[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [i]On community identities...[/i][/quote]A couple of things to say about this. 1) You made a comparison to 4chan on the basis of anonymity, then redacted the comment while acknowledging that's not what I stated the site should act like. 2) Look at how the forum on a site like Reddit is structured. It has even less elements to each post that what I'm suggesting, yet identities aren't lost; it's still a "community" (search on Google for how Reddit users have even had get-togethers and meetups not unlike Bungie.net's community). This kind of interaction and sense of community isn't limited to Reddit, either. Other sites with limited "identities" (and all I'm referring to is the forum!) still have users who recognise each other. Hell, look at how Usenet worked in its heyday and there's an extremely good example of a kind of community with [i]extremely[/i] limited identities (just usernames and email addresses mostly). Slashdot is another good example, IMO (take a look at how user information is represented on comments). Edit: one of the other reasons you probably get a greater sense of "the community" here is because this forum is generally used by the same people. So I don't think this is something that is appropriate to claim when you consider the entire population of the site. That last point I think is especially relevant in times of high traffic. This forum for as long as I can remember has generally had the same amount of traffic. The same cannot be said for others like the game forums. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote]Why do people need such an overbearing and prominent "identity" in the forums?[/quote]The system you're proposing has in it next to no identity at all, so to call the current system one where a given user has "an overbearing and prominent 'identity'", is a little silly. Coup is more of an example of an overbearing and prominent identity.[/quote]Actually I was talking about the current setup and why you seem to think we need what I referred to as an "overbearing and prominent identity", not what I'm suggesting. I was merely asking you why our so-called identities need to be displayed the way they are and not in a different/reduced way or prominence. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote] So others can see they belong to some kind of group/clique?[/quote]If this is an attempt to associate the displaying of title bars with the idea of "I'm a ______ member so I'm cool" or something like that, then that's not what I'm getting at at all. If it's more of a sincere question of whether or not people want to appear as if they belong to a group, even if that group is as vaguely defined as "People who regular Bungie.net", then yes. I think that definitely is something people want. And the more identified and the more they stand out from the two users above and below them, the more they can identify as a person within a community rather than a user within a website.[/quote]I agree. I don't particularly have a problem with identifying users - or giving them an identity for that matter - what I do find to be a problem is giving the details of those identities in places where they aren't so relevant or necessary (at least in place of other features or in such a way that they negatively impact the necessary elements within a certain context). In this particular discussion we're having, I'm only interested in talking about the identities [i]as they are displayed in the forums[/i]. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote]Secondly, why isn't the contents of my signature displayed at the bottom of each of my posts? Should it?[/quote]Signatures, while an even further extension of the identification and differentiation between User A and User B, are easily abused and often not utilized the way they're meant to. They're a signature, a way to sign your post. Not a place to post your favorite quote or advertise your off-site Forge Forum or YouTube channel, and they're too commonly misused to warrant their utilization. If you want to sign your post, sign it. Manually. With whatever moniker you wish to give yourself. People like yorkie, Delta, TGP, and (from what I gather) BB have proven that if you do this manually it helps loads more with creating an identity than does a signature full of your Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Myspace, Tumblr, Flickr, Blogger, Digg, and YouTube information.[/quote]Firstly, who are you to tell someone what they should or shouldn't be putting in there or what's acceptable or not? Where's the sense of identification, personalisation, and individuality which you've been championing if I'm restricted to posting an actual signature? Where's the "fun" in that, as you were referring to such features earlier? Restricting this doesn't seem all that different from removing some other element in a forum post which might help uniquely identify a user, like an avatar or title. For the record, it's actually labelled an "About Me" section, too. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xplode441 Supports friends list, but doesn't want people to know who anyone is so they can make friends.[/quote]In case someone misses it in the pool of text above, I'm only referring to removing some of the identifying features associated with a user in the forums and in a forum post, potentially for enhancing the readability and usability of the forums themselves and to make way (and room!) for other features to be included. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Iggyhopper[/quote]The wording on this part was a little off on my part, sorry. The last post date should be kept, but changed to relative time instead. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pulse Cloud Although I agree that avatars are worthless, they serve a very practical purpose to me: I use them to separate posts. Entire walls of text are very difficult to skim through, so having a colorful, variable picture separating each post is a very easy way for my eyes to figure out the layout of the page even while scrolling.[/quote]This was something I was hoping someone was going to bring up at some point because yes, I absolutely agree that avatars separate posts nicely. However, could it be done in a different/better way that leaves more room for post contents? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pulse Cloud This is also why I think pushing the user's metadata to the bottom of his post, especially the avatar, would make it harder to comprehend how posts are laid out (there's a reason why titles are always above the text body).[/quote]If user data is at the bottom of posts, it's still going to act as a separator for them. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pulse Cloud Finally, I like how small the post area's length is: 300+ characters lines are impossible to read, whereas 80-100 are fairly easy. About 60 would be ideal for me, though.[/quote]I disagree. I think this is one of the reasons (aka. problems) we have such massive walls of text here; there simply isn't enough room for posts. Dynamically expanding posts would obviously work pretty well for this, but I've never really been a fan of them (or that kind of page presentation). [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xd00999 For starters, I browse B.net on mobile, so a scroll over box wouldn't work for me.[/quote]The main site is not formatted for mobile devices. This is not a good argument. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xd00999 Secondly, avatars and titles are what I use to identify members.[/quote]Apart from administrative titles, what purpose does a title serve in a discussion? How is it relevant to the discussion? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xd00999 I also disagree with the idea of removing the last post date and user. Sometimes I looked at a thread that I was only mildly interested in because a user I recognized was posting there and I was curious about what they are up to. If I was in a discussion, I also look to see if the user I was talking to had psted, so I could check for a reply.[/quote]I contend that this is the kind of functionality you would want from a friends list (and would be more appropriately placed there), not by the default forum view. [Edited on 10.30.2012 7:44 PM PDT]