Signature Imaging

[Mike Askew]

I'm well aware this is most likely going for an instant shoot-down.

Currently we can only get the four line signature.

It would be nice to allow small HTML imaging.

For example I'd like to include my StackOverflow flair :)

<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/users/1220965/mike">
<img src="http://stackoverflow.com/users/flair/1220965.png" width="208" height="58" alt="profile for Mike at Stack Overflow, Q&amp;A for professional and enthusiast programmers" title="profile for Mike at Stack Overflow, Q&amp;A for professional and enthusiast programmers">
</a>

What are the for/against's for such implementation on the site? Assuming database related or the content that the less mature individuals would put in the signatures.

[pritaeas]

Put it as your avatar ;) I know the default SO flair is too wide, but since they have an API, build a new one (or perhaps StackApps already provides a smaller one).

[Mike Askew]

Plausible workaround, but if I wanted to have an avatar and a flair ;)?

[pritaeas]

Am sure our queen, or one of her underlings, will give you a more definite answer.

[Mike Askew]

Indeed, your point did make me realise I still need to set an avatar haha xD

[deceptikon]

What are the for/against's for such implementation on the site? Assuming database related or the content that the less mature individuals would put in the signatures.

Signatures are limited in size so that they aren't obtrusive and take away from the thread. I've been on a few forums where images were allowed in signatures and you could have a 20 line signature on top of it. It was all very distracting when trying to separate the content of posts from flashy signatures.

There really aren't any technical issues for allowing images beyond adding that feature to the profile editor. Images aren't stored in the database as blobs or anything, we keep them in the file system and store references. Displaying them is a trivial matter, and we've already done the work of uploading and embedding images as part of the post editor (so it's a fairly simple port).

Any hesitation about adding this feature would be potential for abuse versus benefit to the community. While I'm not against image signatures and might actually use them myself, I honestly can't say whether such a feature is worth the effort. I can't recall seeing any requests for it other than yours in over 7 years here. Then again, my memory isn't exactly stellar. ;)

[Mike Askew]

@deceptikon, I know exactly what you mean about trawling through seperating flashy images from posts I've seen such issue before.

Admittedly as you said, that would be the issue, that and the possible abuse of such ability (no clue how strong the moderation team is in terms of numbers to fight such things :D)

It was a question destined to pop up eventually :p

---

A solution to the trawling through posts seperating sigs from images could plausibly be solved by an option in user config to turn on/off display of such imagery in signatures. So if your not interested in seeing them you wouldnt.

Thats just an opinion on how to deal with it though :)

[deceptikon]

A solution to the trawling through posts seperating sigs from images could plausibly be solved by an option in user config to turn on/off display of such imagery in signatures. So if your not interested in seeing them you wouldnt.

That option is already available, though it also includes hiding avatars along with signatures in their entirety.

I'd like to split it into two separate options (one for avatars and one for signatures) because I personally use avatars as a primary way of identifying members. ;) But given the current restrictions on signatures, that's a battle not worth fighting with Dani to approve. At present the hiding feature is really more for page load performance than anything.

[Mike Askew]

Fair enough :) Guess we shall see Dani's response on the thread about such signatures

[Dani]

Even if we did allow images within signatures, we would never allow third-party images on the site (which is what you are requesting). Firstly, this could easily lead to broken images on the site over time, if the external websites no longer exist. Page load times are now relying on a third-party server. And, the biggie, is that it's easy enough to spoof a mime type that there would be no protection from viruses, third-party cookie injections, and all sorts of nasty things.

[Mike Askew]

Understandable replies, case closed.

[Dani]

Incidentally, we have our own similar feature to SO here: http://www.daniweb.com/stats/get_badge