none
Signature line should not be part of post RRS feed

  • Question

  • I've been noticing that "Edit post" brings up the signature line.  And that old posts moved from the old forums site are missing the signature line.  Putting that together, I concluded that the signature line is actually stored in the post rather than added to the post at page rendering time.  Two big problems with that:

    - The signature line gets frozen, depriving the post author from a way to update the links to their ____ and blog sites
    - I cannot find these old posts back through Google.  They are missing the nick and the signature line, the post author's name isn't part of any indexed content.

    This doesn't look easy to fix after the fact, given that you've already got a lot of posts with a signature embedded.  Assuming you'd actually consider fixing it.  Anything you can do to make it easier to find my posts back would be highly appreciated though.

    Hans Passant.
    Friday, July 4, 2008 11:48 AM

Answers

  • I agree with you about editing a post after there is activity. Should NOT be allowed.

    It's frustrating when the OP has removed all content from the first post in a thread -and there are responses. But you don't know what the response is about.
    You may be only one person in the world, but you may also be the world to one person.
    • Marked as answer by Naomi N Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:17 AM
    Saturday, July 5, 2008 12:49 PM

All replies

  • I didn't know that  w a r e z  is a dirty word.
    Hans Passant.
    Friday, July 4, 2008 11:50 AM
  • Hans you're right, signatures do appear to be part of the post. When I edit my post my signature line comes up so I have to place my edits above it. I found this approach somewhat odd since whenever a user changes their signature it won't automatically get reflected in their old posts (or cascade) since their previous signature is embedded. Their new signature will only appear on posts made after the signature change.

    Document my code? Why do you think it's called "code"?
    Friday, July 4, 2008 3:05 PM
  • Personally, I prefer that the historical thread contain all information that was posted at the time. Having the signature line saved as part of the thread seems appropriate.

    Otherwise someone can put insults, demeaning comments, vulgarity in the sig line, and sometime later, change the sig line and 'all' record is erased...

    And I would go a step further and prohibit any edits in the sig line...
    You may be only one person in the world, but you may also be the world to one person.
    Friday, July 4, 2008 9:26 PM
  • Let's try to make these forums work for the 99.9% of the posters that have nothing but the best intentions when they post or sign.  About 20/30 posts to the Reporting Forums at a forums site that got 90,000+ posts per month?  That's 99.97%.  Is it a lot worse at technet.com?
    Hans Passant.
    Friday, July 4, 2008 10:32 PM
  • I just don't get why you would want any part of a historcial record to be altered...
    You may be only one person in the world, but you may also be the world to one person.
    Friday, July 4, 2008 10:34 PM
  • I certainly don't think the record should be altered.

    (But anyway, this is bug reporting, not forum suggestions)

    Take a chance. Prepare to be surprised.
    Saturday, July 5, 2008 3:22 AM
  • My two cents:

    1. If the sig is to be part of the post, it seems inconsistent that when you originally post the sig is not visible, but when you edit it is. Surely the software should be smart enough to strip the signature in Edit mode, and put back the same sig after (if that is the desired behavior).

    2. I don't think the ability to change the sig is as as troubling as the whole issue of editing posts in general. You should only be able to edit a post until either

    (a) Someone has replied to your post (or perhaps the entire thread).

    (b) Some cutoff time (say 24 hours) is reached.


    David Wilkinson | Visual C++ MVP
    Saturday, July 5, 2008 11:36 AM
  • I agree with you about editing a post after there is activity. Should NOT be allowed.

    It's frustrating when the OP has removed all content from the first post in a thread -and there are responses. But you don't know what the response is about.
    You may be only one person in the world, but you may also be the world to one person.
    • Marked as answer by Naomi N Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:17 AM
    Saturday, July 5, 2008 12:49 PM
  • This is by design by the team. As Arnie mentioned, it marks a historical record. (Not my decision, by the way.)

    Thanks!


    Ed Price (a.k.a User Ed), SQL Server Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)

    Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:41 PM