Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Signature Code Character Limit

So yeah, just tried to add the MRoogle code to my sig, and despite my best effort to clear it down to just "MRoogle", no luck, could it please be taken into considering to either have a "MRoogle" tag added, or the character limit raised. I know the mods and admins have it cut out alot, but yeah, just a lil discussion topic for the future :)
 
Who is going to make the HTML tags for the MRoogle tag? Someone would need to make it and I sure know the mods are too busy for that!
 
alphaod said:
Who is going to make the HTML tags for the MRoogle tag? Someone would need to make it and I sure know the mods are too busy for that!
Click to expand...

The tag for the forum has to be done on the back end. It's being considered. But it's also not high priority either as for the most part it's just affecting peoples ability to put it in their signature which, in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge deal.
 
I can understand that it is definitely a back burner project, in relation, how hard would it be to just up the code limit? is it as simple as changing a number in a line of code? or is there more to it than that?
 
Schtumple said:
I can understand that it is definitely a back burner project, in relation, how hard would it be to just up the code limit? is it as simple as changing a number in a line of code? or is there more to it than that?
Click to expand...

While I don't know, I'm guessing it would be pretty easy to up the limit. But that has it's own problems. Once you up it it's *really* hard to lower it back down. I'm sure it causes some server load to generate the sigs (although I can't say if it's a significant amount or not). Then it's a matter of what is good enough. If it's 300 now (I think) then is 400? 500? 600? Does that "fix" everybody?

We just have to look at the repercussions and if they are worth it... it's being discussed as I've said but who knows if/when it will happen.
 
Were I the site owner, I wouldn't do it. While people doing more and better searches makes for a better forum experience, I wouldn't want that many people clicking away to search. Let's face it, MR is a business and increasing page views increases potential income.
 
rdowns said:
Were I the site owner, I wouldn't do it. While people doing more and better searches makes for a better forum experience, I wouldn't want that many people clicking away to search. Let's face it, MR is a business and increasing page views increases potential income.
Click to expand...

I don't think Macrumors has anything to lose by MRoogle, if that is what you're getting at. I would think if anything it saves this site some workload because as far as I know vBulletin searches don't count for revenue to macrumors but clicking into the appropriate thread might.

In absence of a MRoogle tag I do really wish we could see a tiny bump in character allowance. The current 150 excluding markup/300 including to 200 excluding/400 including or something. It can be a challenge to get in a full sentence if you also have a URL in your sig. Is it a big deal? No, not at all, but it's a minor annoyance to some of us and it doesn't hurt to ask.
 
I never thought my night of signature code frustration would still be a topic of discussion over a month later. Regardless, I don't think the actual character limit needs to be adjusted, but rather the code limit. In reality, if I really wanted some gratuitous code in my signature I could just easily have extra code that I could copy and paste at the end of every post exempli gratia MacDawg with the Woof Woof at the end of every post. I think that most people would either not use the extended code limit or use it for something beneficial. In all honesty, I enjoy putting an MRoogle link in my signature, but having a personality is more important to me ... It would be nice to be able to do both without having to cut corners.

That said, it seems like the most logical solution is to either have an MRoogle tag (written by edesignuk) added or extend (or eliminate) the code limit. Just my thoughts.

I thought it would be a good idea to show an example of the signature I would like to have, that way people can see how ridiculous it is not.

Half of what I say is meaningless, but I say it so that the other half may reach you.
Search before you post: MRoogle​

or even

Half of what I say is meaningless, but I say it so that the other half may reach you.
MRoogle​

Both of which are over the character limit.
 
I am ready to snap at this limit. For one thing, the character counter here is off its head. It is not counting characters accurately. I've noticed this before and now I realize what it is. I have something that actually is well under both of the the 150/300 limits* which only fits so long as there is no carriage return. How is a carriage return a character?

All malfunctioning forum character counters aside, I am still very frustrated by not being able to use a little judgement and have such a short limit placed upon me JUST IN CASE someone takes advantage and puts in a big ugly signature. Why not open it up a little and if someone's signature goes overboard and they're posting all over and bothering people oh so much with their hideous sig, just remove it? People will report a hideous intrusive signature. I can't imagine that happens all that often anyway.

This is an irritating problem and I don't have much appreciation for being punished for the rare cases of signature abuse. I understand there needs to be limits but this one is VERY limiting. Is it really necessary to be this strict?

I ask again, can those of you who make these decisions please consider lightening this one up just a little? Perhaps for the demis, who are less likely to cause signature problems? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?


*which I check through a character counter widget. It would be helpful if the forum had one built into the signature panel since clearly it is counting (or trying to) anyway. Something which tells us how far we are over the limit would be handy. </another thought which is probably just as futile :(>
 
iBlue said:
^^[SNIP]^^
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, honestly if I were given a little more freedom on this I may consider becoming a demi. BUT ... I was told by annk right before WWDC that this will be discussed once everything chilled out post WWDC. I've tried to give it some time, but apparently this isn't a priority to the decision makers.
 
robbieduncan said:
Of course it's a character. It's a non-printing character. If it was not then how would the software know where to put the return? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess (never thought of it like that) but I would have thought it would perhaps fall under the 'excluding markup' rule. I don't know how it works entirely but it seemed to count for several characters. I had about 10 spare characters and a simple carriage return cause it to go over, but putting it on the same line and having a few extra periods (to space it out) was accepted. It's just bizarre.
I find the whole thing very frustrating, having to struggle to fit a line or two of small text all because there is a minuscule chance of someone out there abusing signatures. I don't get what the big deal is and why we need such tight leashes on our signature rules.
 
iBlue said:
Yeah I guess (never thought of it like that) but I would have thought it would perhaps fall under the 'excluding markup' rule. I don't know how it works entirely but it seemed to count for several characters. I had about 10 spare characters and a simple carriage return cause it to go over, but putting it on the same line and having a few extra periods (to space it out) was accepted. It's just bizarre.
I find the whole thing very frustrating, having to struggle to fit a line or two of small text all because there is a minuscule chance of someone out there abusing signatures. I don't get what the big deal is and why we need such tight leashes on our signature rules.
Click to expand...

It should be a single character (\n in computer/geek speak). At worst it should be <br /> which is 6.
 
xbuddycorex said:
I've tried to give it some time, but apparently this isn't a priority to the decision makers.
Click to expand...

If it helps (probably not!) I have a list made for the moderators of 41 changes that folks would like to see made. This issue is included on that list.

I don't really have any say though if/when these kind of changes get made though. Sorry that it's causing you guys so much frustration though...
 
SilentPanda said:
If it helps (probably not!) I have a list made for the moderators of 41 changes that folks would like to see made. This issue is included on that list.

I don't really have any say though if/when these kind of changes get made though. Sorry that it's causing you guys so much frustration though...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as angry or frustrated. It's more annoying than anything, but I've resided myself to worrying about bigger things than character limits.
 
If anyone is still interested, I just read a reply by Wild Cowboy to another thread and found out the signature rules have changed. As you can see below it's perfect for me, I hope it's good for you.
 
It is very helpful! (here is that mentioned thread) Incidentally I had submitted a contact us form requesting signature character limit increase and then found out it had already been done. :eek: Of course I veered off topic thinking that the font size and line restriction seemed a bit much but I'm very pleased with the character increase. :) Thanks admins!
icon14.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back