Signature abuse, a compromise

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I like seeing folks signatures . . . usually. Heck, I even have one. Because along will come someone who tosses handfuls of lines of text, or over does multicoloring. Or they plug in a largish image.

Alone that's not a big deal, but it makes me reach to the switch to disable all signatures when one of those folks ends up posting more than a half-dozen times or more per page of a thread. I don't want any authoritarian micromanaging rule that limits how many lines can be used or the size of images in signatures. But how about a middle ground option that can be turned on that prevents every instance of signatures-per-page after the first use of the signature on a page.

Until then, I've turned off signatures again.

 

[Umbran]

The simple way we tend to handle it is thus - if you see someone with what you thin is an over-long sig, use teh report-a-post feature to let us know. If we agree that it is egregous, we'll ask if they can put some or all of the post into a spoiler block...

[sblock]...like this, so it gets shrunk down and hidden behind a button.[/sblock]

 

[fba827]

I like seeing folks signatures . . . usually. Heck, I even have one. Because along will come someone who tosses handfuls of lines of text, or over does multicoloring. Or they plug in a largish image.

Alone that's not a big deal, but it makes me reach to the switch to disable all signatures when one of those folks ends up posting more than a half-dozen times or more per page of a thread. I don't want any authoritarian micromanaging rule that limits how many lines can be used or the size of images in signatures. But how about a middle ground option that can be turned on that prevents every instance of signatures-per-page after the first use of the signature on a page.

Until then, I've turned off signatures again.

i can almost swear that used to be an option on the old forum software ("show signature only first time in a thread page") but either i'm remembering it from another forum or it isn't in the current version of the software...

(as for me, i have sigs turned off completely, then again, i also have avatars and other things turned off.. i am a simple person )

 

[Nifft]

Something I'd love to see is the ability to fix this on the client (i.e. in my browser), and adding it is dead simple, since signatures are already contained in a DIV element: just put a specific class on this DIV element.

For the WotC forums, I use Stylish to change that DIV's style to look like:

.mb_t_p_t_signature_div {
  border-color: #aaa !important;
  color: #777 !important;
  padding-top: 3px !important;
  padding-bottom: 6px !important;
  max-height: 50px !important;
  overflow: auto !important;
  }

This puts a maximum size on the signature DIV of 50 pixels, and if it would exceed that, I see the first 50 pixels and get a scroll bar.

So sure, some jerk can use A GIANT PLEA FOR ATTENTION, and I'll see the first 50 pixels of it. In practice it reduces the pain quite a bit, and still allows me to look at sigs if something relevant comes up (i.e. "see the link in my sig!").

Cheers, -- N

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The simple way we tend to handle it is thus - if you see someone with what you thin is an over-long sig, use teh report-a-post feature to let us know. If we agree that it is egregous, we'll ask if they can put some or all of the post into a spoiler block...

That borders on an almost bureaucratic level of micromanagement that just . . . is just wrong to me. Poor little annoyed person "tattles" to authorities to make someone else behave.

I'd rather let people have the freedom for attempted self-promotion and then I get the option to restrict how I see it.

Having to click on a spoiler button to even see it is not what I'd like, as clever as it is. It means I need to go grab my mouse, find the pointer on the screen, move it over to the button, then click . . . just to read it to find out if it was even worth reading in the first place. As a consequence, I never click on spoiler signatures, I might as well block it.

I'm not going to tattle on a signature and wait for someone else's arbitrary judgement to be made when I'm already fond of my arbitrary judgement.

 

[Umbran]

Having to click on a spoiler button to even see it is not what I'd like, as clever as it is. It means I need to go grab my mouse, find the pointer on the screen, move it over to the button, then click . . . just to read it to find out if it was even worth reading in the first place. As a consequence, I never click on spoiler signatures, I might as well block it.

That's your choice. But the effect you describe here is kind of the point. Most sig owners choose to cut their sigs down to reasonable sizes rather than put them behind buttons.

 

[Blackrat]

I have a vague memory that before the change to the new version of vbulleting there was an option of only showing signatures once per page. Is it something that could be turned on again or was it perhaps one of those many many pieces of special coding that the old system had?

 

[Morrus]

It means I need to go grab my mouse, find the pointer on the screen, move it over to the button, then click . . .

And they say that today's society is less active than in the past.....!

 

[Nifft]

And they say that today's society is less active than in the past.....!

Can I get a class added to every signature DIV element?

Thanks, -- N

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That borders on an almost bureaucratic level of micromanagement that just . . . is just wrong to me. Poor little annoyed person "tattles" to authorities to make someone else behave.

I'd rather let people have the freedom for attempted self-promotion and then I get the option to restrict how I see it.

Having to click on a spoiler button to even see it is not what I'd like, as clever as it is. It means I need to go grab my mouse, find the pointer on the screen, move it over to the button, then click . . . just to read it to find out if it was even worth reading in the first place. As a consequence, I never click on spoiler signatures, I might as well block it.

I'm not going to tattle on a signature and wait for someone else's arbitrary judgement to be made when I'm already fond of my arbitrary judgement.

You're assuming that people who lacked the decency to trim their sigs to begin with will both be looking in meta and reading this thread AND have the decency to reduce their sigs after you requested them to. Right...

I really don't like your attitude towards the "tattlers," though. As someone who was bullied lot in school, it was that general feeling towards those who dared to tattle (or "whistleblow," for a term with a less negative connoation, though too often whistleblowers are demonized rather than praised, too) that allowed those human scum to get away with what they were doing. It's nice you believe in the inherent goodness of everyone or whatever, but some people are just jerks. If you don't make them behave, they will not.

I do hope you've never reported an offensive post or spam. Then, gosh golly, you'd be one of those despicable tattlers yourself! Heavens forbid!