Signatures

[mpg187 MPG]

But when you post before you have a signature it posts without.

It should post with, so that way when you do make it it'll show up.

[..::Frans::..]

i've lost you already.

If i get this correct: if you are a new member you can't create signatures. The post you make do not have a signature. If you, by any change, create one later you think it would be normal behaviour that the signatures show up in posts you've made before you had the signature?

hmmm, that is one way to create a problem.... I think this can easily be fixed by changing the settings of the newly_registered group (not checked, just thinking out loud). If you play around with these settings (especially the "never" setting @ the signature permission) it should work i think.

[..::Frans::..]

BTW, why is it so important to have a signature @ these posts? I have added my sig when i was testing coding for stg and thought it was just funny (i'm using ...pong @ .com). That's all..... If the sig is the part that's important in what you are writing maybe you should stop writing... (joking of course...)

[mpg187 MPG]

f you, by any change, create one later you think it would be normal behaviour that the signatures show up in posts you've made before you had the signature?

Yes...

BTW, why is it so important to have a signature @ these posts? I have added my sig when i was testing coding for stg and thought it was just funny (i'm using ...pong @ .com). That's all..... If the sig is the part that's important in what you are writing maybe you should stop writing... (joking of course...)

The whole point of having a signature is so it follows every post...

[Handyman]

If the user is so concerned about having a signature in his first several posts, he must be a spammer and shouldn't have a signature at all.

[Highway of Life]

whole point of having a signature is so it follows every post...

Not necessarily.
Spammers love signatures, if users are concerned with ensuring that every single post of theirs has a signature attached, they have very spam-like intentions. People can do well without signatures, I’m sure if we turned them off for a while, most wouldn't throw a fit, those who would be upset are those who are here with a purpose of spamming their own site/stuff.

[Hank the Cowdog]

So I am allowed to bump but not put a link in my sig? That doens't make sense. But I NEED HELP

If your topic goes unanswered for 8 hours, you are allowed to bump your topic to keep it active. However you can't clutter the board by linking to your topic and saying "I need help!" everywhere.

[mpg187 MPG]

So I am allowed to bump but not put a link in my sig? That doens't make sense. But I NEED HELP

If your topic goes unanswered for 8 hours, you are allowed to bump your topic to keep it active. However you can't clutter the board by linking to your topic and saying "I need help!" everywhere.

That doesn't make sense. Most places would have it the other way around.

And I am not a spammer, just find it annoying that some posts would have a sig and some wouldn't.

[Obsidian]

That doesn't make sense. Most places would have it the other way around.

Any board that have it the other way around are the exception, and not the rule. phpBB.com has a similar policy in place as well, of which I am sure you are aware.

[Highway of Life]

Most support boards would not allow you to post links everywhere pointing to your topic asking “I need help!”. It’s a rule on both phpBB.com and StarTrekGuide, but many other sites have the same rule.