Cannot change signature

Unknown said:

It has taken us a little while to tackle it, that's all. It's unfortunate that the new version had to go live before we could do so.

We were aware that  it needed to be tackled and there was no major problem with how long it would take.

It's just that all of a sudden we can't have different text and we can't have images (which are just links like you have in your signature) in the signature box when we know that they do work

In the way that a small signature image might need more moderation, then one could argue, so could a link. In fact a link probably needs more moderation because you don't know where it will take you until you click on it, compared with an image link that is instantly visible.

Hi Sparrow,

Thanks for the feedback. We have bumped up the font size of the posts to help with this.

Graham

Why not make the signature box default font italic?

That way we could distinguish between the signature and the post more easily.

Linda

EDIT. sorry Graham, posts crossed. Has this bumped up font started? I can't see it yet.

EDIT again.  I see it now. Thank you. Much better.

Hi Chris,

I'm afraid you're incorrect about links. Legally we are liable as the publisher if we display images on our site that cause offence. Links take you somewhere else.

Graham

Graham

Many thanks for increasing the font size for posts - it's much easier to read and also fixes the problem of signatures being confused with the text of the message, which I think was the reason why some people wanted to make them bold or italic.

Hi Sue,

No problem.

Graham

Unknown said:

Legally we are liable as the publisher if we display images on our site that cause offence

Fair enough. So are you saying that you don't want any images displayed on this Community that is about birds? Just in case they might cause offence?

Of course not. We have to be careful about defamation, pornographic material, breach of copyright, etc. This is what I mean.

Unknown said:

Of course not. We have to be careful about defamation, pornographic material, breach of copyright, etc. This is what I mean.

Graham, I absolutely understand what you mean, but it seems illogical to me that you plan to allow images everywhere but in the signature box, and believe that in doing so there would need to be less moderation.

I totally agree that some signature images may break the Community, because with everyone using them, they might just get bigger and bigger, and that is an excellent reason to not allow them, but I'm sorry I just can't see how they would need any more moderation because they happen to be in a signature box rather than in a post.

Let me give it as an example. We can post an image of birds like this here:

or we can post an image of birds like this here:

but apparently we can no longer be trusted to post bird images in our signature boxes because they need more moderating and might be defamatory, pornographic material, or breach of copyright, etc. I can't see the difference or logic in that, but accept that it might just be me.

I know we can't appeal to you about it because it's your decision and you have made it, so we either accept it or leave. So I realize there is no point in any further discussion about it.

If you post a picture in a thread, you post it once. Post an image in your signature its posted everytime you reply. That's more than 4000 little bluebirds clogging up the works. So apart from the legalities I'm with Graham on this one