Jump to content

[IMG] Tags removed from signature lines

iryshe

By iryshe
in General geocaching topics

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

synergicity

+synergicity

Posted
Posted

I have a fast connection so the time to load isn't an issue, and I have more problems with server freezes than image loading. That said, I am pleased with this change. Thank you PTB. I come from the era of a sig line that should be 4 lines of text or less. Less is better.

 

I get tired of seeing the same image several times on a forum page. The avatars are not in the line of sight of my reading and aren't in the same category as the sig images. I don't turn off images because there are images on this site without alt tags, for example, the Reply To: window I'm in (with images turned off) has 11 green boxes with a hyphen. So, images turned off isn't a good option either.

 

Where does that leave us? Oh, I know, we should write forum posts that stand alone without any need to remind the readers of your stats, or your favorite skiing image or whatever...over and over and over again. If you like the image or want people to see how many caches you have found, put a link to your profile page in your (less than 4 line) sig, and put the stats image and the skier image and the dancing pumpkins image and the annoying sound file, and the epileptic seizure inducing background image on that profile page. As you can see, I have issues with annoying cache pages as well, but I am seeking help for that.

 

And don't get me started on email messages that use html...

 

synergicity

 

(betting that those complaining about losing their sig images have never used lynx to browse or vi to compose web pages and appreciated the leanness and efficiency)

Link to comment
ZachMJ2345

+ZachMJ2345

Posted
Posted

There's no sense in flooding the bodies of our posts with images unless you want TPTB to get rid of that feature on the forums too.

 

People have all kinds of gripes about Jeremy, but honestly... what's the big deal? I would LOVE to have stats, I would love to still be able to have an image in my signature line, but it's like you're all complaining about a gift. It's really kinda greedy. GC.com is a very nice webpage that has been made with the general caching population in mind, so what if we don't have stats? We're getting out and seeing nature and meeting all kinds of great people in doing so. What does it matter if we can't have an image in our signature line? Have some sympathy for the users out there with a 28.8 connection. I'm spoiled by cable internet so the images never bothered me, but I can see why it would be a problem.

 

I'll admit, it seems to me that the reason something was done about the issue now is the stats being the images used. I don't know why they are needed honestly though. Again, stats are something that I would love to see incorporated into GC.com, keeppeople is not the answer though, IMHO. It's meaningless since so few people proportionately are actually signed up there.

 

I'd just like to add a comment about stats here... even if we never get them, I would love to see the total caches found back in our profiles. It doesn't rank anyone, it just gives the final picture of what is already listed in the profile. Totals of all the sub-catagories are already there, I don't see why it would be a problem.

 

Okay... back on topic, sorry. I'll finish this up. People, GC.com is darn good to us. We are lucky to have such good people in charge of it all, even if we don't always agree with every decision they make. If you want anything done, don't do so much complaining to them, tell them nicely what you want changed (most people are nice about it, anyways) and tell them why you think it should be changed. Don't use reasons like "because everyone wants it" because everyone here would love it if gc.com gave them a million bucks too, but that's not gonna happen. They know that just because they don't give us stats and images in our signatures, it's ot going to start making people quit, not enough people care THAT much to really make an impact. While I do want stats and it would be nice to have images in our signature lines, I can't think of any groundbreaking reason that we should have to have them.

 

-Zach

-Team Zen-

Link to comment
HartClimbs

+HartClimbs

Posted
Posted

What images? icon_wink.gif

 

I'd just put a few lines in my HOSTS file and haven't been seeing 'em for a while (works for blocking the images from logs too or any other HTML links to the sites).

 

Snippet follows (your entries may vary):

 

127.0.0.1 www.keenpeople.com

127.0.0.1 www.danasoft.com

127.0.0.1 planetrobert.net

127.0.0.1 www.woodsters.com

 

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Take everything you like seriously, except yourselves. - Rudyard Kipling (1865 - 1936)

Link to comment
Sissy-n-CR

+Sissy-n-CR

Posted
Posted

How about this for a good reason to allow graphics in signatures: you can tell when the person stops talking.

 

There have been many times where I'm reading a post then flow onto the signature as if it's part of the post. Confusing. And I'd be willing to bet, that on average it's much more distracting to not know where the post ends and the sig starts than it is to see modest graphic signatures. (No, I'm not going to point out anyone's posts for obvious reasons.)

 

As for leanness of posting, I'm a frequent visitor to USENET, so yes I do appreciate leanness. However, times are changing. The web is a graphic world. I don't kick start my motorcycle, I don't hand crank my car, I even have indoor toilets plus cold and hot water!

 

Yes, sig should be small, but that doesn't mean it has to be text.

 

My graphic was my signature, my image that local, and not so local, cachers recognize when reading the logbooks in caches and letterboxes I've visted. A few other signatures had a similar image. Others were their mark, their true signature.

 

By using the blanket policy of no graphics because a few had obnoxious signatures, those who had modest graphics have to suffer, as well. To say I'm disappointed is an undestatement.

 

CR

 

Sissy-n-CR

 

Be sure to visit: KeenPeople · Open Caching · Buxley's Maps · Navìcache.com

Link to comment
Swagger

Swagger

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by HartClimbs:

I'd just put a few lines in my HOSTS file and haven't been seeing 'em for a while (works for blocking the images from logs too or any other HTML links to the sites).

I thought about suggesting this, but figured that most people wouldn't understand it.

 

--

Pehmva!

 

[sTATS IMAGE REMOVED BY OVERBEARING ADMINS]

 

Random quote:

[RANDOM QUOTE IMAGE REMOVED BY OVERBEARING ADMINS]

Link to comment
parkrrrr

+parkrrrr

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

There have been many times where I'm reading a post then flow onto the signature as if it's part of the post. Confusing. And I'd be willing to bet, that on average it's much more distracting to not know where the post ends and the sig starts than it is to see modest graphic signatures. (No, I'm not going to point out anyone's posts for obvious reasons.)

As someone who had a mostly-text signature, and as someone who tries to read threads in the benchmarking forum (where one particularly egregious example of the kind of signature you're referring to can be found) I actually agree with you on that. In fact, that's why my most recent signature had the text in a deliberately different font and offset to the right from rest of the text.

 

quote:
My graphic _was_ my signature, my image that local, and not so local, cachers recognize when reading the logbooks in caches and letterboxes I've visted. A few other signatures had a similar image. Others were their mark, their true signature.
Other than the poem, mine was too. I'll miss the functionality, a little, but I won't be creating an avatar anytime soon, because it's impossible to have a nonrectangular avatar (due to the insistance on JPG images) and I don't want to put myself in a box.

 

I like to think that my signature line didn't slow down anyone's connection all that much, since on the average it weighed in at about 2800 bytes, but I accept that some people might have found it distracting. I certainly found some other people's signatures distracting, to the point of adding a few addresses (keenpeople not included, but only because I hadn't gotten around to it yet) to my own hosts file. And I agree that some posts were more sig than response, and I was as guilty of that as anyone else, though in my defense I tried to make a point of turning off my signature in the cases where I had three or four posts in a row, or in threads where I had posted a lot of times already. That was more for aesthetic reasons, admittedly, because my posts in a single page all ended up with the same poem attached and I thought that looked bad.

 

Anyway, as I said way, way back in the third post in this thread, it really doesn't bother me all that much. My posts aren't about my signature, they're about their content.

 

On a somewhat-related topic: Jeremy, you said you remove the tags by using the same sort of filtering you use on cache pages, when the user logs in to the forums. Could you also enforce a horizontal rule of some kind before the signature, like the "-- " in Usenet posts, so we don't end up having more of the problems CR mentioned in the post I'm replying to? If you're looking for an example of a signature that's distracting in this way, ask me privately and I'll point out one that's a good example of the type.

Link to comment
RJFerret

+RJFerret

Posted
Posted

OK, this is the first time I haven't read all the responses to a thread, but it's 'cause it doesn't affect me.

 

I browse with images turned off.

 

I've never seen an avatar. I've never seen a keenpeople pic. I only saw a frog once when the first came up and I clicked on one. It didn't look like a frog.

 

Pages load in seconds, even on my $9 dialup service.

 

All that being said, I'd vote in favor for restricting sigs to one line and/or certain size image. Reading one-line posts followed by half-a-screen of sig text is excessively annoying and rude (doesn't happen much here, I've seen it more on other sites).

 

If I'm being redundant to suggestions already made, I apologize.

 

It does seem silly to restrict the abilities of the majority to the inabilities of a few when those few have other options (simply turn images off). That's sorta' akin to suggesting no more 2-5 difficulty caches 'cause some people can't hunt/find them!

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

 

PS: If you turn of Java along with images, you'll eliminate pop-ups, speed page loads, reduce bandwith usage, reduce your exposure to advertising, etc.

Link to comment
woodsters

+woodsters

Posted
Posted

Sorry to be off topic here, but I'm trying to start a new topic and it won't let me. Anyone else having trouble like this?

 

To keep this on track with geocaching, I was going to post a message about a news paper article in the Augusta Chronicle today that my father told me about. Check it out here.

If I can ever get to post a new topic, I will post it there and remove this.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment
Bloencustoms

+Bloencustoms

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Sorry to be off topic here, but I'm trying to start a new topic and it won't let me. Anyone else having trouble like this?

 

To keep this on track with geocaching, I was going to post a message about a news paper article in the Augusta Chronicle today that my father told me about. Check it out http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/101203/liv_023-4205.000.shtml

If I can ever get to post a new topic, I will post it there and remove this.

 

Brian

http://www.woodsters.com

 

Yeah, I was having the same problem too. Haven't tried again in a while, though.

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Link to comment
cachew nut

+cachew nut

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

 

Sure. I have received around 10 emails a day for the past week and a half from geocachers who read the forums. Before that it was only a couple a day (along with the hundreds of other more common questions), so it really wasn't a priority issue.

 

Remember the uproar when the site underwent its last facelift and people were complaining? How could they complain when the crack team of beta testers determined the new look would please everyone? Are these the same people who are now sending the emails?

Link to comment
JMBella

+JMBella

Posted
Posted

quote:
I'm surprised that so many people have a problem with my sig pic.

 

As an avid skier myself, I actually liked that picture the best. Everytime I see it reminds me that ski season is only x number of days away. Can't wait to combine skiing and geocaching. Talk about my version of heaven. I could cry I'm so happy about that.

 

77980_200.jpg

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

Link to comment
leatherman

+leatherman

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:

Well, I tried again, still can't post new topics. I get a window with "Error processing request. The page you requested is not available" in it. I'd start a thread in the gc.com discussion forum, but I can't. icon_frown.gif

I did the same, in the GPS Units and Software forum. I needed to ask a question about Spinner. I know I can revive another thread. However.....

 

EDIT.

I just did a search for spinner. All the attempts I made to post a topic are listed there. Weird. Although you can't click on them.

Link to comment
Prime Suspect

+Prime Suspect

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jaime and Jason:

I know I shouldn't be laughing at such a serious topic, but between the new caption for J & MBella's avatar and Bloencustoms' posts being edited in March of 1999, this is a really amusing page 5 of the thread. icon_smile.gif

Obviously, the shrinking of Bloencustom's avatar has somehow caused them to travel backwards in time.

 

3608_2800.gif

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

Link to comment
Wild Cat Bud

+Wild Cat Bud

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

With great disappointment, we have removed the use of smile.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

I'm not sure I should post this under this topic, but I did a forums search and couldn't find any information on sound files.

 

What about the background sound (.wav files) on the cache pages. I noticed that mine weren't playing. I checked some other cacher's pages that I knew to have sound and theirs weren't playing either.

 

I went to one of my cache pages and did an edit to see if something was wrong with the HTML code, and when I submitted the edit, the sound codes were stripped out.

 

So, I am assuming background sound is no longer allowed??

 

What about images on the cache pages, the ones in the cache descriptions, are those IMG tags going to be allowed to remain?

 

WBC

Link to comment
ErSamin

+ErSamin

Posted
Posted

For me, the imbedded sound files are more of an issue than the 'stat' sig lines. Though I realize that they can be troublesome for those with slower modems, and as such, I am O.K. with the removal of sig line tags.

 

I ignore the 'stat' lines, because after seeing a few, I have little faith in their accuracy. The line 'Ranked ___ in overall stats' is a bit hard to believe inasmuch as I personally know several cachers that have find and hide numbers much greater than some I've seen that claaim to be in the top 100 in overall stats.

 

I can't realy put any stock in ( is it keenpeople.com? ). Just looks like eye-litter to me.

 

"Could be worse...could be raining"

Link to comment
Wild Cat Bud

+Wild Cat Bud

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by CO Admin:

You cant embed sound files in your cache page anymore. you just have to provide a link to them and host them off site

 

IMGs for cache files are still ok

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

 

I'm not overly knowledgeable about coding. How do you do that? How do you link a sound file? Can you link a sound file that will play automatically. Do <BGSOUND> and <META> tags (which are being allowed either, I saw after I tried to use them), do they embed the sound file or does only the <EMBED> tag embed the sound files? I am SOOOOO confused now!!!

I was using both <BKSOUND> <EMBED> tags to cover the two major browsers.

Link to comment
woodsters

+woodsters

Posted
Posted

Just post a link to the sound file Wildcat. I think that don't want it automatically playing when someone brings up the cache page. Depending on the type of sound file (wav, midi, etc) would depend on the file size and the time it takes for it to download. A lot of the instances I have seen in embedded sound files is that they would have to download before any of the rest of the page. It's not always true, but more or less where the code is placed I believe. In my coding, I haven't done sound files in years and am a bit rusty on it.

 

Yes the keepeople stats should be taken with a grain of salt as people will post incorrect things. But it was fun and something to add. I think it was more or less of a statement about getting stats overall. I don't think they were intrusive in the overall picture of slow page downloads. Since they had been removed, the site was even slower yesterday. Taking the images out of the sig lines, won't stop things. People will still post images in the body. Frankly I am surprised with the fact that they allow any images in the messages at all besides the smilies and avatars of course. That is a lot of bandwidth and with the slowness that hte forums have and still go through, it's just more added to it.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment
Prime Suspect

+Prime Suspect

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by CO Admin:

You cant embed sound files in your cache page anymore. you just have to provide a link to them and host them off site

 

IMGs for cache files are still ok

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

 

How does this jibe with Jeremy's statement that he will be disallowing the uploading of GIF files? GIFs are, in many cases, far better suited than JPGs (which are intended exclusively for photographic images, not graphics) for displaying images on cache pages?

Link to comment
Team Kender

Team Kender

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jaime and Jason:

Bill,

I enjoy seeing the stats. It gives me an idea of if I'm discussing with a rookie (like me), a pro or somewhere in between.

 

This can be misleading though. Personally I don't think you can really tell a person's experience level based on their stats. There are some hardcore Geocachers out there that don't have that many finds because they only hide and find caches of a certain quality. They have a lot of experience and knowledge in Geocaching, but don't have a ton of finds.

And OTOH, you have people like Electric Shavers who probably have recorded finding all known Geocaches and Benchmarks by now. But the only experience they can share is how to make excuses for cheating.

 

Team Kender - "The Sun is coming up!" "No, the horizon is going down."

Link to comment
Team Cacheopeia

+Team Cacheopeia

Posted
Posted

Team Kender,

True enough. I think the majority of cachers are generally honest, though... and the hardcore ones who are only out for high-quality caches probably aren't posting stats anyway. Truthfully, it's not something I dwell on. It's just an interesting tidbit -- like avatar, name, location and number of posts -- that contribute to one's online identity.

 

Jaime and Jason

Team Cacheopeia

 

image ©scienceandart.com -- used with permission

Link to comment
BassoonPilot

BassoonPilot

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Team Kender:

 

This can be misleading though. Personally I don't think you can really tell a person's experience level based on their stats. There are some hardcore Geocachers out there that don't have that many finds because they only hide and find caches of a certain quality.

 

I've noticed in my region that most of the people placing the more challenging caches very rarely seek challenging caches. I find that quite strange.

Link to comment
ChrisCindy

+ChrisCindy

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by synergicity:

(betting that those complaining about losing their sig images have never used lynx to browse or vi to compose web pages and appreciated the leanness and efficiency)

 

It's always nice to know that the wants of the masses are out weighed by the wants of the few.

 

I never had an in my sig line but I saw no problem with it. I see no differance now in load times then before. It's still unreliable, same as before.

 

"When in doubt...hit it with a hammer" C²™

Link to comment
Tahosa and Sons

Tahosa and Sons

Posted
Posted

This is only a game to pass away some idle time. So why do some have to cause bruises on their left shoulder caused by self pats of praise! Your avatar should be enough to show your stuff, its like a virtual cache. Some like and some don't.

I think the BIG FROG should just close this topic and drop it like I do with a hot potato at work.

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

Link to comment
woodsters

+woodsters

Posted
Posted

Jaime and Jason sparked a good note there about the location and number of posts. I know there's a difference between the img tags and this, but what about the posts numbers and location and regsitered info that's at the bottom of each post. They are graphics and don't hold any value as far as page loading, but if people don't like to see those or don't want those displayed, is there a movement to get those removed as well? Personally I would rather base my thoughts on anothers opinion on the number of finds they have and not be swayed with how long they have been a member or how many times they have posted. As those numbers don't mean squat.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

Link to comment
Team GPSaxophone

+Team GPSaxophone

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Personally I would rather base my thoughts on anothers opinion on the number of finds they have and not be swayed with how long they have been a member or how many times they have posted. As those numbers don't mean squat.

Yeah, because most of your 1300+ posts have been meaningless, right? icon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

(It's not an attack, smileys denote humor, CO admin icon_wink.gif)

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...