Sig issues go here (formerly "My sig")

[joeframbach]

This post had objectionable content.

[Gordon]

Usually when I stab someones text I lock the post, so no one can edit.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

Can I get an answer on why mine was changed twice?

[Bakemaster]

I've known for a while that quotation mark characters count as more than one character in counting how many characters your signature contains toward the 255-character limit, and haven't had a problem—I just use single quote marks instead of double quote marks. But now it's clear that something is seriously wrong with the counter.

Initially, my signature contains too many characters:

Picture 1.png (39.99 KiB) Viewed 8767 times

So I shorten the URL, expecting to be well under the limit, and the count stays the same:

Picture 2.png (36.96 KiB) Viewed 8763 times

Then, I removed the front half of the URL tag entirely, and the count went up!

Picture 3.png (35.59 KiB) Viewed 8762 times

Finally, I remove the back half of the URL tag, which is six characters on my screen, and the resulting count is only one fewer than before:

Picture 4.png (35.52 KiB) Viewed 8759 times

I'm at a loss to decipher what's going on here.

[RealGrouchy]

Bakey, this seems consistent with the following hypothesis:

Text contained in tags (i.e. by virtue of them being in tags, they do not appear in the finished content) does not count toward the limit. Therefore, reducing text inside a tag (e.g. shortening the url) does not affect the character count.

However, closing tags with no associated opening tag (or vice versa, e.g. [/url]) appear as text in the finished product, and thus count toward the limit, not counting the punctuation.

That make sense?

- RG>

[Bakemaster]

I figured out what was going on. Thanks.

[melladh]

Did the url tag just get turned off for signatures, or am I missing something? (like me accidentally turning it off somewhere and not being able to find where to turn it on again)

[LE4dGOLEM]

Did the url tag just get turned off for signatures, or am I missing something? (like me accidentally turning it off somewhere and not being able to find where to turn it on again)

Yes, it did. It's a spam thing.

[Hammer]

Did the url tag just get turned off for signatures, or am I missing something? (like me accidentally turning it off somewhere and not being able to find where to turn it on again)

Yeah, I'm trying it out in the face of the endless stream of backlinking spammers. You can still put a url in your sig if you want. Just don't wrap it in url tags. It will not be clickable, but people can still copy/paste it.

[Jesse]

But.. but why can I still click links?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Perhaps it's affected by post count?

Edit: Disregard; it's not.

[GhostWolfe]

The change didn't affect sigs already in place? So you can keep active links so long as you don't plan on updating your sig? Maybe?

/angell

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Yeah, that's right. The block is implemented at the point where you go to change your signature, not at the point where pages are rendered from signatures.

[Internetmeme]

Yeah, that's right. The block is implemented at the point where you go to change your signature, not at the point where pages are rendered from signatures.

Are there any plans to remove it or is it here to stay?
And can we have a mod manually change our sig so we can keep our URL's if we want to update our sig?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I can't speak to the first question, but mods (and admins) are also unable to put [url] tags in signatures.

[Jesse]

I don't mind it. I've changed my sig, and the link doesn't look untidy. If you have problems with length there are plenty of URL shortening programs about.

[Azrael]

Are there any plans to remove it or is it here to stay?
And can we have a mod manually change our sig so we can keep our URL's if we want to update our sig?

A forum-wide policy has been instituted in the hope of reducing the forum's attractiveness to spammers, thus slowing the influx thereof. I would anticipate that it would be lifted only if it proved ineffective, although I also doubt we are undertaking significantly rigorous steps to measure the effect and make that determination. Thus, expect this for the long haul.

[Midnight]

alright I just want to come here to apologize to hammer for not looking more carefully.

and now I got my response. IT WAS INDEED SPAMBOTS.

[Hammer]

alright I just want to come here to apologize to hammer for not looking more carefully.

and now I got my response. IT WAS INDEED SPAMBOTS.

Just FYI: davean should be installing some board mods for me soon. Once he does, I may be able to give back sig links to existing users.

[Internetmeme]

Are there any plans to remove it or is it here to stay?
And can we have a mod manually change our sig so we can keep our URL's if we want to update our sig?

A forum-wide policy has been instituted in the hope of reducing the forum's attractiveness to spammers, thus slowing the influx thereof. I would anticipate that it would be lifted only if it proved ineffective, although I also doubt we are undertaking significantly rigorous steps to measure the effect and make that determination. Thus, expect this for the long haul.

Thanks for the answer to that Azrael!

It's entirely reasonable and I understand. I'll just keep it like it is.

[Syntax_Error]

A MOD is not required, with phpBB, just use the "Newly Registered Users" group to prevent people from using Signatures until they reach X posts. But something that might suite you guys here would be the Authorzed for URLs MOD, which basically adds a new global permission (iirc) that allows the admin to disallow the posting of links. This can be used in conjunction with the Newly Registered Users group.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

A MOD is not required, with phpBB, just use the "Newly Registered Users" group to prevent people from using Signatures until they reach X posts.

I raised this before; what you suggest has been tried in the past and didn't work. I'll quote Hammer's response here, since it's probably all relevant:

We did that. The problem is that they post reasonable looking things, so they get out of the Newly Registered Users group and then they come back later and add the sig links. Seriously, folks, thanks for the input, but we really don't need to have a brainstorming session about this. We know what our options are. It's just a question of twerking until we find a balance point that works.

['; DROP DATABASE;--]

Did the url tag just get turned off for signatures, or am I missing something? (like me accidentally turning it off somewhere and not being able to find where to turn it on again)

Yeah, I'm trying it out in the face of the endless stream of backlinking spammers. You can still put a url in your sig if you want. Just don't wrap it in url tags. It will not be clickable, but people can still copy/paste it.

...which means the length of the URL now counts toward our measly 255 characters as we can no longer give short labels to long URLs (which also means if we want to add any sort of description, that's even MORE characters toward the limit, and breaks aesthetics).

It also doesn't seem to allow you to edit your sig if it contains an image that it can't retrieve, which means if I want to edit my sig while twitstamp.com is (presumably temporarily) down, I'd have to remove the image and remember to put it back again later.

Wouldn't a solution like "must have 5 posts to use links in signature" or "must check a non-standard checkbox to enable signature" weed out most bots without being so intrustive?

[gmalivuk]

Pretty sure urls already counted toward the character limit, plus there the [url] tags themselves.

[Jesse]

URL's contained within the url tags actually didn't count towards the character limit, it was whatever you wrote to be clicked on that did.

[Hammer]

Wouldn't a solution like "must have 5 posts to use links in signature" or "must check a non-standard checkbox to enable signature" weed out most bots without being so intrustive?

Yes. Hence my request that davean install some board mods that provide such options.

[Dr Ug]

Is there any chance that the url sig-block could be post number linked? I mainly post in the mafia sub-forum, and we often use signatures to advertise upcoming games (in said forum).

Another option would be to allow the use of URLs within the fora.

[phlip]

Is there any chance that the url sig-block could be post number linked?

Wouldn't a solution like "must have 5 posts to use links in signature" or "must check a non-standard checkbox to enable signature" weed out most bots without being so intrustive?

Yes. Hence my request that davean install some board mods that provide such options.

[Jar'O'Jam]

Can't wait for those modtools. I hope they weren't forgotten.
Site & Forum Issues is not the place for general discussion. Unless you are reporting a problem or offering a possible solution, do not reply. -ST

[Kore]

How long is it till we are allowed a sig? apparently I can't have one D:

[gmalivuk]

More than zero posts, obviously. My guess would be you either need 5 posts, or you need to be out of the New Users group.

[faca5]

Hello.

How it is possible to create signature? When you post more posts and become next level member?

[jestingrabbit]

Try now. You should be fine. Please make sure any image in the signature isn't larger than 100 pixels high, and have a glance at the rules.

[Hammer]

FYI: If you have at least five posts, you should now be able to put a link in your sig.

[Krawl]

Apparently I can't place a sig. A maximum of zero characters is allowed.
Also, since I'm here, though it may or may not be unrelated, I have well over the number of posts I'm being credited for under my avatar.
Is there a post:sig allowed ratio?

[Zohar]

Posts in the "Forum Games" sub-forum and "Free as in Destitute" sub-forum don't count towards your total. I'm not sure what's the problem with your signature, but I would suggest make two more "normal" posts so you get to five, then the situation might change.

[Krawl]

It appears that simply having more "Normal" posts has rectified this issue. Assistance recognized, and appreciated.

[Jplus]

I have the following BB code in my sig:

Code: Select all

[right][i]Feel free to call me Julian. J+ is just an abbreviation.[/i][/right][url=http://dft.ba/-rsh][img]https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/870d55daae609e5fc116d2cd8a6d93a3?d=https%3A%2F%2Fidenticons.github.com%2F51d915c3c6adc35fa70304201ce2f1d4.png&r=x&s=50[/img] coding and xkcd combined[/url]

Since at most two days, the image doesn't show up anymore (at least not for me, maybe other people still see it). I inspected the relevant bit of the page source code and it looks like this:

Code: Select all

<img src="https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/870d55daae609e5fc116d2cd8a6d93a3?d=https%3A%2F%2Fidenticons.github.com%2F51d915c3c6adc35fa70304201ce2f1d4.png&amp;r=x&amp;s=50" alt="Image" style="display: none !important; visibility: hidden !important; opacity: 0 !important; background-position: 0px 0px;" width="0" height="0">

So the image is still there, but completely hidden by all possible means. I'm still seeing images in the signatures of other forum members. Is this a really weird issue or am I just the victim of a practical joke by a mod?

[Azrael]

... I can still see it.

[Роберт]

If you're talking about the red spider, I'm not a mod and I can see it.