so long as all of us don't have to see them...

[Matt Algren]

I wish there were a way to make it work, but I don't think going with user groups is it. It comes across as too exclusive. We have more than enough 'elitist' claims as it is.

Having no other suggestions of worth, I vote no on all.

[Pwood]

I wish there were a way to make it work, but I don't think going with user groups is it. It comes across as too exclusive. We have more than enough 'elitist' claims as it is.

Having no other suggestions of worth, I vote no on all.

Good point. Making it exclusive to certain groups is only going to fill you PM boxes and e-mails with complaints. A big no to that option...

[Gary_B]

I don't mind the idea of images in our sigs but I wouldn't want to see animated ones. I would find that too distracting.

[Chris N]

I wish there were a way to make it work, but I don't think going with user groups is it. It comes across as too exclusive. We have more than enough 'elitist' claims as it is.

I like being elitist.

[Gilda Dent]

I'm not very fond of the idea. Images in signatures can make for a somewhat cluttered look.

On the other hand, I can just turn signatures off, so it doesn't bother me, either.

[Brad Barton]

As I said in the other thread; I think small, tasteful, still images could make the board look much more artful and diverse. And judging by the type of poster CBR generates (which tends to be on the intellectual side), how many problems do you honestly think we'd have with inappropriate images? I'm guessing not many.

I say enable small, non-animated images. Give it a whirl. If it becomes a nuisance, you can always disable it again.

[Mormel]

the type of poster CBR generates (which tends to be on the intellectual side)

...Nobody told me that when I signed up.

[Deathstroke]

Text like we have now, but no images.

[Ghost]

I say no. Sigged images tend to get annoying really fast. (Especially the large kind that take up more space then your average post.) I'd rather we have non of that around here.

[Matt]

For information purposes, I'd like to point out that my current test sig image is as big as we'd ever allow if this went ahead.

[Chris N]

For information purposes, I'd like to point out that my current test sig image is as big as we'd ever allow if this went ahead.

That certainly helps, as long as you're talking about all dimensions.

The height of your image is a huge part of what makes it nonintrusive. (That's not a word, is it?)

The fact that it's cool certainly helps.

[Guapo Méndez]

I only have one image in my signature in another board.

http://www.warcraftrealms.com/sig/501858.jpg

That's as far as I'd go regarding signatures.

[Faded]

I would be ecstatic to have image signatures, especially if there is at least a size limitation that would make them out of control.

The extra bit of color should be soothing to the soul. ;D

[DonC]

As long as I can turn them off, go wild. However, if you do go with them, you should limit the size. Hell, you should already be limiting the size of signatures.

[Matt Algren]

As long as I can turn them off, go wild. However, if you do go with them, you should limit the size. Hell, you should already be limiting the size of signatures.
They do. It's a 500 character limit. No limit on height, unfortunately. (See two posts up.)

[Affinity]

Lol don't hate on Faded's signature; it's 10x more fabulous than cleverly hidden characters.

[DeniseXfrost]

Yes! I can be so creative :D

[Faded]

Lol don't hate on Faded's signature; it's 10x more fabulous than cleverly hidden characters.

HAHA you're so sweet!

[mgs]

No. Just text please. I'm with those who've been on many other forums where images are allowed for a sig and not only does it seem a complete waste of space, it makes the forums difficult to peruse, causes a lag on the servers and generally is an eyesore for a place where you are supposed to be reading. If images were allowed for everyone, content could be edited, but would it be fair to edit another's taste?

[Novaya Havoc]

I'm for them. We have a lot of creative fans that do some amazing work in Photoshop and with other programs, and adds a bit more personality.

Size restrictions are a must. No animated sigs, and nothing too large. I'd even make them smaller than Matt's test -- maybe 75 x 400px.

But I definitely don't see the harm in adding this feature. It's when they're too big that it's a problem.

[howyadoin]

Sweet jeebus, this page has some of the ugliest typesetting I've ever seen.

[Agent Helix]

No. God, no.

[MartinRedmond]

I think an avatar is enough, signatures are redundant. Anyone's name already appears right next to their post.

[Radioactive Zombie]

I've seen them plenty on other forums, and there is no lag. That size limit seems fine.

Avatars are too small, and the board is too picky on which are allowed. Signature deals with that.

[DrewTheXenocide]

No, I'd prefer not but I don't really care.

As for the exclusive grouping option, I'd be okay if only Mods were allowed to have them. CotM, though, takes it a bit too far.

[Reptisaurus!]

I like being elitist.

I voted no by mistake.

I meant to vote for whatever allows coke& to be elitist.

[Nik Hasta]

Since we happen to be discussing it; any chance we could get quote tags back in our sigs?

I liked having quote tags.

[Paradox]

Removing the quote tags was deliberate, I believe. Useless ugly waste of space IMHO.

[SPAfreak]

While I don't dispute that some people would put up something fabulous, 9 times out of 10 I'd be looking at something stupid that just wastes bandwidth. Just like a lot of the sigs already out there and let's face it, the majority of my posts.

I love yours though Matt and I dig mattbib's as well. I haven't really noticed anyone else's however.

[Brandon Hanvey]

Removing the quote tags was deliberate, I believe.

The admins removed quotes from signatures since they were making some signatures obstructive.

[Brandon Hanvey]

I love yours though Matt and I dig mattbib's as well. I haven't really noticed anyone else's however.

I deleted mine since I thought is was not needed.

[SPAfreak]

I deleted mine since I thought is was not needed.

What was it?

[Brandon Hanvey]

What was it?

It was a banner with characters from one of my comics.

[the goddamn batman]

All I know is that I get tired of looking at them, and frankly, most people don't use them in a way that I personally would call "good use".

But if other people want them, and I can turn them all off in my set up, I don't really have a problem with them.

Or maybe limit the size, like avatars, so they don't become bigger than the average post size? I wouldn't have a problem with animation, except that a lot of people are going to make seizure inducing sig images... for no reason except to send me to the hospital.

Thing is though, most people don't use them for anything other than crappy photoshop of some comic character, and it's just pointless bandwith wasted on nothing. I say, skip it. Who needs em?

[Asian_Invasion]

I like images and if they don't mess up the thread because of their size.

[Ben Morgan]

As I said in the other thread; I think small, tasteful, still images could make the board look much more artful and diverse. And judging by the type of poster CBR generates (which tends to be on the intellectual side), how many problems do you honestly think we'd have with inappropriate images? I'm guessing not many.

I say enable small, non-animated images. Give it a whirl. If it becomes a nuisance, you can always disable it again.
I agree with this post, something like a small banner could work.

[Spiffy]

All images in signatures do is pump people's egos, take up tons of cache room on your hard drive, and made the board operate even slower while they get downloaded. Especially if you EVER want to access this website from a portable device.

I've also been on a LOT of boards where even if not animated they are DISTRACTING as hell. And often make it MUCH harder to read a thread.

Why? Why have them? I just don't get it.

[DeadXMan]

yes to image ones
(at a fixed size)

give us PSer something to do:cool:

and isn't ther an option not to sree sigs?

[Matt]

I think we have pretty much decided not to go forward with the use of signature images. They'll be turned off, even for moderator testing use, when I get some time.