When I first signed up for Dgrin I never thought it was a democracy. We always value and give serious consideration to constructive input from the Dgrin community but the forum administrators and mods do make the decisions. Having participated on numerous forums I have never seen any forum decision that was made via a vote. From what I have seen over my years of activity in online communities is that Dgrin is much more responsive to user input than any other forum I have participated in.
This is a very minor change that was done after a discussion about it. We had some signatures that covered over 15 lines. You had one line responses that were taking up over 20 lines because of the length of some signatures. Once the decision was made we announced it and this thread was established to get feedback and to respond to any questions.
So far the majority of the users responding have been positive about the change. If there had been an overwhelmingly negative response to this change I know that I would be open to reconsidering or amending it but that hasn't happened.
Good News! Sum total of the discourse is: People are passionate about THIS forum! and That can only bode well for dgrins Future.
I'm with ya HarryB, too many forums just have no following and no moderation and therefore they just stagnate and die. Or at least my interest does.
With grand-exception to the accusations we 'grinners are a fortunate bunch to be able to have this discourse and be heard.
I actually like hearing opposing views, often I learn a point of view I hadn't considered and more often I just hear a bunch of whining. But that is the price one pays for an open forum upon which to speak and be heard.
..."Heads up, all! We're changing Dgrin's signatures rules on February 15th, 2011." This was the FIRST sign I saw that this was even being considered. And then the quote above refers to "volunteer Admins and mods". What about the USERS having any voice?...
It's been said already; we respect our members enough to make the announcement and allow feedback rather than simply implement.
How about the countless users who complain to us in PMs and emails about excessive, garish signatures? Their voices have been heard and they far outnumber the dissenters. Through extended discussion between mods and admins we came to the decision this was simply the only way to go to be fair.
Let me go on record as saying, I hate these new guidelines. But I will comply. In fact, I already have; I changed my signature before composing this post.
Art, again not to single you out but you offer an easy example:
of the 8 lines of text, easily blog, twitter and facebook could be on ONE line
Fotographie and "art for your walls" could be on ONE line
you post your discount code. well every smugmug client could do that but not many do
How many places in this world is anyone afforded FREE advertising space? that's what this all amounts to.
It's been said already; we respect our members enough to make the announcement and allow feedback rather than simply implement.
How about the countless users who complain to us in PMs and emails about excessive, garish signatures? Their voices have been heard and they far outnumber the dissenters. Through extended discussion between mods and admins we came to the decision this was simply the only way to go to be fair.
.
Not to be argumentative, Angelo, but the voices of those "countless" of users complaining about "excessive, garish signatures" may have been heard, but ONLY by the moderators. The rest of the users haven't heard those complaints.
THEIR voices were heard, and listened to, but dissenting voices are not being listened to. Dissenting opinion is only being shared AFTER the decision was already made.
Instead of completely removing all fonts, all colors, all smilies, all creativity from signatures, couldn't you have opened a discussion thread and hashed out some compromise? Perhaps you could limit the number of lines, and limit the fonts, but leave in Bold, Italics, and Underline, and leave in the colors but shrink the pallatte to a basic 16. Perhaps links could be limited to one per sig, and required to display only a title, not the entire raw URL.
A few polls dealing with individual aspects of the policy change, rather than a sweeping, accross-the-board squashing of all color, font, link, and smilie capability in all signatures, would have helped to create a compromise policy which met both those who dislike garish colors in signature that they don't read anyway, and those of us who like the garish colors because we DO read the signatures.
I'm not 100% against the policy changes, I just think they go a little too far into yawn-town, and I think it was pretty poor planning on the part of the staff to come up with a policy on their own, with no input from the membership at large, and spring it on us all at once.
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
Now then. The mods have been discussing this for over a month. Opinions varied from eliminating signatures altogether to allowing color but not size, size but not color, three lines to six lines...you get the idea. If you think about it, the combinations add up quickly. We value input from everyone, but in the end it's our responsibility to make decisions, and we're not going to please everybody. Neither would deciding things by polls. Look at how much consensus elections have brought to the American electorate.
If your sense of identity depends on your Dgrin sig, you need to get out more.
Edit: Oh, and we haven't eliminated links. You can still link to your photo galleries, Facebook or blog. Just no links to vendors or other commercial enterprises. That's not new, btw.
THEIR voices were heard, and listened to, but dissenting voices are not being listened to. Dissenting opinion is only being shared AFTER the decision was already made.
Dissenting voices are being listened to (and discussed by the moderators).
Instead of completely removing all fonts, all colors, all smilies, all creativity from signatures, couldn't you have opened a discussion thread and hashed out some compromise? Perhaps you could limit the number of lines, and limit the fonts, but leave in Bold, Italics, and Underline, and leave in the colors but shrink the pallatte to a basic 16. Perhaps links could be limited to one per sig, and required to display only a title, not the entire raw URL.
The idea behind these changes is to make a forum that's more readable and focuses on photography and the discussion that goes with it.
As has been discussed before, colors are either on or off. There's no palette to shrink. As far as discussion thread? This is it. Will there be compromise? The admins and moderators have discussed what's been brought up but quite honestly, none of what has been discussed here will get us to the more readable and focused on photography goal I stated above.
I'm not 100% against the policy changes, I just think they go a little too far into yawn-town, and I think it was pretty poor planning on the part of the staff to come up with a policy on their own, with no input from the membership at large, and spring it on us all at once.
We always value and give serious consideration to constructive input from the Dgrin community but the forum administrators and mods do make the decisions.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Some don't want to make public complaints. I can respect that.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> As can I. But couldn't these complaints have been shared anonymously with the membership, instead of in closed-door sessions by the mods? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>
Dissenting voices are being listened to (and discussed by the moderators).
<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Since the decision had already been made before any of the dissenting voices said a word, and the policy will not be adjusted based on any of those dissenting voices, I have to say, that's not "listening to" them at all. Just my opinion.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>
The idea behind these changes is to make a forum that's more readable and focuses on photography and the discussion that goes with it.
<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> And that's the crux of the argument - What constitutes "readable"? Who decides that? How can a few lines of colored text take the focus off the photos? These are all legitimately debatable topics that were decided by the mods behind closed doors with no input from the membership at large, based on a limited number of complaints.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>
As has been discussed before, colors are either on or off. There's no palette to shrink. As far as discussion thread? This is it. Will there be compromise? The admins and moderators have discussed what's been brought up but quite honestly, none of what has been discussed here will get us to the more readable and focused on photography goal I stated above. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> What Harry said:
<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Okay, color or no color. I get it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> And let's be clear - this is not a discussion thread. This is a thread where the mods have informed us of a new policy and explained their reasons for it. The membership is complaining, and the mods are explaining the rationale behind the new policy. That doesn't constitute a "discussion" thread in my book.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I will not be posting in this thread anymore, because I don't want to get into an argument over something as petty as signatures. But I'm not happy with the decision and I think the lack of more colorful signature seriously detracts from the overall aesthetics of a board that is supposed to be all about the aesthetic, and limits the creativity of a membership who are supposed to be all about the creative.
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
Let me go on record as saying, I hate these new guidelines. But I will comply. In fact, I already have; I changed my signature before composing this post.
When I think of Art, I think of Orson Wells.
No offense, Art. You just look like Orson Wells in that avatar pic of yours.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> And let's be clear - this is not a discussion thread. This is a thread where the mods have informed us of a new policy and explained their reasons for it. The membership is complaining, and the mods are explaining the rationale behind the new policy. That doesn't constitute a "discussion" thread in my book.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I will not be posting in this thread anymore, because I don't want to get into an argument over something as petty as signatures. But I'm not happy with the decision and I think the lack of more colorful signature seriously detracts from the overall aesthetics of a board that is supposed to be all about the aesthetic, and limits the creativity of a membership who are supposed to be all about the creative.
This is a discussion thread as proved by the ongoing discussion here. I stated previously that if we had been deluged with a negative response from the community that I would be open to modifying the decision. This has not happened.
If anyone came up with a better idea than what the mods and admins arrived at I would jump at it. This has not happened.
Dgrin is about photography through discussion and demonstration. Everything we do here is to facilitate that goal. Signatures that run on for 12+ lines do not facilitate that goal.
This forum could not be maintained effectively if we polled the community everytime we made a change. Especially if its a minor change such as signatures.
I have participated in a number of photography forums (i.e. DPR. FM, NikonCafe, Birdphotographers.net, Naturescapes) and none of them are as responsive to user input as Dgrin. Most of them do not even have discussions between the admins and the community whenever they make a change. If you know of any forum that as more open to user input as Dgrin please tell me about them.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
And let's be clear - this is not a discussion thread. This is a thread where the mods have informed us of a new policy and explained their reasons for it. The membership is complaining, and the mods are explaining the rationale behind the new policy. That doesn't constitute a "discussion" thread in my book.
It is a discussion thread. If it wasn't, I would have closed the thread after I created it or I would have just made the changes.
And whether you believe it or not, I (and the other mods) do want to hear what you have to say. I get that many of you are not happy.
Lastly, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?... Yeah... Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.
errrr... wait, wrong point, sorry.
Ian, how about no sigs at all? in fact, how about no avatars while I'm at it....
Just to be clear. Was the genesis for this change from within the Moderator sanctum (Had it been incubating?) or was it a direct result of the PM's from complaining users?
And just so folks that care think about it: I actually remember very little of Sig lines. Why does that matter? Because if you think you're advertising you're not. Once a person see's so much data hit them that was not their intent to be exposed to especially over and over, their BRF (Basal rate of Firing)/ Threshold raises, and therefore they begin to not even see it. Using Art as a for instance, I actually only know that He quotes "some guy" in reference to the Genuine Fractals...and all of the rest of it: I do not 'know', do not read and do not really look at. (What I do know about him, he has shared via text within posts). All of Which makes me question what the intent behind the PM's from complainers were about? Complainers are a part of our world. They take up precious resources such as time, and often perhaps unwittingly redirect attention away from true problems to themselves and their complaint.
I did read the above Harryb post: "Dgrin is about photography through discussion and demonstration." So I understand the intention of this wonderful Forum.
I still have no complaint, even if ian408 had simply posted a Sticky to herald the changes. And as it's been iterated more than once, it's the best forum going. I know this and I suspect Most of us know this.
But since a discussion is taking place, my curiosity has come on.
Just to be clear. Was the genesis for this change from within the Moderator sanctum (Had it been incubating?) or was it a direct result of the PM's from complaining users?
I didn't pay much attention to that discussion because it just didn't seem to be all that big of a deal. I would say it was a combination of the factors with our own observations giving it more impetus than member complaints. I have received a few complaints about signatures that I can recall. One was about my own when a squirrel lover was offended by my link to deadsquirrel.com.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
If I were king, PM's would be the first thing to go.....
then avatars that have a moving action....
then smilies that have a moving action....
then avatars I do not like, however Richards is epic and is a must to stay.
then I would dismantle the Federal reserve and wall street, and poorly managed companies such as AIG.
then destroy the NWO, and feed all the hungry......
maybe prove a few false flags throughout the world & USA, then come back to dgrin to see some excellent photography that transpired while I was away...
its the haunting eyes that follow me around the room, not the wink.... besides we all know I wouldn't get past the becoming king part....(seeeing its against my political, moral & ethical beliefs, lol)
I have lurked through the whole thread... I don't post much, cause I don't have much to say.... But here it is... You don't like the new guidelines? "Them's the berries..." You want to "control change"? Get involved. Volunteer. Become part of the governing body to which you want to see said change. Otherwise... "Them's the berries..."
Personal opinion for the moderators who are seeking public response: Go for it! The new guidelines are just fine. I will be creative in my work, and my photography, not in choosing a limited number of web post colors, and emoticons. I shutter to think and hope no one would identify me by something so limited. I attribute the photos posted in the threads to showings at a gallery. (obviously we are not talking literally here...) but when looking at images, it is nice to not have the clutter.
For anyone with really strong feelings about the changes (which there are a few here) channel it into your photography. I would love to see the thread, but do it after the 15th so it is "nice and tidy"...
Fear evaporates when we realize that our life stories and the history of the world were written with the same hand.
Lucky for us, we live in what is still one of the most free countries in the world, good 'ol US of A. I get to go most anywhere I want, except Area 51.
<o:p></o:p>And that's the crux of the argument - What constitutes "readable"? Who decides that?
Actually it's well known in the fieLd of usability enginEEring that MiXiNg fonts and colors on the samepage makes text difficuLt to read. Do you disagree?
Good riddance
I've been lurking throughout this thread but just wanted to post that I completely support the change to the signature rules. Really long signatures are a (minor) annoyance, and along with lots of random colors and advertising, I won't be sorry to see them go. I couldn't agree more that this sort of thing detracts from the photographic focus of the forum, and I for one appreciate the careful curation that the mods here do (as volunteers no less).
Thank you for constantly improving Dgrin, mods. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated, at least by this member.
Actually it's well known in the fieLd of usability enginEEring that MiXiNg fonts and colors on the samepage makes text difficuLt to read. Do you disagree?
Well I ABSOLUTELY HAD NO PROBLEM READING THIS...NONE WHAT SO EVER....SO IT MUST NOT BE 100% CORRECT!!!!!
Well I ABSOLUTELY HAD NO PROBLEM READING THIS...NONE WHAT SO EVER....SO IT MUST NOT BE 100% CORRECT!!!!!
Why don't you put the first five siggy lines on one line? Sure would decrease
the vertical space which is very annoying especially when scrolling thru posts.
Food for thought everyone... And I know this comes up quite a bit here in Dgrin... but. Here is one issue with signatures, and posting web addresses, etc in your forum threads. It is simple. GOOGLE YOUR WEB ADDRESS THAT YOU ARE POSTING!!!
Now I assume most ppl who have a dedicated photography website, also have a business attached to that site. That being said. Pretend you are a client, you hear about this cool photog, get his/her site. First thing I am going to do is google him/her... Now what comes up? EVERTHING you have ever posted in forums here, and elsewhere. How much of that pertains to you getting clients or promoting yourself? My guess is not much. Maybe you post a lot of technical questions, or questions about shooting style, maybe you say something off color in your posts. Maybe you post something that says "I really need help with wedding photography..." in a forum, is that going tohelp you win over my business for my wedding? NOPE. Welcome to the WWW, and everyone can see that along with your photo website.
Point being: You may actually be hurting your business, not helping it, by having too much information in your signature.
Google your website, or items in your signature file and see what the world can read about you. What your potential customers can see without you really knowing...
Fear evaporates when we realize that our life stories and the history of the world were written with the same hand.
Comments
Good News! Sum total of the discourse is: People are passionate about THIS forum! and That can only bode well for dgrins Future.
I'm with ya HarryB, too many forums just have no following and no moderation and therefore they just stagnate and die. Or at least my interest does.
With grand-exception to the accusations we 'grinners are a fortunate bunch to be able to have this discourse and be heard.
I actually like hearing opposing views, often I learn a point of view I hadn't considered and more often I just hear a bunch of whining. But that is the price one pays for an open forum upon which to speak and be heard.
Half full~
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
(I always wanted to use that smilie for something)
Not really...NOT IF THEY ARE A MOD!!!!
Use your Google Foo.
and I was post 100......
my spidey senses are tingling.....
I say do it a day early just to mess with everyone....
but takes up 15 lines.
Art, again not to single you out but you offer an easy example:
of the 8 lines of text, easily blog, twitter and facebook could be on ONE line
Fotographie and "art for your walls" could be on ONE line
you post your discount code. well every smugmug client could do that but not many do
How many places in this world is anyone afforded FREE advertising space? that's what this all amounts to.
It's been said already; we respect our members enough to make the announcement and allow feedback rather than simply implement.
How about the countless users who complain to us in PMs and emails about excessive, garish signatures? Their voices have been heard and they far outnumber the dissenters. Through extended discussion between mods and admins we came to the decision this was simply the only way to go to be fair.
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
When I think of Art, I think of Orson Wells.
No offense, Art. You just look like Orson Wells in that avatar pic of yours.
Art will sell no photo before its time...
Not to be argumentative, Angelo, but the voices of those "countless" of users complaining about "excessive, garish signatures" may have been heard, but ONLY by the moderators. The rest of the users haven't heard those complaints.
THEIR voices were heard, and listened to, but dissenting voices are not being listened to. Dissenting opinion is only being shared AFTER the decision was already made.
Instead of completely removing all fonts, all colors, all smilies, all creativity from signatures, couldn't you have opened a discussion thread and hashed out some compromise? Perhaps you could limit the number of lines, and limit the fonts, but leave in Bold, Italics, and Underline, and leave in the colors but shrink the pallatte to a basic 16. Perhaps links could be limited to one per sig, and required to display only a title, not the entire raw URL.
A few polls dealing with individual aspects of the policy change, rather than a sweeping, accross-the-board squashing of all color, font, link, and smilie capability in all signatures, would have helped to create a compromise policy which met both those who dislike garish colors in signature that they don't read anyway, and those of us who like the garish colors because we DO read the signatures.
I'm not 100% against the policy changes, I just think they go a little too far into yawn-town, and I think it was pretty poor planning on the part of the staff to come up with a policy on their own, with no input from the membership at large, and spring it on us all at once.
Now then. The mods have been discussing this for over a month. Opinions varied from eliminating signatures altogether to allowing color but not size, size but not color, three lines to six lines...you get the idea. If you think about it, the combinations add up quickly. We value input from everyone, but in the end it's our responsibility to make decisions, and we're not going to please everybody. Neither would deciding things by polls. Look at how much consensus elections have brought to the American electorate.
If your sense of identity depends on your Dgrin sig, you need to get out more.
Edit: Oh, and we haven't eliminated links. You can still link to your photo galleries, Facebook or blog. Just no links to vendors or other commercial enterprises. That's not new, btw.
Dissenting voices are being listened to (and discussed by the moderators).
The idea behind these changes is to make a forum that's more readable and focuses on photography and the discussion that goes with it.
As has been discussed before, colors are either on or off. There's no palette to shrink. As far as discussion thread? This is it. Will there be compromise? The admins and moderators have discussed what's been brought up but quite honestly, none of what has been discussed here will get us to the more readable and focused on photography goal I stated above.
What Harry said:
<o:p></o:p>
As can I. But couldn't these complaints have been shared anonymously with the membership, instead of in closed-door sessions by the mods? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Since the decision had already been made before any of the dissenting voices said a word, and the policy will not be adjusted based on any of those dissenting voices, I have to say, that's not "listening to" them at all. Just my opinion.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
And that's the crux of the argument - What constitutes "readable"? Who decides that? How can a few lines of colored text take the focus off the photos? These are all legitimately debatable topics that were decided by the mods behind closed doors with no input from the membership at large, based on a limited number of complaints.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Okay, color or no color. I get it.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
And let's be clear - this is not a discussion thread. This is a thread where the mods have informed us of a new policy and explained their reasons for it. The membership is complaining, and the mods are explaining the rationale behind the new policy. That doesn't constitute a "discussion" thread in my book.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I will not be posting in this thread anymore, because I don't want to get into an argument over something as petty as signatures. But I'm not happy with the decision and I think the lack of more colorful signature seriously detracts from the overall aesthetics of a board that is supposed to be all about the aesthetic, and limits the creativity of a membership who are supposed to be all about the creative.
I am honorned Will
Not that I will not sale a photo before it time...Art will not create a photo before its time.....
This is a discussion thread as proved by the ongoing discussion here. I stated previously that if we had been deluged with a negative response from the community that I would be open to modifying the decision. This has not happened.
If anyone came up with a better idea than what the mods and admins arrived at I would jump at it. This has not happened.
Dgrin is about photography through discussion and demonstration. Everything we do here is to facilitate that goal. Signatures that run on for 12+ lines do not facilitate that goal.
This forum could not be maintained effectively if we polled the community everytime we made a change. Especially if its a minor change such as signatures.
I have participated in a number of photography forums (i.e. DPR. FM, NikonCafe, Birdphotographers.net, Naturescapes) and none of them are as responsive to user input as Dgrin. Most of them do not even have discussions between the admins and the community whenever they make a change. If you know of any forum that as more open to user input as Dgrin please tell me about them.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
It is a discussion thread. If it wasn't, I would have closed the thread after I created it or I would have just made the changes.
And whether you believe it or not, I (and the other mods) do want to hear what you have to say. I get that many of you are not happy.
Lastly, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do.
errrr... wait, wrong point, sorry.
Ian, how about no sigs at all? in fact, how about no avatars while I'm at it....
And just so folks that care think about it: I actually remember very little of Sig lines. Why does that matter? Because if you think you're advertising you're not. Once a person see's so much data hit them that was not their intent to be exposed to especially over and over, their BRF (Basal rate of Firing)/ Threshold raises, and therefore they begin to not even see it. Using Art as a for instance, I actually only know that He quotes "some guy" in reference to the Genuine Fractals...and all of the rest of it: I do not 'know', do not read and do not really look at. (What I do know about him, he has shared via text within posts). All of Which makes me question what the intent behind the PM's from complainers were about? Complainers are a part of our world. They take up precious resources such as time, and often perhaps unwittingly redirect attention away from true problems to themselves and their complaint.
I did read the above Harryb post: "Dgrin is about photography through discussion and demonstration." So I understand the intention of this wonderful Forum.
I still have no complaint, even if ian408 had simply posted a Sticky to herald the changes. And as it's been iterated more than once, it's the best forum going. I know this and I suspect Most of us know this.
But since a discussion is taking place, my curiosity has come on.
I didn't pay much attention to that discussion because it just didn't seem to be all that big of a deal. I would say it was a combination of the factors with our own observations giving it more impetus than member complaints. I have received a few complaints about signatures that I can recall. One was about my own when a squirrel lover was offended by my link to deadsquirrel.com.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
then avatars that have a moving action....
then smilies that have a moving action....
then avatars I do not like, however Richards is epic and is a must to stay.
then I would dismantle the Federal reserve and wall street, and poorly managed companies such as AIG.
then destroy the NWO, and feed all the hungry......
maybe prove a few false flags throughout the world & USA, then come back to dgrin to see some excellent photography that transpired while I was away...
http://www.dgrin.com/image.php?u=4&dateline=1294944281
:uhoh
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
(oh and I would need a supporting base......)
Personal opinion for the moderators who are seeking public response: Go for it! The new guidelines are just fine. I will be creative in my work, and my photography, not in choosing a limited number of web post colors, and emoticons. I shutter to think and hope no one would identify me by something so limited. I attribute the photos posted in the threads to showings at a gallery. (obviously we are not talking literally here...) but when looking at images, it is nice to not have the clutter.
For anyone with really strong feelings about the changes (which there are a few here) channel it into your photography. I would love to see the thread, but do it after the 15th so it is "nice and tidy"...
Ryan good point.
What kind of berries are we talking about anyway....?
Really, really, really don't like it? Go start Dgrinwithlongloudandgarishsignatures.com © (please note I've copyrighted that particular catchy and insightful domain name)
Link to my Smugmug site
I've been lurking throughout this thread but just wanted to post that I completely support the change to the signature rules. Really long signatures are a (minor) annoyance, and along with lots of random colors and advertising, I won't be sorry to see them go. I couldn't agree more that this sort of thing detracts from the photographic focus of the forum, and I for one appreciate the careful curation that the mods here do (as volunteers no less).
Thank you for constantly improving Dgrin, mods. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated, at least by this member.
Well I ABSOLUTELY HAD NO PROBLEM READING THIS...NONE WHAT SO EVER....SO IT MUST NOT BE 100% CORRECT!!!!!
Link to my Smugmug site
the vertical space which is very annoying especially when scrolling thru posts.
My Website index | My Blog
Now I assume most ppl who have a dedicated photography website, also have a business attached to that site. That being said. Pretend you are a client, you hear about this cool photog, get his/her site. First thing I am going to do is google him/her... Now what comes up? EVERTHING you have ever posted in forums here, and elsewhere. How much of that pertains to you getting clients or promoting yourself? My guess is not much. Maybe you post a lot of technical questions, or questions about shooting style, maybe you say something off color in your posts. Maybe you post something that says "I really need help with wedding photography..." in a forum, is that going tohelp you win over my business for my wedding? NOPE. Welcome to the WWW, and everyone can see that along with your photo website.
Point being: You may actually be hurting your business, not helping it, by having too much information in your signature.
Google your website, or items in your signature file and see what the world can read about you. What your potential customers can see without you really knowing...