Heads up, all! We're changing Dgrin's signatures rules on February 15th, 2011.

1234689

Comments

  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    jdryan3 wrote: »
    First of all, why are people calling signature lines 'sigs'? This is a Sig!
    Second of all, when did David TO change his avatar? It looks like that baby in the SuperBowl ad :wow

    You win the prize. It only took 3 days for someone to mention my avatar. deal.gif
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • RhuarcRhuarc Registered Users Posts: 1,464 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    jdryan3 wrote: »
    First of all, why are people calling signature lines 'sigs'? This is a Sig!
    Second of all, when did David TO change his avatar? It looks like that baby in the SuperBowl ad :wow

    I thought THIS was a Sig?!
  • newbnewb Registered Users Posts: 186 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    So, is the gear listed in your profile a must or a request? I have mine listed in my sig, but Im only using a portion of one line. Is it still acceptable, or no?
    D7000/D5000 | Nikkor Glass | SB600's | RF602's | CS5/LR3
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,938 moderator
    edited February 8, 2011
    newb wrote: »
    So, is the gear listed in your profile a must or a request? I have mine listed in my sig, but Im only using a portion of one line. Is it still acceptable, or no?

    We'd like to see the gear list move to your profile.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • konomaniackonomaniac Registered Users Posts: 335 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    Someone said thid was a healthy discussion - seems more like an all out battle :D

    Not sure I care for all the changes, but it's free, so I'm not complaining.
    BTW - what is the default font for the sigs??
    --- Kono ---
    Pentax K-x and assorted lenses
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    konomaniac wrote: »
    Someone said thid was a healthy discussion - seems more like an all out battle :D

    Not sure I care for all the changes, but it's free, so I'm not complaining.
    BTW - what is the default font for the sigs??

    Something readable naughty.gif

    20110209-c941cribfb593uknawjaw1tayi.jpg
  • newbnewb Registered Users Posts: 186 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    ian408 wrote: »
    We'd like to see the gear list move to your profile.

    Shoot. Will do.
    D7000/D5000 | Nikkor Glass | SB600's | RF602's | CS5/LR3
  • TangoTango Registered Users Posts: 4,592 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    After dooms day, I think I will take the time to make me a sig. And add myself an avatar. And start talking again over in landscape more.....

    Andy, am I still on the naughty list for calling your Avatar haunting?

    Reminds me of the paintings on the wall in every scooby-doo cartoon....I thought I was being funny.... but now I see I was just using my usual donkey traits.... sorry dude...

    For everyone against this simple adjustment: put the effort into wow'g someone with a post with fresh photography.

    And for everyone that just doesn't "get " me or "like" me, dont sweat it, nobody does.....


    hmmm. rant over.
    Aaron Nelson
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2011
    Andy, am I still on the naughty list for calling your Avatar haunting?

    I have no such list! <3 Aaron
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited February 9, 2011
    konomaniac wrote: »
    BTW - what is the default font for the sigs??
    It's the same as the body of the post.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Geesh, what a lot of fuss, over.....nothing. Besides, it's a no-brainer: get rid of the extraneous verbiage and scrolling. I look forward to the change, and will start now.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited February 9, 2011
    sara505 wrote: »
    Geesh, what a lot of fuss, over.....nothing. Besides, it's a no-brainer: get rid of the extraneous verbiage and scrolling. I look forward to the change, and will start now.

    nod.gifthumb.gif
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    nod.gifthumb.gif

    So, how do I get rid of that big gaping space under my one-liner?

    Oh, I guess it's gone now.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited February 9, 2011
    sara505 wrote: »
    So, how do I get rid of that big gaping space under my one-liner?

    Oh, I guess it's gone now.
    If you post a one line message with no quote, the space the post occupies is determined by the space your avatar, tag, and location occupy.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    If you post a one line message with no quote, the space the post occupies is determined by the space your avatar, tag, and location occupy.

    I was actually referring to the space beneath my new signature line. But it seems to have corrected itself.
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    sara505 wrote: »
    I was actually referring to the space beneath my new signature line. But it seems to have corrected itself.

    Richard told you why....

    Your first message wasn't long enough to occupy all the space taken up by the stuff in the left column.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Ric Grupe wrote: »
    Richard told you why....

    Your first message wasn't long enough to occupy all the space taken up by the stuff in the left column.

    Got it.

    But the space was even bigger in my first post with new siggie, then I went back in and edited it and changed the spacing.
  • konomaniackonomaniac Registered Users Posts: 335 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    It's the same as the body of the post.

    Thanx Richard - that's what I thought, but wanted to be sure.

    I'll chalk up Andy's response to being a little punchy :D
    --- Kono ---
    Pentax K-x and assorted lenses
  • kithylinkithylin Registered Users Posts: 229 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    I for one am for and supporting this rule/change, whatever you may call it. Big signatures are great, if you're on a desktop computer with a resolution of say, 1280x1024 or higher, one of mine here is 1600x1200, and the other is two 1920x1080 monitors, and viewing signatures with more than 5 lines, or large fonts or colors in it, really wouldn't be so bad, in that situation.

    The problem I don't think everyone thinks of these days is this is the internet, and as such, these forums are not always viewed by everyone of high-resolution screens.

    For example my laptop, which is pretty old but still functions great, a P3-1200 used just for web browsing and checking email when i'm not home with 3G-usb, which the screen only goes as big as 1024x768. Viewing this forums with that screen a few times, well, I won't name names or be specific, but there are some sig's that when viewed in a thread multiple times, used up more "screen real estate" than any actual post in the entire thread, including the embedded pictures by the OP.

    Let's not even go to trying to view this forum and those kinds of sig's on a cell/smart phone, some of em don't re-size the website and big sig's there make the website nearly completely un-viewable.

    I don't know about most of you, but the only reason i ever started to visit this forum, and still do, is for the photographs, i could care less what other websites the poster of a photo has, their galleries, or anything, when i click on a thread i want to see PHOTOS, not links, not mountains of text to wade through in sigs.

    So... this change / rule, is a good one, it should make the website more easily viewable on different platforms, and for me that's a good thing, as it stands right now i can't even look at some threads on my laptop due to the size of the sigs, or what's in them.
    Sony Alpha SLT-A35 16.5 MP DSLR
    Minolta AF Zoom 70-210 F/4.5-5.6
    Minolta AF Zoom 35-70 F/3.5-4.5
    Places I post my work DeviantArt & FLICKR
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    konomaniac wrote: »
    I'll chalk up Andy's response to being a little punchy :D

    My response was to show you that yellow-on-white is unreadable.
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Wow. With all this intensity over signature rules, it leaves me wondering what I have been missing all my life with just a small signature.

    Sadly, the drama with changing of signature rules is widespread to nearly all forums. This doesn't really change the user experience here, so, I am all for the change.
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • konomaniackonomaniac Registered Users Posts: 335 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    Andy wrote: »
    My response was to show you that yellow-on-white is unreadable.

    Which it did very well (I didn't even realize one could set their background to a different color), and yet, it took a second response to answer my original question.

    [SOAPBOX] I understand wanting to keep signatures short, but maybe instead of legislating fonts, you should think about legislating background colors.rolleyes1.gif

    Sorry - crappy day at work. Can't help but think that if there is this much opposition to the proposed change, maybe it's not such a good thing.[/SOAPBOX]
    --- Kono ---
    Pentax K-x and assorted lenses
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    konomaniac wrote: »
    Which it did very well (I didn't even realize one could set their background to a different color), and yet, it took a second response to answer my original question.

    [SOAPBOX] I understand wanting to keep signatures short, but maybe instead of legislating fonts, you should think about legislating background colors.rolleyes1.gif

    Sorry - crappy day at work. Can't help but think that if there is this much opposition to the proposed change, maybe it's not such a good thing.[/SOAPBOX]

    There isn't really all that much opposition in the big scheme of things. But those opposed are very vocal, making the reaction seem larger than it is.

    Thanks for your input! thumb.gif
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    it's more in vouge to scream and throw trantrums than it is to applaud and say THANKYOUAWESOMEDECISION and be accused of brown-nosing to the admins :P
    //Leah
  • konomaniackonomaniac Registered Users Posts: 335 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2011
    catspaw wrote: »
    it's more in vouge to scream and throw trantrums than it is to applaud and say THANKYOUAWESOMEDECISION and be accused of brown-nosing to the admins :P


    I'd hardly call my posts throwing a tantrum or screaming. I didn't say thank you, or that it was an awesome decision. I did however indicate that I was going to deal with it.

    My reason for asking what the default font is, was so I could see what my current sig would look like with under the new guide lines. What I got was, IMHO, a flip answer intended to show me just how wrong my sig was. Instead of answering my question (which would have ended my involvement in this thread), all he has done was add fuel to the fire.
    --- Kono ---
    Pentax K-x and assorted lenses
  • MataserdaMataserda Registered Users Posts: 4 Beginner grinner
    edited February 10, 2011
    Good move, let's reduce the clutter. As with our photos, we should keep it simple.
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,938 moderator
    edited February 10, 2011
    konomaniac wrote: »
    I'd hardly call my posts throwing a tantrum or screaming. I didn't say thank you, or that it was an awesome decision. I did however indicate that I was going to deal with it. My reason for asking what the default font is, was so I could see what my current sig would look like with under the new guide lines. What I got was, IMHO, a flip answer intended to show me just how wrong my sig was. Instead of answering my question (which would have ended my involvement in this thread), all he has done was add fuel to the fire.

    The easy way to answer the question is to try it out. Easy peasy.

    I think Andy's post, with the example, points out exactly why color is such a hard thing to deal with. If I set the color in my post toall white, could you read it?
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • FLYING EYEBALLFLYING EYEBALL Registered Users Posts: 183 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2011
    Thank you for the change...we could use it over at adv as well.
  • racerracer Registered Users Posts: 333 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2011
    konomaniac wrote: »

    I'd hardly call my posts throwing a tantrum or screaming. I didn't say thank you, or that it was an awesome decision. I did however indicate that I was going to deal with it.

    My reason for asking what the default font is, was so I could see what my current sig would look like with under the new guide lines. What I got was, IMHO, a flip answer intended to show me just how wrong my sig was. Instead of answering my question (which would have ended my involvement in this thread), all he has done was add fuel to the fire.

    Not here to contribute to the debate, but want to point out that if you go down to the very bottom of the page, that bar that is there, over on the left there is a option to change the forum colors.
    What I am using, like many here, is white, not black, and with your yellow text against a white background, many here simply cant read your yellow message I am quoting. The color issue has nothing to do with creativity or choice, but with accessibility. You try to make a community accessible to everyone, and the black theme is not readable or usable by everyone, so the white theme gives a default high contrast theme for these people to use.

    I am in favor of the no color text, simply because I would like to read what people have to say here, rather then have to skip everything that I cant read
    Todd - My Photos
  • EddyEddy Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2011
    Signiture
    JUst wondering if my Sig is what it should by the rules of this forum
    THan you
    Eddy
    E.J.W

    Great understanding is broad and unhurried, Little understanding is cramped and busy" ..... Chuang Tsu
Sign In or Register to comment.