Signatures - Get rid of them?

[Mick West]

I find signature lines to be a bit of a distraction, and most posters don't use them. So, shall we get rid of them?

 

[FatPhil]

I find signature lines to be a bit of a distraction, and most posters don't use them. So, shall we get rid of them?

View attachment 91477

Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.

This only works for logged users.

 

[Giddierone]

Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.

Forcefully shielding readers from the "forced benefit" of repeatedly reading some bit of pomposity would be a kindness.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

Forcefully shielding readers from the "forced benefit" of repeatedly reading some bit of pomposity would be a kindness.

Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?

 

[Todd Feinman]

Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?

Aaawww. I like my skeptic-roasting propaganda! But alright…

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

This only works for logged users.

Signatures are also hidden to save screen space when using a mobile web browser

 

[JMartJr]

I have no strong opinion -- I sort of like the insight into who the person is and how their mind works. But that may not be deemed desirable given the purpose of the site.
Do as thou wilt.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Do as thou wilt.

That sounds like it might be the whole of the law, or something! Like you might be a star! Witch! Press JMart with stones!

 

[FatPhil]

This only works for logged users.

That seems to show consideration to non-members, but effectively turns the poll into "should we impose our preferences on non-members?":

Status quo: they have option to sign up, sign in, and have their personal preferences used.
Turn them off: they don't have such a choice.

 

[FatPhil]

Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?

How the heck would I know!?!?!?

 

[RobertBillyBob]

That seems to show consideration to non-members, but effectively turns the poll into "should we impose our preferences on non-members?":

Status quo: they have option to sign up, sign in, and have their personal preferences used.
Turn them off: they don't have such a choice.

Good arguments, but you'd have to know you can hide the signatures once you sign up. And signing up to every site you read is tiresome.

I don't think either choice is really better than the other, it's ultimately a design decision and Mick should decide based on what he thinks is better for the site.

 

[purpleivan]

Occasionally one catches my eye, but mostly I'm not aware of them being there. Never thought of having one myself, but I can understand why others might.

I didn't know there was an option to turn display of them off, which I've now enabled, just to try it out. That being the case, if someone's distracted by them, then they already have the option to not see them (although many might not be aware of that, as in my case).

If Mick's concerned about a cluttered appearance for new, un-logged users, maybe changing the default setting for sigs, to not showing them, might be a better solution, instead of removing the feature completely.