Anyone know how the new signatures actually work or successfully revised one?

Alfie_E

red74 wrote: »

Click on the blue "show me" after the bit that says "The following users have thanked....."

Also, for it to work, you need to have something called JavaScript enabled. All modern web browsers come with JavaScript. It should be turned on, by default. But, if it’s never worked properly for you, that’s the thing to look at.

shellsuit

People are complaining because they don't like people in debt. I'm sure a lot of people have seen the attitude. People on benefit get some of it as well. The easiest way to make trouble is to complain about the sigs, as DFW'ers use them so much.

You are joking aren't you?? :rotfl: :rotfl:

What about the big sigs from users who do competition challenges? Some of those people have all their wins in their sig, do the people who complain not like those too?

It's got nothing to do with what the sig contains, or the 'type' of people who use them, it's the size of them.

Do people who keep tallies in their sigs, not have their figures written down at home somewhere anyway? Surely if these figures are so important, they would be written down elsewhere?

Sigs don't bother me at all, but all this moaning about them does!

It's a new rule that's come into play, if people don't want to abide by it, they can't complain when they have their knuckles rapped.

red74

Alfie_E wrote: »

Also, for it to work, you need to have something called JavaScript enabled. All modern web browsers come with JavaScript. It should be turned on, by default. But, if it’s never worked properly for you, that’s the thing to look at.

Thank God that mine must have javascript automatically enabled otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

sra

ZTD wrote: »

Or have "extended signatures" as in the same way you can check who has thanked you. Except of course, you can default them to always being open.

The problem with that would be that the signatures would still be being loaded onto the page even if they are being hidden. so pages would be taking extra time to load the big signatures that I might not even be interested in seeing.

Just wondering -

An upcoming version of vbulletin has a huge amount of social features built in including big intereactive profile pages.
I'd understand if the powers that be didn't enable a lot of these features because of resources (both technical and from a moderating point of view), but out of interest, would the people who like big signatures be happy with the sig details being on that profile page rather than in the signature?

Just my own curiosity

lunar

I seem to have missed out on a big debate over the last few days. Personally i love peoples sigs with all the totals in. I like to see how people are doing and its easier sometimes to check sig's rather than diaries. I love updating mine too, its like a real achievment and keeps me motivated.

Hopefully the probs everyone are having are due to bugs in a new system. I remember feeling a huge amount of relief when i joined the forum and saw what people had in there sig's, after years of head in the sand then the slow realisation of my situation i thought i was the only person in the world with this much debt. when i first came here the sig's showed me i was not alone, which i think is the most important thing for a newbie.

i used to use one forum where only the first post on each page shows the persons signature, so if they posted 10 times on one page the sig would not be repeated until the next page, i wonder if they could try something like that.

ZTD

Alfie_E wrote: »

There are some things that many people want to record in their signatures.

2£$ = £2 Savers’ Club
O¢ = Olympic Challenge
Mz = Moozie
WL = Weight Loss

and similar. You’ve already got

DFD = Debt Free Date

and some others. They might not be much of a saving, but, with such a low limit, one or two characters saved could mean the difference between squeezing it all in and not.

Oh, yes - I mean if you're on the borderline a single character saved is enough, but for other people's signatures like "Egg, [STRIKE]£23,082.45[/STRIKE], £14,342.44", you're not going to get the same compression ratio like you've got above.

Alfie_E wrote: »

You probably need some new DFW t-shirts saying “I went to the MSE forum and all I got was this lousy signature.” Not, of course, to be applied to pandapaws’ wonderful new one, until it’s changed to “Showoff – FT3”.

T-Shirts which stop above the belly button and have the breasts keyholed: "We can say something, but not much, and certainly can't cover the important bits..."

Alfie_E wrote: »

V good idea. I don’t know the inner workings of the forum software, but I don’t see that it should be an impossibility to adapt the template for the thanks box.

Well that's the thing, if you can do it once, you can do it twice.

ZTD

sra wrote: »

The problem with that would be that the signatures would still be being loaded onto the page even if they are being hidden. so pages would be taking extra time to load the big signatures that I might not even be interested in seeing.

But that's not the issue - the issue is (allegedly at least) that the signatures break the "flow" of the page.

But certainly an option to turn off extended signatures completely, as well as to always have them expanded would be welcome.

If you want to improve load times, then you should get rid of the damn stupid tool tips on the index of thread page I mean who reads the first post in evey thread by hovering their mouse over it?! That page is 100K when it should be 10K (sorry, personal rant).

ZTD

shellsuit wrote: »

You are joking aren't you?? :rotfl: :rotfl:

What about the big sigs from users who do competition challenges? Some of those people have all their wins in their sig, do the people who complain not like those too?

Of course. That's why I didn't use the word "only".

shellsuit wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with what the sig contains, or the 'type' of people who use them, it's the size of them.

People have been verbally attacked on other boards because they've been in debt (also some people in receipt of benefit, but there's less of those), such that they've not been displaying their signatures on other boards (it's a tickbox) to hide the fact they're in debt.

Some people have large signatures, but that's not the only reason for complaints. Your faith in the pure motivation of people is, alas, misplaced.

ZTD

pandapaws wrote: »

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!!!!

YAY, I've got a new sig. (Well, temporarily until I've got the patience to come up with one similar to the old one that's, or until they remove it!). Here goes!

Thanks ZTD!:iloveyou:

Panda...your signature is cracking me up... :rotfl:

ZTD

a11waysindebt wrote: »

Jacks,there is no need to go.It looks as it was a mistake and might be rectified.

Well, it's the end of the first working day since the "mistake", and Jack's signature looks distinctly unimproved.

However looking at Panda's signature - it looks like the rules have changed again...