Help support TMP


"Should We Have Pre-formatted Signatures in Settings?" Topic


77 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the TMP Bugs and Features Message Board


Action Log

10 Feb 2011 5:05 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Talk board
  • Removed from Discussion Groups and Wargaming Forums board
  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
  • Crossposted to TMP Bugs and Features board

Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset


9,302 hits since 16 Jun 2010
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Major William Martin RM17 Jun 2010 9:14 p.m. PST

Many of us on TMP typically close our posts with our name or nickname, some add a motto or slogan, some add a blog or web site link, and these currently have to be typed on every post.

Would Supporting Members like to see a "Signature" option in their Member Settings that could be activated with a bit of code, like an emoticon? Or a setting that automatically applies your chosen signature text to every post you do?

Options:

Yes to code
No to code
Yes to autopopulate
No to autopopulate
Don't Care

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

(my own example)

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jun 2010 9:36 p.m. PST

Yes

anleiher17 Jun 2010 10:09 p.m. PST

Yes to both.

Mapleleaf17 Jun 2010 10:58 p.m. PST

No neither your user name is good enough

Using signatures can become an ego contest making posts larger and longer to scroll through One of the main reasons I avoid WD3

Phillipaj17 Jun 2010 11:09 p.m. PST

No- have you been to those forums where the blocks take up more space than the posting for absolutely no purpose?

GeoffQRF18 Jun 2010 12:11 a.m. PST

Possibly, if limited to 1 line?

Grizwald18 Jun 2010 1:07 a.m. PST

Why not make it a configurable option?

aecurtis Fezian18 Jun 2010 1:27 a.m. PST

No, and no. Phillipaj has it!

Allen

general btsherman18 Jun 2010 2:05 a.m. PST

yes

AndrewGPaul18 Jun 2010 2:12 a.m. PST

No- have you been to those forums where the blocks take up more space than the posting for absolutely no purpose?

I've also been to forums where you can choose to display or not display other users signatures, and yet more where the size of a signature is limited. It's rather trivial to do, I believe, so there's no reason to assume that TMP can't similarly limit them.

On forums where signatures are allowed, I've seen people use them to display links to things like gallery or workplace threads or their blogs or websites. That can be quite useful.

Mark Plant18 Jun 2010 2:40 a.m. PST

NO! and NO!

I'm with Allen and Phillipaj.

Signatures make some people who add them happy, apparently, but what do they add to the reader?

people use them to display links to things like gallery or workplace threads or their blogs or websites. That can be quite useful.

Useful to the person adding it, perhaps. I just looks like more spam to me.

Cosmic Reset18 Jun 2010 2:42 a.m. PST

No and no.

The members profile page can contain all of that info, without making us scroll through it on every post. That is one of the reasons that I use TMP more than any other forum.

14th Brooklyn18 Jun 2010 3:16 a.m. PST

I would say yes, BUT only if they are limited to two or three lines (normal font and size) and as long as no graphics or animations are allows.
[If this becomes a poll I would ask for this to be added as an poll choice!]

Cheers,

Burkhard

Dervel Fezian18 Jun 2010 3:37 a.m. PST

No for the reasons mentioned above. They are not really needed. I agree with irishserb – just click on the member name to get more info.

rusty musket18 Jun 2010 4:17 a.m. PST

I would agree with Phillipaj and Allen. What seems like a little fun would turn into an ego trip and make threads longer for no good reason.

Having your own blog would be a good place to do that.

rddfxx18 Jun 2010 4:48 a.m. PST

No

Ditto Tango 2 118 Jun 2010 4:50 a.m. PST

I was going to say yes, until I read Mapleleaf's well reasoned no.

Perhaps if we did introduce it, one could bring back the old usenet netiquette standard? Max 4 lines?

Mine would be:
--
Tim's Toys ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal

AndrewGPaul18 Jun 2010 5:03 a.m. PST

was going to say yes, until I read Mapleleaf's well reasoned no.

How is well-reasoned? It's trivial to prevent such abuses.

Useful to the person adding it, perhaps. I just looks like more spam to me.

Useful to me, too. Just because you don't do something doesn't make it useless. grin

Steve Hazuka18 Jun 2010 5:08 a.m. PST

No

If at first you don't succeed try try again. Now is the winter of our discontent made glorius summer by this son of York. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. Steve the Imperical Highness of the Most Sacred Land of Boobootybutu.

Garand18 Jun 2010 5:18 a.m. PST

Yes, and a limit of 3 or 4 lines would be perfectly reasonable. For manufacturers it gives them a place to post their webstore URL, make special announcements, etc. For the rest of us we can put our blogs, galleries, etc in there.

For those that do not like sigs, you can choose not to read them.

Damon.

bobstro18 Jun 2010 5:22 a.m. PST

Dude!
--
"Quote that was funny once, in context."
Free the guy that was dawghoused weeks ago.
Visit my hobby site at brokenlink. com
GIANT BLINKING GIF

flooglestreet18 Jun 2010 5:45 a.m. PST

Yes to both, if there is a reasonable limit to the signature block, Bill defines reasonable.

John the OFM18 Jun 2010 6:15 a.m. PST

Absolutely not.
I can't stand visiting sites that have a quarter inch of a reply, usually "LOL!", and 6 inches of quotes from Monty Python, with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one…

Scott MacPhee18 Jun 2010 6:34 a.m. PST

Another voice for the "no" chorus. Those bloated signature lines add nothing to a post and make an entire discussion more difficult to read.

Sane Max18 Jun 2010 6:41 a.m. PST

No, No and Thrice no.

Here is a thread that suggests reasons why not.

TMP link

Pat

Chortle Fezian18 Jun 2010 6:44 a.m. PST

Yes to autopopulate. But people should be able to turn viewing of them off.

John D Salt18 Jun 2010 6:58 a.m. PST

No. This is supposed to be a site about wargaming, not warlording.

Or, to put it another way, yes, iff there is a reasonable limit to the size of the signature, and that limit is zero lines.

If you want to draw attention to your blog, why not make a post specifically drawing attention to it?

All the best,

John.

Tommy2018 Jun 2010 7:19 a.m. PST

No an all accounts.

aecurtis Fezian18 Jun 2010 7:39 a.m. PST

"If you want to draw attention to your blog, why not make a post specifically drawing attention to it?"

There being a blog board just for that:

TMP link

As irishserb so wisely pointed out, the TMP individual profile page provides all the opportunities for self-aggrandizement that clutter other fora as sigs.

Allen

Major William Martin RM18 Jun 2010 8:07 a.m. PST

Wow!!!

This is simply a suggested Poll, not the actual Poll, and it seems to have stirred some definite passion among the community! To the ones responding "no", and especially the ones doing so rather vehemently, I am curious as to what sparks this passion. Taking the example of my own "signature" that I gave in the original post, I have used this exact signature in 99% of all of the posts that I have done in the last year and a half. All with nary a complaint, stifle, visit to the DH or even a snarky comment. I see similar signatures used frequently by other blog owners, dealers (like Mark and Tim), and web site hosts; again, without complaint or comment.

In my own case, I couldn't (or wouldn't) use my nom de plume as my user name because it is too similar to an older TMP'ers user name. The blog site that I reference is for a historical blog that deals with a very specific period, covers everything from wargaming to figure reviews to period artwork and literature to new source discoveries and reference sources. We have had many favorable comments and thanks for the information that we post there. Since I began adding this link to my signature we have seen overall blog views increase by well over 100% and dedicated followers increase by about 90%, so apparently someone is finding it of use. In the case of dealers like Mark and Tim, yes, you can find their sites through other means; but their signature inclusion makes it very easy and intuitive for the reader to link to it immediately if there is something of interest in the post. I fail to see any harm in this, or really even any inconvenience. I would heartily agree with a limit that defines the signature and absolutely no animation or graphics.

Here's part of my rationale for the suggestion: We all have the ability to add a signature or link to our posts at any time and many do so and will probably continue to unless Bill Armintrout says "no" at some point. I was only suggesting that this be automated, somewhat as a courtesy or priviledge of Supporting Membership. Interestingly, I notice that several of the responders above are not Supporting Members and 6 of them make up a large part of the "no" chorus?

And John the OFM, I have to ask, if you find visiting referenced sites to be so useless and/or annoying, why do you not simply pass by the links and not click on them?

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

Ditto Tango 2 118 Jun 2010 8:19 a.m. PST

OK, I'm testing now – any objection to this? Would it earn me even more stifles?
--
Tim of Tim's Toys, ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal

John the OFM18 Jun 2010 8:22 a.m. PST

I am curious as to what sparks this passion.

Why not read what we wrote?


if you find visiting referenced sites to be so useless and/or annoying, why do you not simply pass by the links and not click on them?

Asked and answered. I do not go there. I would hate to be driven away from TMP by seeing it turn into similar trashy looking sites.

Daffy Doug18 Jun 2010 8:25 a.m. PST

Yes, sigs are fun. But I want this feature for free memberships, not an add-on for supporting members (naturally).

And I add "no" to the bloated sigs of other sites: Bill can keep TMP sigs very conservative. So OFM's rant and his echoes are objecting to something that won't happen here….

Oldenbarnevelt18 Jun 2010 8:34 a.m. PST

I don't think it is needed. Both PCs and Macs have software to allow you to reserve an F key for frequently used phrases. Use it for your tag line. At the end of your comment, simply hit Command-F(whatever) and voila your tag line.

Oldenbarnevelt18 Jun 2010 8:39 a.m. PST

Yes, sigs are fun. But I want this feature for free memberships, not an add-on for supporting members (naturally).

What and let all the "little people" have these privileges? Besides, don't be so cheap. Cough up with the $25. USD grin

Major William Martin RM18 Jun 2010 8:49 a.m. PST

John the OFM said:

"Why not read what we wrote?"

I did, several times. And I checked out all of the links to the "bad" examples. The problem is that the majority of these "bad" examples do not fit the simple 2 lines plus a link format that I used as an example and that others have supported with their comments. I completely agree with the view on the over-bloated sig's allowed on some Boards and Forums, I am on one where one fellow's sig is his entire curriculum vitae and runs to about 7 or 8 lines. And I completely oppose animation and graphics as part of the proposed sig. But I'm sorry John, given the limitations that I've proposed, I still don't undersand the passion being displayed.

However, I'm not going to try and talk anyone into this proposal. I'll let this thread run another day or so and then Bill Armintrout can decide if he wants to make a formal Poll out of it. Based on some of the passions on display here, I guess the next suggested Poll might be "Do we excommunicate anyone daring to use a signature?" ;-)

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

(awaiting future excommunication)

Cpt Arexu18 Jun 2010 8:51 a.m. PST

I am a Supporting memeber and rise in support of NO signatures. If you feel driven to advertise have the courtesy of posting to the appropriate board (for blogs) or buying some banner space (for business).

And adding a paragraph about how your blog is the greatest thing since sliced milk and how so many more folks can see it since you post it on every freaking message no matter how inappropriate (99%, you said) to the discussion you're posting in is nothing less than, for lack of a better term, Naked Sock Puppetry.

so here are my own suggestions:

1)(the serious point): Can we add business signatures to the rights and privileges of businesses who pay to advertise on TMP?

as for Bloggers, DEATH! Well, no, but since there is a Blog Board already, as pointed out by aecurtis, at
TMP link
let them confine their bloggishness to the appointed place or buy advertising room.

(less serious):

2) Can we add a "Stifle Signatures" button?

3) Or an Signature generator (fed by Bil's April Fools Day device that adds random stuff onto our profiles)?

Cpt Arexu
"You can say anything in a quote if you attribute it to a historical figure." – Confucius, 522 B.C.

and -10 points to Burlesonbill for using the lame "all the cool kids are doing it" argument (we all have the ability…many do so and will continue to do so…).

and -2 more for spelling. Priviledge? Seriously?

Steve Hazuka18 Jun 2010 8:54 a.m. PST

Well what I like about TMP is the lack of those damn SPAM lines. You have a Member Profile put your links picture and cute little catch phrases there. If I feel I want to see your profile I'll click on your name and view your spewage.

CeruLucifus18 Jun 2010 9:11 a.m. PST

I agree, no.

Major William Martin RM18 Jun 2010 9:18 a.m. PST

Cpt Arexu;

1st – My apologies for the error in spelling Sir. No excuse except two old fingers struggling with a keyboard, short on sleep last night.

2nd – The "lame all the cool kids are doing it argument"? Sorry again, but that really wasn't my point. My point was that until Bill Armintrout decides that signatures won't be allowed, posters will continue to add them. If they are to be allowed, why not automate the process? Nothing to do with "the cool kids".

3rd – "And adding a paragraph about how your blog is the greatest thing since sliced milk and how so many more folks can see it since you post it on every freaking message no matter how inappropriate (99%, you said) to the discussion you're posting in is nothing less than, for lack of a better term, Naked Sock Puppetry."

No apologies for this one, as you obviously have applied your own interpretation to my comment. I offered this comment only as an example of how at least some TMP readers have found the link either useful or interesting. No "Naked Sock Puppetry" was intended. You'll notice that I also pointed out, in the same paragraph, that sig's by dealers like Mark and Tim could be useful to some readers.

4th – "by Bil's April Fools Day" Might I suggest that if one is going to appoint himself the "Spelling Monitor", then he should at least take care with the spelling of the site owner's name?

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

(yes, another freaking inappropriate signature)

Major William Martin RM18 Jun 2010 9:27 a.m. PST

Gentlemen (and Ladies if such be present);

Please ignore my comment on letting the thread run in my earlier post. Obviously I've inflamed the "Old Guard" with this suggestion, so I am dropping it. Bill Armintrout can choose to delete this thread or not, it was his suggestion to post it here so I will let it be his decision to delete it. My regards and thanks to you all for participating.

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

John the OFM18 Jun 2010 9:34 a.m. PST

You are so gracious.

Ivan DBA18 Jun 2010 9:41 a.m. PST

I say yes, BUT limit it to ONE line and NO graphics.

Personal logo Lentulus Supporting Member of TMP18 Jun 2010 9:45 a.m. PST

Sigs might have made sense on usenet, but here everything you want to say about yourself is a click away from the reader, if he cares.

britishlinescarlet218 Jun 2010 9:55 a.m. PST

No, for all the reasons above and below.

Pete

"I envy not him that eats better meat than I do; nor him that is richer, or that wears better clothes than I do; I envy him, and him only, that catches more fish than I do."
Izaak Walton, 1653

"Going to Hell in a Bucket..but at least I'm enjoying the Ride" Hunter/Garcia

"Now, my friend, let us smoke together so that there may be only good between us." Nicholas Black Elk

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc…….

Scorpio18 Jun 2010 10:30 a.m. PST

I'm all for it, myself. And anything else that drags TMP into the technological advances of the previous decade.

Cpt Arexu18 Jun 2010 11:07 a.m. PST

Cpt Arexu;

1st My apologies for the error in spelling Sir. No excuse except two old fingers struggling with a keyboard, short on sleep last night.

That's why it was just -2 points. One extra letter, easy enough to miss.


2nd The "lame all the cool kids are doing it argument"? Sorry again, but that really wasn't my point. My point was that until Bill Armintrout decides that signatures won't be allowed, posters will continue to add them. If they are to be allowed, why not automate the process? Nothing to do with "the cool kids".

So you ARE saying "people are doing it now and will continue to do it" as an excuse for the behavior you want to promote. Plenty of people smoke but it doesn't mean that we need to automate the process by adding smoke from the air conditioners…


3rd "And adding a paragraph about how your blog is the greatest thing since sliced milk and how so many more folks can see it since you post it on every freaking message no matter how inappropriate (99%, you said) to the discussion you're posting in is nothing less than, for lack of a better term, Naked Sock Puppetry."

No apologies for this one, as you obviously have applied your own interpretation to my comment.

Too right, just my opinion.


I offered this comment only as an example of how at least some TMP readers have found the link either useful or interesting. No "Naked Sock Puppetry" was intended. You'll notice that I also pointed out, in the same paragraph, that sig's by dealers like Mark and Tim could be useful to some readers.

And I agree that its handy to have a link for dealers, which is why I think it ought to be included as an advertiser perk.


4th "by Bil's April Fools Day" Might I suggest that if one is going to appoint himself the "Spelling Monitor", then he should at least take care with the spelling of the site owner's name?

Sorry, its the OFM who's in charge of gramer and speling. Fair cop on catching me mis-spelling in the same post where I dogged you for it.


Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

(yes, another freaking inappropriate signature)

I expected nothing less.

Cpt Arexu

"Please ignore my comment on letting the thread run in my earlier post. Obviously I've inflamed the "Old Guard" with this suggestion, so I am dropping it. Bill Armintrout can choose to delete this thread or not, it was his suggestion to post it here so I will let it be his decision to delete it. My regards and thanks to you all for participating." – Sir William the Aged 2010

Martin Rapier18 Jun 2010 11:19 a.m. PST

"This is simply a suggested Poll, not the actual Poll"

Yes, but this is what always happens in poll suggestion threads. When the poll goes up, we then have the same discussion again.

Keeps my post count up.

As to the original question, I really don't care, just same forum trivia obsession as 'bumping'.

Perhaps we could have a debate about top posting next.

Space Monkey18 Jun 2010 11:52 a.m. PST

No.
People are always whining about how this place is cluttered with non-gaming nonsense that their crippled hands can't scroll through fast enough… how is that going to be improved by having vapid movie quotes and personal mottos attached to EVERY message?

John D Salt18 Jun 2010 12:23 p.m. PST

Doom of the DawgHaus DeathLord wrote:


Yes, sigs are fun.

For the first ten seconds, if you are easily amused. They get old pretty fast after that.

Scorpio wrote:


I'm all for it, myself. And anything else that drags TMP into the technological advances of the previous decade.

Ah, these would be the same kind of "technological advances" that typified progress from the 1970s to the 2000s. From a decade of manned lunar spaceflight, supersonic passenger aircraft and a regular hovercraft service across the English Channel, we have progressed to a world of one-calorie soft drinks, air-cushioned trainers and telephones with an infinite variety of irritating ringtones which are so small that they can be conveniently lost down the back of any chair or sofa.

Most of you young kids are probably too old to remember what the world was like when you could read news in an ordinary threaded newsreader, and still fit about 20 topics on a single VT52 screen. That, at least, would explain why none of you can spell .sig properly.

Now you kids get offa my lawn!

John.

Pages: 1 2