Why cant we have forum sigs?

[Bearded-flower]

Why arnt we allowed to have forum sigs?
As in graphic ones.

[hoppipolla]

You already have one... lol

It's the bit under your posts... like mine says "KDE 4.3 makes Windows 7 look like a mistake!"

[ninjapirate89]

Why arnt we allowed to have forum sigs?
As in graphic ones.

You mean images in sigs? Because people like using flashy gifs.

[RiceMonster]

You already have one... lol

It's the bit under your posts... like mine says "KDE 4.3 makes Windows 7 look like a mistake!"

The question was "why can't we have pictures in our signatures?"

[hoppipolla]

The question was "why can't we have pictures in our signatures?"

Oh, I either didn't read that part about graphic ones or it was edited after I made my post hehe :)

[ninjapirate89]

The question was "why can't we have pictures in our signatures?"

The OP added the graphics bit after the original post.

[Bearded-flower]

If someone had some anoying flashy gif couldnt we just deltete them or something?

Yeah sorry i decided to add graphic to avoid confusion... to late.

[Tipped OuT]

If someone had some anoying flashy gif couldnt we just deltete them or something?

Um, if you mean "we" as in the admins, then yes. But imagine having to go through all of them, it's just a pain. It also takes up more memory and time to load the pages, and is straight out distracting.

Have you ever been to game forums? Take a look at there sigs. Meme's galore.

[Bearded-flower]

Yeah fair enough. i just think it would be nice. i happen to like my graphics. i have made a few UF sigs actually, just cant use them :'(

[juancarlospaco]

Because they are not needed,
its a Linux Forum, with Linux style, fast and minimalistic

[Bearded-flower]

Because they are not needed,
its a Linux Forum, with Linux style, fast and minimalistic

Fast and minamalistic? what about mint :P

[ninjapirate89]

Fast and minamalistic? what about mint :P

Mint is an anomaly.

[Bearded-flower]

Still, i wants mah sig!!!!!

[ninjapirate89]

Still, i wants mah sig!!!!!

Make an ASCII art sig. :lolflag:

[Bearded-flower]

That is aso tempting :D

[cariboo]

From the forum Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy), that you agreed to when you created your account:


Forum signatures are limited to three lines of text, 10pt maximum font size. Signatures are also not a place for inappropriate material such as attacks, slander, harassment, political or religious remarks. We regret that users are not allowed to use images in their signatures (see staff signature guidelines below in Section III for an exception to this policy). The use of political images in avatars is also prohibited.

[ninjapirate89]

From the forum Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy), that you agreed to when you created your account:

With only three lines of 10pt text, you wouldn't be able to do much with an ASCII sig.

[kavon89]

If you've got your favourite image you want to use here, just resize/gimp it to look nice in a 90x90 and make it your avatar. ;)

[Tibuda]

If this is allowed, we'll need a ImageBlock plugin for Firefox.

[Bearded-flower]

Yeah i cant do much gimping anyhow, my ubuntu died ;'(

[SomeGuyDude]

From the forum Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy), that you agreed to when you created your account:

Um, all that says is "you can't have images". Bit of a circular argument, ne?

Question: Why can't we have images in our sigs?

Answer: Because our CoC says you can't.

On a more practical level, there are few boards I'm on where images in signatures didn't lead to disaster.

[Bearded-flower]

Fair enough, as long as there tasteful, not flashing, and a small size and file they should be allowed.

[ninjapirate89]

Fair enough, as long as there tasteful, not flashing, and a small size and file they should be allowed.

Then people would argue over the definition of tasteful.

Edit -> Also, you just described exactly what our avatars are.

[Bearded-flower]

Then people would argue over the definition of tasteful.

I supose your right. alternitvley we could just say they has fo to be "safe for work".

[Jesus_Valdez]

I'm connected to the internetz via Carrier pigeon, so I appreciate the lack of sigs.

Although, perhaps some "show sigs/Don't show sigs" on preferences would do the job in case of images being allowed.

[ninjapirate89]

I'm connected to the internetz via Carrier pigeon, so I appreciate the lack of sigs.

Although, perhaps some "show sigs/Don't show sigs" on preferences would do the job in case of images being allowed.

That would be a great idea. I'm all for images in sigs if they can easily be disabled in User CP.

[ad_267]

No thanks.

I don't want people's sigs getting in the way of my reading, they're just annoying. Some of the text ones are bad enough.

Also, with the size of these forums, sigs will just be another thing the mods have to police, putting more stress on their time to do useful work.

[ninjapirate89]

No thanks.

I don't want people's sigs getting in the way of my reading, they're just annoying. Some of the text ones are bad enough.

Also, with the size of these forums, sigs will just be another thing the mods have to police, putting more stress on their time to do useful work.

That is why if image sigs were allowed there would need to be an option to disable them. This thread is really irrelevant anyway because the rules aren't going to be changed.

[CJ Master]

That is why if image sigs were allowed there would need to be an option to disable them. This thread is really irrelevant anyway because the rules aren't going to be changed.

Who says they aren't?

[running_rabbit07]

It's bad enough we have to see people's faces in avatars, of course I have those blocked in my settings, this is a place to get help with ubuntu problems and help others to make Ubuntu better, not an art show.

[CJ Master]

It's bad enough we have to see people's faces in avatars, of course I have those blocked in my settings, this is a place to get help with ubuntu problems and help others to make Ubuntu better, not an art show.

Which is why you yourself has an avatar, M I RITE?!

[running_rabbit07]

Which is why you yourself has an avatar, M I RITE?!

No doubt. Nothing wrong with having one pic to share, but what next, A pic to the right side of the page, too. Mostly the arbuement works for people trying to save resources when loading pages. Tose folks with dial up that don't know how to turn options off in the User CP would be waiting for ten minutes to load a page with avatars and sig pics.

[CJ Master]

No doubt. Nothing wrong with having one pic to share, but what next, A pic to the right side of the page, too. Mostly the arbuement works for people trying to save resources when loading pages. Tose folks with dial up that don't know how to turn options off in the User CP would be waiting for ten minutes to load a page with avatars and sig pics.

It would take around one minute at most to load all the pictures, and the user is feel free to read the text while waiting. It's not like they have to finish for the images to load before reading.

[ninjapirate89]

Who says they aren't?

I suppose it is possible, but highly unlikely.

[Chronon]

Fair enough, as long as there tasteful, not flashing, and a small size and file they should be allowed.

Please no. I really don't like forums with graphical sigs everywhere. I find them highly distracting and pointless.

[ad_267]

Please no. I really don't like forums with graphical sigs everywhere. I find them highly distracting and pointless.

+1 to that.

[Bearded-flower]

Yeah i guess, but that would be a good idea if you could turn them off in the UCP.

[Tipped OuT]

It would take around one minute at most to load all the pictures, and the user is feel free to read the text while waiting. It's not like they have to finish for the images to load before reading.

Cool story, bro. :P

But yeah, you're right. Also love how you pointed out that running_rabbit has an avatar too. xD

[Sean Moran]

It would take around one minute at most to load all the pictures, and the user is feel free to read the text while waiting. It's not like they have to finish for the images to load before reading.

Sorry to not notice this yesterday, but it mentions something that I find a little frustrating from here on 256/64 ADSL and on Firefox et al. and that is how on a forum like this, when there might be half a dozen posts on the latest page, and whle the page is loading, I've scrolled down to the last, and start reading, but the images loading from back towards the top continue to scroll the page so I can't read until I either press ESC or keep moving the mouse around to keep on reading.

This might be something I haven't learned how to disable in Firefox, so if anyone knows how to stop this 'onLoad=scroll.to.nowhere' I'd really appreciate knowing how to overcome one of my minor annoyances.

[ad_267]

I don't mind loading the images, my internet is fast enough. It's just that they're distracting and annoying and pointless. They get in the way when I just want to read a thread.

[Bezmotivnik]

You mean images in sigs? Because people like using flashy gifs.
And they are a major work of Satan, like animated avatars.

[misfitpierce]

Maybe enable them but restrict size and format to png or jpeg?

[dragos240]

I can just imagine if we had animated avatars. The flashiness!

[ad_267]

Sorry to not notice this yesterday, but it mentions something that I find a little frustrating from here on 256/64 ADSL and on Firefox et al. and that is how on a forum like this, when there might be half a dozen posts on the latest page, and whle the page is loading, I've scrolled down to the last, and start reading, but the images loading from back towards the top continue to scroll the page so I can't read until I either press ESC or keep moving the mouse around to keep on reading.

This might be something I haven't learned how to disable in Firefox, so if anyone knows how to stop this 'onLoad=scroll.to.nowhere' I'd really appreciate knowing how to overcome one of my minor annoyances.

It's usually a problem with the web designer not defining the height and width of an image. If the dimensions are defined the browser knows how much space it will take up before loading it. I don't think there's anything you can do about it.

[Sean Moran]

It's usually a problem with the web designer not defining the height and width of an image. If the dimensions are defined the browser knows how much space it will take up before loading it. I don't think there's anything you can do about it.
Thanks for taking the time to help me with this minor problem. Lucky that there aren't such a truckload of huge sig images and mega-avatars on this forum, not like some of the others.

In any case there's always the ESC button and if that bothers me too much, there's the little X up top-right, so it's my choice to browse the web or not. Anyway, don't let me drift too far off-topic.

[Erik Trybom]

Why can't we have images in the forum signatures?

1) It's pointless.
2) It's distracting and makes for more scrolling.
3) It slows down the loading of the page.
4) It puts an extra load on the servers.
5) It puts an extra work load on the moderators.

But really, number 1 is all the reason we need. I have yet to see a forum where images in the sigs add something useful or make for a better discussion.

[bruno9779]

I want to read posts, not to see gifs.

You can always put a link in the signature to your website.

So I see it if I want, I am not forced to

[Bachstelze]

No point discussing this anymore. Closed.