Poll: Signature once per thread or in all posts

[matthew]

Please vote for your preference.

Would you like your signature to be at the bottom of each and every post you make, at the bottom of your first post in a thread, or should signatures just be eliminated altogether?

@matthew, you should make the first post link back to http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...138#post584138 (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=584138#post584138) so people know whats going on.Good point. Done.

[towsonu2003]

I like to whine about winmodems so I want my sig under everything :)

as in:

[xequence]

Show my signature at the bottom of every post I make.

Honestly, one signature per topic is not helping anything. Someone tells you to look at their signature for a link, you have to go to the top and find their first post. Then you have to go back down and find where you were reading at.

[cstudent]

Maybe limit the size of the sig. I just created mine last night.

[earobinson]

@matthew, you should make the first post link back to http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=584138#post584138 so people know whats going on.

[matthew]

@matthew, you should make the first post link back to http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=584138#post584138 so people know whats going on.You are right. Done.

[aysiu]

The bank told me I need to endorse only the first check I deposit every year. After that, they'll dig up my older checks to see my signature.

Once per thread is useless and makes it a post, not a signature.

If it takes up too much space, limit the number of characters or just get rid of it completely. Signatures once per thread are useless.

[matthew]

If it takes up too much space, limit the number of characters or just get rid of it completely. Signatures once per thread are useless.I can barely fit all that I want with the 250 character limit we have now. :) I suppose I could remove the tribute to 23meg...

[xequence]

I can barely fit all that I want with the 250 character limit we have now. :) I suppose I could remove the tribute to 23meg...

I gotta admit - I wish there was more room too ;)

[matthew]

I have to remember...don't post polls on Saturday night. It's either the weekend effect or there aren't a lot of people who care about this issue.

[aysiu]

We'll just have to keep bumping this thread until "rush hour."

[earobinson]

thanks matthew :) (for adding the link back)

[23meg]

I vote for "under every post". That's the whole point of a signature. If bandwidth is a problem we can get rid of the signatures altogether; though it wouldn't be a pretty solution it would be a much more consistent one.

[earobinson]

I like the polls best where you can click them and see what people voted for :)

[matthew]

I like the polls best where you can click them and see what people voted for :)I thought I had clicked that option, but I must have been dreaming. :)

[earobinson]

No you did, I was commenting that It was a good thing. Click on the numbers and it will show you who voted for what!

[matthew]

No you did, I was commenting that It was a good thing. Click on the numbers and it will show you who voted for what!Serves me right for not looking after I read your post. :) I wasn't dreaming during the poll creation, I was half-asleep while reading and posting a few minutes ago.

I thought it would be interesting to do it this way for the same reason that you like it--plus, I figured that we might be likely to give a little more weight to more active users voices.

[arctic]

I don't really care. If the majority wants signatures then leave them. However it would be nice if people would remember to make their sigs not overly "aggressive", using dozens of colors and pics and big letters.

[earobinson]

I don't really care. If the majority wants signatures then leave them. However it would be nice if people would remember to make their sigs not overly "aggressive", using dozens of colors and pics and big letters.
I havent seen many like that I would have no problem with the sigs forcing you to only use one color size etc, as long as I can have my links.

The only ones I hate are the bunnies

[rjwood]

I voted for every post.

[ubuntu-geek]

Why is it important to see on every post I fail to see the reason.

[aysiu]

Why is it important to see on every post I fail to see the reason. Because that's what a signature is. If it appears once per thread, it's a post. If it appears once per post, it's a signature. That's what a signature is by definition.

If you're worried about bandwidth/space issues, limit the size of signatures or get rid of them altogether, but there's no point to having them show up once per thread.

To see an example of how dumb this is, look at this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=583386), wherein I refer a user to a link in my sig, and guess what the user says... "you've got no links in your sig."

[rjwood]

Why is it important to see on every post I fail to see the reason.
I know I have been helped by links to threads and posts in many sigs. Perhaps you have the capability to allow only those types of sigs pertaining to ubuntu forum links.

[earobinson]

I really like the consistency of having my sig after every post.

I guess my respocne is why take it out?

[ubuntu-geek]

I really like the consistency of having my sig after every post.

I guess my respocne is why take it out?
But why leave it in? Its just wasting space.. Maybe I can put it back in but put a 25 character limit or something. I'll think about your request.

[earobinson]

But why leave it in? Its just wasting space.. Maybe I can put it back in but put a 25 character limit or something. I'll think about your request.

Its not really waisting space since most posts are 1 line anyways the post space is bigger than that due to avatars. I would have no problem if the sig was limited to 3 lines or so but a 25 limit would not let me get all my links in.

It is very rare that there is more than 3 long threads per page so really you only save the extra space on those 3 long posts and that is assuming that the user has all ready posted to the page otherwise nothing is saved.

Also users that are worried about the space have the option to turn off sigs. (This is the first post on this page that space has been saved)

[aysiu]

But why leave it in? Its just wasting space.. Maybe I can put it back in but put a 25 character limit or something. I'll think about your request. If you think it's a waste of space, get rid of signatures altogether. One per thread is just silly, though. Please define what you think a signature is and then explain how that makes any sense with appearing one time per thread.

[matthew]

But why leave it in? Its just wasting space.. Maybe I can put it back in but put a 25 character limit or something. I'll think about your request. The point some people are trying to make is that a signature, while having the ability to be a merely frivolous exercise in narcissism, also has the ability to be beneficial. However, that benefit may only exist if the signature is available in each and every post...it is lost if it is left at the top post, especially if you are like me and 1) have your setup configured to show 30 posts at a time and 2) you are not likely to scroll up to the top just to see someone's sig.

I don't see what the big deal is. If the majority of people who respond to the poll are saying they want the sig in every post why do you care???

If it is just space you are worried about you may as well remove not only the signatures but also the avatars, the gallery, and the ability to post/attach graphics of any kind also.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong...I want to keep them all. I just wanted to point out how to be consistent in the application of policy if space really is the issue.

[earobinson]

avatars usualy take up more space than sigs,

[aysiu]

Yes, please! If it's space you're worried about, ditch avatars instead of signatures. Signatures, after all, are just text. Avatars are graphics and right now appear once per post, not once per thread.

[earobinson]

Yes, please! If it's space you're worried about, ditch avatars instead of signatures. Signatures, after all, are just text. Avatars are graphics and right now appear once per post, not once per thread.
I dont think people would be very happy if the avarars went, + there is an option to turn them off.

[aysiu]

I dont think people would be very happy if the avarars went, + there is an option to turn them off. I'm just saying--if you're going to get rid of anything that's sucking up space/bandwidth, avatars should go before signatures.

There's an option to not show signatures as well.

[ubuntu-geek]

It's not about bandwidth more about presentation of the threads.. I'll probably remove the once per thread limit and change something else to clear up the threads...

[earobinson]

meh they look pretty cleen to me as it. I have always found the format very easy to work with.

[KiwiNZ]

A lot of people have said they want their signatures on every post .

May I ask why ?
Why is it so important ?

What is the gain for the forum ?
And what is the gain for the individual?

Thanks

[matthew]

A lot of people have said they want their signatures on every post .

May I ask why ?
Why is it so important ?

What is the gain for the forum ?
And what is the gain for the individual?

Thanks http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=588342&postcount=28

see also:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=585152&postcount=3
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=585516&postcount=7
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=587019&postcount=13
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=588204&postcount=22

and the thread that prompted the poll:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=584138

Specifically these posts:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=566729&postcount=13
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=573748&postcount=19
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=583372&postcount=32
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=583440&postcount=33

The last one leads to this:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=583386&postcount=7

[KiwiNZ]

Thanks for that mathew .
Geez I am lazy:p

Nah just busy.

Anyway , I am not sure about the sig on every post .On some forums the signatures take up about 60% of the page real estate and some the signatures are so big you end up with about 4 posts or less per page.

Just some thoughts .

[earobinson]

Thanks for that mathew .
Geez I am lazy:p

Nah just busy.

Anyway , I am not sure about the sig on every post .On some forums the signatures take up about 60% of the page real estate and some the signatures are so big you end up with about 4 posts or less per page.

Just some thoughts .
so we should limit and discourage that kind of behavior

[aysiu]

Anyway , I am not sure about the sig on every post .On some forums the signatures take up about 60% of the page real estate and some the signatures are so big you end up with about 4 posts or less per page. So limit the character length. I still don't see how signatures go and avatars stay. How much of the bandwidth do avatars take up?

[KiwiNZ]

so we should limit and discourage that kind of behavior

Discouraging behaviour types is not easy and very time consuming

[earobinson]

true but limiting is not so hard. we also discourage flamewars and well we had that spike of really bad ones but it seems to have settled down now. Im not sure how easy it would be to limit the sig to 5 lines or somehting with a max size of 2

[KiwiNZ]

So limit the character length. I still don't see how signatures go and avatars stay. How much of the bandwidth do avatars take up?

Have a look at this site www.neowin.net . Scan through some of the forums
and you will see what I am talking about when it comes to sigs . And this is not even close to being the worse.

[KiwiNZ]

But my mind is still open on this , I am just looking around the WWW and giving it a lot of thought .

And drinking coffee

[aysiu]

Can we at least have KiwiNZ and Ubuntu-Geek admit that there's absolutely no reason to have only one sig per thread?

I see four viable options here, and none of them is what's currently happening:

1. Get rid of signatures altogether (solves bandwidth/space issue)
2. Limit signature length to fewer than 250 characters (addresses bandwith/space issue)
3. Put the signatures back the way they used to be (solves inanity issue)
4. Get rid of avatars instead of signatures (solves bandwidth/space issue)

#5 (one sig per thread) again... makes no sense. It's like introducing yourself to the first person you met in January and henceforth for the rest of the year, saying to new people you meet, "Sorry. We are meeting for the first time, but I'm not going to reintroduce myself because I already met someone new at the beginning of the year." Introductions are for every time you meet someone new.

Likewise, signatures are for every post.

[earobinson]

Can we at least have KiwiNZ and Ubuntu-Geek admit that there's absolutely no reason to have only one sig per thread?

I dont think its fair to say this. I think that when critiquing the staffs Ideas we need to keep an open mind. There are a lot of cases where It makes sence to have a signature for your first post (or msg) and then not after that. When email back and forth with people this is often the case, in the first email you are very formal and inclued all your contact info and after that your contact info is not needed because the user has it all ready. I think this is what the staff where thinking when they chose to make this choice.

Now I think its wrong just as much as you do and for the same reasons but asking them to admit that there is no reason for this (when it is a very subjectave topic) I think is going a bit to far IMO, I also thing a lot of user would rather the one sig per page than no sigs at all, I know I would because whe responding to questions that get asked all the time if its my first post I can still say look at the first link.

*I dont try to offend anyone this is all IMO and I encourage people to debate the topic*

[aysiu]

I dont think its fair to say this. I think that when critiquing the staffs Ideas we need to keep an open mind. Having been a staff until recently, I don't think I need to be reminded to sympathize with the staff. They are overworked and underappreciated. However, I don't understand the attitude they've shown in this thread, which is basically, "We changed it. So what? I don't see the big deal."


There are a lot of cases where It makes sence to have a signature for your first post (or msg) and then not after that. When email back and forth with people this is often the case, in the first email you are very formal and inclued all your contact info and after that your contact info is not needed because the user has it all ready. I think this is what the staff where thinking when they chose to make this choice. Okay, I can buy that for email, but it doesn't make sense in a forum, especially since signatures often contain helpful links, and you're not posting to only one person back and forth--you're posting to anyone who's reading the thread, and that includes future users searching old threads.

[matthew]

so we should limit and discourage that kind of behaviorWe already do. No graphics are allowed and there is a 250 character limit. I also do NOT see signatures being abused in these forums on a regular basis, and in the few instances I have seen a quick PM to the offender has ALWAYS cleared it up...so again, I don't see the issue.

BTW, I notice that we have sigs on all posts at the moment and I appreciate it.

[KiwiNZ]

...However, I don't understand the attitude they've shown in this thread, which is basically, "We changed it. So what? I don't see the big deal."....

I dont believe I have shown that attitude. I have stated that my mind is open and I am looking at other forums to see how they are dealing with this issue.

[earobinson]

Having been a staff until recently, I don't think I need to be reminded to sympathize with the staff. They are overworked and underappreciated. However, I don't understand the attitude they've shown in this thread, which is basically, "We changed it. So what? I don't see the big deal."
Maybe I should have said anyone instead of staff, to me there is no answer that is %100 correct in this debate since is is extremly subjectave. A person could take the view that as long as the links are on every page its not a problem.

Okay, I can buy that for email, but it doesn't make sense in a forum, especially since signatures often contain helpful links, and you're not posting to only one person back and forth--you're posting to anyone who's reading the thread, and that includes future users searching old threads. Im going to repeat the "A person could take the view that as long as the links are on every page its not a problem." quote here.

Im also going to say I aggree with you I just think that we all need to keep an open mind on the topic, and that asking some one to say that they are wrong for making the change on something as subjective as this to me seems wrong.

I think that IMO its best to have sigs in every post, but I fully understand that thats just an opinion and that some one else can have a compleatly different opinion and this is not like math where 1 + 4 is 6 no matter what. and so we as a community should try and do what the community feels is best.

I will also lay this to rest and would be happy to continue the debate in another thread with you but it is off topic for this current thread.

[poptones]

Well, I just took a look at the source code to this page and it seems if you were worried about bandwidth you'd make an effort to chop out all the comment fields that appear over and over and over again. The page is nearly 116kb of text and, suffice to say, most of it is redundant or markup.

Zipped (as it would be when transported from the server to any proper browser) the page is 18.6 kb. I edited the locally stored page by adding 16 more "copies" of earobinson's sig and the compressed size jumped all the way to.... 19.2 kb. 600 bytes to carry an additional 16 copies of a sig on a page.

Given there are ten posts per page that would never happen in the real world. Worse case is every poster on a page is unique which means bandwidth saved is zero unless you disallow sigs altogether, and second "worse case" is every post on a page is from the same person, which means you still add nothing because most sigs are not as long as earobinson's - which is, itself, much longer than the average 32 bytes per repetition it adds to the delivery overhead of the page.

Users who don't want to see sigs at all can disable them completely in their profile. The only logical argument one can make for such a limitation is a personal preference of the site admin.

[earobinson]

Fun Fact: I was looking at the names of the poeple that voted each way and I noticed this about the advrage posts of the votes.

Voted for one sig per page:
(24+70+17+820+17+2+58+50+530) / 9 = 176.4444

Voted for a sig every post:
(1862+302+1704+55+4597+6+888+181+98+1+963+27+1+923 +26+24+158+106+542+337+1189+662+48+128+219+82+15+3 50+339+2327+55+490)/32 = 584.5313

Voted for a sig every post (without aysiu goddly post count):
(1862+302+1704+55+6+888+181+98+1+963+27+1+923+26+2 4+158+106+542+337+1189+662+48+128+219+82+15+350+33 9+2327+55+490)/31 = 455.0968

Now Im not saying that higher post counts should be worth more, but one of the points that has been raised about keeping the sig is that a lot of use use it to answer FAQ's and since we answer more questions maybe it is is the best intrest of the forums.

(I was expirmenting with riping data off a webpage and thought I would generate some stats since I love stats (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=100782&highlight=stats).)

[Lambert]

I think a change has been made. Posted a little while ago where I had 3 posts previous on the same page and my sig showed up in all posts on that page including the 4th.

[earobinson]

yup It has, It was just a fun fact is all

[KiwiNZ]

Fun Fact: I was looking at the names of the poeple that voted each way and I noticed this about the advrage posts of the votes.

Voted for one sig per page:
(24+70+17+820+17+2+58+50+530) / 9 = 176.4444

Voted for a sig every post:
(1862+302+1704+55+4597+6+888+181+98+1+963+27+1+923 +26+24+158+106+542+337+1189+662+48+128+219+82+15+3 50+339+2327+55+490)/32 = 584.5313

Voted for a sig every post (without aysiu goddly post count):
(1862+302+1704+55+6+888+181+98+1+963+27+1+923+26+2 4+158+106+542+337+1189+662+48+128+219+82+15+350+33 9+2327+55+490)/31 = 455.0968

Now Im not saying that higher post counts should be worth more, but one of the points that has been raised about keeping the sig is that a lot of use use it to answer FAQ's and since we answer more questions maybe it is is the best intrest of the forums.

(I was expirmenting with riping data off a webpage and thought I would generate some stats since I love stats (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=100782&highlight=stats).)

Sheesh we really do need to get you outside more .:p

[earobinson]

Sheesh we really do need to get you outside more .:p
But its cold in canada. And I needed to learn how to write the scrypts ne way, so what better place to learn