RFC 1855: Netiquette Guidelines

(excerpt from) Section 2.1.1 (for mail):

- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.

I only post this because I see, here and elsewhere, a tendency among people to have quite lengthy "signature blocks". These look particularly ludicrous when appended to short postings.

Most (dare I say "none"?) of us no longer pay for connectivity by time, and a few added bytes aren't going to be noticed in one's overall amount-transferred; still, if your signature block is longer than your post, you've surpassed the McQuary Limit.

If the content of your signature block is that interesting, post it as its own thread... once!

:)

I see that you are just below the limit, thank you.

I got special permission from McQuary. ";"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I got special permission from McQuary. ";"

---

Yeah Jimmy, I figure your post count should earn you a special dispensation.

Might I suggest that while signatures ought be tasteful and readable, RFC 1855 was last updated in 1995 long before php bulletins were in use. We might consider that netiquette 15 years old and written for plain-format email is not the law of the land anymore...

I don't have a signature line for the simple reason that i have not taken the time to find anything clever. How about this, If you don't like the signature line, then don't read it. There are too many people trying to not hurt other peoples feelings and as a result, are not being true to themselves. If it is not vulgar or tasteless, then what difference does it make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prosneek

How about this, If you don't like the signature line, then don't read it. There are too many people trying to not hurt other peoples feelings and as a result, are not being true to themselves. If it is not vulgar or tasteless, then what difference does it make?

---

I'd be glad to not read 'em (if they're "short stories"); and there's a user-configurable option to do just that:

Straight Razor Place Forums » User Control Panel » Edit Options » Thread Display Options » Visible Post Elements » Show Signatures

but it's "all, or nothing-at-all"; which is why I made my original post about minimizing signature-block length.

Well it looks like you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BKratchmer

Might I suggest that while signatures ought be tasteful and readable, RFC 1855 was last updated in 1995 long before php bulletins were in use. We might consider that netiquette 15 years old and written for plain-format email is not the law of the land anymore...

---

What he said.

Considering the art we practice and regularity we use 1800's stuff, I don't think we have anything to say about a ruleset a mere 15 years old. I mean, that's practically brand spanking new! =D

However, netiquette should be observed today too because of the popularity of mobile reading - huge signatures with fancy animate gifs and shaving club affiliations look plenty good with big screens, but people reading with mobile phones on slow connections might not have very positive things to say about them. Some people's signatures are almost one and half screens worth on my phone.

There's no law about these things, but it is a courtesy extended to others. This site has been pretty good in those things, and I'd like to think it continues in the future.

And Jimmy, don't you touch that flexing fingers text in your sig - that's one thing that can't be repeated enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BKratchmer

Might I suggest that while signatures ought be tasteful and readable, RFC 1855 was last updated in 1995 long before php bulletins were in use. We might consider that netiquette 15 years old and written for plain-format email is not the law of the land anymore...

---

Right. The important part is not the rule of thumb anymore but rather the people pay for connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay bit, which makes that entire rule obsolete.

SRP maintains its own signature policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

Right. The important part is not the rule of thumb anymore but rather the people pay for connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay bit, which makes that entire rule obsolete.

SRP maintains its own signature policy.

---

I couldn't help but notice (and comment-on) that the SRP signature policy is only four lines long... :w

Signature policy

Below is SRP's policy on signature lines. We have tried to keep it short and simple:

1. Free expression is generally acceptable. We retain the right to decide the appropriateness of a signature line on an individual basis.
2. Non-advertisement links are generally acceptable, as long as they comply with our General rules of conduct.
3. Shaving Advertisement is generally acceptable, as long as the advertising is for your own product(s) or shop(s). Graphics or images for commercial use are generally unacceptable (cf. Vendor/Advertising policy). Advertising for other members is equally unacceptable.
4. Other advertisement links are generally unacceptable.

===================

Anyway, my original post spoke of the aesthetics of lengthy signature blocks. I don't have a problem with them, per se, but when I read a one-line posting, such as "+1" or "What he said" or "Beautiful blade!", followed by a 15-or-more-line signature block, it makes me wonder if the poster's intent was to make a useful comment, or see himself "up in lights".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHoren

If the content of your signature block is that interesting, post it as its own thread... once!

---

This could be said about any signature, including yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHoren

Anyway, my original post spoke of the aesthetics of lengthy signature blocks. I don't have a problem with them, per se, but when I read a one-line posting, such as "+1" or "What he said" or "Beautiful blade!", followed by a 15-or-more-line signature block, it makes me wonder if the poster's intent was to make a useful comment, or see himself "up in lights".

---

Yes, the policy on signatures is indeed short, and, as it says, it is open to interpretation. If there are posting habits or signatures that you feel merit action, please report them to any Moderator via PM or by using the "Report Post" button.

For the most part I skip over the signatures when I read threads. It's become kind of automatic to just jump over the sig. I feel your pain when it comes to a mobile device, but I'm wondering if there's a way that I could just turn sigs off when I browse on my Blackberry? If not, that might be something worth having the admins look into.

Oh, and FWIW, I was once asked to reduce the size of my signature because it was annoyingly large. There are people that pay attention to it.

There is a maximum number of characters it will take and no more. I imagine the number could be adjusted if we wanted to however I don't recall seeing too many people complain about this as an issue. It's only the content that has been a problem in the past.

There's a saying that comes to mind... It says something about mountains and mole-hills... I think that's how it goes anyway.

Nobody is trying to set themselves "up in lights" with their signature lines. If anyone gets a reputation here (for good or bad), it is because of what they post and contribute to SRP.

I wonder... does it cost more if I use additional colors or emoticons? :thinking: