I don’t know if I’m just noticing this, or if this is something relatively new, but lately I’ve seen a lot of posters signing their posts. They put their name at the bottom of what they just typed. Do you not realize your name is also to the left of your post, so we all know who you are already. What’s the point of signing your username at the end of a post?
Any other trends anyone finds somewhat annoying?
No, I never noticed that. Wow, I guess you learn something new everyday. Thanks for pointing that out.
Jack Batty
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Hadn’t noticed.
See, I COULD resist.
Nope, couldn’t
Sincerely,
wring 
muttering
[sub]Bunch of smart-asses in here . . . (grumble grumble)
BratMan007[/sub]
I’ve
also
noticed
lots
of people
putting lots
of
carriage
returns
in their
posts
Myrr 
[Please try to refrain from the above practice. It adds to the loading time for those of us still using 26 and 52k modems. Thank you. -slythe]
[Edited by slythe on 08-06-2000 at 01:25 PM]
Seriously, there is one trend that gets my goat, and you can have it.
Nested quoting.
I understand the beauty of cutting and pasting quotes. I praise the day I clicked the vB code link and actually learned how to do it. The thing is, and please understand I’m NOT critisizing people who do it (last thing I need is a Pit thread telling me to piss off), it gets awful confusing when Poster A quotes Poster B who in his quote was originally quoting Poster C who at the time was responding to a quote that was originally quoted by Poster B in Poster A’s origanal post.
Hah! Try following that.
I find it redundant to sing your name at the bottom if it’s the same name as your handle. But, I do like it when posters sign their real name, like Bricker did when he signed “Rick,” or something like that.
Zion - that’s what I meant, maybe I wasn’t clear. Posting your real name at the end is different, but if it’s the same as the name on the left, what’s the point? I don’t know why, but that just irks me. Not enough that I fly into a rage and wanna rant about it in the Pit, but enough that I get tired of seeing it. In one thread, someone (I forget who) pointed out that we don’t need to post our sigs in each post, once they’ve seen it in that thread, they’ve seen it, why continue posting it every reply to that thread. I thought that was a good point, so I’ve stopped adding my sig line to every post.
Jack Batty - your post hurt my brain
I agree with Zion. It makes no sense to type your user name at the bottom when it’s already displayed just to the left. Other nick names or real names are okay though.
[sub]-Fire of the Silver colored variety.[/sub]
It’s good for filling out a short post
Myrr
I think they sign it so they can search for it at the same time as searching for people who reference them.
But if that’s the case, they didn’t see the problem list where words in the “Post Subject” field don’t get indexed and won’t turn up in a search.
I know what you’re saying BratMan. However, there is one instance where signing your handle at the end of a post makes some sense. Many times, especially in GD, posts can be very long, and involve much quoting, and babbling.
In this case, it’s not so bad when you see the name again, because it’s a reminder of who wrote that long winded post in the first place. It’s also good if you want to scroll through the mile long thread and see who said what.
As for sigs: Once in a thread is plenty, and there’s no need to “fill out a short post.” (IMHO)
And chalk one up for Zion. Good point. I spend much of my time in IMHO and MPSIMS where I don’t see many long posts with a lot of quoting going back and forth to prove a point. This possibility for re-signing your username at the bottom didn’t occur to me and seems very valid.
Now, THIS I had to do some math on.
I examined the carriage return issue in this particular thread. What I found was that the extra Carriage returns added 4040 bits to the code. Thus, if you have a 9600 modem:
So, I figured I’d be cute, too, and did some more math. I found that the editorial note from slythe added 1768 bits, or .18 seconds to the 9600 user’s download time, or .06 seconds on a 28k.
With the 95 page views at the time I typed this little ditty up, that could mean that if everyone were using only a 9600 connection, not only are we going so slow as to fossilize if not careful, but the cumulative increased download time is no more than 39.9 seconds. 57 seconds if you include the editorial note.
Of course, that’s just My Humble Opinion.
Brian