ATAR Notes: Forum
Administration => Site Discussion => Suggestions => Topic started by: cara.mel on October 21, 2008, 11:56:45 am
-
I believe that as a forum gets bigger you can't just use judgement on 'oh that looks too big', because being subjective and you'll get people saying 'he was allowed to do it, why can't i'
Most people are sensible with sigs here but maybe if there was a size limit in terms of both pixels and kb it could be helpful.
Ie x lines of text at normal font size when viewed from 1200x800 (or whatever it is) resolution, or can be no bigger than x pixels in length with combined pictures and text.
I know you can turn off signatures altogether but a lot of them are helpful to see what subjects people do etc :)
On another note, some transparency between the mods and the common plebs would be nice in terms of what suggestions are being done/considered (ie I have not heard from my mod actions suggestion but I know they tend to write Moderator Action when they do some mod things but not others now, and it would be nice to see their codes they operate on so I can understand them, and if I should be aware of this at all or any requirements I must follow as a subject mod :P)
-
No such feature or module exists to moderate the pixel size of signatures. Anyone with a clearly disruptive or offensive signature will be dealt with by a global moderator.
The moderator action line is part of moderator policy. It is not always adhered to, but meh, I have the moderation logs to know if anyone's been abusing the old power. As for more transparency, whenever something significant happens I always make a post about it.
-
Inconsistency in "moderator action" lines would be my fault, a lot of the time I forget to include that bit, especially when moving threads.
Will take more care in future if it bothers people.
-
You're not the only one who forgets LOL.
-
Inconsistency in "moderator action" lines would be my fault, a lot of the time I forget to include that bit, especially when moving threads.
Will take more care in future if it bothers people.
Yes but what actions have you been told to do?
SHould I know about them as a subject mod?
-
Huh??
I haven't been *told* anything ... I just use my common sense ... so if a uni question is in the VCE forum I'll move it to the uni forum ...
-
how did you know to write moderator action in maroon + bold font etc
-
Is maroon exclusive here, as it was for Hirohito's car?
-
lol bubble!
caramel I did it cos coblin did it
-
When moderating other forums (and this one), I tend to either note it in red or just simply edit it and add a post on my own detailing the changes.
Personally, I think we should limit number of images in signatures to one. A reasonable sized image could be, at maximum, 400x300 - give or take - at <100kb.
As for text...I guess there's a text limit already (x number of characters?). Perhaps this can be tweaked?
What does everyone think about these limits?
-
1. what's the point?
2. who really cares?
-
1. what's the point?
2. who really cares?
1. This is what costa's sig looks like if you use 1024x768 resolution:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/happypuff/1024x768resolution.jpg)
It is an extreme example yes, but it is the one that made me think 'just what *is* too big here? (I am aware other people also have large sigs, please don't see it as a personal attack. If everyone had sigs that big, how much scrolling would one have to go through to see one line responses in their actual post?
2. I have noticed that you think every post I make recently is rubbish, possibly related to the fact I am one of those people who doesn't understand humans have feelings. If you have a bone to pick with me, do it privately. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I'm not interested in hearing it. I still remember your posts from a month ago.
-
1. if you don't like it, msg a global mod and ask them to take it down.
I personally have no problem with it, as I rarely ever see his posts. he wants to promote his music, I choose to scroll past it.
2. lolwut?
-
2. If you want, I can find lots of quotes. :P
You know exactly what I am talking about.
I am still open to rebuilding a friendship, but you don't seem to want it. Good luck in life mate.
-
lol. derailed x2
-
No such feature or module exists to moderate the pixel size of signatures. Anyone with a clearly disruptive or offensive signature will be dealt with by a global moderator.
The moderator action line is part of moderator policy. It is not always adhered to, but meh, I have the moderation logs to know if anyone's been abusing the old power. As for more transparency, whenever something significant happens I always make a post about it.
I think there ought to be a limit on number of images - as that's easily (and objectively) measurable at first glance. In my opinion, one image is a suitable limit for this purpose (lots of images in a signature, particularly animated GIFs, tends to distract while reading posts around said images - it also eats up my [tiny] download quota when mobile, as an aside).
I proposed a size limit (with in file size and dimensions), but obviously these will need to be enforced manually due to technical constraints as you mention. Such enforcement is prone to 'turning a blind eye', but as long as a reasonable size (i.e., 400x300?) is set, reasonable moderator discretion will be sufficient.
-
(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8699/hideitdl8.gif)
-
I know you can turn off signatures altogether but a lot of them are helpful to see what subjects people do etc :)
I would turn sigs off if I could memorise all 1000 of them :( (or perhaps its 500 or less, I suck at estimating)
-
<snip>
Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.
-
1. what's the point?
2. who really cares?
1. This is what costa's sig looks like if you use 1024x768 resolution:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/happypuff/1024x768resolution.jpg)
It is an extreme example yes, but it is the one that made me think 'just what *is* too big here? (I am aware other people also have large sigs, please don't see it as a personal attack. If everyone had sigs that big, how much scrolling would one have to go through to see one line responses in their actual post?
2. I have noticed that you think every post I make recently is rubbish, possibly related to the fact I am one of those people who doesn't understand humans have feelings. If you have a bone to pick with me, do it privately. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I'm not interested in hearing it. I still remember your posts from a month ago.
Most people are up to 1280x1024 now, or should be at it (native resolution)
-
oh ok :)
My old computer screen the max it can get up to is 1024x768 so I figured that was a good guess
-
Any changes will be at enwiabe's discretion of course, but the status quo is like Mao said - if you have a problem with a particular signature, message a moderator about it.
EDIT: or the member themself. people DO have the ability to change their own sigs :P
I don't think any of us have the time to actively monitor every single signature on this site and check it against some sort of code. Possibly a plausible option when VN just started and there weren't many users - not anymore.
Not to mention the inevitable accusations of favouritism etc. if we happened to miss a few. Too complicated.
-
Any changes will be at enwiabe's discretion of course, but the status quo is like Mao said - if you have a problem with a particular signature, message a moderator about it.
I don't think any of us have the time to actively monitor every single signature on this site and check it against some sort of code. Possibly a plausible option when VN just started and there weren't many users - not anymore.
Not to mention the inevitable accusations of favouritism etc. if we happened to miss a few. Too complicated.
Not saying that a moderator's workload ought to be increased - but at least an official policy or opinion be formed regarding them so that it is known what is acceptable and isn't (and consequently, reportable - meaning that moderators don't exactly have to do any more work).
It's far better than us having to judge what a mod *might* think is unacceptable. Also, it will give the moderation team something objective to work from.
I am merely suggesting possible aspects to any said opinion that enwiabe may form.
-
<snip>
Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.
I turned them off due to costas signature, took a ridiculous amount of time to scroll past it.
-
<snip>
Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.
I turned them off due to costas signature, took a ridiculous amount of time to scroll past it.
Yeah, I prefer to keep them as a lot of people have rather interesting (humourous) or informative signatures. Most of them contain droodles quotes.
Better have the exception, rather than the case, rectified.
I think what caramel wants (and which I agree with) is an official policy be formed regarding this matter with some formalised guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable.
-
Lol.
-
Heh, I love running at 1920x1200. :P
-
it's been smallerfied to a similiar size it would have been at prrior to enlargment
-
it's been smallerfied to a similiar size it would have been at prrior to enlargment
I just thought of the various spam emails I get whilst reading your post...
...that said, to be honest, I think linking to your YouTube profile is sufficient...
-
<snip>
Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.
I turned them off due to costas signature, took a ridiculous amount of time to scroll past it.
Yeah, I prefer to keep them as a lot of people have rather interesting (humourous) or informative signatures. Most of them contain droodles quotes.
Better have the exception, rather than the case, rectified.
I think what caramel wants (and which I agree with) is an official policy be formed regarding this matter with some formalised guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable.
Yeah :)
Also I want to make clear that I am not suggesting OMG YOU ARE ONE PIXEL OVER THE LIMIT DIEDIEDIE. I would hate to see a restriction of users personality and freedom. Just guidelines of where abouts the limit is and what exceeds it.
Common sense dictates having 10 1MB images is a problem but asides from that we have nothing to say what is appropriate in terms of size (we have the Code of Conduct to dictate what is appropriate in terms of content)
-
Meh, no policy is changing on this matter. Official policy is still play-it-by-ear and signature moderation is entirely up to the discretion of the global mods. If you have a problem with somebody's signature, PM/e-mail a global mod and it will get looked into. That's all I have left to say on the matter. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill and it's just stupid.
-
ok :)
(you are, after all, allowed to say no to suggestions as this *is* your site :P)
-
Meh, no policy is changing on this matter. Official policy is still play-it-by-ear and signature moderation is entirely up to the discretion of the global mods. If you have a problem with somebody's signature, PM/e-mail a global mod and it will get looked into. That's all I have left to say on the matter. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill and it's just stupid.
What about guidelines for users?
-
Mostly, nobody's been stupid about signatures. It's a common sense thing, if someone doesn't have it, I'm more than happy to remind them. :) Guidelines, I feel, might remove creativity from signatures.
-
Mostly, nobody's been stupid about signatures. It's a common sense thing, if someone doesn't have it, I'm more than happy to remind them. :) Guidelines, I feel, might remove creativity from signatures.
Fair enough. I guess we'll just rely on cases (when and if they occur).
Thanks for clarifying enwiabe.
-
Should be able to ignore particular user's signatures (and posts) according to your own preferences IMO. Shouldn't be too hard!
-
Should be able to ignore particular user's signatures (and posts) according to your own preferences IMO. Shouldn't be too hard!
I'll have to dig around, but I doubt such a feature exists...
-
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill
heh, haven't heard that one for years :)