|
Re: Signature size vs node size
by davido (Cardinal) on Nov 30, 2003 at 03:27 UTC
|
The old Usenet convention from days gone by was (and maybe still is) no more than four lines, and not to exceed half the length of the content portion of the post.
Unfortunately, Usenet conventions seem to have largely gone out the window along with the moratorium on SPAM. The folks at comp.lang.perl.misc have managed to browbeat their point across, but still consume a lot of bandwidth reminding people to follow the conventions.
I have to agree with diotalevi, that long .sigs are annoying. I guess they're not annoying enough for me to bother turning them off in my user settings, but for those who wish, that is an option, IIRC.
Update: I see that it isn't a specific option in user settings though a CSS could be used and put in place via user settings to prevent the display of sigs.
Dave
"If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber." -- Albert Einstein
| [reply] |
Re: Signature size vs node size
by castaway (Parson) on Nov 30, 2003 at 15:09 UTC
|
I agree on this. Several reasons, first it just looks kinda silly, when the actual node content is a line or two, and the signature then carries on 6-8 lines or so. It's also hard to tell sometimes, where the content ends, and the sig begins, just making things confusing.
I don't really see the point of signatures on each and every post at all, it seems a huge waste of space (screen + DB), after all, the posts are already individualised, they have user names on, and everyone has a homenode they can list quotes on and whatnot.
I was going to suggest we introduce a hr tag to separate the sig from the node content, but I've seen that elsewhere, and it didn't really improve things there either..
Hohum..
C. (sigless) | [reply] |
Re: Signature size vs node size
by valdez (Monsignor) on Nov 30, 2003 at 09:40 UTC
|
What is your concern about signatures? Waste of space on db and bandwidth or space on screen? We recently added a nice way to disable signatures (see Add CSS class for signatures?), isn't it a good solution in your opinion?
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Oh, well that's why I examined node signatures in the first place. It turns out that it isn't safe to hide pmsig content - 10% of the nodes are being posted inside the pmsig area. Hiding signatures just leaves a bunch of nodes appearing to be empty. Along the way it was convenient to compare node size against signature sizes so I posted this node.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Signature size vs node size
by pg (Canon) on Nov 30, 2003 at 03:33 UTC
|
To be frank, this never bothered me, although I even don't have a sig myself. I guess it never bothered most of the monks.
Let's leave this to each monk himself/herself.
| [reply] |
Re: Signature size vs node size
by mpeppler (Vicar) on Nov 30, 2003 at 22:22 UTC
|
It doesn't really bother me all that much, although I personally feel that .sigs aren't really necessary here at all - after all you have your personal nodelet where that information can/should go.
I guess I'm mostly in the camp of not regulating this sort of thing - in general I like the fact that each of us has a lot of flexibility in how we use the site, and how the site looks. I suppose that I might feel differently if I were still using a slow connection...
Michael (who does have a four line .sig for his email and Usenet posts :-)
| [reply] |
Re: Signature size vs node size
by Juerd (Abbot) on Nov 30, 2003 at 22:53 UTC
|
0+ 567 *************************
0 what? 567 what? Bytes or visible characters? My signature is a lot of bytes, but on screen, it is only one line.
Juerd
# { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }
| [reply] |
|
|
My signature is a lot of bytes, but on screen, it is only one line.
Not according to the CSS in your node to which I'm replying. That node
has a "signature" of, well, the whole node.
Just to be clear, the start of your signature should be signified by
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-132236">, which is the
very first thing in your node above.
You need to update your signature so that you don't start typing inside
of those tags.
There probably needs to be some site changes to the whole pmsig tag situation.
Update: Here is a summary of nodes containing "nothing but .sig"
according to the CSS tags (66 authors). See also Re^3: Add CSS class for signatures? (repatch).
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Hello
I have been out of the monastery for a while (I changed jobs and had some other "minor" problems...). When I came back I noticed there were two div tags, but I didn't understand what a classname of pmsig meant, nor I read those many thousands of nodes that were publuished while I was out
Now gmax told me that I am on the "black list" :-)
IMHO, a comment like
<-- please write your node text above -->
just before the div tags could have helped non-english speakers to better understand the role of those tags. Could it be added now?
--bronto
The very nature of Perl to be like natural language--inconsistant and full of dwim and special cases--makes it impossible to know it all without simply memorizing the documentation (which is not complete or totally correct anyway).
--John M. Dlugosz
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Just to be clear, the start of your signature should be signified by <div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-132236">, which is the very first thing in your node above. You need to update your signature so that you don't start typing inside of those tags.
I never put those tags there. Perl Monks does that for me, and I never said I wanted it. I do want other stuff in my nodes to be present, so that I can copy and paste quotes and not worry about their markup.
If there is a way to get rid of these tags, please let me know. I can then add them in the proper location. I am not going to start my "sig" with </div></div>.
Juerd
# { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |