Question about signatures
Jun 10, 2006 | 10:51 pm
#1
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: D.R.E.A.D. Gold card holder
Posts: 53,184
Question about signatures
I'm wondering why, when I try to submit a signature, I get an error if it's longer than 125 characters, when I see many signatures that are much longer - one I've found is over three times that "limit" (418 characters long).
Jun 12, 2006 | 9:59 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, but there isn't a procedure set up for exemptions to the rule, as far as I know there are not any exemptions. The people that have signatures that are longer are longer than the limit are only that way because they were set when the limit was different. When these users go to edit their signature in the future they should be forced to get their signature down to 125 characters.
Jun 12, 2006 | 12:59 pm
#6
Community Director Emerita
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Anywhere warm
Posts: 35,566
Here's some reasoning behind the new character limit for signatures. Once upon a time, signatures were disabled because some people were using them for political pronouncements or other things that did not serve the harmony of FT. A lot of members asked for signatures to be returned.
Talkboard was given the task of coming up with guidelines for signatures. They did so, and you can find them here. The guidelines say in part:
Moderators continued to see some signatures well beyond the two line recommendation. Putting a character limit is an attempt to find a low key way of encouraging members to follow the Talkboard recommendation.
Talkboard was given the task of coming up with guidelines for signatures. They did so, and you can find them here. The guidelines say in part:
As a courtesy to members we suggest you follow the these guidelines when creating your signature:
* Use the normal posting font size.
* Limit your signature to two lines.
* Text should comply with our regular posting rules. No all-caps, no alternating caps, etc.
* Do not make your signature too long or obtrusive through overly creative use of punctuation, color, etc.
* Avoid putting your username in your signature as it's already on the top of each of your posts.
* Use the normal posting font size.
* Limit your signature to two lines.
* Text should comply with our regular posting rules. No all-caps, no alternating caps, etc.
* Do not make your signature too long or obtrusive through overly creative use of punctuation, color, etc.
* Avoid putting your username in your signature as it's already on the top of each of your posts.
Jun 12, 2006 | 2:30 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
I can't possibly imagine what someone would want to post that is THAT long... Personally, I turned off displaying peoples signatures from day one, and if I had to read through loads of 400+ character signature lines I'm sure reading FT would be a heck of a lot less fun... Signatures are meant to be brief messages at the end of every post, not an essay or opportunity for storytelling...
Jun 15, 2006 | 7:10 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,947
The OP has found a workaround to his request for a longer signature by posting what would have been his signature in color as part of each and every one of his posts in the main message area. 
Now we get to see his "signature" with each of his posts, but also anytime someone wants to reply w/quote to his posts, as well. IMO ... 
Now we get to see his "signature" with each of his posts, but also anytime someone wants to reply w/quote to his posts, as well. IMO ...
Jun 15, 2006 | 7:23 pm
#9
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: D.R.E.A.D. Gold card holder
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by GoingAway
Now we get to see his "signature" with each of his posts, but also anytime someone wants to reply w/quote to his posts, as well.
__________________
His followers called him mahasamatman, and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself sam. He never claimed to be a god. But then, he never claimed not to be... - Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
Jun 15, 2006 | 10:40 pm
#10
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA 1K; F9 Summit
Posts: 2,077
Originally Posted by GoingAway
The OP has found a workaround to his request for a longer signature by posting what would have been his signature in color as part of each and every one of his posts in the main message area. Now we get to see his "signature" with each of his posts, but also anytime someone wants to reply w/quote to his posts, as well. IMO ...
Now we get to see his "signature" with each of his posts, but also anytime someone wants to reply w/quote to his posts, as well. IMO ... I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, it's just a fact.
Jun 16, 2006 | 6:37 am
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: DL GM, AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat
Posts: 12,171
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
I can't be held responsible if people are too dense to edit their responses before posting.
__________________
His followers called him mahasamatman, and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself sam. He never claimed to be a god. But then, he never claimed not to be... - Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
__________________
His followers called him mahasamatman, and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself sam. He never claimed to be a god. But then, he never claimed not to be... - Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
How arrogant.
Jun 16, 2006 | 7:24 am
#12
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
I can't be held responsible if people are too dense to edit their responses before posting.
The ancients who wished to demonstrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extention of knowledge lay in the investigation of things. . . . From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.