Dynamic Signatures

[Logain]

Right now, signatures are not part of the post and come solely from the database. When you change your signature, all previous posts' signatures are updated and dynamically changed as well.

To make them static so that you can have a signature that doesn't update with each change, it would have to become part of the message text when you submit a post. The main problem with this is if you "edit" a post, the signature will be in the edit box, and you will have a second signature appended to the post. To get around this you'd have to disable the signature checkbox on an edit window...which means a) more work for Antrax, and b) you can't edit a post to add a sig if you forgot.

[Lucky Wizard]

I disagree. When reading old threads, I enjoy reading old sigs too. I'm sure I'm not the only one. (Thankfully, pre-switch threads are unaffected.)

Anyway, the "edit post" page has an "attach signature" checkbox. You can toggle it if you forgot to attach a sig, or if you don't want to have two sigs.

[Beartalon]

Logain, if signatures come from the database, can you implement a timestamp field on the signature table so the latest sig get pulled from the database to be included but the old sigs stay the same?

Going forward, the original post date will determine whether the old sig/no sig is kept. A post with no sig or an old sig cannot be changed to add a new sig. New posts will have the latest sig if selected, but also be permanent 'sigged'.

I hardly use my sig and don't often read others. These are just implementation ideas.

[Courk]

I like seeing old sigs. If they weren't made part of the message on the old forum, I might have missed the "Oh no, a baby ate my dingo!" sig.

[Logain]

Courk, I like seeing old sigs too, which is why I started this poll. I'd hate to think I could post a signature months ago on a post and it changes cause I updated my sig today.

LW, when you said you "disagree", but want to have posts static, I hope that didn't mean you voted no

The reason I suggested to disable the attach signature box when editing a post, is because even though you can toggle it, if you have it checked by default I'm sure almost everyone will forget to uncheck it when they edit their post quickly and then end up with two signatures. I know I'd forget to uncheck it on an edit more than a few times.

[Lucky Wizard]

When I read Logain's first post, I thought he was saying that signatures should change in old posts. Now I realize he was saying the opposite.

Anyway, I think sigs shouldn't change, either.

I haven't voted yet, because I want to vote on all the polls in one sitting (to make it easier to keep track of which ones I haven't and have voted on yet) and I haven't had a chance to do so yet. I'll do it tonight. I was going to vote "yes" and still will vote "yes"; I didn't misunderstand the question above your post.

[i_h8_evil_stuff]

You shouldn't have waited. A number of decisions have already been made based on polls, and your voting on those decisions won't have an effect. Go ahead and vote on the others, though. Every vote counts.
_________________
Space for sale. PM i_h8_evil_stuff for details.

[Antrax]

I tried to implement only those features who had an oustanding majority for them.
Antrax
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Celt]

I'm glad people are voting for static signatures. Otherwise nostalgia just wouldn't be what it used to be.

[Logain]

Heh, that's how I feel. I wanted to post a new signature just one time and realized I can't do it cause it would change all my old ones.

[Antrax]

Logain, I hate that sig. It always gets overused and loses all novelty.
Antrax
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Logain]

lol, I was actually in the process of editing to remove it when you posted.

[ChienFou]

A sig is what you felt at the time. Post facto changes seem wrong to me.
_________________
Where ChienFou leads, The dogpack follows

[Logain]

Antrax, is this on the To Do list...at least eventually...even if it is way down there?

[Antrax]

It is. Things are already starting to happen (thanks to Jeep) and once I finish with my finals (in a week and a half) I'll be available for coding, as well.
Antrax
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Logain]

Just wanted to bump this since I would really like to see this feature

[CrystyB]

[Logain]

Bump again since it's been 8 months since I last did

Any chance of having a signature...once posted...become part of the post so that not all of your signatures posted in previous threads change when you update your current sig?

Just for example, we had multiple threads talking about ref's sig. If he changes it, all the instances of his sig are gone and the threads talking about it would make no sense since there would be no record of it...or the funny sigs that were made in reply to it.

[Samadhi]

Way to find the cloud around a silver lining.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Logain]

As far as I know this is still not changed and if you edit your signature, all your previous posts will update with it as well. I'm still in favor of changing this and the poll seems to say it would be a nice enhancement.

Since signatures people use sometimes have relevance to what was being posted at the time and it would be nice to keep them. Could we make it so when you post with a signature it becomes part of the actual post text?

[Jack_Ian]

Signatures belong to a user identity and not to an individual post.
Why clutter the posts with multiple copies of text that bears no relation to the posts themselves.
Ideally (and logically), the sig should appear under the author's name rather than the post and there should be an option not to display sigs.
A sig's history could be kept per user and the appropriate sig could be chosen using the date/time as the key.
It would also be nice to see the sig-history in the user's profile.
Anyway, I vote KEEP THE SAME!!!
If sigs get attached to the posts, there will never be an option available to NOT display sigs.

[Samadhi]

[Jack_Ian]

[Coyote*]

Interesting posts are already interspersed with junk like [profile], [pm], [email], [AIM], & etc. No one seems to notice them until they're needed though, because the brain has a tendency to 'edit out' such constantly repeated noise.

I hardly even notice sigs anymore for this reason, and I'm perplexed that others find them more of a distraction than the usual utility options included under all the posts.

Besides, even if we eliminated sigs entirely, I think there'd still be a problem with interesting posts being interspersed with junk. At least with sigs, it's easily recognized and dismissible junk.

[Jack_Ian]

[Coyote]

Nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism, but note that I said 'hardly', not 'never'. There's quite a difference between those two terms, and I'll stand by my original statement. I've certainly never found the flow of an interesting discussion to be hampered by the presence of a few interspersed sigs.

Incidentally, you've just given a perfect example of a sig that has particular relevence to the post it follows. If it were to be changed at a later date the point of your post would be completely lost.

[Samadhi]

I hardly even notice posts anymore.

[Jack_Ian]

[Courk]

Harm?

[MatthewV]

I don't see it causing much harm either.

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

[Samadhi]

Here's how I thought this could be implemented:
Have a table (call it Sig_Madness or whatever) with all the sigs in it with timestamps ([userid], [timestamp], [memo data]...or whatever). This table should be linked to the user table by userid.
Clearly there is a call for the sig right now (a post can display it or not, but it's not part of the post). Only the call would need to be adjusted. Find the sig that fits the timestamp of the post.

I don't think that's awfully hard, and I don't think it will increase the DB by 10%.

[Jack_Ian]

Excellent suggestion Samadhi.
I wish I'd thought of it.

[Samadhi]

Thanks! Once I learn the requisite code (or just BS Antrax into believing I know it) I'll get right on that.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[jeep]

Isn't there a pre-made mode to do this? It's a relatively simple thing to do... just add a signatureID column to the posts table. When someone changes their sig, keep it in a table and instead of updating, add to the table. There is no need to have the timestamp in the sigs table... unless you really want it for some strange reason.

It should be maintained because tables like that get out of control. Ever few weeks, someone should go through and delete unused signatures (those that are not attached to a user or to a post.)

-JEEP