Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 May 2003 16:23:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1940 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 May 2003 10:21AM -0500, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Kyle Keppler wrote:
> > Sounds good. But make a clear limit on the number of characters
> > and/or lines.
Suggestions on limit values? Standard sig size according to RFC 1855
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
is 4 lines -- but that's a "rule of thumb" and not something written in
stone (I think 'rn' or some other newsreader I used once upon a time
enforced it, however).
I'm thinking a hard limit of somewhere around 6-8 lines...but haven't
researched existing sig sizes in use today (any volunteers to do some
statistical analysis on sig sizes???). I wouldn't want to prevent
someone from using a sig via the web that they're already using via NNTP
or e-mail. Off-hand, I think the biggest I've seen is maybe 10-12 lines...
excessive IMHO, but depending on the culture of the particular group/list
it was posted in, perhaps not.
> Also, with a signature feature implemented, people will probably be
> more
> inclined to use that than paste in each time. If it's not convenient
> for them to
> store more than x lines, they won't. So that will deter abuse as it is.
I don't want to nitpick words too much but I think "abuse" may be a bit
too strong a word to use here, as we're talking about stylistic ideals
and cultural norms.
What may be considered an excessively long and ugly sig in technical
circles might be considered a typical normal sig in creative circles.
I remember back in the 80's and 90's when you'd get flamed on Usenet for
posting with a sig longer than 4 lines (but only in certain groups). Times
have changed somewhat since then (bigger screens, faster connections, and
lots more people online who aren't as pedantic about settings as hardcore
computer geeks can be), and while 4 lines is probably still a very good
guideline/target, I don't think that we should refer to it as "abuse" if
someone posts with a sig that's 5 or 6 or 8 or 10 lines long. Maybe it's
ugly or gaudy or unnecessary, but "abuse" is such a loaded word, and seems
likely to hurt feelings or offend people.
Don't get me wrong, I agree the system should place -some- limit on the
number of lines in a sig... I just don't want us to forget that what's
acceptable is a *very* gray area and differs not only from person to person
but also from group to group and from culture to culture.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) It's not just a matter of lines, it's a matter of bandwidth consumed. Consider this post: (URL) current "signature" is only 2 or so lines long (depending on how you count) but has a 30K (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) Also, with a signature feature implemented, people will probably be more inclined to use that than paste in each time. If it's not convenient for them to store more than x lines, they won't. So that will deter abuse as it is. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
