PDA

View Full Version : Images in Sigs?



bonzodog
January 18th, 2007, 06:14 PM
I have noticed that a member of staff has a 'user bar' in his signature. Surely this is against forum guidelines, and is discouraged?

I know that he did it by remote linking using an "img" code string in his signature,as that would bypass the prevention on uploading images for signatures.

PriceChild
January 18th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Images in sigs are a staff perk :)

Notice matthew also has a rawking smiley in his.

matthew
January 18th, 2007, 09:12 PM
From the Forums Policy (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy)

While we do not have guidelines for staff signatures, please try to keep them moderate and within reason.

mips
January 18th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Images are for staff only as mentioned above.

I once made a fool of myself for pointing out to a staff member that they are violating the rules with their sig :redface:

One of the few perks they have & deserve.

matthew
January 18th, 2007, 10:08 PM
I once made a fool of myself for pointing out to a staff member that they are violating the rules with their sig :redface:If I had a dollar for every time I've made a fool of myself I'd be a very rich man. No worries, it happens. :)

bonzodog
January 19th, 2007, 05:27 PM
The thing with the user bars though, is they are very popular, as they provide an identity of sorts.
I have seen other forums that allow images in sigs, and one guy had a pic of a car, which was huge, and really slowed it down. Images of that size and proportion, I wouldn't approve of.

But, I do think we ought to be allowed the 'user bars'. I would love to be able to post a distro specific one in my sig.

matthew
January 19th, 2007, 06:04 PM
The thing with the user bars though, is they are very popular, as they provide an identity of sorts.
I have seen other forums that allow images in sigs, and one guy had a pic of a car, which was huge, and really slowed it down. Images of that size and proportion, I wouldn't approve of.

But, I do think we ought to be allowed the 'user bars'. I would love to be able to post a distro specific one in my sig.Yeah, that would be nice. We just don't have the bandwidth...sometimes we have to make decisions between usability and cool features. In this case the feature lost out.

Kernel Sanders
January 19th, 2007, 07:40 PM
What about just allowing image tags in sigs, with the stipulation that they have to be for userbars only? It costs the forum no extra money in hosting, as all the sigs could point to imageshack or something?

I'd like a userbar in my sig tbh :********(

po0f
January 19th, 2007, 07:51 PM
I agree with the current policy. Allowing users to have images in there signatures would be way too annoying. I'm sure the privilege would be quickly abused, and we'll be in the same boat we started out in.

Regarding the "user bars", I really don't mind these, but I see no way to allow just "user bar" images and no others.

rowanparker
January 19th, 2007, 09:16 PM
I agree with the current policy. Allowing users to have images in there signatures would be way too annoying. I'm sure the privilege would be quickly abused, and we'll be in the same boat we started out in.

Regarding the "user bars", I really don't mind these, but I see no way to allow just "user bar" images and no others.
Maybe by limitting the size of the image?
Is this possible?

matthew
January 19th, 2007, 10:22 PM
From the Forum FAQ (http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=48)

Why can't I use an animated gif as my avatar?
In the past (up to sometime near the end of 2005) users were allowed to use animated gifs as avatars. This ended when there was a sudden wave of really distracting and obnoxious flashing, gaudy avatars. (Honestly, can you concentrate on information when looking at animated avatars like these (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1741535#post1741535)?) Rather than make a long list of what is an isn't acceptable for animated avatar usage and then forcing the staff to monitor and police their use it was decided that they would be banned altogether. Those users who had appropriate animated avatars at the time were allowed to keep them and so you may see a small number of them floating around the forums. If/when those users decide to change their avatars they will not be allowed to replace the current animated gifs with another animated avatar but will have to choose an regular non-moving picture like the rest of us.

Why can't I use images in my signature? (Why are the staff allowed to use them?)
Banners, flashing images, colorful and hidden links...the list is a long one. This is primarily a tech support forum with a small number of frivolous additions. This was something that people either love or hate, and people looking for tech support answers with as little distraction as possible are among those who hate this feature so we turned it off. The staff of the forums are allowed this as a perk since they are volunteers and receive no payment or other renumeration for their time, efforts and services here.I included the animated gif avatar question even though it is only remotely related...

mips
January 20th, 2007, 12:34 PM
I would vote for the status quo. Keep it clean and simple.

BWF89
January 26th, 2007, 12:35 AM
Why are some people allowed to have images in their sigs while the rest of us aren't?

galvatron1983
January 26th, 2007, 12:42 AM
Only the moderators are able to use images in their signatures, apparently because forums users unanimously decided that over the top, media laden sigs are irritating to the eye. They probably have a point, particularly if you are desperately searching through a thread to find the answer to a problem and your having to scroll through dozens of massive signatures.

Still, Id love a pic on mine....

BWF89
January 26th, 2007, 12:49 AM
But why should mods have something the rest of us don't? If regular users can't use images neither should moderators.

TheRingmaster
January 26th, 2007, 04:37 AM
they have animated avatars too. That sucks.

awakatanka
January 26th, 2007, 09:28 AM
Why can't I use an animated gif as my avatar?
In the past (up to sometime near the end of 2005) users were allowed to use animated gifs as avatars. This ended when there was a sudden wave of really distracting and obnoxious flashing, gaudy avatars. (Honestly, can you concentrate on information when looking at animated avatars like these?) Rather than make a long list of what is an isn't acceptable for animated avatar usage and then forcing the staff to monitor and police their use it was decided that they would be banned altogether. Those users who had appropriate animated avatars at the time were allowed to keep them and so you may see a small number of them floating around the forums. If/when those users decide to change their avatars they will not be allowed to replace the current animated gifs with another animated avatar but will have to choose an regular non-moving picture like the rest of us.
But those irritating Animated smillies are allowed. :confused: They are also distracting and obnoxious flashing, and honestly, can you concentrate on information when looking at animated smilies like these?

matthew
January 26th, 2007, 10:27 AM
The staff get few perks and images in signatures is one of them. I'm sorry some find it elitist. Shall we remove the red usernames and special icons and staff title as well? Maybe prevent them from editing/moving threads and helping users also? Good grief, people try to help out, they volunteer their time because they love this community and then they get grief over the silliest little things.

The original question has been answered so this thread has served its purpose. I'll close it.

PriceChild
January 26th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Oh and one last thing...
they have animated avatars too. That sucks.We don't get flashy avatars either.

Users that you see with them were allowed to keep them after animated gifs were turned off over a year ago.