Signature Lines 13

[XR250]

@Dik and others who have signature lines...

For me, it makes it annoying to follow posts sometimes - especially when the responses are short as I incorporate the sentence into the response I am reading. Are these really necessary?

See the attached thread...

Anyhow, maybe I am just easily annoyed

 

[XR250]

I vote Option #4
I do not see how serve any purpose or add any value. For me, they are simply annoying.

 

[EZBuilding]

Could there be a setting that allows for users to not see signatures?

 

[KootK]

Let's assume that the options could be had in any combination. #4 obviously makes the rest moot.

I vote Option #4

If you can't have #4, would you support any or all of the other options?

 

[WinelandV]

Signature Test.... Please stand by.

(First Edit - In the original post, there is a thin blue dotted line separating the body of my message from my sig line. In the edit post box, I see my signature as the plain html, and I am leaving it there. This test is to verify what happens to the signature when I edit it.)

(Second Edit - Upon editing the message, it removes the blue dividing line.)

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[KootK]

Could there be a setting that allows for users to not see signatures?

Love it. I don't see why not. Functionally, it would probably wind up the same as just getting rid signatures altogether. Which probably suggests the best path...

 

[hokie66]

I vote for option 4. The signatures make the site unnecessarily cumbersome, and for some, they are just evidence of egotism.

 

[XR250]

I like EZ's idea.

 

[WinelandV]

So, I don't mind the signatures, so I lean towards option #3.

And with an unedited post, the thin blue line accomplishes that. But when you edit your post, the blue line goes away.

Proposal is to NOT include the signature html when you edit a post, but to have the system automatically tack it on after you're done editing so that the blue line remains.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[KootK]

I do not see how serve any purpose or add any value.

I see one way in which they add value but I am, admittedly, conflicted as to whether or not it represents enough value to keep the signatures.

1) Some of our best people are developing software tools (and other stuff).

2) These people sometimes use their ET signature to advertise their wares modestly.

3) These people do not have many other options for advertising their wares, particularly not in ways that exploit the strength of their personal reputations.

4) I do feel that our power contributors have earned the right to advertise in this way to some extent.

5) If advertising potential helps to encourage our best people to keep contributing prolifically, we will all benefit from that to some degree.

Once upon a time, I'd planned to develop "KootWare" and advertise it in this way. Thankfully, I've abandoned that project as futile pre-retirement (for me). Still, I sympathize with others attempting similar things.

 

[phamENG]

I vote for 4. But if that doesn't work, it shows up in the first post and never again.

We have profiles. If user A wanted to read something from user B that's irrelevant to the thread, they'd check out user B's profile.

 

[XR250]

That's fair, KootK

 

[skeletron]

Option 3 with the limitations of 2.

 

[dauwerda]

Option 3

 

[Just Some Nerd]

Fond of option 3 - it's a little bit harder to remember a name, but signatures tend to be more memorable, and it will make it less confusing if the formatting is forced. Plus, a little personality might not hurt

That being said - I think on most forums signatures are set up in such a way that changing one will change it on your entire post history - would also be a bit easier to toggle on/off visibility on the reader side of things. As it is right now, I think it's part of the text of every post, and doesn't update when the user updates their signature i believe

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[sticksandtriangles]

Option 3. KootK hit the nail on the head for me. My email signature definitely gets me a big boost in viewership on the site. For that, I am grateful and appreciate that eng-tips lets me keep my email signature. You guys are the only people that will actually read this stuff besides my wife telling me good work.

I do not get any kick backs from advertising on my site and am open sourcing anything that I create. Eng-tips is the best way for me to get my stuff in front of people that may actually use the stuff I create.




S&T -

http://www.re-tug.com

 

[Denial]

I also use Eng-Tips to promote my web site, and it is pretty much the only promotion mechanism I have.[ ] However I give its details in my Profile rather than my signature (probably to my cost).[ ] If I am replying to a specific post where I believe one of my site's offerings will be of use, then I mention it in the body text of my reply.

 

[sticksandtriangles]

I rarely click on people's profiles, I had no idea you had a site Denial. Throw it in your signature line.

 

[jayrod12]

Honestly, couple all 3 options 1, 2 and 3. Short, visually distinct and once per thread would be the most non-intrusive option to still allow them to be promotional to the couple of members that use it as such. Then you really wouldn't need 4 because there wouldn't be major clogging of threads with signatures.

 

[ALK2415]

LOVE Dik always do
Signature lines express personality "i think"

 

[kipfoot]

2 & 3
I find that a web address is easy to distinguish, but additional text in a signature is distracting. The 'once per thread' idea is a good one, and would help when you're scrolling through long threads, but it wouldn't be so bad if we kept the sig to one line.