"Der Wunderfizz Update" - Signatures

[Hells Warrrior]

I'm going to come out and say this from the off.

 

This will be controversial - so we are going to ask you, the members what you think. However, I will explain what I proposed to the staff yesterday.

 

Signatures will be disabled by default on the new site when launched.

 

Please do not vote in the poll until you have read the topic, do not read the poll question and then vote. We need this decision to be an educated decision, rather voting purely based on the question.

 

Once you have all picked yer jaws up off the floor, I'll explain why I have proposed this. When you are browsing the forum, and reading topics, signatures is the last thing that you want to be scrolling past, you want to get to the next post and read it. That's not too bad on the computer, scrolling is a bit easier. However, on a mobile or a tablet it's generally not as quick and they can take up a lot of real estate on the screen and can be cumbersome.

 

Just so everyone understands exactly why, we will not have a specific mobile skin, we will not be using tapatalk. One style for all devices and then site will respond accordingly to the device that is being used to view the site (that basically means the site will be fully responsive).

 

So I'm proposing that we switch off signatures by default and that if you want to view signatures, you enable them in the account settings section. This makes the site easier to use for everyone and a personal choice on whether to view signatures or not.

 

Let me basically show you a few snapshots, this is given you a little insight into how posts appear on the new forum btw (a first view for everyone on how topics currently look - we are still editing and styling though so not finished).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see this is so easy to manage yourself but makes things so much easier and more pleasing on the eye by not having them as default. My personal opinion is we switch them off and if you want to have them on, then you can do so in 3 easy steps.

 

Click my profile

Select account settings

Select signatures

 

Then all you need to do is toggle between off and on and then save. Please let us know what you think - I have added a poll to get a bit better feedback.

[Guest]

Ok, I said yes, simply because it isnt that hard to turn on signatures and you obviously have done it for a reason. Also some people may not like signatures so their you go.

[Undead]

For sake of mobile browsing, I don't see the harm in it. 

 

They will just be missing out on pics of my sexyness is all.

[Tac]

I'm all for it, it's a great thing to be able to have it if you want and avoid if not.

[Flammenwerfer]

As someone who does a lot of mobile browsing, I am definitely in favour of this decision. Signatures can not only be obtrusive, but can also significantly increase load times.

[Tac]

If we're talking mobile, sure. If on the forums itself... nah. I see Signatures as a way to show one's diversity, really.

You can't separate the two, that's what he's saying. If you have it on one it will be on the other, but you have the ability to turn it off.

[Hells Warrrior]

 

If we're talking mobile, sure. If on the forums itself... nah. I see Signatures as a way to show one's diversity, really.

You can't separate the two, that's what he's saying. If you have it on one it will be on the other, but you have the ability to turn it off.

 

 

Sorry @Tac just to correct you, you'll have the ability to switch them "on" if you so wish. The idea is that they will be switched off globally and everyone will have the same setting. No signatures visible.

 

@The Meh

 

If you want to have a signature and not view it you can, if you don't want a signature but want to view them you can, numerous scenarios exist. Just saying a blanket no because signatures show peoples diversity, isn't looking at the grander picture here You can still view signatures if you choose to so, you just need to change the setting to view signatures and someone who wishes to have a signature (or even if they have one and have the setting to view signatures switched off, can still have their signature viewed).

 

Honestly, this would be a good move and going by the feedback so far - it will be implemented this way.

[GodOfWarrio]

I could go either way on it. doesn't bother me

[Tac]

Haha sorry man, that's what I meant. Came out much different than it was going through my head.

[ZombieOfTheDead]

I feel like it should be on by default, but with the ability to turn them off. I'm not so certain new members will even realize sigs are a thing otherwise.

[Hells Warrrior]

We'll let new members who register know and decide - the idea is not to have them but not to stop people using them or viewing them.

[MegaAfroMan]

I'm with ZOTD on this one.

I like it, but I think it should default at ON with the option to disable them.

Just like when the @ mentions were brought in, the initial thought was to have them default at off and I'm glad that isn't how it turned out.

In order for a feature to be worth implementing, in my opinion, it MUST be experienced at least once by all users, or at least capable of being experienced without any self effort.

If signatures are defaulted at off, you'll either end up with:

Most people leaving it off because they either determine that signatures aren't something they want to see, or they never even think to switch them on.

Or

Most users with have to go through the effort of switching them on, so that the few who don't want to see signatures don't have to go through the one or two menus it takes to enable an intended, and almost core feature of these (and most other) forums.

If it comes to where most people don't view signatures, then signatures lose their point. It's a way to express something about yourself without requiring any extra clicks on the behalf of the viewers.

If it comes to where most people switch the signatures back ON then having it default at OFF loses its point.

Opting out is almost ALWAYS a better system.

For example, in some countries like the US the organ donor system is opt in, as such the number of organ donors is low.

Where as in other countries the system is opt out and in those almost universally, the number of donors is much much higher.

Perhaps not causation, but a definite and noticable correlation exists.

Why did I bring this up?

Because it basically goes to show that no matter how helpful (or intrusive depending on your viewpoint) the result of a yes or no question might be, most people are too lazy to opt at all rather than go with which option they'd truly prefer.

as such you'd be putting the entire feature of signatures at a disadvantage which then should just bring up the call of whether we want signatures at all.

Just my two cents, I almost always will stand by NEVER opt in, always make something opt out.

[Guest]

But isnt it just an easy to see switch? It isn't much effort to turn on and there will probably be info on them in the code of conduct that says about it.

[Hells Warrrior]

It's controvesial we know that and I'm an opt out guy myself rather than being opted in. I fully appreciate that opting out is the better option in most scenarios, the idea behind not showing them, is to show how much easier it is to view on a mobile device.

 

So, without further ado, have a look at the example.

 

 

 

 

Not only does it improve browsing experience - it actually looks better without. What we "might" do is run an open test in a few weeks time, let people see it (just the forum) and let people see how it works and looks.

[Guest]

Oh, by the way I was going to ask if quotes are possible to fix on mobile? When I quote on mobile it comes up with the coding not the actual quote.

[Caddyman]

turning them off by default is the best move. it saves on bandwidth, it saves on load time, it makes the layout easier to shrink on mobile devices, and it also, actually, improves SEO.

[Lenne]

Eh... I understand the reasons behind this, but I really don't like the idea.

 

I think signatures are important for a forum and should be enabled by default, just because it is part of the users identity.

 

BTW: Are there really that many users who are on here on a regular basis while being on a mobile device?

[Guest]

Eh... I understand the reasons behind this, but I really don't like the idea.

 

I think signatures are important for a forum and should be enabled by default, just because it is part of the users identity.

 

BTW: Are there really that many users who are on here on a regular basis while being on a mobile device?

 

At the moment I like going on here on pc because its less laggy and easier to do but when I want to go to another room and be on here am on tablet, or mobile, it is really hard to navigate. Also taptalk just doesnt work for me, I dont like it so thats why I dont use it.

[ZombieOfTheDead]

I think the vast majority visit here on PCs, and only do mobile when they have to. 

 

Honestly, it really just does make more sense to have it as a feature that's at default turned on. People are more likely to use it that way. If someone has performance issues (I never do on mobile), then they can switch it off. Easy peasy. There is no good reason for it to be at default off.

[Slade]

Whilst I'll probably use the hide signature feature myself when browsing mobile, I think signatures should definitely be enabled by default.

Signatures that abide by the recent more stringent rules shouldn't be too obtrusive and shouldn't increase load times by that much of a  significant margin.

 

Have a post in Site News or Member Lounge detailing how you can turn off signatures for anyone who finds them annoying, and start removing sigs that break the rules again.

[Hells Warrrior]

 

Eh... I understand the reasons behind this, but I really don't like the idea.

 

I think signatures are important for a forum and should be enabled by default, just because it is part of the users identity.

 

BTW: Are there really that many users who are on here on a regular basis while being on a mobile device?

 

At the moment I like going on here on pc because its less laggy and easier to do but when I want to go to another room and be on here am on tablet, or mobile, it is really hard to navigate. Also taptalk just doesnt work for me, I dont like it so thats why I dont use it.

 

 

Thats all changing bud, it will be so much easier and friendlier.

[The Clay Bird]

Whilst I'll probably use the hide signature feature myself when browsing mobile, I think signatures should definitely be enabled by default.

Signatures that abide by the recent more stringent rules shouldn't be too obtrusive and shouldn't increase load times by that much of a  significant margin.

 

Have a post in Site News or Member Lounge detailing how you can turn off signatures for anyone who finds them annoying, and start removing sigs that break the rules again.

 

 

I agree.  I still think the current signature rules are a little bit too strict.  If turning sigs off is going to be an easy option, then i would propose easing the rules on sig length to 20 lines or so.  That way it allows us to be a bit more expressive with our signatures, yet easily enables those who don't want to see them to turn them off

[MegaAfroMan]

I do see the benefits of not having signatures enabled by default, and Caddyman brought in several that I never would have thought of, but tome it comes down to what the purpose of the feature is and the purpose of the forum.

This forum, like most others, is a place for varied individuals to come and discuss many things and just be themselves (within certain confines).

Signatures are a vital method to highlight something about yourself that doesn't require people to enter your profile page to see, that isn't by default listed on your member info. Some use this for quptes, some for map records, some link to their favorite posts or call attention to upcoming events.

My signature is basically non-existent, and I'd be perfectly fine with not having my signature, but I still think it is wrong and against the whole purpose of our community and the purpose of signatures to default them at off.

I don't know how many users browse mobile ( I know I usually do and I've never had a problem with the site) and I don't know how many users will be fine with default off but switch theirs on, but if that number of users who switch signatures on is higher than those who knowingly leave it off (again, opting into signatures will result in many people simply not taking the time to make the decision at all and going with the default) then there is no good point to defaulting at off.

I ask that people consider whether they personally would leave signatures off, or if they'd switch them back on anyways, even if defaulting at off doesn't bother them.

Because I'm sure we have a good number of polite members here who would be okay with defaulting at off but would themselves immediately wswitch signatures on anyways. And that kind of sends a mixed message doesn't it?

On paper it will look like people don't want signatures on, but in actuality they would.

These are my opinion, my hypotheticals, and I don't mean to assert them on anyone.

But I sincerely believe that with this and most other features and systems, defaulting at off is absolutely the wrong choice for the greater enjoyment of the forum.

[GRILL]

Yeah, I mean - I primarily use the forum on mobile and it doesn't really effect me too much.

 

To me, it's like - signatures are where you can really show off who you are.  The avatar is fine, but it's so small.

 

For me personally, I would rather it be "opt-out" and as @Slade suggested just have a readily available thread for those that find it annoying and want to opt-out.

[Guest]

I am sorry if its seems stupid but what do you guys mean when you say opt out?