[Steve]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Steve, that was quite an aggressive response

Direct, as you failed to see the points put to you in our previous response, but certainly not aggressive. If you feel it was aggressive than I apologise for that as it was not my intention at all.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I raised a suggestion based on the observation that many members would like their signature to show on every post.

This is your opinion Charlotte (as I already pointed out). The questions why signatures are not showing has led you to believe that but I have yet to see anyone (except you) who once they were aware of the situation and reasoning behind it, then ask for them to be allowed in every post. The two are different.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

IMHO this would be feasible if signatures were kept very short (just one line, or maybe two), which is what I perceive as a "signature" in any event. In this case, I cannot see how such signatures could be seen as taking up undue space in threads.

Again I would ask you to re-read the full reasons, taking up space is just one of the reasons, some of the others outlined in previous replies and in the rule amendments are far more important.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I offered a solution to your concern about bulky threads caused by signatures taking up a lot of space:

No you didn’t as we already have rules in place to deal with that, and as I have now written several times the bulky threads is just one reason.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

There is already a very handy place to list camera gear, which is accessible to members at the click of a button. It is not necessary to duplicate this in a signature which is not guaranteed to be shown in a thread anyway!

And you think that everyone will just fall into line with that? Generally it is up to the members what they place in their signatures. We already have enough rules covering the many areas of the site and wish to keep them as simple and straightforward as possible. Adding (and then enforcing) further restrictions that frankly I can’t argue are detrimental anyway, is not something that I or the rest of the Crew want to do. Getting people to read the rules as it is currently is hard enough.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I offered a solution to your very valid point on search engine rating: There is another place to put personal web addresses. Again, it is not necessary to duplicate these in a signature which is not guaranteed to be shown in a thread anyway!

With all due respect Charlotte I believe that your knowledge in this area is not broad enough to quantify your opinion and in fact if we were to follow it, irrespective of the search engine effects, you would be penalising the members here that have personal websites they wish to have linked but are unable to provide a valid back link (required for inclusion into the Members Website List). These people only have their signature as a valid place to have either a picture link or url link included with there posts. If we changed the rules as you suggest, how long would it be before those members, with valid reason, started questioning them?

Originally Posted by Charlotte

(I might suggest adding another button under the avatars for this purpose (personal web address) if I didn't think I'd get shouted at for suggesting it.)

That’s very unfair, we have not shouted at you at all. Our first reply was very polite and thanked you for raising the question/suggestion. It even allowed us to add some clarification to the rules. The issue was that even though the topic was closed, you then chose to continue it in the fishing thread…hence why this thread was subsequently created and the others all cleaned up to keep this debate in one location.

With regards to your (almost) suggestion, and I’ll try not to shout

Originally Posted by Charlotte

If you maintain that my suggestion is not feasible, I would prefer a brief reply to the effect that "It's just not gonna happen" rather than a lengthy knock-down for my effort to suggest something useful for the site. Thank you.

Sorry Charlotte, "It's just not gonna happen"

Now somehow I don’t think that’s really what you want to read as a reply to your valid and welcomed suggestions and so I will offer a more detailed response in the next paragraph. You can skip it completely if I really have misunderstood your answer to be just a brush off, please don’t think I am being awkward.

It would require further code addition to the site which would then make upgrades a more tedious task. In itself we are not totally against doing stuff that will benefit our members even if it makes the upkeep and maintenance of Pixalo harder, providing that it is beneficial. This is the problem, having a link as a button is far less effective to search engines than having them appear in threads (as signatures). Also where would the link actually be? All the buttons lead somewhere and that’s ultimately where the URL to the members website would reside. This further weakens the benefit to members that having their personal website urls visible currently gives them. So rather than helping it is actually a backward step which involves more work for everyone.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Very probably others will disagree with my suggestions, and that's exactly why I suggested a poll, to get a majority opinion.

That’s all well and good, and we have nothing against opening polls to gauge opinion providing we can then act on the verdict. Unfortunately, you seem to be having a problem grasping that in this case it is simply not going to happen for the reasons already outlined. Hence a poll is just a waste of time and becomes a pointless exercise at best.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I beg your pardon, but where did I say that!

You actually intimated it with the following sentence. Made bold for your convenience…

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Having read the explanation in the Ideas section + the amended Rules regarding signatures, it seems to me that by allowing lengthy content (camera equipment) and personal web sites into signatures, the rest of us who only have a one-liner motto for our signature are being penalised

By that I took it that you felt that you were being unfairly penalised by choosing to have only a one sentence signature. Since we cannot and will not go down the path of dictating to members what exactly they should put in their signatures, telling them they must use all five lines of text or both url links etc. the simple solution (to be fair to all including you) would be to ban them completely.
Somehow I think if we did a poll with the options of no signatures, one or two lines of text (but no links at all) or keep the current system, then the last option would be the favourite, but hey, we’ll never know.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Since you openly invite "Ideas + Suggestions" it is intimidating when I do so, only to receive an aggressive response containing misquotes + innuendo's that I do not care about the site, which is not true at all + which I find quite hurtful. Suggestions are just that. If you don't agree, then you can say so diplomatically, so that no-one's feelings get hurt.

Sonsey’s reply above has explained that one Charlotte, and again this is why my reply (earlier in this thread) expressed an opinion that I felt you had not read the official reply properly. We can’t do much more than form and post the reply, reading it is up to you. Again I will add that my replies (this one and the earlier one) are direct but in now way are meant to be aggressive. If you fell they are then I apologise for that.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

If you maintain that my suggestion is not feasible, I would prefer a brief reply to the effect that "It's just not gonna happen" rather than a lengthy knock-down for my effort to suggest something useful for the site. Thank you.

That’s exactly what you got and seemingly chose to ignore…and you are welcome