I was under the impression that links to for-profit websites in signatures are a no-no, even for members.
I realize that the OP seems to work at, or have some sort of affiliation with B&H Photo, but the fact is that B&H is a commercial enterprise whose main purpose is to sell cameras, electronics, computers, etc., etc.
Don’t get me wrong; i love B&H. It’s probably the best photographic equipment retailer in the country, and when i was in New York last month i went there and bought a new lens for my camera. But linking to B&H in a signature is, IMO, little more than commercial advertising.
This is not a make-or-break thing for me, but i do think there’s an important difference between linking to your blog or your personal site or something similar, on the one hand, and linking to the for-profit business that you work for, on the other.
What would we do, for example, if an employee of Coca-Cola or Wal-Mart or Ford decided to join, and then put links to his or her employer’s corporate website? After all, the person can reasonably claim an “association with” the site, as per the rules. And wouldn’t that encourage companies to get dozens of their employees to become members and start bombarding multiple threads with links?
While the OP’s company is no Coca-Cola, i’d bet its employees number well over 100, and probably into the multiple hundreds. As i said above, i’m not trying to rag on B&H here; i think it’s a great company. But i think the general issue needs to be addressed.
Of course, we then run into borderline cases where people use their blogs or other sites to promote money-making aspects of their lives. One example might be Gary “Wombat” Robson’s link to his children’s books in his signature. I think in cases like this, it’s worth dealing with things on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the person’s long-term contribution to the SDMB. It’s clear that Gary did not join the Dope to promote his books, and that any publicity his work might get is peripheral to his membership of the community here.
But allowing new members to march straight in and add links to for-profit enterprises is, in my opinion, a rather problematic policy.
While I see the point, all sigs suck anyway. I’ve had them turned off for like 8, 9 years and never, ever missed them (and encourage everyone else to turn 'em off too–who needs to see some dumb epigram over and over?).
Sure, easy for a troublemaker like you. You destroyed the board with your whispering in Giraffe’s ear(how DID you get that far off the ground?) that you could fix the lack of nesting quotes. Now it’s about sigs. Duck! Incoming!
Nah-sigs are good as long as I can turn them off. The only time I’ve ever missed not having them was when there was some kerfluffle about that one poster who had a script that changed his sig every time he posted? Usually some lame attempt at a joke and in multi-colored fonts and sizes? I missed him/it completely. (Who was that, anyway?)
Fenris, destroyer of boards
* (You gotta love “But the silent majority is on my side” arguments)…kidding aside though, I really do prefer nested quotes. I’m surprised that there’s this much objection given the unhappiness when vB broke things to remove them.