Hi,

I was reading the rules today and without being too picky, I think some sentences should be re-written.


May not contain any pricing, plan, sales, etc. details. "Free" is considered a price in the context of this rule.
May contain a maximum of two smilies. Or one animated smiley.
May include two clickable links.
May include two colors, plus black.
Maximum font size cannot be larger than normal.


I think they should be :


May not include more than two clickable links.
May not contain more than two colors, plus black.


unlike the others in the list they sound more like advices.. you may do it or not.. which I think could be misleading.

Just my two cents.

Regards,

G

Seems a reasonable enough change.

Seems a reasonable enough change.

Yup - I like it as well.

Sirius

Two links are not enough can it be increased to three or four.

The thread is not about the number of links but the rules definitions. And I think 2 links is quite enough (you only use 1).

Regards,

G

Ofcourse , i am not asking for me but i am asking for many others who might wish to have more than 2. Let it be increased to three or four.

Two is more than enough. I say we abolish links alltogether.
Who is with me?!

Two is more than enough. I say we abolish links alltogether.
Who is with me?!
*Aussie Bob raises his hand, whilst looking nervously down at his precious sig links. :D :blush:

The way the existing rule is written perfectly makes sense. Because if they were suggesting "you may do it or not" then why would they put a number on it?

If they were phrased like, "May include links" or "May include colors" then there is ambiguity. But the fact that they put a number restriction on it clearly tells that you cannot have more than that number.

But if the forum is frequented by *cough* then you can change it.

I think removing them altogether would benefit because:
1. Sigspam increases the lack of quality posts. Users may accidentally click on signature links attached to crappy posts.
2. Quality posts would become the norm. because whose going to do a search on google (or check out a domain) from someone who posted something as silly as 'check the offers section' or 'Sorry to hear that. Check the signatures in the thread'.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone specific but why the one's that are against this links-in-signature are the onces with links in the signature?

May be those people should start by not having any links in their sigs and then protest against having links in sigs.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone specific but why the one's that are against this links-in-signature are the onces with links in the signature?

May be those people should start by not having any links in their sigs and then protest against having links in sigs.

Even though I have a sig with links in it, I am ok with getting rid of sigs. Everyone who posts has the option of showing a sig or not in any given post. It’s a sad fact that not too many users choose to take advantage of this option and are going to one day ruin it for those that do.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone specific but why the one's that are against this links-in-signature are the onces with links in the signature?
They aren't opposed to removing them, but take advantage of the ability to have them. Be silly not to.
Sig links are a perk for being an active member here, I think they should stay. I also think they should be disallowed from certain forums (if at all possible) to stop the sig flashers that add nothing to the thread. :angel:

I am not pointing fingers at anyone specific but why the one's that are against this links-in-signature are the onces with links in the signature?

May be those people should start by not having any links in their sigs and then protest against having links in sigs.
Umm, if you're referring to me there, I was just kidding with my above post. Sometimes my dry humour gets lost in translation. :D

Sigs rock. I love having one, and I like looking at other folk's sigs, what they're doing etc.

Umm, if you're referring to me there, I was just kidding with my above post. Sometimes my dry humour gets lost in translation. :D

Sigs rock. I love having one, and I like looking at other folk's sigs, what they're doing etc.
Nope, I wasnt reffering to anyone specific because I've seen sch posts in the past where the user says they dont like the idea of links in sigs for whatever reason but they are the ones flodded with huge texts and having the links.

Personally I like it if they are kept.

They aren't opposed to removing them, but take advantage of the ability to have them. Be silly not to.
Sig links are a perk for being an active member here, I think they should stay. I also think they should be disallowed from certain forums (if at all possible) to stop the sig flashers that add nothing to the thread. :angel:
I hear you. Very often I see sigs which have exactly for what the OP is looking for by the sig flasher asks "What is your price range" or "what exactly are you looking for", or some other silly comment.

Hi,

I was reading the rules today and without being too picky, I think some sentences should be re-written.
May not contain any pricing, plan, sales, etc. details. "Free" is considered a price in the context of this rule.
May contain a maximum of two smilies. Or one animated smiley.
May include two clickable links.
May include two colors, plus black.
Maximum font size cannot be larger than normal.I think they should be :
May not include more than two clickable links.
May not contain more than two colors, plus black.G

I don't think there is enough a reason the rules to be changed. What for? It is very understandable that we are allowed to use two clickable links and two colors plus black. At least, at first read, it was understandable to me.;)

One thing I thought was very useful. There's a hack on vb.org that limits your sig. So it will only appear once in each thread.

I think that is a wonderful idea here.

May not include more than two clickable links.
May not contain more than two colors, plus black.


sound better. Good one, mr G. :)