nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Allow truncation of long signatures

Rocket J Squirrel

I would like the option to truncate user signatures longer than 3 lines.

Looking at you, @smayer97 & @thecreator . 😁😁😁

Find more posts tagged with

New

Status: New

Comments

UKR

What we really need is a change to how Signature lines are formatted.
A smaller font size and maybe a different font type should be used.

The lines should be as compact together as possible, with little blank space between lines.

And, yes, there should be a limit on the total number of lines.

"Keep it short and sweet."

Sherlock

UKR said:

What we really need is a change to how Signature lines are formatted.
A smaller font size and maybe a different font type should be used.
The lines should be as compact together as possible, with little blank space between lines.
And, yes, there should be a limit on the total number of lines.
"Keep it short and sweet."

Since the forum last mangled the signatures, I've been keeping them very short and sweet:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/jd/f16nvxijgzq5.png

jacobs

UKR said:

What we really need is a change to how Signature lines are formatted.
A smaller font size and maybe a different font type should be used.

As we know from Sarah, Quicken doesn't have control over the style of the site. (Why else would hyperlinks still be not underlined without a user doing it themselves.) Changing the font, size, spacing, or maximum lines would require a change by Vanilla, and we know how quickly and smoothly those go.

Thus it would be great if the few SUs who have long signatures would simplify them to make them one or two lines, and all would be well with (this part of) the world.

smayer97

Sherlock said:

Since the forum last mangled the signatures, ...

Yes, they have mangled it many times.... tired of trying to keep up. Not important enough to keep coming up with work-arounds.

Clearly Vanilla does not care and has poor quality control.

thecreator

When you read the messages on Your Smart Phone, the forum messages, contains no Signatures. Only when reading the messages in your computer's browser do you see the signatures.

jacobs

smayer97 said:

Sherlock said:

Since the forum last mangled the signatures, ...

Yes, they have mangled it many times.... tired of trying to keep up. Not important enough to keep coming up with work-arounds.

Clearly Vanilla does not care and has poor quality control.

@smaeyer97 Yes, we can cite and agree on many shortcoming about Vanilla. In this case, though, the issue is easily controllable by users. The question to you is simply whether you would shorten your signature -- currently 9 lines tall -- for the benefit of other users, and especially your fellow SUs who spend a lot of time on the forum.

thecreator said:

When you read the messages on Your Smart Phone, the forum messages, contains no Signatures. Only when reading the messages in your computer's browser do you see the signatures.

Well, I'd say two things about that. (1) That's a flaw in Vanilla's forum design. If signatures are deemed to convey useful information, then they shouldn't be omitted when viewing on a phone. (2) While I do sometime check messages on a phone, I certainly don't do most of my forum activity on a phone; 98% of my time on the forum is on a computer. And the long signatures are annoying to wade through in the thread, especially when the same one appears multiple times in a thread. The fact that they are not visible on a phone is irrelevant for me, and I suspect most of us.

NotACPA

I've discovered that I can condense the number of lines in my signature by using CTRL-Enter, instead of just enter, at the end of each line.

Rocket J Squirrel

Here is how you do this if you care enough. On another of my hangouts, troublefreepool.com, members are encouraged to list their swimming pool equipment in their signatures to make it easier to answer their questions. Those sigs can become long. So they implemented a toggle to show or not show the full sigs. See below. Initially the viewer sees a 2-line version. Clicking reveals the full sig.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/0w/th63i5ywypra.png

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/j4/bwtgiwei7nj8.png

jacobs

@Rocket J Squirrel Again, the issue is that such an approach would require Vanilla to embrace it and decide to code it. That's (a) unlikely and (b) certainly a long time in the future, if they did it.

All that's needed here is for the few people who have long signatures to remove the extra information and reduce their signature to 1-3 lines. It's really a simple problem to solve if people would do so voluntarily.

smayer97

jacobs said:

smayer97 said:

Sherlock said:

Since the forum last mangled the signatures, ...

Yes, they have mangled it many times.... tired of trying to keep up. Not important enough to keep coming up with work-arounds.

Clearly Vanilla does not care and has poor quality control.

@smaeyer97 Yes, we can cite and agree on many shortcoming about Vanilla. ...

you are waxing wide... I was not.

smayer97

NotACPA said:

I've discovered that I can condense the number of lines in my signature by using CTRL-Enter, instead of just enter, at the end of each line.

Yes, on Mac it is SHIFT-ENTER...I use this all the time. There was a time when this was not necessary. Seems to only be an issue with Firefox and not Chrome (last I checked).

I'm tired of trying to compensate for Vanilla's constant mucking about with the editor and using unconventional and inconsistent formatting... (signature different than editor etc)... Find a solution that works....until it doesn't.... because Vanilla does not pay attention to detail or does not seem to care enough. (Even CTRL-ENTER vs SHIFT-ENTER depending on platform)

Tried some more tweaking. Not sure how much it helps...

Note: I have to scroll through all this too. I just don't let it get to me. There are bigger issues than this, including the still hard to read threads with such bad distinction between areas...

Anyway, much ado about nothing IMO.

jacobs

smayer97 said

you are waxing wide... I was not.

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

I see you shortened your signature from 9 lines to 6. Thank you. Would you consider dropping the lines about the Quicken expiration policy (a few stray votes over time isn't going to be a determining factor in whether or not they ever change that policy)? Without those two lines and blank line, your sig would be down to 3 lines.

smayer97

Now that you mention it, not sure when but that vote count crossed over 300 not long ago placing it in about the top 5 ideas voted on. Seems like more than just a few stray votes to me...

jacobs

A few stray votes in recent times. Most of those votes were accumulated shortly after the expiration process became clear years ago. And before Quicken reviewed it and said they were not going to change it.

In any case, back to the point of this thread, (and this will be my last time saying it): would you be kind enough to reduce the size of your signature to aid in readability of threads in which you post?

MHSwizzleStick

Interesting, I didn't even know people had signatures. I looked at my Signature settings and found a check next to "Hide signatures always".

smayer97

Yup... if they bother anyone SO MUCH....

Forum Signature Settings

[√] Hide signatures always

jacobs

@smayer97 I like to see signatures because they can provide useful information/context about the poster -- in the case of this forum, typically what platform or version of Quicken they use and how long they've been a Quicken user. I don't feel it should be necessary to turn them off, and never see signatures from anyone, in order to avoid being annoyed by a few which are much longer with text not relevant to that user's background.

You were asked by fellow SUs if you'd consider shortening your signature. Apparently the answer is no. End of story.