Should Dgrin allow signatures?

Ben

This is a hotly debated topic on nearly every forum in existence. Some people love signatures, some hate them. Signatures make it easier for spammers to get links past the filters, but also make it easier for people to find your portfolio.

They can also clutter up the interface, making it harder to find the content in the posts.

Vote away.

Cygnus Studios

I think that this poll needs more options than yes or no.

In my opinion limited signatures should be allowed. Name, website, maybe gear list, that kind of thing. I really do not care for the large images that some people on forums use. Maybe put a minimum post count to be able to use one. Maybe even have it "approved" by the mods before implementing.

In some sections like the customization section it is a valuable tool. It also helps users to get inspired by other photographers.

I get the spam thing, it is a pain in the butt for any mod to deal with. If it ends up being a hard no, I'll get over it, but I would prefer a limited sig line.

Ben

Honestly, the main reason it only has two options is that we aren't going to go super big and obnoxious on signatures no matter what the results are. No images for instance.

We'll see what the people want.

David_S85

Any way to get a linked photo site (from one's profile) up in the banner on the top of each post?

Thus, we'd be responsive to those desiring site promotion (and only their own photo site promotion -- limit=1) and not have the possibility of unwanted intensely ugly and spammy signatures.

If that is impossible, perhaps a "footer" in posts (in place of where a sig would go) accomplishing the same thing? Though that would also be a sort of signature.

Ben

@David_S85 said:
Any way to get a linked photo site (from one's profile) up in the banner on the top of each post?

Maybe? I'll have to look.

Allen

Can you imagine the number of pissed off newbies that want you to check out their site if they can't post a site link?
Or someone that needs help and no link available?

Allen

The huge text size in these posts is ugly.

shandrew

Modern forums tend to avoid signatures because they're loud, repetitive, and break the flow of discussions. Links to your site are usually kept a click or two away in profiles

Ben

Yeah, I personally engage in multiple forums... and can't stand signatures. They get in the way of content and discussion.

denisegoldberg

As it is right now the portfolio URLs that can be set in the profile do not appear to be visible.

I have no problem with clicking on the poster's icon to see their URL. I just want to be able to see the site links.
If the URL can be made (easily) visible without a signature, that works for me.

David_S85

Denise, I can see your photo site in your profile. Yet, it is not a link.

denisegoldberg

@David_S85 said:
Denise, I can see your photo site in your profile. Yet, it is not a link.

Thanks David. That was a change - it wasn't showing earlier. I've corrected my profile link now to include the http:// to make it a link.

David_S85

And the HTML link works! I'll do that with mine too. Yea!

Hikin' Mike

I've been used to listing some of the useful links in my signature, so I would like to see that continue.

Jtring

The signature was central to the way I had my presence on Dgrin set up. It was the only place my full name showed. When I set the Dgrin account up years ago, I unwisely chose an abbreviated name as my user name, and later discovered there was no way to change it. Still isn't. And as far as I can tell, there is no mechanism to insert additional information in one's profile either ... so the sig has to be the place.

Jester243

I miss the signatures, it was a quick way to look at others sites and get ideas for design

sarasphotos

@shandrew said:
Modern forums tend to avoid signatures because they're loud, repetitive, and break the flow of discussions. Links to your site are usually kept a click or two away in profiles

Personally I've never been a fan of doing what everyone else does just because someone thinks it's "modern". For me far less "modern" is having to click more than once to get where I want to go.

One has to consider the point of the forum - this forum is explicitly for those of us who are interested in sharing our photos and those links are a key way for us to share. I often click on others' links to quickly check out their site and I can almost guarantee that I (and probably many others) will not do this if we have to click one or two more times.

Cygnus Studios

@sarasphotos said:
One has to consider the point of the forum - this forum is explicitly for those of us who are interested in sharing our photos and those links are a key way for us to share. I often click on others' links to quickly check out their site and I can almost guarantee that I (and probably many others) will not do this if we have to click one or two more times.

I agree. It's not intuitive to click on a name/photo then click on a link, and that is if the person puts in the http to actually make it a link.

Until Denise brought up the portfolio link, it didn't even cross my mind the go looking for it.

Richard

Perhaps there's a way to have a widget that displays under the avatar. It would say "Portfolio" or maybe just "Pics" but would link to the portfolio address given in the profile. That would make it more visible to the visitor while avoiding the distractions of signatures. I'm accustomed to clicking on a user avatar or name to get to more info, so the one extra click of the way it's working now doesn't bother me. What used to bother me a lot, though, were attention grabbing and spammy sigs.

Cygnus Studios

@Richard said:
Perhaps there's a way to have a widget that displays under the avatar. It would say "Portfolio" or maybe just "Pics" but would link to the portfolio address given in the profile. That would make it more visible to the visitor while avoiding the distractions of signatures. I'm accustomed to clicking on a user avatar or name to get to more info, so the one extra click of the way it's working now doesn't bother me. What used to bother me a lot, though, were attention grabbing and spammy sigs.

Now that is a good idea.

everydaymemories

First of all, wow! I was wondering why yesterday I suddenly started receiving email notifications of EVERY post in a thread I had participated in. I didn't know the site had been completely overhauled. Looks like I'm going to have to adjust some settings. I haven't spent much time here, but I would like to I think.

As for signatures, I think they should be allowed, with rules limiting their size to something reasonable and other guidelines as necessary (like the number of links, perhaps).

Ferguson

I think the idea that you disallow signatures because you can't control them better shows a complete lack of either (a) faith in, or (b) your abilities in technology. Don't like how people do signatures, put technical restrictions on to prevent it (links, specific types of links, font size, photos, etc.)

Richard

Yes, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, we are constrained by the capabilities of the software we are using. Our customization powers are limited.

Ben

Seems pretty clear. I've turned Signatures back on, but obviously we'll need to tweak styling some as we didn't code for that at all. Bear with me as they remain ugly for a bit.

Jester243

@Ben said:
I've turned Signatures back on

Thank you!

Bobcat132

That is great news. As Ben says, styling is important here.