I imagine there's probably a solid reason for disallowing images in our forum signatures. Does anyone know why this is?
CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »No idea why as I'm too new. But I'm glad they are disabled.
I don't normally go for the "it's too much work for the company" stance but in this case I do.
Why moderate signature images when they can just turn them off?
CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »No idea why as I'm too new. But I'm glad they are disabled.
I don't normally go for the "it's too much work for the company" stance but in this case I do.
Why moderate signature images when they can just turn them off?
An excellent point... I didn't think that they'd need to be moderated, but in retrospect, I can totally imagine why they would need to be. Sometimes I have a naive faith in humanity!
CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »Yeah, The problem is that while it is very easy to filter text, images... Not so much.
I've seen some sickening things on another forum.
I'm of the opinion to allow text signatures only and just add to the text blacklist as necessary.
Sad, but very true. I only asked because there's the option in the member's profile to use one, but its non grata when trying to save. Naiveté on my part, but I optimistically believe that people are intrinsically good at heart.redlink1979 wrote: »We can't have nice things because there's always someone who abuses...
redlink1979 wrote: »
TequilaFire wrote: »Page load times are so much faster without a bunch of junk images.
TequilaFire wrote: »Page load times are so much faster without a bunch of junk images.
Says the person with a 15 line signature
I admit, I never thought of the video aspect or load times, nor the avatars. However, I am a bit confused about cheese and the Yahoo forums. I think that perhaps I've led a far too sheltered existence!