![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 76. Go back in thread:
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 19, 2005, at 16:00:35
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 14:09:07
Yo Dr Bob I will go play at AOL and see what I can push the limit to :) as to is that civil I covered that in my one post saying I wasnt sure but hoped it was OK in here lol in AOL it is :)
My sigline in here would change no doubt but would most likely be of a disclaimer nature...you know do not do this things are closer in the mirror then they appear kinda thing :) I will get back to you when I know on how much> > they limit the letters and spaces on AOL ...I am guessing they set the limit...
>
> What's their limit, do you know?
>
> > My current on is a quote from Shakespeare...
> > "HELL IS EMPTY ALL THE DEVILS ARE HERE"
> >
> > Fallen4MyT
>
> Um, would that be civil?
>
> --
>
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 19, 2005, at 16:07:00
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 14:09:07
No.. a link that doesn't show the entire URL.. an "<a href type =" type link.. I hate showing the entire url when posting something more than a random link.
I will keep asking on occasion though *L*
Nikki
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2005, at 16:18:10
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 14:09:07
>Hey, I know -- an "ignore sigs" option! :-)
Good idea :-)
Happier about no itallics now I know about putting asterisks around the word too.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 19, 2005, at 19:31:27
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 14:09:07
Dr Bob after a lotta time with aol tech help I was told 284 on the message boards and 2000 on the email siglines....both seem very large to me for your site. My opinion would be like less than 50...JMO
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2005, at 9:41:18
In reply to Re: signature lines » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 19, 2005, at 19:31:27
> No.. a link that doesn't show the entire URL... I hate showing the entire url when posting something more than a random link.
>
> NikkiMay I ask why?
--
> after a lotta time with aol tech help I was told 284 on the message boards and 2000 on the email siglines....both seem very large to me for your site. My opinion would be like less than 50...JMO
>
> Fallen4MyTInteresting, thanks for looking into that! And for your own opinion, too, of course...
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 20, 2005, at 14:16:44
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2005, at 9:41:18
I'm not sure why.. when I'm posting to my person space, I just don't like posting the entire URL.. I tend to tink only those interested in it will click on it.. but having it there for all to see shows things about me (like where my space is hosted, which isn't something I advertise).
Also, when linking to places like Amazon, the url can be sooo long.. I know theres places like tiny url, but I just like being to able to link with words.. habit I guess!
Nikki
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 20, 2005, at 17:34:32
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2005, at 9:41:18
Posted by conundrum on February 6, 2010, at 7:15:00
Hi Bob,
How is it going? I was wondering if you ever considered updating to a php3 forum? It allows for a personal mailbox as well as editting posts after they have been submitted.
I think the biggest advantage is that people can personalize their posts with avatars and signatures. The signature is really good for a med board because you can include the drugs you are on, that way others can see what you are taking without asking or see your diagnosis without trying to remember. Avatars are good because they give people a visual que to remember the people they are talking to.
It would also give the board a more modern look.
Just some ideas.
Posted by manic666 on February 9, 2010, at 5:13:08
In reply to php3 forum, posted by conundrum on February 6, 2010, at 7:15:00
good one// im on a furum like that, pesonal avatar. record choise , joke forum, but not many would show there face on babble . thats why a lot left when facebook an twitter arived
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2010, at 13:02:08
In reply to php3 forum, posted by conundrum on February 6, 2010, at 7:15:00
> I was wondering if you ever considered updating to a php3 forum?
I have. But I'm avoiding learning php. And converting old posts would be a project...
> I think the biggest advantage is that people can personalize their posts with avatars and signatures. The signature is really good for a med board because you can include the drugs you are on, that way others can see what you are taking without asking or see your diagnosis without trying to remember. Avatars are good because they give people a visual que to remember the people they are talking to.
Signatures have come up before (and I've moved these posts to that thread). Should we give them a try? They could be another optional setting. And limited to, say, 200 characters. You could include a link to an avatar if you wanted. They would display with a show/hide button, and the user could show or hide them by default.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 6, 2010, at 19:49:17
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2010, at 13:02:08
Could you make it so you don't need to accept cookies to hide signatures please?
I'd really prefer not to accept cookies, or to see signatures.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2010, at 20:46:25
In reply to Re: signature lines » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 6, 2010, at 19:49:17
> Could you make it so you don't need to accept cookies to hide signatures please?
I was thinking it would work like expanding/collapsing threads, which would mean another cookie. What about accepting just this cookie?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 6, 2010, at 22:11:59
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2010, at 20:46:25
I'm pretty sure you can only accept/reject cookies by website. I've never heard of allowing only certain cookies from a website.
Didn't you say that only those who accepted cookies were vulnerable to the hacker that time Babble got hacked? I've been rejecting Babble's cookies ever since. Would this cookie be different?
Expanding/collapsing isn't a problem for me. Apparently expanded is the default? Could you maybe make no signatures the default, and a cookie needs to be accepted to see them?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 0:23:58
In reply to Re: signature lines » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 6, 2010, at 22:11:59
> I'm pretty sure you can only accept/reject cookies by website. I've never heard of allowing only certain cookies from a website.
The thing about this cookie is it would only need to be set once. So I think you could accept cookies, set this default, and then go back to rejecting cookies. I don't think going back to rejecting cookies would delete already-accepted cookies.
> Didn't you say that only those who accepted cookies were vulnerable to the hacker that time Babble got hacked? I've been rejecting Babble's cookies ever since. Would this cookie be different?
The potentially problematic cookie is the one with your password. This one would just say "show" or "hide".
> Expanding/collapsing isn't a problem for me. Apparently expanded is the default? Could you maybe make no signatures the default, and a cookie needs to be accepted to see them?
I could, but showing signatures is standard, and better too much information than too little, IMO.
Bob
Posted by jane d on March 7, 2010, at 2:05:54
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 0:23:58
> The potentially problematic cookie is the one with your password. This one would just say "show" or "hide".
Taking cookies violates my security protocols. And your workaround is too complicated anyway. If you can do the above you can just as easily set it up so that it shows the extra text only if the "show" cookie is found.
> I could, but showing signatures is standard, and better too much information than too little, IMO.
It may be common but I'm not sure it's standard. And even if it is that doesn't make it a good thing.
I agree that information is good. The question is whether the signatures contain information or "noise". I'd guess about half of the forums I visit use signatures. I'd also say that NONE Of those signatures contain useful information. They generally contain bad jokes, political statements, poems the poster thought were cute 5 years ago and the like. Rarely they contain the equivalent of a babble medication list and even those are almost never relevant to the immediate post. And I've often seen people focusing on signature lines and missing the info in the post itself.
How is it a good thing to make it easier for people to post anything they haven't thought about? People think about a signature once and then automatically post it over and over again without rereading it or thinking about whether it matters in the current context. This isn't information. It's just a waste of both human and computer bandwidth. I don't have enough of either to waste on junk.
Jane
Who'd like to note that the above paragraph is about 200 characters! Longer than many posts. This is definitely going to be a bandwidth problem for me.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 2:55:04
In reply to Oh dear! » Dr. Bob, posted by jane d on March 7, 2010, at 2:05:54
> I agree that information is good. The question is whether the signatures contain information or "noise".
If someone's is noise, what about letting them know? (In a civil way, of course.) They'd probably appreciate the feedback.
> the above paragraph is about 200 characters!
If you consider 399 about 200! :-)
Bob
Posted by jane d on March 7, 2010, at 3:13:00
In reply to Re: Oh dear!, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 2:55:04
> If you consider 399 about 200! :-)
>
> BobOops! Multiplication error. Definitely no more posting for me tonight!
Jane
ps. 399? Exactly? I sure hope you have a program that counted that. :-)
Posted by Dinah on March 7, 2010, at 10:16:24
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 0:23:58
Your opinion and mine differ on that. Not only do even the most profound statements or the most witty jokes become tiresome after many many viewings (to me at least - maybe I have a low irritation threshold), but sometimes signature lines contain, for example, information about a poster that wouldn't ordinarily come up in Babble discourse and that might lead me to feel a bit less positively about that poster. Sometimes more information is definitely not better.
This is by no means a hill I wish to die on (in the words of Dr. Laura) but if there is any way at all for you to get what you want without my having to get what I don't want, I'd vastly prefer it.
My experience of cookies is that when you visit a site, most of the cookies of that site pile on all at once. Is there any way to identify this cookie so that I can delete the others once I stop accepting cookies? And maybe also the cookie that makes sending a copy of your babblemail to yourself automatic? By the way, if more information is always better, why isn't that one the default?
Posted by Dinah on March 7, 2010, at 10:28:18
In reply to Oops! » Dr. Bob, posted by jane d on March 7, 2010, at 3:13:00
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 18:28:32
In reply to Re: signature lines » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 7, 2010, at 10:16:24
> Sometimes more information is definitely not better.
I agree, sometimes it isn't.
> My experience of cookies is that when you visit a site, most of the cookies of that site pile on all at once. Is there any way to identify this cookie so that I can delete the others once I stop accepting cookies? And maybe also the cookie that makes sending a copy of your babblemail to yourself automatic?
If you want just this one cookie, don't accept cookies before you visit. Visit, find a post with a signature, and then accept cookies. Then change your default = accept this cookie. Then go back to rejecting cookies and continue your visit.
This one would be called "babblesigs" or something like that.
Whether to automatically send a copy of your babblemail to yourself is a setting, not a cookie. But it requires the "babblename" cookie to be able to look up your setting.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 7, 2010, at 19:35:40
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 18:28:32
> Whether to automatically send a copy of your babblemail to yourself is a setting, not a cookie. But it requires the "babblename" cookie to be able to look up your setting.
And the babblename cookie is the problematic one?
Thanks for the instructions on signature cookies.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 23:28:50
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dinah on March 7, 2010, at 19:35:40
> the babblename cookie is the problematic one?
No, the problematic one is "babblepass", the one with your password.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 8, 2010, at 9:29:40
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2010, at 23:28:50
Thank you, Dr. Bob.
I'll see if I can delete just that one so I can get the copies of babblemails sent to me automatically.
If that's the only one that causes security issues, maybe you could load that one at a different time, and with warning?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 10, 2010, at 2:21:01
In reply to Re: signature lines » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 8, 2010, at 9:29:40
> If that's the only one that causes security issues, maybe you could load that one at a different time, and with warning?
It loads after you type it in to post.
If any of you can find a good discussion of the pros and cons of cookies, I'd be happy to link to it from the FAQ.
Any other comments about signature lines? If not, I'll see if I can implement them...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2010, at 3:43:57
In reply to Re: signature lines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 10, 2010, at 2:21:01
> I'll see if I can implement them...
I think I have a preliminary version working for my posts. What do you think?
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.