Signature Suggestion

I'd like to make a suggestion, and I'll make it publicly, because other members might like the idea. Anyways, I like to be able to see someone's signature in their profile.

Now, don't give me that, "No hacks, plz." BS right away.

My reason for this is that it'll be easier for me to see if my signature is the way I want it without having to find a post of mine. Another reason is that it would be easier for staff to determine if someone's signature is breaking any sig-limits right away. *nods*

If you don't want to add it, I can understand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Proto
Now, don't give me that, "No hacks, plz." BS right away.

---

It's not BS. Simplicity is a big part of what makes EoFF EoFF. Once we start installing frivolous hacks left and right (I never should have started saying yes in the first place, look where it's leading), we become just another cookie-cutter forum.

Well you could always have two EoFF windows open, one with your profile, and one with one of your posts. Then just refresh the window with your post once you submit your new signature. :p

That's what I do anyway. Although that signature in the profile thing is kinda need. *pets ASC*

That way, people who turn sigs off can still be subjected to them.

There's a link to a users most recent post anyway in their profile, so you just click that :p

But that would involve waiting for a thread to load. *nods* But oh well. :P

No hacks, plz. In other words, one Fool's Gold is enough.

If even that.

I for one think this would be a nice hack. :/

If you're going to suggest a hack, I suggest you find it and post it too 'cause if it's not presented to me I'm sure not even gonna consider saying yes to it. [/stinker]

I'll provide the code if we're agreeing to have it.

I'm not agreeing to anything unless I see some code and more "yays" from other people.

yay


now what are we proposing?

*counters the yays with nays*

I say nay 'cause I really don't see the point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Del Murder
That way, people who turn sigs off can still be subjected to them.

---

I agree. I have signatures switched off to limit load time and size, but it's still nice to have the option of looking at someone's sig without having to temporarily re-enable signatures from the 'Edit Options' menu.

Another nay here. We have enough stuff in the profiles as it is.

It's not necessarily a big hack involving changing anything. :p

in member.php

Find:
if ($userinfo['receivepm'] and $usergroupperms['canusepm']) {


Add Above:
if($userinfo['showsignatures']) {
$userinfo['signature'] = bbcodeparse($userinfo['signature'],0,$allowsmilies);
}

In template getinfo

Figure out where you want the signature to appear, and put there:
$userinfo[signature]

That's more like it, Prot.

Too bad everyone's saying no.

I think it's a great idea. All the other info on a member is available in their profile; why not their sig as well? It'd look quite nice at the bottom of the Profile page.

No it wouldn't...

I think it's a bad idea, 'cause it's a bloody waste of time. I go to MBs where my sig is in my profile, and MBs where it's not, and frankly, I don't even notice.

For some people, a signature is as significant as their avatar, unsername and other details. It's a part of their 'identity' here, so it wouldn't hurt to have it visible on the profile. Besides, lots of sigs contain links which pertain to the member in question.

Not my decision to make, of course, just my opinion.

Nor is it a huge deal anyway, just an idea.

Yeah, it's called "homepage" and "LJ/blog" which is not only already in a member's profile, but also at the bottom of their posts.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this.

Advantage:
• A person who has Signatures Disabled will be able to view someone's signature without having to go into their usercp just to enable signature and look at someone's signature.
• It'll be easier for staff to determine if someone is breaking the signature limit. (i.e. If it stretches the profile table, it's too wide.)
• A member wouldn't have to find a post of theirs to check their signature after changing it. (Especially those with signature disabled)

Disadvantage
• Cluttering up Profile.

And then there's the opinions that it's a "dumb useless" hack that "has no point." *nods*

EDITS: I also notice that the Profile Table is .... awkward. It's exactly equal in width. Shouldn't the left side of the table be smaller?

"A person who has Signatures Disabled will be able to view someone's signature without having to go into their usercp just to enable signature and look at someone's signature."

Umm...if they wanted to view someone's signature, why would they have signatures disabled in the first place?

"It'll be easier for staff to determine if someone is breaking the signature limit. (i.e. If it stretches the profile table, it's too wide.)"

Wtf? That makes no sense. You can tell if a sig stretches the tables...well, if it stretches the tables. And why would staff go looking in peoples' profiles for their sigs anyway? They could tell all they'd need to by seeing it in a thread.

" A member wouldn't have to find a post of theirs to check their signature after changing it. (Especially those with signature disabled)"

Your only "advantage" that makes any sense whatsoever. However, you can either wait for your profile to load fully, or just click on the "last post" thingy and wait for the thread to load. A difference of maybe 10 seconds.

And yes, my opinion is that it's a dumb useless hack. 'Cause it is. Meh.

*sigh* If people are going to be really picky about a little hack such as this that's not even going to be noticed seeing that everyone don't view a member profile very often, I'm really considering..... *sigh* This is just ridiculous. It's just a profile hack.

Quote:

---

Umm...if they wanted to view someone's signature, why would they have signatures disabled in the first place?

---

Disabling signatures makes threads load faster. Less downloading = cheaper EoFF for Big D.

i can see how someone might want to look at a specific signature (like if someone comments on a signature in a thread) without wanting to have sigs in all posts. The hack seems helpful in that regard. I also agree its annoying to go load a thread in which you've posted just to check out a new sig you've put up. FInally, it also seems inconsistent that we have every other bit of usefull (useless) information in our profile but not our signature. I don't think it all matters too much to me, but I dare say we would have more members happy about this new feature than members complaining about it. It's just that the people who read the feedback forum like to complain about things. Quite frankly, the only people who can really compain about putting in a hack are Shlup and Bleys.

There are other disadvantages. For example, editing and uploading a php file always introduces the possibility of corrupting the heck out of things. I think I remember last time Bleys was having FTP problems and the MB was down for quite a while because he corrupted a php file and couldn't fix it. Every hack you add also has to be re-added if they ever upgrade the version of the vB we use. Hacks also have to be taken into account if you ever add another hack that somehow affects whatever you changed when installing the hacks before that one. The profile is currently 100% text except for avatars, which I find nice.

I don't really care though. It's not that big a deal. If you're only going to use it for moderation purposes, maybe there's a way to let mods see it without forcing the rest of us to. Like Big D, some people still do have slow / limited connections and really do care about not downloading 40 gigs worth of images for no reason.

Quite frankly, the only people who can really compain about putting in a hack are Shlup and Bleys. --eestlinc

The only people who can decide whether to install a hack are those two, but anyone can complain about anything all they want. That's what this forum is for, I thought.

true, we all can complain.

i like the "hacks are troublesome" argument a lot more than the "that idea sucks" argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Proto
*sigh* If people are going to be really picky about a little hack such as this that's not even going to be noticed seeing that everyone don't view a member profile very often, I'm really considering..... *sigh* This is just ridiculous. It's just a profile hack.

---

That's right, it's just a profile hack. It's not important, and it's certainly not necessary. Who's being more picky, the people who don't care to bother or the people who think it's not important but needs to be done anyway?

Oh man, you guys are great. Just when I thought Big D made the post of the day, Raistlin came in and topped it. Keep it up everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Proto
But that would involve waiting for a thread to load. *nods* But oh well. :P

---

Given the amount of time it will take for you to load up that sig every single time you do pretty much anything in your profile, ten visits to your profile to do different things will add up to the same time involved with loading a thread, most likely. So it's no difference overall >=P

If we allow this hack, I want us to bring back at least four of Acmlm's hacks which are just as small, insignificant and 'useful'. Seriously! If we have that profile thing done, I want the blue/pink names for guys and girls again. And the double post hack, too. That'll save mods having a lot of page-loading-time when we go to edit posts and delete others. *nods*

And while we're at it, we might as well add the hacks that let people put in their own post headers and footers. And custom fonts. And glow. Because that's the direction we're headed in. Maybe I never should have put on that "Admin/Cid's Knight" title hack, because it sure has snowballed since then.

I'm not asking for everything. But if that's what you guys are thinking... then forget it. I don't want to be blamed anymore for wanting to turn EoFF into "another Fool's Gold" or returning back to the "Acmlm Era"

That is NOT what I want. *sigh* but if that's what you guys think I want, I can't blame you. I'm really annoyed for being blasted each time I suggest a little thing that'll most likely be unnoticeable.

Anyways, take a look at the profile. It needs to be changed. The width of the table cells are equal in size, and it looks godawful. I've included an image of what I think would be more appropriate. Take a look at it and look at the profile page and see the difference yourself.

That's just the thing--You're asking for modifications to source code which would be nigh-unnoticeable, and every hack I give in and install makes it that much easier to install the next one.

Six months ago, nobody would have asked for such a frankly useless hack, because there's no need for it. It just hacks up the board, and increases my per-upgrade workload, not to mention opening up more possibilites for corrupt files, board errors, and maybe accidentally opening something up to hackers.

I hear a lot of "I'm not asking for much," but quite frankly, you are, in the long run. It's asking for a lot, because guess who gets 18,000 IMs per second every time something goes wrong with EoFF? Hint: it's not you.

Ok. Could you at least change the width size in the profile-page? >_>

That, I can do.

Alrighty, I shall end this discussion before it gets out of hand.
*closes*