todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/10/85)
To my dismay, our site received a message regarding a change to the rules for posting to Usenet. The most recent change is as follows: > most definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, > maps, or other graphics in your signature -- it is not the > appropriate place for such material and viewed as rude by > other readers. I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the end of a posting. Sure, it costs a bit more (pretty minimal in most cases) to send it around, but I have gotten more comments (either positive or curiously entertained) from my ever mutating graphic depiction of my face than I have from my postings. I cannot see how anyone could construe my graphic as rude, especially when you compare it to anything on net.flame, net.politics, net.women, net.abortion, and on and on. Also, my closing graphic is not a signature per se. Big deal, you may respond, but since I concatenate it into my posting, I modify it differently for each article in a manner appropriate for the tone of the article, thus I consider it very informational. Remember what they say about a picture's worth... Besides my sig is only 6 lines long. Maybe I can trim it down. ||||||| [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd. See, now it's only four lines. Is that any less offensive?
daw1@rduxb.UUCP (WILLIAMS) (10/12/85)
> To my dismay, our site received a message regarding a change > to the rules for posting to Usenet. > > The most recent change is as follows: > > > most definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, > > maps, or other graphics in your signature -- it is not the > > appropriate place for such material and viewed as rude by > > other readers. I think those bozos who quote excessive amounts from articles are inappropriate and viewed as rude! Actually someone probably has a severe case of ".signature envy" over Todd's face and instituted the rule :-) Next thing you know smiley face will be outlawed :-( 1 1 1 1 2 1 Doug Williams 1 3 3 1 AT&T Bell Labs 1 4 6 4 1 Reading, PA 1 5 10 10 5 1 mhuxt!rduxb!daw1 1 6 15 20 15 6 1
gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) (10/14/85)
> > most definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, > > maps, or other graphics in your signature -- it is not the > > appropriate place for such material and viewed as rude by > > other readers. > > I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the > end of a posting. Sure, it costs a bit more (pretty minimal in > most cases) to send it around, but I have gotten more comments > (either positive or curiously entertained) from my ever mutating > graphic depiction of my face than I have from my postings. > > ||||||| > [ O-O ] Todd Jones > \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd > |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd. > > See, now it's only four lines. Is that any less offensive? Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize those who posted articles. It is alot easier to remember a picture than it is a name. I like to recognize those who post articles so that I can get a better and more complete view of how a person feels about things. Signature files can also display the personality of the person submitting articles. I don't understand how USENET got the idea that net news readers find graphics offensive. -- /\ /\ / \/^\ /\ /\/\/\ /^\ /\ /^/\^\ /\ Al Gates\^/ \/\ / \/ \/\/ \/\ / ^ \/ \^^^\ BDM Corporation \/\ /^\ / {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates \ /\ \ 7915 Jones Branch Drive\/ \ \ / \ / \ \ McLean, Virginia 22102 \ \ \/ \/ \ \ \ \ \^^\
carl@bdaemon.UUCP (carl) (10/14/85)
> ... > I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the > end of a posting. Sure, it costs a bit more (pretty minimal in > most cases) to send it around, but I have gotten more comments > (either positive or curiously entertained) from my ever mutating > graphic depiction of my face than I have from my postings. > ... etc., etc. Reading news at 300 or even at 1200 baud just once should convince you that all fancy signatures, with and without graphics, are a pain. Carl
tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (Tanner Andrews) (10/15/85)
] ref. to ms. rec'd that pictures in .signature are bad; ] complaint that "smiley face" will be outlawed next. There is a fairly simple reason that graphics (and number pyramids) are strongly discouraged: lots of sites are small companies that must pay a phone bill to receive this stuff. Bell doesn't have this problem, of course; there is method to their madness of posting "for rent" and "car for sale" notices for the world in "net.general". Some companies have to pay Bell to receive this rubbish; it hurts like taxes to have to pay for pictures, novels, and expositions of the general theory of relativity in ".signature" files. -- <std dsclm, copies upon request> Tanner Andrews, KI4PV uucp: ...!decvax!ucf-cs!ki4pv!tanner
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (10/16/85)
> Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize > those who posted articles. [...] I don't understand how USENET got the > idea that net news readers find graphics offensive. A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but keep in mind also that they cost about the same to transmit! As annoyed as I am (as a news reader) at cute pictures taking up 8 lines at 1200 baud, I'm even more annoyed (as a system administrator) at the disk space and phone time they take to store and transfer. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
ccs020@ucdavis.UUCP (Kevin Chu) (10/16/85)
> > > most definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, > > > maps, or other graphics in your signature -- it is not the > > > appropriate place for such material and viewed as rude by > > > other readers. > > > > I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the > > end of a posting. [...] > > > > ||||||| > > [ O-O ] Todd Jones > > \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd > > |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd. > > > > See, now it's only four lines. Is that any less offensive? > > Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize > those who posted articles. [...] > -- > /\ /\ > / \/^\ /\ /\/\/\ /^\ /\ /^/\^\ /\ > Al Gates\^/ \/\ / \/ \/\/ \/\ / ^ \/ \^^^\ > BDM Corporation \/\ /^\ / {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates \ /\ \ > 7915 Jones Branch Drive\/ \ \ / \ / \ \ > McLean, Virginia 22102 \ \ \/ \/ \ \ > \ \ \^^\ I also support graphics in .signatures as long as they aren't longer than a normal .signature. Creativity and humor shouldn't be censored, they should be enjoyed by all. (After all this, I have a boring .signature) -- --Kevin Chu ..ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccs020 /ex
gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) (10/16/85)
> > Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize > > those who posted articles. [...] I don't understand how USENET got the > > idea that net news readers find graphics offensive. > > A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but keep in mind > also that they cost about the same to transmit! As annoyed as I am (as a > news reader) at cute pictures taking up 8 lines at 1200 baud, I'm even more > annoyed (as a system administrator) at the disk space and phone time they > take to store and transfer. > -- > Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Since posting my original article ( > > above) I have received mail from a few different sources (including my direct link to the net) explaining why graphics are frowned upon in .signature files. Roy paraphrases these responses pretty well. Although as a news reader I enjoy seeing the graphics, I can definitely understand why system administrators do not like them. Since I am not one to bite the hand that feeds me, (I consider the net a privilege that I would like to keep) I will eliminate superfluous graphics from my signature. -- Al Gates BDM Corporation ^ ^ ^ ^ {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates 7915 Jones Branch Drive McLean, Virginia 22102
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (10/17/85)
> > > > most definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, > > > > maps, or other graphics in your signature -- it is not the > > > > appropriate place for such material and viewed as rude by > > > > other readers. > > > > > > I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the > > > end of a posting. [...] > > > > > > ||||||| > > > [ O-O ] Todd Jones > > > \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd > > > |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd. > > > > > > See, now it's only four lines. Is that any less offensive? > > > > Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize > > those who posted articles. [...] > > -- > > /\ /\ > > / \/^\ /\ /\/\/\ /^\ /\ /^/\^\ /\ > > Al Gates\^/ \/\ / \/ \/\/ \/\ / ^ \/ \^^^\ > > BDM Corporation \/\ /^\ / {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates \ /\ \ > > 7915 Jones Branch Drive\/ \ \ / \ / \ \ > > McLean, Virginia 22102 \ \ \/ \/ \ \ > > \ \ \^^\ > > I also support graphics in .signatures as long as they aren't longer > than a normal .signature. Creativity and humor shouldn't be censored, > they should be enjoyed by all. > > (After all this, I have a boring .signature) > -- > > --Kevin Chu > ..ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccs020 > > /ex *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR GRAPHIC *** USENET frowns? Who is this guy USENET, and why do we on the net care if he frowns? I was never asked to vote on whether the net should frown or not, and whoever is perpetrating this insidious hoax ought to step forward and check out how I frown on *h/er/im*!! GO GRAFIX!! DEATH TO 300 BAUD SLOPOKES!! FROWNS FROWNED UPON!! FLAMES TO NET.ABORTION!! SHIFT TO THE LEFT, SHIFT TO THE RIGHT, SIT DOWN, STAND UP, BYTE, BYTE, BYTE!! REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE!! HI MOM!!-_-_-_- ---------------------------------> dot follows ------------------> . . q q! ZZ help . 10-4, Eleanor -- Ensign Benson -Space Cadet- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-The Digital Circus, Sector R-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
edg@micropro.UUCP (Ed Greenberg) (10/17/85)
>> > I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the >> > end of a posting. [...] >> > Todd Jones >> Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize >> those who posted articles. [...] >> Al Gates > >I also support graphics in .signatures as long as they aren't longer >than a normal .signature. Creativity and humor shouldn't be censored, >they should be enjoyed by all. > --Kevin Chu Well, I think that a nice graphic is fine. My flames are these: - Graphics longer than the text (four to six lines is about my limit.) - Graphics not removed in postings included in other postings. - GRAPHICS (and other signatures) THAT APPEAR TWICE!!!!! Simple solution: Take the time and trouble to: A) Carefully edit the included portion of your posting. B) Read your postings with RN or Readnews afterwards in order to be sure that they look the way you want them to look. You don't have to read every posting... Just once in a while. You don't have to cancel and repost everything that is just a bit off... just repair the automated part of your posting process so that future postings work better. REMEMBER: THE ONLY ASPECT OF YOURSELF THAT APPEARS TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD IS YOUR POSTING. WE ARE JUDGING YOU (EACH OTHER) BY YOUR SPELLING, ORGANIZATION, PUNCTUATION, GRAPHIC, NEATNESS, AND STRUCTURE... AS WELL AS BY YOUR CONTENT. If (and only if) you want to make a good impression in which to frame the content of your ideas, take the time and trouble to post a concise, neat and clean file. -edg -- Ed Greenberg; MicroPro International Corp. (disclaimer) UUCP: {hplabs,dual,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!edg AT&T: 415-499-4096
bulko@ut-sally.UUCP (William C. Bulko) (10/18/85)
[The postman hits! --More-- ] [You have new mail. ] I can see why some (many) people might complain about fancy graphics in signatures; I often get impatient on a 1200 baud line, so I can imagine what it must be like at 300 baud. However, rather than stifling creativity entirely, I can see a better way to reduce the garbage-per-article rate: eliminate the "F" command from the news programs! (For those not familiar with "rn", this submits a followup article and includes the parent article.) If the only way to include quotes from other articles in one's own article would be to type it all in by hand, character by character, I'm sure some people would think twice about including 50 extra lines in every followup! . . .and the net would be a much nicer place to live. Bill
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/18/85)
> > Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize > > those who posted articles. [...] I don't understand how USENET got the > > idea that net news readers find graphics offensive. Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy: > A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but keep in mind > also that they cost about the same to transmit! A thousand words cost as much to transmit as an 8 line sig? Do graphics run like mollases through the phone lines or something? > As annoyed as I am (as a > news reader) at cute pictures taking up 8 lines at 1200 baud, I'm even more > annoyed (as a system administrator) at the disk space and phone time they > take to store and transfer. Graphics are no different than any other form of communication on the net; they can convey useful information or they can be a total waste of time. So why decide that they are informationally empty and erradicate them? ||||||| __ No-o-o-o-o Mr. System Administrator! Don't delete me!! ||/ \|| / [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | O | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (10/21/85)
In article <491@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >To my dismay, our site received a message regarding a change >to the rules for posting to Usenet. Not a change in the rules, just the first time it has been explicitly stated as such in that article. The text has always implied that graphics and extraneous characters in signatures are to be avoided. >I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the >end of a posting. Sure, it costs a bit more (pretty minimal in >most cases) to send it around.... Take any overly large signature (and some people contend mine borders on the large), count the number of extra, noise characters and start considering the amount of time it takes to ship that to all the Usenet sites around the world. Now multiply that times the volume of articles, and you begin to see why we would like people to use their signature files for short *signatures*. The signature inclusion feature was added so that: 1) readers could find a return path for mail without having to figure one out from the news path in the header, possibly even by different networks. The idea here is to present meaningful path information in a compact way. People who draw out 6-level trees representing the connectivity of their state are abusing this idea. 2) Personalize your name a little bit, especially if your account name if some weird letter/number combination imposed on you. Individuals presenting short stories and poetry are abusing the signature feature. 3) Provide a short disclaimer, should that be required by the company providing the account. People trying to come up with the most silly and/or universal disclaimer are abusing the signature feature. Graphics, maps, poems, stories, knock-knock jokes, games of life, manual entries, and so on are all innapproriate in .signature files because of the extra space involved. A one line quote or silly phrase is probably all right, but those get boring after a while. Next time you go to include something in a posting, imagine that you (yes, YOU, the person reading this) had to pay the cost of transmitting your article around the world, and you had to pay on a character-by-character basis. Maybe that will help you decide what *really* needs to be in your .signature file. -- Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (10/21/85)
>I can see why some (many) people might complain about fancy graphics in >signatures; I often get impatient on a 1200 baud line, so I can imagine >what it must be like at 300 baud. However, rather than stifling creativity >entirely, I can see a better way to reduce the garbage-per-article rate: >eliminate the "F" command from the news programs! (For those not familiar >with "rn", this submits a followup article and includes the parent article.) >If the only way to include quotes from other articles in one's own article >would be to type it all in by hand, character by character, I'm sure some >people would think twice about including 50 extra lines in every followup! This person would appear not to know how to use an editor... -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa I'll keep an eye on the old man, he seems to have a knack for getting himself into trouble! -who said it, what story?
mazlack@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Lawrence J. &) (10/22/85)
> ..... I can see a better way to reduce the garbage-per-article rate: >eliminate the "F" command from the news programs! (For those not familiar >with "rn", this submits a followup article and includes the parent article.) >If the only way to include quotes from other articles in one's own article >would be to type it all in by hand, character by character, I'm sure some >people would think twice about including 50 extra lines in every followup! > >. . .and the net would be a much nicer place to live. > > Bill Amen. ...Larry
howarde@mmintl.UUCP (Howard Eglowstein) (10/22/85)
I would agree with Todd Jones and Al Gates. I find graphics at the end of a posting MUCH LESS offensive than postings by people who include the entire article they're referencing. Reading the same article 5 or 6 times a day at 1200 baud is REAL boring. The graphics get a bit redundant too, but nothing compared to repostings. Yucko. "Whoops Mr. Moto, I'm a coffee pot..."
bulko@ut-sally.UUCP (William C. Bulko) (10/23/85)
[The postman hits! --More--] [You have new mail. ] >>. . .I can see a better way to reduce the garbage-per-article rate: >>eliminate the "F" command from the news programs! . . .If the only way >>to include quotes from other articles in one's own article would be to type >>it all in by hand, character by character, I'm sure some people would think >>twice about including 50 extra lines in every followup! > >This person would appear not to know how to use an editor... >-- >James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa (I am the original poster of the text preceded by ">>" above.) James is on the right track here, but seems to have missed the important point. The fact is, too many people on the net do *not* appear to know how to use an editor on their outgoing articles, which results in entire articles being quoted over and over again as references to it are made. James edited my original message appropriately before following up to it (although it was just to make a one-line sarcastic comment), but an annoying number of people fail to demonstrate the same good sense. This is what, in my opinion, is the main cause of the large garbage-per-article rate: since there is no way to force a person to edit his/her articles, I suggested an alternative -- making it inconvenient for a person to include *lengthy* quotes. If you didn't mean for me to take you seriously, James, sorry: you should have included a ":-)" with your sarcasm. I took it at face value. Bill
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (10/25/85)
Idea time. 2.10.3 news precedes the contents of ".signature" files with a line with two dashes and a space. Yet another option for readnews/vnews could be introduced; use of the option would inhibit display of lines that followed a "-- " line (where the presence of the line would be your clue that a signature followed; there'd presumably have to be a new readnews/vnews command that you could so you could read the signature if you wanted to). If looking for "-- " lines is distasteful, another possibility would be to add a "Signature-Lines" line to the header. Now granted this solution would do nothing about the extra money, CPU time, and disk space spent on overblown signatures. Would it, however, solve one of the problems of those who read news on slow terminals? If so, I'll get on the case. -- UUCP: ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.ARPA DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/26/85)
> > Reading the same article 5 or 6 times a day at > 1200 baud is REAL boring. The graphics get a bit redundant too, but nothing > compared to repostings. Yucko. Especially since the signatures appear at the *end*, not at the beginning like the referenced articles do. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/29/85)
In article <722@mmintl.UUCP> howarde@mmintl.UUCP (Howard Eglowstein) writes: > > I find graphics at the end of a >posting MUCH LESS offensive than postings by people who include the entire >article they're referencing. Reading the same article 5 or 6 times a day at >1200 baud is REAL boring. The graphics get a bit redundant too, but nothing >compared to repostings. > Ditto. In fact I have gotten to the point that if I have not seen anything new after a couple of pages of quote I just skip the article! I also skip the article if I think it tis getting too long winded and repititious. So if you want people to *read* what ypou post, trim the inclusions, and keep the article to the point, without wasted verbiage. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (10/30/85)
In article <5250@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes: >Now granted this solution would do nothing about the extra money, CPU time, and >disk space spent on overblown signatures. Would it, however, solve one of the >problems of those who read news on slow terminals? Would anyone support a change to the news posting software that would only append the first n lines/characters of a .signature file? This *would* do something about the extra money, CPU time, and disk space spent on overblown signatures. -- roger long filenet corp trwrb!felix!bytebug