Images in signatures

[neptop]

Hi,

usually I am against forbidding stuff, but IMO images in signature are a waste of traffic. Especially when they are big, meaningless or just another way to display text or advertisements. Most people don't really care about other people's hashrate and it isn't too hard to look up Bitcoin prices.

Yes, I know I could disable them, but lots of people use signatures for useful stuff. Signatures, links to their Bitcoin related projects, etc.

So I am interested in how other people here think about this.

[1715504685]

1715504685

[1715504685]

1715504685

[1715504685]

1715504685

[1715504685]

1715504685

[BitcoinPorn]

I actually agree.  I use them because they are allowed.  I think the signature for everyone should just only be a unique donation/wallet address.   No referrals.  That is it.  I have no doubts that a lot of other Bitcoin forums and communities would get started and going if the official one was a little tighter and more focused.  Seems like it would just be better for Bitcoin overall to kind of spread itself out to more places.  I know reddit has their own Bitcoin shit going on, and I think no images in their signatures might be the reason lol

My answer though, no images in signatures ONLY because there should really just be no signatures.  I rather see images than a line of links and donations and referrals.   If everything was uniform where it was just people having their donation as the sig, the forum would actually be easier to read too.

Proof of concept  Before with Signatures, After with only Donation Signatures.

[dacoinminster]

I say allow them, but limit the size.

[fascistmuffin]

I wish there was a way to disable images in signatures, or at least choose to ignore certain ones (I'm looking at you GOXED face guy). I might look into greesemonkey/user scripts to accomplish this in the future.

[theymos]

I wish there was a way to disable images in signatures, or at least choose to ignore certain ones (I'm looking at you GOXED face guy). I might look into greesemonkey/user scripts to accomplish this in the future.

It's easy to block annoying ones with Adblock Plus.

[TiagoTiago]

Allow them, but give people the option of "muting" individual signatures (without necessarily muting the posts from that person too). Also an option of toggling between images/links (the URL for the image or the URL you go if you click on the image in case it's a link) for individual sigs (as well as for all of them them at once) would be awesome.

[myrkul]

I wish there was a way to disable images in signatures, or at least choose to ignore certain ones (I'm looking at you GOXED face guy). I might look into greesemonkey/user scripts to accomplish this in the future.

It's easy to block annoying ones with Adblock Plus.

Oh hey, good point. Right-click, here I come!

[kokjo]

yes images should be allowed in signatures, but they must not be annoying.
im only suggesting two rules to follow to be un-annoying:
1. should not be animated.
2. should not be too large.

[TiagoTiago]

IMO it would be better to not put any significant restriction, and just give people the means to ignore the ones each person dislikes

[SgtSpike]

No, please disallow signatures. They are annoying.

Bit of a miswording in your poll there...  you don't want to disallow signatures entirely, do you?

[Anonanon]

My vote would be to allow images in signatures, but limit their size.

[fascistmuffin]

I wish there was a way to disable images in signatures, or at least choose to ignore certain ones (I'm looking at you GOXED face guy). I might look into greesemonkey/user scripts to accomplish this in the future.

It's easy to block annoying ones with Adblock Plus.

You just took away all my fun of learning how to make user scripts for greesmonkey  . Or you just saved me a bunch of time and headache, since javascript is a pain.

[neptop]

No, please disallow signatures. They are annoying.

Bit of a miswording in your poll there...  you don't want to disallow signatures entirely, do you?

Thanks, fixed.

[BitQuestr (BitCoinWorldMarket)]

I agree, giant sig images are very annoying. But I have to admit I enjoy seeing what businesses everyone on the forum are involved in. I also think the 50 post requirement to use images in your sig is a good one. If someone is a spammer they will easily be rooted out before they get 50 posts.

Although my vote is probably bias since I'll be launching a new business next week and would like to use an img sig, i do think it is valuable if the img size were just limited to prevent annoyance.

[MysteryMiner]

All l33t forums have images in signatures allowed. I like them. This is helpful, because image count in signatures is invertly proportional to maturity of user.

[BitcoinPorn]

The only true answer is forced moderation of dimension size and file size of image.  No animated gifs that even near 1mb.  Nothing that would not be larger than your typical ad dim size of like 468 x 60 I think is the average small banner size, something around that.

Admins and mods might groan, but I assure everyone, this would probably be the easiest thing to enforce on a forum, as everyone will be rather quick to point out that someone else has a signature that is too big.

[V4Vendettas]

468 x 60     yea that would work for me 

Now where did I put photoshop.

[bitebitebite]

468 x 60     yea that would work for me 

 I agree 

[BitcoinPorn]

Updated mine to that size already, I think it looks clean.

[Jimerson]

Most forums that allow images in signatures have a clearly defined size limit.

I think that this would greatly help to clean up the forum and to make it more readable.