I'm not going to re-enable signature images again when it is planned to remove all embedded images in the future. There was only one complaint about that in the thread about forum software specifications. Why weren't you guys complaining when I posted that?
The advertising thing didn't even cross my mind as part of this decision. I don't receive any money from the forum, so I don't care that much about ad profitability...
I honestly must have forgot about this, I didn't know there was constraints already. I kept seeing that intersango site's large header and thought that would be too large, but no one said anything.
I removed that image from gejix's signature when he had it there. He sometimes adds it to intersango-related posts, but it contains some semi-relevant text, so I usually don't want to remove it.
from business perspective sig buttons and banners are more valuable than avatars as long as there are some rules outlined.
i personally like idea where everyone can put small buttons for free and paying top advertisers allowed to put in their sigs wider banners
Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package.
Ideas can be spread without annoying anyone by using text links in signatures. Or you can start a new topic about your idea.
Maybe viewing signatures as ad space explains many of the low-quality posts: people just want to put their signature "advertisements" on as many pages as possible.
I'd just like to see a vote on it, rather than theymos deciding that his personal preferences are what is best for everyone.
My goal is to make the best Bitcoin forum possible, not to appeal to current users. I will of course consider all arguments against the policy.
These are not arguments of any kind...
I'm signing this.
one more vote.
My thoughts EXACTLY cablepair!
I didn't have the balls to suggest it - but since you brought it up...
another vote, with highlighting.
people who don't like images can disable them in their forum profiles.
SMF doesn't support this. If it did, I would definitely allow the option of showing signature images.
Per user turning on/off images in signatures can be pretty easy, however needs some custom development. When somebody put image to his signature, some special html class should be given to HTML representation of this image. Then anybody can check on/off "Show images in signature" in his account settings, which will modify CSS style 'display' for this html class (that piece of css style can be placed inline to page source)...
Then you'd still download the full image, which would waste bandwidth and still make users vulnerable to cookie stuffing attacks. The image would need to be completely removed or turned into a simple link.
Oh really?
.signature
{
max-width: 468px;
max-height: 60px;
}
Like I said, I'm sure it is possible to limit sizes technologically. That still leaves other problems.
Also, the next forum software will disable all image embedding? Whoa, talk about a step backwards! I guess some people really DO still want to be stuck in the 90's.
The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it.
Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community.
And DEFINITELY do not ban embedded images within posts. That would be signing the death warrant of this forum. Who the hell wants to frequent a text-only forum that bans all forms of imagery? Last time I checked, this was not the Soviet Union.
The purpose of this forum is to provide a place where ideas can be expressed and consumed with as much freedom as possible. I have determined that the best way of facilitating this goal is to disallow embedded images.
Signature images are
never useful in exchanging ideas. They never contribute anything to the discussion at hand. Maybe they help you understand the poster better, but understanding posters is not the point of most threads. Signature images are
off-topic in almost every thread they appear in.
This is often also true of embedded images in general. I would estimate that half of all images posted recently are totally off-topic, and perhaps only a tenth contribute significantly to the discussion. Many images are somewhat on-topic and useful, but they take up more space than they're worth.
Text can also be off-topic (both in signatures and out), but text takes up much less space, and it's less distracting.
There are also security problems: Images can be used to execute cookie stuffing and cross-site request forgery attacks; they use a lot of bandwidth; and they prevent bitcointalk.org's HTTPS from appearing totally "kosher" to browsers. These issues could be solved by hosting all images at bitcointalk.org, but this isn't worth the trouble.
Yes, users can block images in their browsers. But it seems to me most correct to assume that users
don't want something possibly unwanted than to assume they do want it. Posts are categorized so that readers have a choice in what they read. I want images to be placed, along with all other non-textual data, into a category that requires an extra choice on the part of readers.
Most of my favorite forum-like things -- NNTP, BBSes, Kareha-style text boards, Reddit, Metafilter etc. -- do not traditionally allow embedded images, and they do just fine.
