[Steve]

I am sorry I have accidentally deleted the content of the many posts about this dotted around the forums while I was bringing them all together and cleaning up the other threads.

I have grabbed the content from my browser cache to make this thread but obviously its impossible for me to write the posts as each person concerned, hence why all the quotes Its the best I can do to keep everything open and allow the discussion you seem to require to continue...

It all started with this post I believe...

Originally Posted by Loddonjohn

and why does my signature hardly ever work

Originally Posted by Dabhand

Before your signature will show there has to be a minimum number of characters in your post to trigger it.

Can't remember what the number is offhand - it's the way the software is set up. The idea is to reduce the length of short posts to stop you having to do lots of scrolling.

Originally Posted by Loddonjohn

Dabhand,

Thank you for that info, I have been scanning my cp and scratching my head a lot but could not come up with a reason for it, so now I know.

Take care
John

Originally Posted by Charlotte

In order to have your signature show, you need to type a lengthy post. But if you type a short post, your signature doesn't show in order "to save on scrolling" Doesn't sound very logical to me

Edit: I'm aware that's the way it works, but I just can't see the reasoning behind your explanation of "why" that restriction is in place, Graham.

Originally Posted by Dabhand

I think that the reasoning was that if you have one or more lengthy posts in a thread, you are going to have to scroll a fair bit anyway, where several shorter 'one line' posts would be able to be seen with little 'effort'.

I was a member of another forum before I found Pixalo where signatures were displayed in every post. Members listed not only their gear, but also their computer equipment and web-sites etc. This meant that an average thread took about 5 minutes to cover if you wanted to refer back to an earlier post as the signatures where about two or three times the length of a post.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Then why not simply restrict the length of signatures

It is clear from the number of members who have expressed disappointment that their signature does not appear on every post, that this is what the general population would prefer.

Why not do a poll to find out if members prefer to
(a) Have their signature show only on longer posts (as it is now); OR
(b) Have their signature restricted to, say, two lines, but which can appear on every post?

Perhaps you'd like to move the relevant posts from this thread into a new thread in the Ideas Section, Graham?

Originally Posted by Dabhand

I think it would be easier for someone to suggest it in the New Ideas Forum, if anyone wants to do it.

I've looked at the posts with a view to moving them, but although the message might be there they would not make sense even if I re-ordered them, and my explanation posts would not be relevent in the other forum.

Any takers?

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Sorted, Graham

After which you started the thread in the ideas and suggestions forum.

[Steve]

From there after the detailed reply and it being closed you then posted the following into the fishing thread (where the subject was originally raised)

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


Since the thread in the Ideas section was immediately closed for discussion, I take it that the Crew is not prepared to discuss this at all, so I will shut up about it now, since it appears to be a like-it-or-lump-it thing

[Steve]

Which brings us upto date and allows me to post this reply...

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

I think you have not read the reply or at least, miss read it. Where does it say that we allow lengthy content in signatures, if you check the rules thread you will see exactly the opposite? Also how is applying a condition (which is the same for all users including Crew) penalising members who choose to have one liner mottos as signatures? I certainly don’t feel penalised because I chose to have a one line signature

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Since the thread in the Ideas section was immediately closed for discussion, I take it that the Crew is not prepared to discuss this at all, so I will shut up about it now, since it appears to be a like-it-or-lump-it thing

The line in that reply that says…

Originally Posted by Pixalo

For the reasons outlined above and in the amended rules, on this topic our position is not going to change.

and the fact that the thread was closed after the detailed answer was probably how you came to that conclusion, yet it seems you still wish to continue it

It is by no way a like it or lump it situation. If you really believe that you are being treated unfairly we can give you a choice…

You can have it as it is now with conditional signatures that benefit the members in many ways with increased page rank, better search engine listings that bring in more members and help sustain the site, while at the same time prevent it from becoming full of signatures and very little content.

Or

If you prefer we could completely ban all signatures to make it fair (in your words)?


We are not prepared to do anything that would ultimately compromise the sites chances of continued success, if that should happen then your signatures debate would become mute as without Pixalo being here, no signatures (of any size) would be seen.

[Charlotte]

Steve, that was quite an aggressive response

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

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

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! (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.)

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

Originally Posted by Steve

If you prefer we could completely ban all signatures to make it fair (in your words)?

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

Originally Posted by Steve

We are not prepared to do anything that would ultimately compromise the sites chances of continued success, if that should happen then your signatures debate would become mute as without Pixalo being here, no signatures (of any size) would be seen.

Good, + I have not asked you to!

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.

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.

[JMitchell]

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.

She makes a point Steve, especially since she was invited to start the thread by a member of the crew. However, I think everyone should calm down and leave it at this (with apologies if necessary), as this will soon become a slanging match, which no one needs, and will just cause hurt feelings.

[Sonsey]

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.

That's exactly what was done in our original response to your 1st thread on the subject Charlotte - here: Part-Time Signature

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.

Originally Posted by Pixalo

For the reasons outlined above and in the amended rules, on this topic our position is not going to change.

Thanks for raising the point again and for giving us the chance to clarify the situation for all.

As you can see in the quote taken from our first reply after we had explained our decision, this is exactly what was done. Obviously this wasn't satisfactory to you as you then brought it up again in the fishing thread where it was first mentioned prompting Steve's "to the point" reply above.

You have now restated your point yet again in your last post... how many more ways/times do you need it explained to you?

[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

[Steve]

Originally Posted by JMitchell

She makes a point Steve, especially since she was invited to start the thread by a member of the crew.

And in that thread answers were given in a polite and concise manor and she was thanked for raising the subject. It was Charlotte that then chose to continue the subject elsewhere on the site and thats why the threads were subsequently cleaned up and all brought up into this one.

Originally Posted by JMitchell

However, I think everyone should calm down and leave it at this (with apologies if necessary), as this will soon become a slanging match, which no one needs, and will just cause hurt feelings.

As far as I am concerned I am not annoyed at all, as I have already said if my replies have been taken by Charlotte as being aggressive then that was not my intention at all and for that I offer my apologies.

The last reply is detailed, hopefully to give the reasons and allow this topic to be closed. In the end it is a decision for the Crew and management of this site as to what is and isn't allowed, we made our decision and informed everyone of it in the suggestion thread, Charlotte then chose to question that further so we had to reply.

[Charlotte]

Have given you all a breather with time away to attend to personal matters.

Meantime, I see that I got yet another ear-bashing here, to which I will briefly reply but, you'll be pleased to know, I am not going to respond to every comment, in the interests of winding this discussion down for good. Basically, there was really no need for you to make such a big hoo-ha about this matter. It was a suggestion, not a death sentence. Sarcastic remarks like Sonsey's "how many more ways/times do you need it explained to you" were quite uncalled for. Nobody likes to be talked down to that way. Why you felt the need to even respond to my post "I'll shut up about it now ..." I do not know. By doing that it was you who reopened the discussion, since my post clearly indicates finality as far as I was concerned.

Anyway, I do accept your apology for the tone of your replies, and I just hope that this now brings an end to this wrangle, once and for all. If you choose to reply to this message, then ...