Ability to hide signatures for particular members
 

I've no issue with avatars and signatures for the most part, and actually like a good many of them (some people do excellent work with their av/sig space). However, some people, naming no names of course, have horrific eye-sores that burn my retinas each time they grace my screen.

No obviously there's the 'lite' skin which removes all sigs, but that's a bit excessive for my tastes (much like some sigs), and what I'd really like is to be able to hide, or deactive, certain people's as I see fit. So a bit like how I can ban certain user IDs from seeing my gurnal, have an option somewhere that allows me to list user IDs to hide, or perhaps something smarter.

I don't necessarily expect this to happen, but thought it'd be quite neat if someone could set it up.

I'd like to see stats on this as well, such as a list of users whose signatures are ignored by the most number of members.

Well you can turn off sigs as an option without resortng to full lite set (Like I do) but I appreciate that's not really what you're after. I second the suggestion of stats on the subject though.

Why aren't the rules being enforced?

Maximum number of images: 2
Maximum image filesize: 50 KB (total)
Maximum image dimensions: 550 pixels wide, 300 pixels high (total)


If I wasn't using lite set I'd be pretty outraged about this.

I'd love to change my sig, but I can't.

I've used Adblock for a while in Firefox and it works fairly well.

If someone just has too much obnoxious text I change their sig. >_>

No stats yet, but the function should work. You can add a user to your sig ignore list from the postbit menu on any of their posts or edit the field manually at User CP > Edit Options > Thread Display Options > Signature Ignore List. Give it a shot, let me know if something is broken.

Additional Spam:
Also loooooooool dope's privileges fixed :tpg:

Fucking 'ey, that's some good shit right there, works a charm. Good work CHz.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM

This feature bothers me a little bit. I understand its use completely. It's for when folks make super annoying or perhaps browser breaking sigs. But let's say I make a seizure gif sig for April Fool's. Perhaps it's so god damn annoying that it causes half of the regulars to add me to that ignore list. I change my ava/sig semi-regularly. So for one day or perhaps only for a few hours should I get enough PMs asking me to change my sig that I have that sig I now am now on a bunch of people's ignore lists. I've now changed my ava/sig. It doesn't annoy the piss out of people anymore. In fact it's pretty groovy. People are lazy. All those users that put me on their ignore lists for that brief moment more likely than not aren't going to remove me from their ignore list. That takes effort. Also they'll need to know my user id (11) to remove me from the list. I don't really like the thought that because of a relatively quick and cheap laugh that some folks might just take a click to remove because bleeding eyes are owy that I am now without a signature for practically ever.

I propose that either in the same way you can add people to your ignore list that you can remove them from it too by clicking on their name here in the forums. You'll at least notice a new avatar. You might think well hell check out dat new avatar maybe it has a sig with it that don't make me go all googlyeyes. OR! Make it so when a person makes a new change to their sig that it removes them from everyone's ignore signature list. Problem with that idea is that folks could just do a minute edit with the shitty sig so perhaps an extra checkbox indicating that this is a new signature and ask permission from folks that have added that signature to the ignore list to approve the signature and when approved that person is removed from the ignore signature list.

man signatures are serious biz

For Firefox users Adblock is so much simpler and also addresses AcerBandit's concern, insofar as image based sigs are concerned.

We now have stats that sort of work.

Seconded and implemented.

I agree, that's why I didn't do it. A checkbox could be abused too, "why yes this is a 'new' sig ;)." I'd be more inclined to add a profile option where users could choose to have their ignore lists automatically cleared, if people would want that choice. I'd leave someone's sig blocked until I was sure I wanted to see it again, but that's just me.

Also you could just use Adblock if it's a specific image bugging the hell out of you (assuming you are using the mozilla firefox internet browsing experience).

I was leaning towards what you implemented b/c lol the other suggestion has trust issues. Awesome job, CHz. =)))

I understand that, and I'm sure some people (if they ever realise this feature exists) might do that, but for me the idea was more that there's a couple of people who always, always have horrific sigs. For me, the intention was to block those people.

I use that setting that loads sigs for only one post per page, which is at least some help for obnoxious sigs. It also has steered me away from recognizing posts by sigs alone (and filtering them as such)

Everytime you change your avatar I check your profile to see the sig that goes with it. That way I see what you've done but don't have to fuck about turning sigs on and off. I'll often check people's profiles to see their sigs if they have an interesting avatar and 8 times out of 10 my choice to browse with the things turned off is reaffirmed.

And I still think the dimension limits are too big.

Edit: CHz, coudl you possibly make it so you're taken back to where you were rather than the main page after blocking a sig from someone's name in-thread?

It should redirect you back to the thread when you use the ignore/unignore links, or at least it does for me.

Who dares ignore the mustache onion?? This is unforgivable!

Edit: Still unforgivable.

That's your punishment for having a shitty sig. :mad:

o you best not be stepping, punk

Nope, I get redirected to the main home page, as I did when using the plane week FOX-2 link. I'm using IE7 on this computer which is probably something to do with it as the redirect seems to work properly on my phone's browser.

Yeah, I used the same vBulletin redirect function for the FOX 2 links. Works for me with Firefox and Safari, so I'm guessing it's an IE issue with the vBulletin software somewhere. I made a change to the code; can you check to see if that actually worked?

Nah, it still takes me back to the main forum page. It's no biggie really, I browse with sigs off anyway so it's not a feature I'm going to be using often...

It still takes me back to the forum homepage, and I'm using Firefox 3 at the moment.

I'm really not bothered at all, but I figured if your code is doing one thing when it should do another, you would want to know.