I wish WHT would re-allow active URL links in signatures. I understand the reasons for wanting to tone down the "flash" in signatures (it was getting out of hand there before the last round of rules updating). I also understand that your sig is not meant for advertising, it's supposed to be contact information. However...

Without an active link it's impossible to track traffic that comes from WHT. It also makes it more burdensome for a person that wants to take a look at a member's site; they either have to open a new browser window and copy and paste, or open your profile then click your link.

As WHT allows URL in signatures, I don't see why they can't be active links, with the following caveats: 1) the link must be to your home page (no links to hosting plans pages, etc.); 2) the link text must be the URL (i.e., if the link is to http://www.domain.com the sig must say http://www.domain.com, and not something like, "World's greatest host, click here!!!").

I realize that's more RULES, but I personally find it annoying to have to do the cut and paste routine when I want to visit a member's site, and I'm also dissapointed when I can't track where a visitor came from.

And hey, this is the WWW, hypertext is supposed to be job one!

Hi, we have the capability to goto a link by using the "WWW" button below the sig, this means members of WHT dont really need to have a link to their site in the sig, wouldnt you agree?

for many members, they dont even have a website linked to their website button...so yes, its somewhat cumbersome that you have to copy and paste a url just to view it :(

I feel that maybe if they dont have a web site linked to their WWW button they should first utilise that particular feature of the forum before having to create links in their sigs, for example, if we enabled links in the sig then "intelligenthosting.com" would be linked TWICE from the same section of screen, thus duplicating what is already available in the WWW button.

I understand that it would be alot easier for you to have links especially if you have 3-4 URL's in your sig.

nah...
Just make the signature vB Code compatible :)
I mean, who really clicks that www button?

I agree.. and there is no extra bandwidth involved..

well.. maybe besides that a href code..

Hey, I see a pattern emerging, everyone posting here has a URL in their sig advertising something, lol

I feel this suggestion may not be carried out simply because of the following reasons:

1) VB Code = colours, etc... - this takes us back to the days where the bottom of every post by a host looked similar to a banner advert, I dont think the members (non hosts) or other moderators would allow the forum to turn into a huge advert again.

2) people accidentally clicking on a link, simply because of the huge amount of links created by some people.

3) the WWW facility is already available and you may put a line in your sig saying "Please Click the WWW Buton Below To Visit Our Site" it is small, easy to use and administer and its your choice to use it or not.

Webhostingtalk is not for your commercial gain.

If people want to visit your site they can click www or simply paste or the type the url in the address bar, this way they don't stand out as ads and there is no chance of people accidentally clicking the url.

Hide the reasons as much as you will but ultimately *I believe* you want more free advertising :rolleyes:

Indeed, enabling vb coding and colors will bring us back to a less readable forum. Just my 2c.

Why bother have a suggestions area when you guys are just going to shoot down each suggestion

Its clear that WHT is "my way or the highway"

Originally posted by MattF
Webhostingtalk is not for your commercial gain.

If people want to visit your site they can click www or simply paste or the type the url in the address bar, this way they don't stand out as ads and there is no chance of people accidentally clicking the url.

Hide the reasons as much as you will but ultimately *I believe* you want more free advertising :rolleyes:
I don't want more free advertising (not from WHT anyway). My URL is in my sig, that's fair enough for me. What I want is: 1) to look at my server logs and know where the traffic is coming from; 2) not to have to do the cut and paste routine when I want to visit someone's site. But thanks for implying that my motives are self serving and underhanded (the rolleyes smilie was a nice touch). I'm not sure I understand the fear of people accidentally clicking URLs though (mentioned by both Matt and xStrike); is this really a significant problem?

I'm not that familiar with vBulletin so I don't know if you can just turn on URL linking for sigs and not all the colors and other stuff. If that's not possible, then I agree that leaving Vbcode off in sigs is the best thing for the greater good.

Not all suggestions will be implemented but they will be heard.

<sarcasm class="badly formed">

well i'd like to see the mods personally give me a cup of coffee each morning, chicken can do monday, kunal can handle tuesday, teck... wednesday? xtstrike, how about thursday, and bc... friday?

since Matt's the owner perhaps he should pay for my coffee fund...

and if this gets shot down i'm outta here!

</sarcasm>

I agree lets have the active links back... I am honest I just want the extra traffic :D Is that a sin? :dgrin:

Me?? I'm not a host.
I don't mind one way or the other.
Active links?. . . . fine.
Not?........fine.
I don't see where it makes much difference to most people
:rolleyes:

Well, the 'a href' code takes up another 15 bytes (uncompressed) so removing it is definately going to save a huge amount of bandwidth :D. I personally think that links in signatures would be better ...for those that are not familiar with vBulletin since i've seen many posts where people ask "what is your URL?" when the WWW button was actually there. :)

Originally posted by Kiwi
Well, the 'a href' code takes up another 15 bytes (uncompressed) so removing it is definately going to save a huge amount of bandwidth :D.

Don't forget the extra 16 for target="_blank". :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Lawrence


Don't forget the extra 16 for target="_blank". :rolleyes:

31 bytes with the target="_blank" :eek2: :D

I would like to see the vB code on as well in signatures. I really never understood why they were prohibitten.

:confused:

as an example of why it was a problem, we used to have sigs like

My Great Hosting Company
My Great Deals On Hosting Click Here (http://www.aa.com)
Click Here (http://www.aa.com) For Low Price Hosting $1 Per Month
Amazing One Time Offer 50c a Month - Unlimited Bandwidth Click Here (http://www.aa.com)

which turned into sigs like this after we turned off VB Code:

My Great Hosting Company - URL
My Great Deals On Hosting
Low Price Hosting $1 Per Month
Amazing One Time Offer 50c a Month - Unlimited Bandwidth

AlaskanWolf - it is true what teck says, we will listen to all suggestions and review them all, but that in no way at all implies every suggestion will be implemented.

I think if we all help and and tell people that are using colors, prices or more than 1 link to read the rules and correct their signatures, then this might be a good idea. This way, there won't be much more work for the mods and everyone can stay happy. The ones that don't like signatures, they can simply turn them of in their profile options.

with almost 5000 members its almost impossible to simply "tell people"

how about an agreement on the following:

the hyperlink WWW button already exists, therefore the feature we are all arguing about already exists on the forum.

OK

*If* you can convince the developers of VBulletin that the WWW button is a waste of time (as you are saying it is) and should be removed with immediate effect (as you are saying it should be) then WHT will re-enable hyperlinks into signatures.

does that sound fair? id get doing it, because until you can get VB to remove the feature and get people to do it the way you want it doing then it isnt going to happen, im really sorry about that.

BUT

why should the feature exist TWICE on the same screen? it just common sense...

xtstrike, you have a very good and valid point there. However, I have never thought abot clicking on the www button for some reason. I've always known it was there, but keep copy/pasting the URL from peoples sig.

I think it is a lot easier (more obvious) to click on an URL you see and want to go to instead of a www button. I guess it's a matter of taste, and with 5,000 members there are a lot of different tastes. At least this way it is a lot less headache for everyone.

I never knew the www will take to the home page! I thought it will display the user info such as home page.
Since the www is an image, I think it would be better to remove it and reinstate the active links. I am sure members can police themselves as far as using the colors goes.

hey, im sorry kickster, my offer stands, VBULLETIN is a piece of purchased software, all we request is that you convince the developers of vbulletin that their WWW button is a pointless feature, if you manage to do that then we will do as your request.

the other thing is that you don't know where the ^www button will take you. Then you might have to add:
"The ^www will take you to www.yourdomain.com" and then it just doesn't make sense. I think 4 lines, no color, no ad sigs!

And ppl who don't want them can turn them off! Same w/ avatars.

Dogma, yes I would agree you cant see straight away where it is to take you, but if you look on the status bar at the bottom of the screen you will be able to see exactly where it is going to take you when you click.

with regards to kicksters "users can police themselves policy" we so far have 410 thrown threads in our "Bin" I kinda think that proves that some users dont seem to be able to police themselves, :rolleyes:

Mods, maybe just maybe, would it be possible to enable hyperlinks in sigs without enabling colours and other crap? making sure the hyperlinks are named EXACTLY the same as the location they are going to take you to

ive asked a couple of my workmates and unfortunately they agree with some of the members of the board, grrr

Originally posted by xtstrike
Mods, maybe just maybe, would it be possible to enable hyperlinks in sigs without enabling colours and other crap? making sure the hyperlinks are named EXACTLY the same as the location they are going to take you to

ive asked a couple of my workmates and unfortunately they agree with some of the members of the board, grrr

Personal opinion (thus : should not interpret as any sort of decision whatsoever): I totally understand where the users' point of view comes from in regards to hyperlinks, and it's one area that I would lean towards too.

Unfortunately at present, hyperlinking in your signature is intricately linked to vB code, so since we've switched vB code off, hyperlinking in sigs is off too.

That said, I know one of the major requests on the vB forum was to separate the above, so in a future version we may see a hack to accomplish this. But who knows......... <shrug>

*wanders off to bed*

I can't understand it.
Is it really so hard to press the <www> button?
Or to copy/paste the URL?
And does this topic really needs hours of discussion? If you ask me (and I will tell you even if you don't ask me :) ): it is good as it is now.

Walter, this is a suggestion forum. :rolleyes:

Why not just enable vB code again and edit the functions.php file taking out all the color/font stuff and just leaving the URL part in? It's not hard and it would solve the problem.

The part about "accidently" clicking the link is a bit ridicolous in my opinion..you could click the "www" button by mistake just as easily. People shouldn't be clicking everywhere anyway..

lol, mkaufman - we were clutching at straws with excuses:rolleyes: ;)

hey, id imagine that if you mailed us a modified version of the file in question, im sure we would look into integrating it, your idea should intereting, i dont know php so i couldnt comment

actually, you need to modify showthread.php.

I'll have a go and send you guys the instructions because swapping complete files is against the License Agreement ;)

Originally posted by zolbian
xtstrike, you have a very good and valid point there. However, I have never thought abot clicking on the www button for some reason. I've always known it was there, but keep copy/pasting the URL from peoples sig.

I think it is a lot easier (more obvious) to click on an URL you see and want to go to instead of a www button. I guess it's a matter of taste, and with 5,000 members there are a lot of different tastes. At least this way it is a lot less headache for everyone.

Hm, I often click WWW button to see their homepage but the thing is.. that people take care of their sig well filled with URLs but not many seem to care that there is WWW button.

Over half of time, the WWW button takes me to "http://". People either don't know how to use it or they don't know that WWW button exist..

I suppose they want to show off the URL.

well maybe to make the 'www' link more visible

1. move the post menu icons like home, pm ,email, www etc to the top of each post

2. change the vB default icons for home, pm, email, www to something more recognisable by users

Originally posted by eva2000
well maybe to make the 'www' link more visible

1. move the post menu icons like home, pm ,email, www etc to the top of each post

2. change the vB default icons for home, pm, email, www to something more recognisable by users

Ermmm....no :) I think that would look a bit weird..maybe not though.

Nicholas:

Oops, I wasn't aware it was in the showthread file..haven't used vB in a while :)

Originally posted by eva2000
well maybe to make the 'www' link more visible

1. move the post menu icons like home, pm ,email, www etc to the top of each post

2. change the vB default icons for home, pm, email, www to something more recognisable by users

Or, move the WWW and E-mail Icon to right under User info(the table that contains Username/ title/ postcounts/ locations) table.

member.php - Line 256

Find


// ############################### start update profile ###############################
if ($HTTP_POST_VARS['action']=="updateprofile") {
$templatesused = "redirect_updatethanks,error_fieldmissing,error_emailmismatch,error_emailtaken,error_fieldmissing,error_requiredfieldmissing,error_birthdayfield";
include("./global.php");


Directly under that, add


// WHT Hack
$signature = str_replace("[ b ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ /b ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ i ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ /i ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ u ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ /u ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ color", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ /color ]", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ size", "", $signature);
$signature = str_replace("[ /size ]", "", $signature);
// End


In that code above, remove the spaces between [ ] tags

All Done :)

I think if the www button was a diffferent color or highlighted it would serve well.

Hmm....


We might implement that actually. But does that code work when the user intially signs up and enters his/her signature upon registration.

Also if we were to implement such (ie. to allow hyperlink) it would be a requirement for signature to be in the following format:

Name
Company URL hyperlink
Email Hyperlink or Telephone

How does that sound?

Originally posted by Walter
I can't understand it.
Is it really so hard to press the <www> button?
Or to copy/paste the URL?
And does this topic really needs hours of discussion? If you ask me (and I will tell you even if you don't ask me :) ): it is good as it is now.


Walter you make a great point of where, you dont even have a link in your WWW button

As for other users, i know many that have jkd.eo30 as the domain they put in their www button yet have their real url in their sig, or like you and others, dont even have a url associated with the www button

.5 out of 10 times is when i look or hit the button

Originally posted by MattF
...
Also if we were to implement such (ie. to allow hyperlink) it would be a requirement for signature to be in the following format:

Name
Company URL hyperlink
Email Hyperlink or Telephone

How does that sound?
Let me offer this as a proposal for the sig rules:

Signatures can contain any or all of the following, with a maximum of four lines:
1) Your name
2) Your URL or company name (which may hyperlink to your home page only)
3) Other non-advertising text such as a humorous quote

Acceptable:
-- John Doe
http://www.johndoewebhosting.com

or

John Doe
John Doe Web Hosting (http://www.johndoewebhosting.com)
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." --Bill Gates

NOT acceptable:
-- John Doe
CLICK HERE FOR THE WORLD'S GREATEST HOSTING!!!! (http://www.johndoewebhosting.com)

or

John Doe - John Doe Web Hosting
Low prices with great service and support!!!!
Click here to go to our hosting plans page (http://www.johndoewebhosting.com/hostingplans.htm)

I like IntelligentHosting's suggestion. That could work.

A little flexibility on a short description of the company wouldn't go astray either. Like "MyCompany - authors of This software" or "MyCompany - dedicated server hosting". Otherwise things can be a bit vague (take my business's name, on it's own it implies nothing as to what we do, hell I could type it right here and I bet the mods wouldn't even consider it advertising. *note to self - don't try just in case* :D). Although then you get to technicalities like "MyCompany - low price hosting" where it could be considered advertising...

Ack... it just goes on and on doesn't it? :)

We might implement that actually. But does that code work when the user intially signs up and enters his/her signature upon registration.

Also if we were to implement such (ie. to allow hyperlink) it would be a requirement for signature to be in the following format:

Name
Company URL hyperlink
Email Hyperlink or Telephone

How does that sound?

After all the debate, Matt Comes up with a reasonable compromise/suggestion.. and everyone just passes over it.

It looks good matt, if the mod works, by all means impliment it....

mattf's idea sounds good! Maybe a humorus quote could be allowed?

If "Name" is the company or web site name then its a good idea.

Originally posted by MikeM
After all the debate, Matt Comes up with a reasonable compromise/suggestion.. and everyone just passes over it.


Well, no, it didn't get passed over. IntelligentHosting offered a slightly modified version, which I thought was better. I think Matt's is too restrictive - but it is a reasonable compromise nonetheless.