Many users here list their software/hardware Information in their signature line so that it appears automatically in every post. The problem with this is if the information changes (which it most certainly will), all of the previous posts in which the software version (and possibly other info) was relevant becomes incorrect. I've gone back to old posts to find that someone posted a question in 2010 that was relevant to the version, but the signature in the post reported that his current version was 2013. A visitor from the future, perhaps?
The "proper" method to report this information in through the use of macros, but that requires the user to remember to insert it for each and every post. Easy to forget, especially if one is not very used to the software (which is the case with most of the users that are asking the questions).
I would propose that a second "signature" field be created that would be automatically added to the end of the standard signature. This field, however, should be titled "Product/Hardware Info" and the text of this field should remain static, and unchanging once added to a post. Would this even be possible with this forum software?
(I bring this up because I saw it was posted about again recently)
I absolutely agree to this.
My issue with hardware in the signature is often there are multiples listed.
bla bla lba
bla bla bla
bla bla bla
Is the person who is answering the question supposed to guess which you are using?
I am one of the offenders and am considering removing that info but I don't see where it is wholly detrimental.
If the solution is valid for the particular platform then it is valid regardless of the originators or posters updated information at a later date.
And how often does someone disregard a Solution if the signature does not match the OP's current configuration?
Travis asked: More Macro choices would be welcome.
"And how often does someone disregard a Solution if the signature does not match the OP's current configuration?"
I'm more wary about product version than computer stats for this, but I image it's actually pretty rare that it matters in either case at the moment. My concern lies particularly with Revit, in which the product changes somewhat significantly in each release. One example that I used in a previous post was the function "Ghost Surfaces", which no longer exists in Revit after the 2012 release. If one searches and find previous posts that include solutions that employ "Ghost Surfaces" and if any of those users have updated their signature, then Revit 2013 may be listed in the thread creating a confusing conflict.
This is more of a desire to preserve the information and accuracy of the past posts. If information is listed in one's signature, then this information may have had an impact on the post, hence, I consider that info part of the original post.
Hmm. Good ideas. Anything that goes into a signature will continue to change as your signature evolves over time, as you've noticed. Macros have all sorts of funky behavior too.
I'll ask our web guy the next time I have a meeting with him and find out. It would be especially nice to have a way to see what version of software a user is on, so it's a valid request.
Thank you all!
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register
Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.