Plugin for signatures?

When that happens, a Moderator edits the Fake Signature out of the post and the member is asked to not do it again.

2 Likes

@mittineague quite authoritative, but not practical with 6K+ messages per day. It would also make the users angry. I am a bit miffed why people would object to a signature field that is optional for users to enable for display. Other than the obvious work that the feature/plugin would entail to develop. If users want to enable the option, and it doesn’t impact others, I would think it’s a win/win.

Yeah, and I think we all agree that sigs are bad. But you don’t take then away after decades and blame the software. Cultural changes like this can be harmful to the community. With a plugin you can make then smaller each quarter so things are a bit smoother.

5 Likes

Hi @charleswalter Sorry, I misunderstood you. Giving users the ability to toggle sigs is a great idea if sigs are turned on.

Just saying, imo the internet would be a better place if sigs didn’t exist.

I can’t stand them from a design pov, which is one of the many reasons why I like Discourse so much.

And I can’t stand them from a users pov because I get so tired of seeing the same old sigs over and over. My brain just shuts them out like it does ads. I’m guessing this happens to most people, so what’s the point of having them take up so much space?

4 Likes

But I hear what you guys are saying – your community wants them, so you want to make them happy, which is good :smile:

2 Likes

Whatever space it is that the Translator ++ plugin is using seems to be ideal for this as well.

1 Like

And what when they’re turned off? The users will do the same.

This solves nothing, and having a signature that’s multiple times the size of the post isn’t proving that signatures are a good idea IMO.

The usercard is essentially the same thing - and it’s completely optional for people seeing it, because they need to click it. It supports big, animated images, and other information.

7 Likes

It’s not something we are interested in building at this time.

We’d actually prefer that you switch to different discussion software rather than being forced to build this. Even if that means you are no longer a customer.

I just want to be absolutely crystal clear about our stance on this. We view signatures as harmful, like smoking, something we don’t want to ever encourage or support in any way.

That said, if you contract with a third party to build a plugin, that’s none of our business.

19 Likes

@codinghorror I had a feeling you’d say something like that. if you prefer moving this thread to marketplace, I’m cool with that.

1 Like

Probably better if you solidify feedback here into a tighter marketplace topic, with a list of desired features, budget, UI mockups, etc.

3 Likes

He’s using the same place I suggested, so that’s one more vote for an outlet after .cooked :thumbsup:

4 Likes

OK, added the plugin outlet: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/3729

4 Likes

Thanks!

I’ll try to hack together a basic implementation this weekend:

  • Users Custom text field where you can add an URL image
  • Display images below posts using the outlet

If everything goes well we can upgrade the system to cover all aspects.

@charleswalter What about turning the first post into a wiki so we can put the spec there?

As I said, better to move this with restructuring to marketplace. “fixing” old discussions by editing them generally ends in tears.

1 Like

The plugin is using jQuery to append it the translation but I’ll transition the plugin to use the outlet.

You’re forgetting the awesome that is Akismet.

If a user routinely pastes the same garbage in at the bottom of every post, then it won’t take much to teach the filter that we don’t want to see it.

Discourse doesn’t hold itself out to be “another forum solution” in line with those of the last ten years, they’re quite clear on that.

If it’s a plugin, then you don’t need this:

1 Like

@charleswalter I think you are trying to both have the cake and eat it at the same time.

On one hand, you want to give in to the pressure and allow signatures.

On the other hand you want a toggle that allow it to be default off, including default off for anon.

@loopback0 is entirely right here, if people get “opt in” sigs, they will fallback and just manually paste them.

A more reasonable way for you to fight this is to add emphasis to user cards. Make your members care about them more and this will solve the underlying problem.

Run a globally pinned competition for the “best” user cards, give out a gold badge to winner and silvers to the runners up.

Discuss with your community why they think user cards are not good enough.

10 Likes

Good points Sam. I like the idea of the contest and discussing badges with users. But years of behavior can be hard to change. Lithium’s forums allowed the signature functionality as I have been describing and users seemed to respect it quite well. There is a large enough group of users who want to enable sigs that they will be happy to display their sigs for each other and not feel compelled to place it in the message.

If they’re this important to you, why weren’t they part of your selection criteria before you moved to Discourse? I think the team’s position on signatures has been pretty clear for some time now.

The typical users who want large in-your-face visuals aren’t going to be receptive to the idea that they’re only visible to a minute percentage of the user base who have both signed-in and opted-in. If you’re stuck on Discourse, then you’ve likely moved the challenge of that user education piece forward several years.

Why not poll your entire community to ask whether:

  • they want signatures themselves
  • want to see the signatures of others
  • want everyone to see their signatures
  • have no interest in signatures

Are you dealing with an overwhelming majority, or vocal minority?

3 Likes