Graphics in Signatures

This is to clarify the use of graphics in signatures.

We have left this feature turned on, but may be forced to turn it off in the near future if the feature continues to be abused.

At thsi time, we allow small images in signatures so that you can make your signature customized and personalized. What we do not allow images that relate to a product or service. Such images can be construded as advertisements and thus are not appropriate without going through the proper channels.

Thanks for not posting images of products and services so that we can continue to allow other, more fun, images be used in signatures.

Sincerely,

Brad!

2 questions.

- What is your definition of a product?
- Does that mean that text links to products are allowed? :confused:



- ØØ -

Do you differentiate between commercial, freeware, and open-source products (whatever a "product" is)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

2 questions.

- What is your definition of a product?
- Does that mean that text links to products are allowed? :confused:



- ØØ -

---

Product - software sold for profitable gain
text links - a most excellent point Mr. NoteMe

Products that are free are also still products and thus graphics are not allowed for them either. Thus FireFox, DoomSharp, IE, and other graphics need to go. These are free, but they are products that are considered owned by individuals or companies, and thus those individuals or companies gain by the displaying of their names (thus they are ads).

Links that are ads are not allowed. Links to a product are ads.

If you are unsure if something is an ad, PM or email me an example and I can tell you.

Brad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

Such images can be construded as advertisements and thus are not appropriate without going through the proper channels.

---

What are the proper channels to go through then?

And, what about links to threads (such as the DoomSharp thread), is a thread now considered a "product"?

Yes, that was what he said....

Brad didn't say anything about threads. The link was to a thread.

There is nothing wrong with a textual link to a thread. A graphic of a product is not acceptable.

To clarify, you can have a textual link to within VBForums such as: "Discuss Crystal Reports"
You cannot have a Crystal Reports graphic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

What are the proper channels to go through then?

---

Me or the sales people at Jupitermedia (link at bottom of pages for them, or you can also go through me).

I might just not understand, so i want to make sure.
Textual links to things like Firefox (or other free products/services) are not allowed.
Is that correct?

I guess i never viewed telling people about Firefox as advertising but rather being a "glorious beacon of light" in a blue fog. :)

As would be the link to "All API Guide" in your sig :confused:

?

Woka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wokawidget

As would be the link to "All API Guide" in your sig :confused:

?

Woka

---

I had a link to the guide, but I removed it just a bit ago.

I guess I understand the point in this, but it is still a little harsh if you ask me. I will remove my images, etc. later today though to comply with this.

EDIT: What about ********** and inno setup. I assume that would be a no as well. They are textual links, but they are very helpful programs for VB users. Are we no longer allowed to tell people about innosetup? I think this is all a little too extereme, but, once again, I see somewhat of a point from a business point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wokawidget

As would be the link to "All API Guide" in your sig :confused:

?

Woka

---

Didn't even think of that.

What everyone must remmber here is that boudries have swayed a little and we are now kicking things into gear as such, it has allways been forum policy to not allow adverts (which is technicly what the banners are)

space_monkey what do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by space_monkey

I might just not understand, so i want to make sure.
Textual links to things like Firefox (or other free products/services) are not allowed.
Is that correct?

I guess i never viewed telling people about Firefox as advertising but rather being a "glorious beacon of light" in a blue fog. :)

---

You are talking about this post right?

What i'm asking is, can i put this in my sig?

Get Firefox

I had mentioned that I thought the signatures were slowing down the forum, but I can't find my post. Except for being down for a while today, it does seem to be faster.

Question : So we aren't allowed to have links in our signatures about other products cause it's advertising. But then if we were to suggest in a post to use Firefox or Opera in the General PC section (or suggest to download the API Guide to help a user learn APIs or suggest to use Inno Setup as a setup program) is that advertising? Is that allowed?

Or any other site that may be a competitor, for that matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by space_monkey

I might just not understand, so i want to make sure.
Textual links to things like Firefox (or other free products/services) are not allowed.
Is that correct?

---

I've not said that. Text links that could be construde as advertising would be evaluated on an individual basis. I, personally, don't go out of my way to look for them and unless they seem blatant, don't tend to notice them.

I've commented to the mods that such links should be evaluated individually as well and that there are more important things to do than go looking for links in sigs.... It is only because people keep bringing the topic up that it is an issue...... <cough><cough>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey

EDIT: What about ********** and inno setup. .

---

Again, I would never have noticed or questioned those. I would not have expected a mod to either......

<cough>The more you ask about a rule, the more it has to be enforced..... </cough>

Fair enough. ;)

<cough>The server should be sufficiently sped up now</cough>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

Products that are free are also still products and thus graphics are not allowed for them either. Thus FireFox, DoomSharp, IE, and other graphics need to go. These are free, but they are products that are considered owned by individuals or companies, and thus those individuals or companies gain by the displaying of their names (thus they are ads).

Links that are ads are not allowed. Links to a product are ads.

If you are unsure if something is an ad, PM or email me an example and I can tell you.

Brad

---

Why don't you say what's allowed instead ... mg this is getting too rediculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

Why don't you say what's allowed instead ... mg this is getting too rediculous.

---

i agree 100%..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

Why don't you say what's allowed instead ... mg this is getting too rediculous.

---

Exteremly blunt: They started enforcing a rule that has always been around in hopes to speed up the server. If you stop asking about it they will stop clarifying it and things will be ok.

Okay, think I got it

It seems to have worked, for what it was worth. 2 points for me for the suggestion!

Indeed. Haven't had any problems for the past couple of days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

Why don't you say what's allowed instead ...

---

Information about the person who made a post <-- that is what is allowed. That is what a signature is. In addition, links to your favorite threads on the forum also make sense for a signature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey

Exteremly blunt: They started enforcing a rule that has always been around in hopes to speed up the server. If you stop asking about it they will stop clarifying it and things will be ok.

---

Don't you get it ERM - that was a pure sarcasm... Common man, you can't be serious all the time. :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

Information about the person who made a post <-- that is what is allowed. ...

---

Yea, I figured that much myself. What's the point to take it to the limit? Change your marketing strategy instead...

Can't the sig be limited to 20k or something along those lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Can't the sig be limited to 20k or something along those lines?

---

There is a character limit. Additionally, we can turn on or off the use of graphics in sigs like we have in PMs. The powers above me had pushed that we turn graphics off in sigs; however, I've done everything I can to leave the graphics option turned on so people could have some fun within the rules. Unfortunately it was abused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey

EDIT: What about ********** and inno setup. I assume that would be a no as well. They are textual links, but they are very helpful programs for VB users. Are we no longer allowed to tell people about innosetup? I think this is all a little too extereme, but, once again, I see somewhat of a point from a business point of view.

---

You can point them to the Application Deployment forums FAQ where there are links to many installers, including inno and ********** (Yes, they are textual links too ;)). The thing is not to be forcing a user to change from whatever he is using but to help with solving the issue at hand. If something cant be done using a certain product then it could be suggested to change. ;)

I say we might as well turn off the images in sigs so it will be less time consuming to oversee, less distracting, and it will speed up our irritatingly slow and unstable forums too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

... I say we might as well turn off the images in sigs so it will be less time consuming to oversee, less distracting, and it will speed up our irritatingly slow and unstable forums too.

---

time consuming ? maybe...
less distracting ? for who?
will speed up our ... forums too - I doubt it.

After all - I personally don't even see the sigs - this should be user driven only.
Stop being a mod Rob, get back to reality for a second. ;)

Time consuming to oversee - having to PM members when they abuse the system and place extremely large images in their sigs, etc. Here is an example - Sig. It used to have a couple of large images in it before but is still distracting but at least its within a respectable size limit. It was half the screen size in height. ;)

Ps, sounds tempting. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

[color=navy]... It was half the screen size in height. ;) ...

---

So what, the ad in the right top corner takes more than half as well ... If you want to clean entire house - start cleaning from your own room. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

If you want to clean entire house - start cleaning from your own room. ;)

---

Hahaha...you know as well as I do that we have approximately zero say when it comes to this ;)

Do you think I/we like the ads?

Woka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

So what, the ad in the right top corner takes more than half as well ... If you want to clean entire house - start cleaning from your own room. ;)

---

So you think its ok to have a signature that is total height over half the screen height? Doesnt mater what was in it at all. The height is unacceptable as it would be replicated down a thread by the number of posts he has. Martin has stated before that an allowable height for a signature is about the same height as his, no matter whats inside.